Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Media The Courts United States Your Rights Online

Real Settles Lawsuits, Will Stop Selling RealDVD 139

angry tapir writes "RealNetworks has agreed to pay $4.5 million and permanently stop selling its RealDVD software as part of a legal settlement with six Hollywood movie studios. The lawsuits date back to 2008 and Slashdot has previously discussed them. RealDVD is an application that lets people make copies of their DVDs."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Real Settles Lawsuits, Will Stop Selling RealDVD

Comments Filter:
  • by Van Cutter Romney ( 973766 ) <sriram.venkatara ... com minus author> on Friday March 05, 2010 @09:37AM (#31370122)
    I have to agree with Freedomworks [freedomworks.org] (the people who brought you teabaggers) on this. Foes can sometimes turn into friends while fighting a common enenmy.
  • by loutr ( 626763 ) on Friday March 05, 2010 @09:50AM (#31370230)
    I wasn't aware dd implemented DeCSS.
  • by garg0yle ( 208225 ) on Friday March 05, 2010 @10:00AM (#31370328) Journal

    Rule 29 [schlockmercenary.com] applies here:

    The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more, no less.

  • by ScrewMaster ( 602015 ) * on Friday March 05, 2010 @10:00AM (#31370332)

    Technically, I've violated copyright law

    No, I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that, in the U.S. anyway, you haven't violated copyright law, not even technically. Now, if you were to begin distributing those copies it's a different matter.

    In fact, it might increase sales as I'll be more likely to watch DVD movies I buy and not just regard them as wasted cash.

    Ha .. if these little bloodsuckers could get away selling you a disc that would play exactly once and then self-destruct Mission Impossible-style, believe me they would do it. They want you to consider your media a consumable, not a collectible.

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday March 05, 2010 @10:01AM (#31370340)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by closetpsycho ( 1175221 ) on Friday March 05, 2010 @10:13AM (#31370482)
    I'm not a lawyer either, but you're right. He hasn't violated copyright law. He has violated the DMCA's anti-circumvention clause though.
  • Re:Please, no! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bcmm ( 768152 ) on Friday March 05, 2010 @10:35AM (#31370684)

    There's no point in hating RealNetworks, just use a competetitor

    I remember when all online video was RealVideo.

  • by ixidor ( 996844 ) on Friday March 05, 2010 @11:46AM (#31371594) Homepage
    except, with those 2 at odds, and the riaa/mpaa with buckets more money than you or i,who do you think would survive the court case? it would drag on for years if you could afford that.
  • by plague3106 ( 71849 ) on Friday March 05, 2010 @11:58AM (#31371760)

    In no location in the US is sex out of wedlock illegal.

  • by omglolbah ( 731566 ) on Friday March 05, 2010 @12:06PM (#31371874)

    When I buy DVDs (which I do more than I should..) the only time the disc is ever touched is when I rip it to drive.

    I have a media server with 2.7TB of drive space and I hate fiddling with discs. I have scripts set up to rip and convert the movie to a high quality file with a more decent filesize than raw DVD.

    Using this setup I have a whole lot more flexibility when it comes to what I want to watch when... Oh and there is no annoying as hell buzzing from the dvdrom....

    The movie industry can, as so eloquently said by the bartender in "Boondock Saints":

      "Why dont you make like a tree and get the fuck out of here".

  • Re:Please, no! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mcgrew ( 92797 ) * on Friday March 05, 2010 @12:42PM (#31372338) Homepage Journal

    So do I, and they sucked even worse then than they do now. Competetion is good for the consumers!

  • by shutdown -p now ( 807394 ) on Friday March 05, 2010 @01:01PM (#31372536) Journal

    So? This says that you can still claim fair use as a defense to copyright infringement. But circumventing DRM isn't a copyright infringement...

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 05, 2010 @01:51PM (#31373140)

    If he copied the DRM -- his copy is still scrambled and contains the decryption key in the area of the DVD-R that is (or used to be? I haven't kept up) unburnable on blanks (for the entire purpose of preventing copying), then you're right. He didn't violate DMCA when he made the copy, since he didn't bypass the technological measure that limits access. (Instead, he violates DMCA every time he plays the disk, whether we're talking about the copy or the original.)

    But if his copy is decrypted (no longer CSS-protected) he most certain did violate DMCA in making the copy. (The good news is that he only has to violate that one time; after that he can play the copy without further violating.)

    The clause c that you quote, is pretty much meaningless and this has already been ruled on by judges. If it actually meant anything, don't you think 2600 would have won their case with MPAA?

    Here's why: that section of DMCA may say it doesn't affect fair use rights, but those words run both ways. Sure, ok, so DMCA doesn't take away your right to make copies under fair use. But it does take away right right to read the original plaintext for the purpose of making that copy, and since nothing in 1201 ever at any times makes any sort of fair use exemption that allows people to read the disk, there are no fair use rights that are given which clause c protects.

    Sorry, dude, but this has already gone to court and been decided, and the people lost. And we never voted for anyone to correct this bullshit, so it must be pretty much accepted.

"If I do not want others to quote me, I do not speak." -- Phil Wayne

Working...