Techdirt. Stories filed under "realdvd" Easily digestible tech news... http://www.techdirt.com/ en-us Techdirt. Stories filed under "realdvd"http://www.techdirt.com/images/td-88x31.gifhttp://www.techdirt.com/ Thu, 4 Mar 2010 01:02:12 PST RealNetworks Agrees To Pay $4.5 Million In Legal Fees To Hollywood Over RealDVD; Gives Up Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100303/1638438400.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100303/1638438400.shtml pretty much every other ripping software. In fact, Real basically put a new DRM around each backup copy. Personally, this seemed to make the product less useful, but the MPAA still sued RealNetworks for daring to let people backup their movies, and amazingly won nearly every aspect of the lawsuit. The judge (the same one who shut down Napster, by the way) had already banned the sale of RealDVD, and now she's agreed to a settlement that basically involves RealNetworks conceding every point, and paying $4.5 million to Hollywood to cover legal fees. It's a full capitulation.

So what did Hollywood accomplish here? It shut down a software product that allows people to backup the DVDs they legally own -- not to distribute them. In the meantime, of course, there are a bunch of DVD ripping programs out there that have no such restrictions. In other words, Hollywood's brilliant legal strategists just pushed anyone who wants to back up their movies to use solutions that make it easier for them to share those movies with others. It just made sure that such products will always be underground, rather than where the industry can actually work together with them. Congrats, guys, for killing yet another tech product you didn't like, just because it made your products more valuable.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> something's-wrong-with-the-system http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100303/1638438400 Mon, 11 Jan 2010 05:45:00 PST Judge Says No Antitrust Violation In Hollywood Killing RealDVD Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100110/2023347693.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100110/2023347693.shtml attack on RealNetworks for its RealDVD offering, a judge has dismissed Real's countersuit claiming antitrust violations by the Hollywood studios in effectively creating a cartel that controls the encryption on DVDs and refusing to license it to Real for the purpose of its DVD backup solution. The court basically said that there is no harm to Real caused by any actions of the Hollywood studios, because the real "harm" is in the fact that it created an infringing product in RealDVD.

This reasoning isn't surprising given the earlier rulings in this case, but is no less ridiculous when looked at in context (and with any bit of common sense). Remember, the product in question does not allow for anyone to make a bunch of copies and pass them along. It allows you to make a single backup copy for personal use -- a use that has been found to be perfectly fair use for software and music. It makes little sense that the law did not intend for movies to be backed up in this manner as well. The only reason this is stopped is because of the bogus DRM that the studios put on DVDs, known as CSS. This has been widely broken and does absolutely nothing whatsoever to stop copying of DVDs. The only thing that CSS serves to do these days is act as a tool for the Hollywood studios to team up to prevent products like RealDVD, because they can use the DMCA's anti-circumvention rule to claim that products like that circumvent the broken DRM they use. And, even if it's for a legal backup that can't be copied again (i.e., like RealDVD, it puts new DRM on top of it), suddenly it's "infringing" thanks to the DRM. In other words, the only purpose CSS serves is for the Hollywood studios to have full veto control over any software product that wants to be marketed legitimately, rather than underground. Under almost any definition of antitrust, it's difficult to see why this is not an antitrust violation. It's the major companies in a market, putting in place a tool whose sole purpose is to block others from offering up products.

Of course, the whole lawsuit and this whole charade is incredibly self-defeating for the studios anyway. Because now, instead of having a product on the market that limits what kind of copies people can make, instead, people who want to back up their DVDs simply get one of the long list of underground products out there that will let you rip your DVDs with no limitations whatsoever. It's simply stunning that the studios think it makes sense to drive users to such a solution. The only possible way it makes sense is if you put on your "studio thinking cap" and realize that the studios, in their infinite wisdom, think that they can ship these special -- much more expensive -- dual layered DVDs that have a DRM'd-up digital copy included. But, again, this should raise an antitrust flag, in that the studios are killing off the RealDVD product to try to protect their own sales of these DVDs with the silly Digital Copy technology. But, instead, many users are simply using the underground technology that doesn't cost them anything and gives them much more value.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> it's-just-a-mad-power-grab-by-paranoid-delusionals http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100110/2023347693 Wed, 12 Aug 2009 03:37:33 PDT As Expected, Judge Still Bans Real From Selling RealDVD Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090812/0138215853.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090812/0138215853.shtml even if the actual copying you then do is perfectly legal. Yes, it's like saying that breaking into your own house is illegal. It makes no sense at all.

Real tried to get around this issue in a clever way. It figured that if you really were limited only to being able to make a backup copy (rather than an unencrypted copy that could be passed around), then a court would have a hard time finding it illegal. And, in fact, it had some legal precedent on its side. Two years ago, a court found that Kaleidescape, makers of a super high-end DVD jukebox, was perfectly legal, since the device was clearly only designed to make personal backups, and couldn't be used to distribute content.

Unfortunately, it appears that judge Marilyn Patel (who was also the judge who killed the original Napster) disagrees. She's issued yet another injunction blocking Real from selling RealDVD, saying that it violates copyright law. Again, this isn't a surprise. She had issued an initial injunction last year, and seemed quite skeptical of Real's arguments earlier this years, declaring:
"They have the copyright. That's the issue here right? They have the copyright. They have the right to exclude."
This is only partially true. They have some rights to exclude, but those rights are limited. The question is whether or not Real's actions fall outside that limit. But Judge Patel seems to disagree entirely with the Kaleidescape ruling, on that point.

Of course, the real issue here is how pointless a move this is for Hollywood, anyway. There are tons of DVD ripping software offerings out there -- which don't even have the limitations that RealDVD does. I can't fathom who would buy Real's product in the first place, knowing that there are much better, non-limiting products out there. Yet, here was a product that was doing everything it possibly could to play within the rules to make DVDs more valuable by letting people make use of their legal right to back up a DVD they had purchased, and Hollywood wants to crack down on it? The only thing that will do is drive more people to use the other versions of DVD ripping software out there. So, congrats, Hollywood, on pushing more people -- people who wanted to be good, legal, customers of your DVDs -- to go around the law to back up their DVDs, leaving them more open to file sharing.

It's difficult to fathom how anyone could think this was a smart move by Hollywood, or even how this is a "victory" for Hollywood.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> no-surprise http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090812/0138215853 Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:22:00 PDT MPAA's Suit Against Real About Control And Innovation -- Not Piracy Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081013/0105432524.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081013/0105432524.shtml doesn't make much sense. The problem was that there are tons of much more effective DVD ripping products out there. Unlike RealDVD, they don't hobble the ripped copies. So, shutting down RealDVD doesn't do anything to stop piracy -- and if anything only increases it, as those who want to rip DVDs are more likely to just download one of those free products that don't encumber the resulting rip with more DRM. Thus, people will still be copying DVDs, and will do so in a way that is a lot more "piratable" than if the MPAA let RealDVD live.

So why is the MPAA doing what it's doing?

The EFF has stepped up with theory that makes a lot of sense: this has nothing to do with stopping piracy, and everything to do with controlling how innovation happens in the movie market. The movie studios that make up the MPAA believe that they own the movie business, and thus any innovation in the industry needs to come through them and get their approval. What Real is doing with RealDVD is ignoring the MPAA's "approval" process, and effectively taking the path of innovation out of the studios' hands.

If this sounds familiar, it's because this has what's been going on with almost all of the "anti-piracy" battles over the last decade. Napster wasn't so much about stopping piracy (which of course, didn't work in the slightest), but about the RIAA record labels freaking out that someone else (a college kid, no less) had established a much better and more efficient distribution mechanism without getting their approval and running it through their filter first.

Effectively, the Big Content players believe that they own their industries, and innovation should come from the top down through the paths that they choose. Thus, these sorts of lawsuits will continue until the management of these firms recognize that innovation is a bottom-up phenomenon. Or, the big firms go out of business. Whichever comes first.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> clarifying http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081013/0105432524 Wed, 8 Oct 2008 03:16:00 PDT Judge Keeps Restraining Order On RealDVD Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081007/2104282484.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081007/2104282484.shtml lawsuit over the RealDVD software had placed a secret temporary injunction against RealNetworks selling the software. The original promise was that a more permanent injunction -- or a lifting of the injunction -- would come Tuesday. But Tuesday has come and gone and the judge has decided she needs more time to decide on an injunction, and may want to consult some "experts" on the subject.

I can understand the desire to better understand the situation, but it's hard to see how preventing the sale of the software in the meantime does any less harm to the movie industry. In fact, you could easily make the argument that it does more harm to the industry, based on the way the industry defines harm. That is, right now, if someone wants to make a backup copy of a DVD, they're going to look online and find a variety of free ripping options, that offer no additional DRM and make totally free and clear rips. If Real's software was out there, they might discover that option and pay to get additional DRM (why, I don't know -- but some might feel comfortable with the Real brand, for example). Thus, it's difficult to see how the movie industry is any worse off if Real's software is on the market. In that scenario, at least some might end up with ripped DVDs with DRM. Without Real on the market, those who want to rip DVDs will have their rips with no DRM at all.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> not-ready-to-give-in http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081007/2104282484 Mon, 6 Oct 2008 23:24:14 PDT Why Was The Restraining Order On RealDVD Kept Secret? Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081006/2232142472.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081006/2232142472.shtml issued a temporary restraining order against RealDVD until he had time to review the details and rule one way or the other on a pre-trial injunction. In our comments, one of our readers suggested this story was incorrect, as there didn't appear to be an actual restraining order on file -- suggesting that Real Networks may have pulled the software on its own. Yet, it turns out that, yes, in fact there was a temporary restraining order, but the judge ordered both sides to keep it secret. This is quite odd, as almost everyone immediately figured it out from Real pulling the software, and then it was confirmed by Real in a filing responding to the court. But all this does is raise a simple question: what could possibly be the rationale for keeping the temporary injunction secret?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> questions,-questions,-questions http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081006/2232142472 Mon, 6 Oct 2008 01:29:04 PDT Judge Temporarily Blocks Sale Of RealDVD Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081005/2154492455.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081005/2154492455.shtml DVD ripping software, RealDVD, it appears that a judge has issued a temporary injunction against Real, keeping the company from distributing the software until the judge has had a chance to read through the various documents. A more complete decision allowing or disallowing the sale prior to a trial should come on Tuesday. Of course, the movie studios will claim that Real should be barred from allowing the software to be sold because it will cause "irreparable harm." That, of course, is ridiculous. Real's software only lets you make limited backups, by putting its own DRM on the copies. If someone really wants to make backups, and Real's software isn't available thanks to an injunction, then they'll most likely get a copy of other DVD ripping software that doesn't even include the limitations that Real's does. In other words, in taking RealDVD off the market, as the studios would like, it actually would probably lead to more movies being copied without DRM than if RealDVD were on the market. On a separate note, it appears that Real's decision to rush to court and file for a declaratory judgment on this case was a wise move. The lawsuit has been moved from Southern California, where the studios filed suit later in the day, to Northern California, where Real filed suit in the morning.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> who-does-this-help? http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081005/2154492455