RealNetworks Settles Lawsuit With Streambox 136
sdo1 pointed out this CNet story: "Out of court settlement, but it looks like Real won and Streambox lost. Real keeps it's broadcast format proprietary, and Streambox can't distribute tools that decode the stream for such fair use puposes as time shifting and personal archiving." This is not good news for anyone hoping for commonsense wisdom from the bench when it comes to the provisions of the DMCA. Instead, it looks like this settlement came about in part because "Judge Marsha Pechman ruled that RealNetworks made a strong case that the Streambox VCR could be in violation of the DMCA."
Hey, here's one for the DMCA (Score:1)
I hate to say it, but... (Score:2)
Their software is generally bloated and buggy, their video format is viciously proprietary and mediocre, and they've got a horrible record on privacy and software invasiveness.
In short, they're a nasty, unpleasant little company, and most importantly, they don't sell any products or services which are not available elsewhere at an improved level for free.
I, for one, will dance on their grave when they're gone.
Zeltar, of no account.
Re:Mirrors anyone? (Score:2)
You're absolutely right, someone should mirror This [xdrive.com]
Re:TPM? (Score:1)
Bill - aka taniwha
--
Hmm... (Score:1)
More specifically, could someone tell me what StreamBox was doing that was illegal, or is it just that RealNetworks and "The Powers That Be" don't like it, and will therefore make up a reason later...
Actually, Real is probably just jealous because they don't have a name like "Ferret"...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
Re:Ugh (Score:1)
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
Re:Please explain "reverse engineering" re: DMCA (Score:1)
Like, if you just re-wrote RealPlayer, you should be fine. Just don't save it to a file, because apparently decoding the file format is ok, but converting it isn't.
I know that doesn't make any sense. However, you could probably record everything that goes through
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
Re:This case doesn't mean much (Score:1)
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
Re:Please explain "reverse engineering" re: DMCA (Score:1)
Any other interpretation of that is insane, so it wouldn't surprise me if it were ruled illegal regardless of sanity, as usual...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
Re:This case doesn't mean much (Score:2)
And, even if you are right, apparently they'd have to take it up with a librarian...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
Re:Please explain "reverse engineering" re: DMCA (Score:2)
RealPlayer 7 on Linux uses esd, so just use esdmon to dump whatever input esd gets. Then encode it, it should be 44.1kHz, 16-bit audio by default.
I just dumped the sample sound, now I'll have to grab a decent encoder.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
Appropriate Links... (Score:1)
Re:Biased article (Score:2)
first off, I don't need to worry about that piece of shit - I have an Apex 600a - secret menu! nya nya! Otherwise it would have been impossible for me to set up my system the way it currently runs; my TV has only ONE input, so I had to route my DVD through my VCR. I had to disable Macrovision for my TV to get an uncorrupted signal - even if I wasn't recording with the VCR! This is complete bullshit -
but you know the other solution the video store suggested to me? For $60, I could buy a special filter to "fix" the signal. Isn't this a copy-protection circumvention device? Funny, the damn thing was made by Sony!
On the Skywalker Ranch where the Storm Trooper Posse says:
Re:DMCA will drive media activity to offshore have (Score:2)
On the Skywalker Ranch where the Storm Trooper Posse says:
Re:The few, the proud...aren't enough (Score:2)
That will definately make a difference.
Re:I'm seriously bothered here... (Score:1)
The name alone is sufficient to damage you politically.
NO. (Score:2)
I'd much rather say "Streaming Vorbis [vorbis.org]" instead...
Re:I'm seriously bothered here... (Score:3)
Personally, I don't think your involvement with hackers.com would wash very well in the political arena. Keep the day job for now.
There are, however, some very specific things you can do:
nope... (Score:3)
No, "piracy" will do about as much for advancing Free media as it has for Free software. Approximately nil.
RMS didn't set about illegally distributing software to achieve his goals; instead, he wrote his own software that he could legally distribute in the fashion he desired.
Freely distributable content, voluntarily made by artists, is the only thing that can "save" us.
what kinds of content? (Score:3)
Well, I don't know of that much being worked on. Some amount of Free music, and of course visual artists will put some stuff up on their sites, but the latter is often still relatively restricted.
What I'd really like to see happen is Free animation, film, and other "multimedia" work in particular, as well as written fiction, as well as a simple, consistent, and usable donation system to help support all this.
Since I'm a coder, visual artist, writer, and musician, I'm starting to experiment with as many of these as I can. I've already started a few personal projects -- in the next year or so we'll see if they get anywhere. Real "multimedia" stuff is down the road, though -- the first few items are manga and serial fiction. I have some ideas for implementing a web-based Street Performer-type system, as well.
Hopefully I'll manage to squeeze enough time around school and work to get stuff done, and ideally eventually I'll be able to replace the work bit. :P (at least the school bit will end soon)
What really needs to happen, though, is for multidisciplinary groups to be doing this kind of thing.
Another thing I'd like to see (and that I plan on doing myself) is people releasing their work into the public domain after 14 years (the original copyright term), to combat/protest the current sick situation where nothing substantial has entered the intellectual/cultural commons since World War I...
And yes, I realize all this is untried. I'm not demanding that anyone else do this. Someone has to experiment with this stuff, though, and so that's why I want to put my own time (and to some extent money) where my mouth is.
Time to join the OGG project... (Score:5)
Well, it looks like we're going to be increasingly cut out of legally participating in the current media standards (DVD/CSS, Real, MP3) by software patents and the DMCA.
Worse, this is extending into hardware. We're nearing the point where it will be illegal to write open-source video drivers, because the connection to the monitor is encrypted in a CSS-like fashion [before you call me paranoid, Intel and a group of other corporations are already developing just that and more -- do some research on HDCP, the High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection spec, and its application in e.g. DVI].
The only compelling argument (for most people) against such draconian hardware measures is the existence legitimate Free alternative technologies (and unencumbered content to go with it!). Of all the boats, let's hope we don't miss this one.
All those that can, hit ogg.org [ogg.org] and similar projects, and see what you can contribute. Myself, I plan on working on the content side of things.
Re:Time shifting not an inherent right for all med (Score:1)
Can we come up with a better law than the DMCA? (Score:1)
Maybe we should be proposing a peice of legislation that the entire
Just a thought
W
-------------------
Re:To Slashdot Editors!!! (Score:1)
Re:Biased article (Score:1)
Well, right now the DVD-CCA is in court attempting to outlaw the livid DVD player, which is software that can only view DVDs, not copy them, so apparently the recording industry disagrees with your viewpoint.
Re:Biased article (Score:2)
You've totally missed my point.
Movie Studio A releases DVDs using CSS, a trade-secret, unpatented and uncopyrighted scrambling algorithm.
Player Manufacturer B releases DVD players that can descramble CSS, after signing a contract to obtain those trade secrets.
Next, the trade secret is reverse-engineered, placing it in the public domain. There is NO IP protection for CSS. The MPAA letters do not claim that CSS is a trade secret, or that it is a patent or copyright violation. Their ONLY claim is that DeCSS is an "unlawful circumvention device"
My Company C releases copyrighted DVDs using an unlicensed CSS encoder.
Software Company D releases unlicensed DVD players that can descramble CSS. (livid)
Movie Studio A claims the right to sue Software Company D, based on the fact that D's players can descramble A's discs without the authority of copyright owner A.
Why does My Company C not have the right to do the same thing? My Company C never gave Player Manufacturer B permission to manufacture DVD players that can decode my DVDs.
Re:Biased article (Score:2)
An unlicensed encoder does not provide access to any copyrighted works, and is not a circumvention device under the DMCA.
As for the trade secret issue.
I agree with your comments about stealing trade secrets, but no one is claiming that DeCSS was derived from a stolen copy of DVD-CCA documents. In fact, all of the evidence so far indicates that DeCSS was derived legally -- by reverse engineering a legally purchased copy of the XING player in a country where such reverse engineering is fully legal.
This is the proper, legal way to expose trade secrets.
Re:Biased article (Score:4)
This is an extremely interesting theoretical attack on the DMCA.
1) Create a CSS-encrypted DVD. Now that the algorithm is known, this should be trivial.
2) Get a lawyer and prepare to spend a lot of money.
3) Send cease and desist orders to one of the established player manufacturers, citing the DMCA. They are producing hardware that can remove the copy protection on your work, without your permission.
Now, the court can do one of three things:
1) Order the DVD player manufacturer to stop manufacturing DVD players (which would cause an industry stampede to Congress to get the DMCA modified or repealed)
2) Toss your claim, thus creating a precedent that the inventor of a TPM is entitled to a perpetual patent-like monopoly over the use of that TPM, and hopefully raising the eyebrows of the appeals courts and the Supreme Court.
3) Toss the DMCA as unconstitutional.
Anything I missed?
Prediction (Score:5)
Right now it's being used to crush small, upcoming companies, but it's an incredibly powerful weapon, and if a small company can figure out a way to get their hands on it and successfully use it against a big company, they will be in just as powerful a position as the lawyers who just convinced a judge to allow lawsuits against the LAPD using the RICO statutes.
Re:The few, the proud...aren't enough (Score:1)
Problem is, John Q. Public doesn't care whether he's breaking the law or not in most cases like this.
John Q. Public's been copying videotapes, cassettes, CD's, and Software from his buddies for many, many years, generally completely aware that what he's doing is "technically illegal", but generally not enforced.
Problem is, John Q. Public's been operating this way for so long, he feels it doesn't matter if they crank down the laws beyond where they are now, such that they keep him from 'fair use' - he figures he'll just ignore the law then, too, so why expend any energy thinking about the problem (let alone DOING anything about it.)
At least, that seems to be the prevailing attitude in the US. I think the only thing that'll get an uproar is if the laws get ridiculously tight AND WIDELY ENFORCED all at once, such that John Q. Public gets spanked before he can get used to it. If, though, US Congress Inc continues repealing rights little by little, John Q. Public won't even notice until it's WAY too late to do anything about it.
So, in short, while I've not actually given up, I feel like I'm trying to run a "three-legged-race" while the guy I'm tied to is trying to take a nap.
Joe Sixpack is dead!
Re:Millennium (Score:1)
Yeah, but the DMCA was produced by US Congress, Inc. Don't tell me you think they know how to COUNT! :-)
Joe Sixpack is dead!
Laws - commonsense -- rulings -commonsense (Score:1)
Mirrors anyone? (Score:2)
LK
Re:whoa, flashbacks... (Score:1)
Hmmm, both the MPAA and RIAA are made up of individual member companies. I really should go back and read the RICO statutes, again...
Re:Defeating DMCA (Score:1)
There's an interesting question in it's own right:
Are there any laws (of specific interest to me, in the USA) against maufacturing writable DVD's without the preburnt sector?
This is great news! (Score:2)
Can anyone say "Streaming MP3?"
Re:Biased article (Score:2)
AFAIK, it's hard to get blank DVD disks that don't have the key sector preburned with zeros. This may make it difficult to create a CSS-protected disk.
Vectro, jms, anyone else who wants to try this: if you actually manage to create a CSS-protected work and get to step 2 (the one involving spending money on lawyers) let me know and I'll pitch in.
---
Re:Weekend! (Score:1)
Pity you can only do this once or twice before they start to wise up.
--Shoeboy
whoa, flashbacks... (Score:4)
Am I the only one reminded of middle school and how the bigger kids would put you in a headlock and not let you out until you said that your mom was a whore or something like that?
Man this brings back memories.
It's good to see that the tradition lives on in the grownup world.
--Shoeboy
Re:whoa, flashbacks... (Score:2)
Good and Bad... (Score:2)
This is bad in that it is almost an admission of guilt, giving up the fight.
---
Re:To Slashdot Editors!!! (Score:2)
Re:To Slashdot Editors!!! (Score:1)
If you want true privacy, sign up at Zero Knowledge Systems and/or use a Mixmaster remailer.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. See a competent attorney in your jurisdiction if you need legal advice.
Fair use? or a loophole? (Score:1)
Disk (input) -> video decoder -> screen (output)
\-> audio decoder -> speakers (output)
Basically someone would have to write a realmedia decoder plugin and realmedia server input plugin. Then one could theoretically do the following.
Realserver (input) -> real decoder (outputs separate video/audio streams) ->
mpeg encoder (accepts separate audio and video streams) -> disk (output)
Of course the realmedia decoder would come separate from the disk writing plugin, which could be have thousands of uses. Ideally the disk writing plugin should come with the player and someone independently needs to write the realmedia plugins. Neither plugin would violate the DMCA on its own.
Re:This case doesn't mean much (Score:1)
It simply time-shifts it, doesn't it?
I mean - I don't purchase public television but I'm still allowed to record a movie on my VCR.
To me, this seems like an over-ruling of the time-shifting fair use right upheld in the BetaMax case (which Congress specifically mentioned that DMCA _should not_ overrule when they hashed out the law).
Anyway, since this was settled out of court, it won't produce much legal precedent.
Re:Biased article (Score:1)
Ah, but the DMCA says "circumvention". And circumvention is defined as gaining access without the authority of the copyright owner.
If I publish a DVD and say that any DVDCCA licensed player is not authorized to play it, then surely that nice Sony box is a circumvention device.
This idea has already been thrown around on the openlaw mailinglist and rejected. Basically, any sane judge would throw out a case like this because it is clearly constructed.
Furthermore, by producing a DVD you implicitly allow it to be viewed on a DVD player.
Ah, it gets better than that. The MPAA claims that they implicitly authorise the disc to be played on DVDCCA-licensed DVD-players only.
This is really about controlling the players through a licensing regime. The cool thing is that they can add a lot of player restrictions through that license - restrictions that don't allow us many of the fair use rights we used to have.
Btw, here's a nice quote from Kaplan's ruling:
"The fact that Congress elected to leave technologically unsophisticated persons who wish to make fair use of encrypted copyrighted works without the technical means of doing so is a matter for Congress"
So - we are allowed fair use, but we are not allowed to perform the act of fair use if it requires circumventing some access control.
Re:Time shifting not an inherent right for all med (Score:1)
Sure I do. Actually, when i install RealPlayer 7 on a Linux box, it just drops a license file in
This is what that license file has to say about the content that i view through realplayer:
"2
b) You agree that you shall only use
the Software and Documentation in a
manner that complies with all
applicable laws in the jurisdictions in
which you use the Software and
Documentation, including, but not
limited to, applicable restrictions
concerning copyright and other
intellectual property rights.
c) You may only use the Software for
your private, non-commercial use. You
may not use the Software in any way to
provide, or as part of, any commercial
service or application. Copies of
content files, including, but not
limited to songs and other audio
recordings, which are downloaded or
copied using the Software, and which
are protected by the copyright laws or
related laws of any jurisdiction, are
for your own personal use only and may
not be distributed to third parties or
performed outside your normal circle of
family and social acquaintances.
d) You may not use the Software in an
attempt to, or in conjunction with, any
device, program or service designed to
circumvent technological measures
employed to control access to, or the
rights in, a content file or other work
protected by the copyright laws of any
jurisdiction."
From what I can see, it only says that I am required to follow copyright law on the content received through realplayer.
Also, what rights I have to a certain work distributed through a realvideo stream is granted by the copyright owner, and not by Real.
Last I hear, click-wrap agreements were not unconstitutional or even on shaky ground.
The clickwrap license itself is not, as far as I know. However, you can not add any term you like to a clickwrap license and believe that it is legally binding. For example, reverse engineering is explicitly allowed in many countries even if a term in the clickwrap should claim otherwise.Also, a clickwrap is basically a non-negotiable contract so that would possibly also limit what terms are legally binding in a clickwrap compared to standard contract law.
I don't have time to hunt for case law at the moment, but I'm pretty sure that I would be able to find court rulings where terms in a clickwrap have been overuled.
If clickwrap is already dried and cut, why did the content and software producers push the UCITA so hard?
No, Realmedia video is available to a select group of people. Those who a) have an internet connection, b) have agreed to Real's terms for using their RealVideo software, and c) that choose to login to a certain site and request the stream.
In my opinion, that would be like saying that a certain public broadcast is only available to the select few who have a) a TV, and b) choose to tune in to a praticular channel at a particular time.
Once the FCC regulates Real content, then I'll agree with fair use/time shifting arguments but until then, it is a proprietary data feed bound to Real's terms and conditions.
So you are only guaranteed fair use rights if the work is distributed over a distribution channel regulated by the FCC?
I find that strange, but I don't know enough about the FCC to provide counter arguments on that one.
Perhaps I should have used audio CDs as an example instead.
They are not modifying copyright laws at all, they are determining how they want THEIR proprietary data utilized.
The protection offered to IP by law is either governed by copyright or contract law. If I don't need to click through a license or sign a contract to watch a certain realmedia video stream, I would assume that it is covered by normal copyright law - including fair use.
I'm sure you have read Kaplan's ruling in MPAA vs 2600. If not, I'd advise you to.
Kaplan found that a customer is entitled to fair use of the work contained on a DVD. However, it is illegal to actually exercise this right, as it requires the circumvention of an access control.
You have the right to fair use, but performing the act of fair use is illegal. If that isn't modifying copyright law, I don't know what is.
Real's feeds are NOT like the government subsidized airwaves that have been deemed a minimal communication's mechanism that should be afforded to all Americans. It is a proprietary data feed, Real owns it
You are confusing distribution mechanism and content.
Real owns the format, i.e. the distribution mechanism. They do not, however, own most of the content distributed in realmedia format.
It is the copyright owner of the work, not Real, that determines the terms. The terms either has to be a contract, or plain copyright.
Re:open source it! (Score:1)
Those who read Kaplan's ruling knows what his view of the Open Source community is. Acts like this will just solidify the perception that we disregard any law as long as we are able to circumvent it, and will make it a lot harder for our arguments to be taken seriously in a court of law.
The fight is not about "can we circumvent this?", it is about "how can we show that this law is bad, and get it removed".
Re:Time shifting not an inherent right for all med (Score:2)
I'm not a fan of "one time use" entertainment (i.e. Divx)
Ah, but with DivX you actually sign a _contract_ saying that you enter into a PayPerView arrangement. Thus, the sale/rental is covered by contract law, not copyright law.
A Realmedia video available to anyone is for all practical purposes equal to a TV broadcast. Why shouldn't the content be covered by normal copyright law?
I can't see the same when it comes to streamed content via the Internet, especially when that streaming is via proprietary format at the originating company's expense.
What has the expense got to do with it? TV broadcasts also cost. Publishing a webzine costs.
They publish it. Ergo, the content should be covered by copyright law.
The way I see it, you play by Real's rules (watch it when it's streamed real-time) or don't watch it at all. No one is forcing you to use the technology, God knows Real has huge competition in this area anyway and if their business model is so evil, you can rest assured it will fail due to consumer backlash in the end.
Sorry, but I find that bullshit.
Why should companies be allowed to modify copyright law to suit their business model?
Re:TPM? (Score:1)
Re:I hate to say it, but... (Score:1)
<P>
Without Real, Microsoft would/will own this market too, like it does almost all others.
<P>
Be careful what you ask for.
Re:Time shifting not an inherent right for all med (Score:2)
And you don't have to "agree" to Real's terms and conditions when you install the software? I'm certain you do, just as you must agree to almost any software vendor's terms for using their product. Last I hear, click-wrap agreements were not unconstitutional or even on shaky ground.
A Realmedia video available to anyone is for all practical purposes equal to a TV broadcast. Why shouldn't the content be covered by normal copyright law?
No, Realmedia video is available to a select group of people. Those who a) have an internet connection, b) have agreed to Real's terms for using their RealVideo software, and c) that choose to login to a certain site and request the stream.
Real's content is not floating around in the air like network TV. Once the FCC regulates Real content, then I'll agree with fair use/time shifting arguments but until then, it is a proprietary data feed bound to Real's terms and conditions.
Why should companies be allowed to modify copyright law to suit their business model?,
They are not modifying copyright laws at all, they are determining how they want THEIR proprietary data utilized.
If Braveheart comes on TNT, you can tape it
What most people don't seem to understand is that copyright is a bare minimum
Real's feeds are NOT like the government subsidized airwaves that have been deemed a minimal communication's mechanism that should be afforded to all Americans. It is a proprietary data feed, Real owns it
Time shifting not an inherent right for all media (Score:5)
While I certainly see broadcast and cable TV being considered in time shifting arguments, I can't see the same when it comes to streamed content via the Internet, especially when that streaming is via proprietary format at the originating company's expense.
I'm not a fan of "one time use" entertainment (i.e. Divx) but I'm not about to support a company that circumvents the safeguards put in place by the company selling the product either. I'll simply not use their product, in this case, RealPlayer. Their business model may not be right for you, that doesn't mean someone circumventing their protections is justified nor does it mean YOU have any rights to time shift the content just because you can under other fair use situations like broadcast TV.
The way I see it, you play by Real's rules (watch it when it's streamed real-time) or don't watch it at all. No one is forcing you to use the technology, God knows Real has huge competition in this area anyway and if their business model is so evil, you can rest assured it will fail due to consumer backlash in the end.
Re:Ah ah ah! (Score:2)
Does the latter matter, after all the deCSS software also has copyright protection.
Re:Can we come up with a better law than the DMCA? (Score:2)
Except for the other problem of copyright lenght getting longer and longer.
Re:Can we come up with a better law than the DMCA? (Score:2)
Don't you have to do a few other things first to comply with the second ammendment. i.e. form a militia and declare them enemies of the state.
Re:whoa, flashbacks... (Score:1)
It would be a luverrly world indeed if you could just challenge mr valenti (or whomesoever) to a bit of fisticuffs to settle the matter.
Also of course it means I could have written off all those kung fu lessons as a business expense :)
Doomed (Score:2)
Rader
Re:I'm seriously bothered here... (Score:1)
Sign me up! Can I be Minister of Internal Security?
Re:DMCA is anti open-source (Score:1)
--
DMCA is anti open-source (Score:3)
If someone wrote realplayer in opensource that didn't save anything to disk, that might seem okay at first (it doesn't allow copyright infringement). But since it's open source, it might be next to trivial for someone else to modify the program to save to disk rather than display to screen.
So, at the very least, when dealing with programs that allow viewing of copyrighted material that would otherwise be locked, it seems like DMCA would require opensource programs to obfuscate the interface between the decoder and the displayer/player.
But then their copy protection mechanism would be downgraded to how well the OSS coder obfuscated the interface, and might make it illegal to untangle the interface.
But in the end, it doesn't seem like DMCA is very compatible with OSS.
--
Re:Ugh (Score:2)
The government fixed that.
Defeating DMCA (Score:1)
Biased article (Score:2)
Even on that front, of course, the theorey fails. Streambox didn't violate anyone's copyright. They did, however violate the DMCA. But as we all know, the DMCA takes away fair use.
I'm strongly tempted to produce my own copyrighted work in DVD format and then sue the DVDCCA for circumventing my Technological Protection Measure.
Re:Can we come up with a better law than the DMCA? (Score:2)
The DMCA does not need to be fixed or amended. It needs to be eliminated.
Re:Hmm... (Score:1)
Not surprisingly, the politicians, who recieve campaign contributions from the satellite signal content producing companies, passed laws against it.
Same story over and over. It was wrong then. It's wrong now (DeCSS, Napster, etc). It's big business using a corrupt political system to pass laws dictating our behavior, so that they can maximize their profits.
-------------------------------------------------
Jam Cue:Cat!
Install the crappy win32 software, and start scanning everything! Food, magazines, CDs, whatever. When you scan one that isn't in their database (which is pretty small at this point), you get to fill out the description and URL! (Penis birds, goat sex, natalie with hot grits, etc. You might even mirror the real product site, and make subtle but funny changes)
Re:Good thing that... (Score:3)
You can still get it from some warez sites, if you are into that kinda thing.
This case doesn't mean much (Score:5)
Streambox allowed access to work that was never purchased. This makes a big difference in the fair use analysis.
Streambox lost under 1201(b)(1) which concerns circumvention for copyright infringement purposes. They did also lose an (a)(2) claim, but they have no way to claim their access is authorized by first sale, since there was no first sale.
They didn't press any of the Constitutional claims that were raised to Kaplan. They keep their source code proprietary which indicates that they are not trying to communicate coding ideas.
They can't qualify for the reverse engineering exception because it requires the interoperability not result in copyright infringement.
Re:Biased article (Score:2)
This is a very ugly and complex issue. Your knowledge of the trade secret must be untainted. If you have a copy of the DVD books as a result of theft, you have no legal footing to use that knowledge. Sure, it's no longer a secret. But you cannot use what you know without risk of prosecution. Now if the DVD books were lost in a hideous chain of events during an office move -- packed in a moving box that falls out of the moving van on the freeway into the oncoming path of a semi which smashes the box knocking (at least part of) the DVD books over the railing landing in the bed of your Ford Ranger -- your knowledge of the trade secret(s) would be 100% legal. "They just fell out of the sky."
(I had a similar discussion with my granddad's lawyer years ago when the I2O v1.5? specs were leaked. They were 5000$US per copy at the time.)
Somebody got sued for that?!?!? (Score:3)
Shoutcast makes a streaming audio server in some ways similar to what real is doing. Is this something they could bitchslap me for if they had the desire?
I have no idea how shoutcast feels about my program and I doubt anybody there even knows about it. Makes you nervous to develop software these days.
DMCA will drive media activity to offshore havens (Score:2)
No Legal Ruling!!! (Score:3)
Re:To Slashdot Editors!!! (Score:1)
--
Re:Strange.... (Score:1)
--
Re:To Slashdot Editors!!! (Score:1)
--
Re:Prediction (Score:2)
And the second edge is what the MPAA and RIAA are setting themselves up to fall on.
Another argument for open standards (Score:1)
Re:DMCA will drive media activity to offshore have (Score:1)
And WIO is an organisation with zero consumer input input, and is essentially a Worldwide club of megacorp content providers, like the MPAA/RIAA except not as easygoing. The resolutions passed therefore refelct the will of those people paying the bills and the expenses of the UN members involved.
(IAAL and i would give a fuller answer this but since I always get low karma points for slashdot replies i can be bothered to write long answers anymore -
Re:DMCA will drive media activity to offshore have (Score:2)
Does someone know any more on this subject? If this is correct, you're pretty much screwed if you're in any UN country.
Convienent Side Effect (Score:2)
This will have the extremely convienent (From the MPAA and RIAA's point of view) side effect of preventing anyone from creating any content without their permission and sanction, allowing them to lock the market up even more than they already have.
Guys over at Suck and Petreley may smirk now and call us idealistic and greedy. They'll be singing another tune altogether when they have to ask Time Warner for permission to publish their articles in SecureXML(tm) which is the only thing anyone has a browser to anymore.
A solution? Can anyone do this? (Score:2)
No...they have to try to play it live, and so it ends up skipping and looking awful.
Well, what about this solution:
I saw a driver a long time ago that emulated a sound card, but really just dumped the content to the hard drive. Can't the same approach be applied to video?
Imagine a Windows 98 driver that emulates a standard VGA screen (640x480x8bit). All this driver does it take in the information from the OS, compose it into a bitmap of the screen and then save it to disk. Maybe throw in MPEG compression and output a stream.
The real trick is how to work this since it wouldn't be viewable. That's where 98 comes in, with it's multiple monitor support. You add this driver as a second monitor and put it to the right of your current workspace. On your primary (actual) monitor, load up the RM content. Then drag the window off the screen to the right onto the "virtual" monitor. Then hit the hotkey that plays the content and let it all be captured to disk. From there, just use a video editor to crop every frame to remove the desktop and Real player window.
What about it? Could this be done? It doesn't have to be a Windows solution, but that's all I know so I'm sure someone else could figure out a *nix solution.
This solution would also work for Windows Media and QuickTime...it would get them all in one fell swoop! "If I can view it, I can record it..."
- JoeShmoe
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
whoa, damn (Score:2)
I wake up (or did I?), head over to slashdot, and see THIS, and I think.... damn this is a bad dream! But then I realize that I actually AM awake. Well folks, this is REALLY ****** ironic because (within past 2 days) I _JUST_ finished finding a copy of Streambox VCR.... glad I did it now! And just so all of you can have it, click the link in my
Anyways, download and mirror, y'all know the drill.
-----
Re:This case doesn't mean much (Score:1)
Real's case depending on the DMCA overriding fair use, not on Streambox's product failing to qualify as having a substantial non-infringing use (i.e. time shifting) under existing law.
Re:To Slashdot Editors!!! (Score:1)
Or, even better. Since pretty much everyone on Slashdot (aside from maybe those ugly things under the bridge and the guys over there with flamethrowers) dislikes the DMCA for one reason or another, create a new Slashdot section dedicated to co-ordinating opposition to it. Make a petition part of it, but do other stuff too. Heck, when K5 gets back up, get together with Rusty (he's the guy in charge of K5, right?) and make it a joint effort!
-RickHunter
Good thing I have a T.V- out video card and a VCR. (Score:2)
Trusted drivers (Score:2)
- that the supplied Windows 2000 driver works with Windows 2000,
- that the supplied Windows 9x driver works with both Windows 98 and Windows Me and is 32-bit (not a VxD), and
- that whenever Digital Rights Management is turned on, the sound card driver disables all digital output (either from a connector on the card or to a disk file).
Then Microsoft signs the driver digitally, asserting that "if your box crashes, it's not this driver's fault, and this driver is allowed to play copyrighted streams."<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game! [8m.com]
These cards will not be compatible with Me. (Score:3)
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game! [8m.com]
ASFRecorder (Score:2)
http://freshmeat.net/projects/asfrecorder/?high
Full source and win32 gui included.
Strange.... (Score:2)
The few, the proud...aren't enough (Score:2)
But laws aren't permanent. They can be overturned on costitutional grounds, although I don't see an obvious way to apply that attack in this case. Better yet, laws like this can be undone by Congress.
The Geek Vote doesn't hold much sway in Congress, so we need to get John Q. Public interested in this. If enough people complain (and threaten to vote according to their complaints), then politicians will do the right thing.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
Re:Biased article (Score:4)
[...] 3) Send cease and desist orders to one of the established player manufacturers, citing the DMCA. They are producing hardware that can remove the copy protection on your work, without your permission.
[...] Anything I missed?
Yeah--one big, gaping hole: the player manufacturers are not producing hardware "that can remove the copy protection on your work. " They are producing hardware that can view your work. There's a big difference. If you would try to copy it the Macrovision would kick in and scramble the signal.
Furthermore, by producing a DVD you implicitly allow it to be viewed on a DVD player. Duh. How else could you possibly view any type of media except on a player that was designed to view that type of media!
--
Good thing that... (Score:3)
----
To Slashdot Editors!!! (Score:5)
Not only would you finally be able to produce something tangible that represents the opinions of the community, you would get TONS of page-views as people include a link to the petition on their sites. I would be willing to work with you to draft the petition and I'm sure other
What keeps people from... (Score:2)
Yeah, I know that reasoning didn't help Jon Johanssen much, but I'd like to believe all the world is NOT territory of the USA. BTW, what is Jon's current status? Is he clear regarding Norwegian law or what?
Precedent: IW fighting UCITA (Score:2)
The critical thing about online activism is to make it simple to participate. IW goes part of the way but doesn't itself mobilize opponents... maybe a "Fight DMCA" slashbox would be a good way to start.
sulli
Please explain "reverse engineering" re: DMCA (Score:2)
Would it be legal under the DMCA to reverse engineer the java applet that Symantec has created in order to do the same?
What exactly are we allowed to reverse engineer, and when?
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Is anyone working on a free version of this? (Score:2)
Re:No Legal Ruling!!! (Score:2)
Not necessarily. Just contemplating the expenses of ongoing litigation may have been enough. They could have been pefectly in their rights, but the prospect of spending hundreds of thousands to prove it, with perhaps not all that much profit to be gained at the end of it all wouldn't be much of an incentive to continue.
Ugh (Score:2)
OK, ranting complete now. I would DEFINITELY like to see either someone else be licensed to use the format, or see another streaming format take over the market. I can't take RealPlayer any more.
Legalese re: ISPs complying with the DMCA... (Score:2)
For people who haven't had enough of the DMCA, here is an ISP info sheet [utsystem.edu] put out by the University of Texas (UT)....
I wonder if these types of notices will eventually be federally mandated to post somewhere (think: company lunchroom).
Once the DMCA is turned against a large entity instead of "cannon fodder", I think the public will mysteriously begin to dislike it. Who knew?
;-)
--
Spindletop Blackbird, the GNU/Linux Cube.