Slashdot Mirror
RealNetworks Sues Streambox.com
Line Noise writes "According to an article on TheStandard, RealNetworks is accusing Streambox of violating the Digital Millenium Copyright Act with its Streambox Ripper and Streambox VCR. These products allow you to download and convert a RealAudio file into a MP3 or WAV, bypassing RealNetworks protection against piracy. "
I'm a longtime user of StreamBox/2Bsys products, and a beta tester for the newest version of StreamVCR.
StreamBox VCR, formerly called X-FileGet, downloads Real content using the proprietary PNM and PNM/G2 protocols, as well as the publicly-available RTSP and Windows Media protocols. It uses no Real code. StreamBox is not the only company to do this. Windows Media Player handles RealAudio streams and files, and Oracle is apparently reverse-engineering Real protocols and formats so they can take advantage of Real's installed base for THEIR media server.
StreamBox Ripper, formerly RA2Wav, uses Real DLLs to read RealAudio files, just like a couple WinAmp plugins and (I believe) Windows Media Player. It allows you to write the output to WAV, WMA or MP3, just as if you were using TotalRecorder or Virtual Audio Cable with RealPlayer.
It's not clear what legal ground Real has to stand on. The legality of "space-shifting" and "time-shifting" licensed content has been defended in court and AFAIK, the programmer didn't disassemble any Real code.
However, it looks like Real is approaching this as a format-control issue, arguing that somehow, software that converts their format to another is illegal. It looks like a questionable lawsuit against a company that can't afford lawyers, meant to set a precedent before Real goes up against Microsoft or Oracle.
snaggin the audio while its playing and converting is relatively easy. look at: http://freshmeat.net/appindex/1999/05/05/925879315 .html
Same for windows with the virtual audio cable. Once snagged it can be converted to anything.
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Program/355 5/
Or, for click-friendliness: Wave to Disk
- The Archon
Due to a recent, temporary restraining order (TRO) by US District Court in Seattle, Streambox Ripper, VCR and Ferret are no longer available for download. In view of the serious impact of the TRO with respect to Streambox's business, the Court also ordered that Real Networks post a $1 million dollar bond to cover any loss to Streambox if the Court later finds that the TRO was wrongfully issued. Read press release. We regret any inconvenience this may cause you. However, you may still download an altered version of Streambox Ripper (without RealAudio decoding) that supports MP3s, CDs and Windows Media files. Thanks for your understanding, and be sure to check back often in the coming days for updates on the lawsuit, as well as other products. Happy Holidays from the entire Streambox team!
Got this off of the Streambox web site. RealNetworks is really getting to be a little baby Microsoft it seems. Can you imagine if Microsoft ever breaks up? Can you imagine 10-20 of these little companies like RealNetworks trying to crush or at least sue every competetor to death. It makes me think that maybe keeping Microsoft together as one big but slow-moving beast wouldn't be such a bad idea.
Don't let the title of the "Digital Millenium Copyright Act" fool you. It's not the same as traditional copyright law... if it was, then there'd be no need for a new law, of course.
According to established copyright rules, Real has no basis whatsoever for preventing folks from decoding, translating, or recording their streams. (In particular, they have no standing, because they generally don't own the copyrights on the data itself!)
The DMCA is a whole different ballgame. Basically, it makes it illegal to intentionally circumvent copy-protection mechanisms. If data is encoded transparently, and you just translate it into a different code, that's fine. But if it's encrypted, and by that I mean deliberately encoded in such as way as to make it difficult to decode it, then it's covered by the DMCA.
So let's assume that RealMedia is an extremely hairy file format. If it's extremely hairy because Real uses lousy programmers, then Streambox is fine. If, on the other hand, it's extremely hairy because Real doesn't want anyone else to be able to decode it, then Streambox is breaking the law.
I think it's clear that it's the latter, and Streambox is in trouble. But that's just an indication of how fundamentally wrong the whole idea of the DMCA is. It's nothing more than a tool for shoring up monopolies.
Makes you wonder why the government is going after Bill Gates like he's the antichrist, but handing more power to his competitors. (Could it have something to do with Microsoft's refusal to participate in the our system of government-by-lobbyist?)
(IA, of course, NAL.)
MSK
Once again we can observe the harms of allowing the government to regulate the computer industry.
/. recently, this problem is a massive epidemic in the US Patent Office. Are all these crazy patents perhaps a result of Patent Inspectors not really understanding what's being patented? If someone tried to patent the idea of swiping a credit card, they'd just get a funny look. "One-click shopping" seems just as obvious to people familiar with the internet, but it's granted a patent by people who don't understand what they're doing.
The majority of the powerful people in the government are 50+, people who grew up in a time where there was no such thing as electronic data or electronic property. I realize that there are plenty of computer savvy people older than 50, but the average layperson in that age group doesn't understand what is a completely different world when it comes to law and regulation.
We saw this in the etoy vs. etoys debate: I'm betting that the judge who issued the court order against etoy doesn't understand the nature of the internet and of the situation: how else could such a crazy ruling be issued?
Do we need to explain these situations in terms that non-techie people can more easily understand? Something to the effect of: "This is the equivalent of making someone change their phone number because someone intending to dial Big Business Corporation X could accidentally slip and dial the wrong number!"
In the Microsoft vs. DOJ trial, it's lucky that the majority of the case pertained to business practices, and not more complicated technological issues.
I suppose in many cases, the complicated technological issues can be reduced to higher level ideas by experts. Instead of "Installing certain Microsoft software can replace DLLs that mysteriously conflict with competing software," (I just made that scenario up), an expert could tell the judge "It seems that Microsoft is intentionally and underhandedly stifling the competition." However, there's still a lot more to the situation, and over-simplifying the situation can often lead to uninformed decisions. Also, this gives the interpretations of experts the brunt of the weight in the case, and as we all know, experts can be made to say almost anything.
As we've seen on
The companies must use this to their advantage. I'm sure the developers at amazon realize how obvious the idea of "one-click shopping" is, I doubt they approached their legal department and exclaimed "This new idea is amazing--we need a patent!" The business lobbyists must also take advantage of the fact that the legislation they're trying to get pushed through Congress will get described to the Congresspeople in general terms ("This bill will protect the rights of musicians in a constantly changing time"), but whose specific implications aren't really understood.
I don't know about you, but I don't appreciate having the beautiful freedom of the internet and technology regulated by a bunch of people who obviously don't know what they're talking about.
SEATTLE - Streambox, Inc. (http://www.streambox.com), a leading provider of proprietary streaming technologies for searching, acquiring, playing and managing audio and video files on and from the Internet, must temporarily halt the development, production and sale of various company products, pending a full hearing January 7, due to a temporary restraining order issued here today, the company has announced.
The restraining order was issued by the U.S. District Court in response to an action filed by RealNetworks (RNWK), which alleged that three products - Streambox Ripper, Streambox VCR and Streambox Ferret - have caused irreparable harm to RealNetworks.
"Their main complaint is that our Streambox Ripper product allows content owners to control file format, not RealNetworks. . But we believe that the larger picture of Real's whole tactic is about preventing migration of digital media files from RealMedia to other platforms, such as Microsoft's Windows Media," said Robert Hildeman, chief executive officer of Streambox. "We think that's unfair to both consumers and content providers." In view of the serious impact of the restraining order with respect to Streambox's business, the court also ordered that Real Networks post a $1 million dollar bond to cover any loss to Streambox if the Court later finds that the restraining order was wrongfully issued.
RealNetworks also alleged in the action that Streambox had violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and copyright infringement.
"I don't understand why they are alleging this when our products and technologies truly benefit the content providers and consumers," Hildeman said.
Hildeman said Streambox plans to release a version of its Streambox Ripper product that does not convert RealNetworks' media format. Streambox Ripper is a powerful utility that converts CD and other audio files to the popular MP3 format, allowing MP3 users to listen to millions of previously unavailable audio files, from music to audiobooks, talk radio, interviews and much more.
With the recent explosion of digital music on the Internet, and with the proliferation of popular portable MP3 players like RCA's Lyra, Diamond's Rio, Creative's Nomad and others, Streambox Ripper stands to play a pivotal role in providing much more audio content than ever before imagined, Hildeman said.
About Streambox:
Streambox is the world leader in the searching, indexing and categorizing of streaming media content on the Internet. The company offers full services in Internet streaming technologies that deliver end-to-end solutions for the searching, playing, acquiring, converting and transporting of streaming audio and video files.
Founded in 1999, Streambox provides Internet users with a powerful media portal, search engine and guide. The company extends its powerful technologies to a family of innovative audio and video software for PCs and other devices.
The combined technologies enable the company's customers to enjoy the fastest-growing segment of the Internet - streaming entertainment and information.
Contacts: Bob Hildeman, Streambox
425-702-9348
bob@streambox.com
Bob Silver, The Silver Company
206-624-0388
bob@thesilvercompany.com
What am I missing?
the DMCA allows for the breaking of a protection code if it is for the purposes of interoperability. Since it's clear that transcoding RealAudio files to MP3 files would enable the song to be played in new environments (e.g., on a Rio), the creation of a transcoding tool is solidly within the realm of the DMCA's exception.
This is a very good point (you should have been a lawyer!) but unfortunately it's not the whole story.
There are new technologies in the pipeline to be released very soon, which will allow content providers to control access to their media to a much greater degree than is currently possible. I'm not just talking about the RIAA's MP3 replacement, but all downloadable digital media. What they do is to wrap the content up in an encrypted packet with a programmatic key which allows you to open it only once for each time you pay.
In other words, somewhat like the PITA streaming Real Video movies, you can play it but you can't keep it and play it again later (without paying, anyway). It's pay-per-play.
There is a great deal of pressure coming from the big media industry players and the newbie internet media wannabees to allow them this level of control over their media, content, IP or whatever you want to call it. The DMCA was engineered by precisely the same forces for just this reason.
So, whatever the rights and wrongs of it, you can't expect them to sit by and watch their latest extortion racket get rolled over by your liberal interpretation of their new law. This law is not about fairness or balance or any kind of compromise, it is about letting them keep complete control of what they see as theirs.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Streambox ripper
---- El diablo esta en mis pantalones! Mire, mire!
Incidentally, if this is the way things turn out, it will greatly strengthen the argument of those advocating Linux DVD solutions - it will show that the DMCA really meant what it says: it's okay to transcode for interoperability!
I think it should be clear who to cheer for.
David E. Weekly (dew, Think)
David E. Weekly
Code / Think / Teach / Learn
h4x0r for