Lisa Westveld 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (247) comment rss

  • On the post: RealNetworks Destroying Dutch Webmaster's Life Because He Linked To A Reverse Engineered Alternative

    Lisa Westveld ( profile ), 29 Aug, 2011 @ 05:11am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Actually, "Real Alternative" is not likely to be freeware, but just illegal software. The creator of this software copied files from RealNetworks, combined this with some open-source files that were also from RealNetworks, added an icon from RealNetworks to make it look more like the Real software, and then distributed it as if it's freeware.
    "Free Alternative" is very likely to be illegal, but no court has been able to judge this since no defendant can be found. This also means that no default judgement is possible, since courts don't even know which court would have proper jurisdiction...
    RealNetworks is likely going to use Edskes as defendant for Real Alternative. When this happens, the software could be declared illegal. Right now, many site owners have already removed the software out of concerns for legal consequences.

  • On the post: RealNetworks Destroying Dutch Webmaster's Life Because He Linked To A Reverse Engineered Alternative

    Lisa Westveld ( profile ), 28 Aug, 2011 @ 11:54pm

    Re: Re: Re: Caching DNS !!!

    You don't understand the DNS system, do you? Sure, it's main purpose is to translate domain names to IP adresses. You do so with an A (IPv4) or AAAA (IPv6) record. You can also add TXT records for textual information or MX records for mail purposes. And there's the CNAME record which redirects a local subdomain name to a different server.
    I myself use Google Apps on my personal domain, which is very nice but it requires me to add a few subdomains with a CNAME record which point to ghs.google.com and thus... Well, Edskes did something similar by redirecting mirror.edskes.com to another site. The additional path that you add would translate to the same path on the other server.
    If Edskes would remove mirror.edskes.com from the DNS, that subdomain would still be in several caches for up to 48 hours. And thus anyone who uses such a cache would still notice that any link within the subdomain just continues to work.
    Btw, if Real had instead typed his IP adress instead of his domain name, then they would NOT have seen his site! Edskes uses a shared host for his site, thus hundreds of sites share the same IP address. The webserver running those domains just filters all incoming calls, extracts the domain name, then decides which domain is going to handle the request. Go check for yourself. The IP address for edskes.net is 95.211.20.135 and if you go there... Tadaaaa! That's his host you're seeing!

    Are you willing to acknowledge that you're mistaken or are you just trolling here to claim that Mike is wrong?

  • On the post: RealNetworks Destroying Dutch Webmaster's Life Because He Linked To A Reverse Engineered Alternative

    Lisa Westveld ( profile ), 28 Aug, 2011 @ 01:05pm

    Re: Caching DNS !!!

    Let's explain what went wrong with the DNS and it's caching...
    Edskes used the DNS settings for his own domain to redirect links to the Real Alternative application on another system. Thus he did not host the software himself but it was hosted (mirrored) through Edskes domain.
    The DNS system is a network of thousands of computers and each has to replicate any relevant DNS information. To do so, each DNS server will keep a copy of records inside it's cache. As a result, any change in DNS records is only effective once the old records are cleaned from the many caches and replaced with the new values. This could be done within minutes, or it could take up to 48 hours. It just depends on how often the DNS record has been used. Considering the popularity of Edskes site as freeware provider, you can safely assume it's heavily used, thus cached in a lot of places.
    Unfortunately, since the software is outside Edskes server and the cached DNS records point to this outside source, those cached records will thus continue to allow people to download the Real Alternative through the link on Edskes domain for as long as the cache isn't cleared.
    RealNetworks ordered Edskes to remove the link and he complied. Now all that was needed is time until those DNS caches are cleared. RealNetworks was a bit impatient, though.

  • On the post: RealNetworks Destroying Dutch Webmaster's Life Because He Linked To A Reverse Engineered Alternative

    Lisa Westveld ( profile ), 28 Aug, 2011 @ 01:48am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Also, RealPlayer is also available for Linux and the Mac. And they also offer products for mobile devices like smartphones and iPads. Plus, RealNetworks is behind a gew game sites like Zylom and GameHouse. They offer Cloud services for multimedia services. And Verizon offers Verizon Video services for Android users, but those services are courtesy of RealNetworks. AT&T also works together with RealNetworks to offer video services. In Europe, RealNetworks provides ringtone services for Vodafone.
    As it turns out, RealNetworks is quite big and chances are that you're already using RealNetwork products. Even if you don't use Windows.
    I hoped RealNetworks would be nearly dead after RealPlayer was caught as spyware/malware but as it turns out, RealNetwork just managed to grow while staying away from the media. Real nasty!

  • On the post: RealNetworks Destroying Dutch Webmaster's Life Because He Linked To A Reverse Engineered Alternative

    Lisa Westveld ( profile ), 27 Aug, 2011 @ 01:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Hey, you're smart enough to not get confused. I'm not easily confused by it too. Then again, we're above-average in our intelligence. But lesser-intelligent people also use the Internet. They would be confused by something using the name and logo of Real, while it's not endorsed by RealNetworks.
    Anyway, even if most people aren't confused by this, it's still a trademark dispute which would leave the final word to a Judge and Jury.
    If only they can find a defender...

  • On the post: RealNetworks Destroying Dutch Webmaster's Life Because He Linked To A Reverse Engineered Alternative

    Lisa Westveld ( profile ), 27 Aug, 2011 @ 02:45am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I think it should be a violation, yes. Else a lot more trademarks will end up with companies using similar names to offer competing products. People wouldn't be able to see the difference between real and fake anymore. Trademarks exists so customers can recognize their products. Allowing this type of misuse would practically end the trademark value.

  • On the post: RealNetworks Destroying Dutch Webmaster's Life Because He Linked To A Reverse Engineered Alternative

    Lisa Westveld ( profile ), 27 Aug, 2011 @ 02:41am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Real Alternative hasn't been declared illegal anywhere, yet. But that's because of technical reasons, since this software has no defender to bring to court. Also, which court should handle this case? No one even knows where this software has been created so the proper jurisdiction is unknown. All RealNetworks can do is to go after the distributors and in this case, they apparently did.

  • On the post: RealNetworks Destroying Dutch Webmaster's Life Because He Linked To A Reverse Engineered Alternative

    Lisa Westveld ( profile ), 26 Aug, 2011 @ 11:47am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Even for a default judgment, you still need a defendant. John Doe might qualify but you also need to know the proper juristiction. No one even knows where Real Alternative was created! In the USA, Europe, Russia, China, Lybia? No one knows...
    Without defendant there's just no case. A default judgement has no value if the defendant isn't even an US Citizen...

  • On the post: RealNetworks Destroying Dutch Webmaster's Life Because He Linked To A Reverse Engineered Alternative

    Lisa Westveld ( profile ), 26 Aug, 2011 @ 11:40am

    Re: Re:

    Well, what I mean is that it appeared as if he was offering the software from his own server. On the Dutch IusMensis some guy discovered that a google search for Edskes name combined with Real Alternatives turns up quite a few sites referring to the site of Edskes where the software could be directly downloaded. His site was considered a mirror, probably up until the moment it's official distribution channel stopped distributing it.

  • On the post: RealNetworks Destroying Dutch Webmaster's Life Because He Linked To A Reverse Engineered Alternative

    Lisa Westveld ( profile ), 26 Aug, 2011 @ 11:35am

    Re: Time to boycott RealNetworks

    Many people already boycotted RealNetworks because their software behaves like malware or spyware. It's almost impossible to remove again from your system. It even amazes me that this company still exists...

  • On the post: RealNetworks Destroying Dutch Webmaster's Life Because He Linked To A Reverse Engineered Alternative

    Lisa Westveld ( profile ), 26 Aug, 2011 @ 11:33am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Well, if they used the source, they also used the version information from Real. They didn't modify this to show it's a custom build.
    Furthermore, the version information for the OpenSource libraries make it clear that they are open source. These contain the note: "Copyright(c) RealNetworks, Inc. 1995-2009. All rights reserved. Source code for this program is available under the RealNetworks Public Source License."
    Other libraries contain the note: "Copyright ? RealNetworks, Inc. 1995-2007" without additional notes about them being opensource.
    Since many DLLs in the software contain the original version information from Real, I can safely assume that RealNetworks created those. They don't seem to be the result of reverse engineering, unless the reverse engineer was stupid enough to also reverse engineer the version resources.

    Btw, you can check this version information from the Windows explorer. Select a DLL, right-click on it and show it's properties. The "Version" tag will display above version information.

  • On the post: RealNetworks Destroying Dutch Webmaster's Life Because He Linked To A Reverse Engineered Alternative

    Lisa Westveld ( profile ), 26 Aug, 2011 @ 11:27am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The libraries contained the original copyright notices from RealNetworks. If you reverse-engineer some software, why keep the original version information?

  • On the post: RealNetworks Destroying Dutch Webmaster's Life Because He Linked To A Reverse Engineered Alternative

    Lisa Westveld ( profile ), 26 Aug, 2011 @ 11:21am

    Re:

    No author is known for Real Alternative. That makes it difficult to find it illegal in court, since there's no defender for this software. The Wikipedia entry seems to suggest that the main distribution of this software stopped in 2010 for unknown reasons.
    Some forums and sites do actively ban this software from their sites because of concerns about it being legal or not.

  • On the post: RealNetworks Destroying Dutch Webmaster's Life Because He Linked To A Reverse Engineered Alternative

    Lisa Westveld ( profile ), 26 Aug, 2011 @ 11:13am

    Re: Re:

    I am sure those files were copied. I've installed the software and took a look in the properties of those files. Many are copyrighted by RealNetworks, although some are opensource components from Real. But not all DLLs used by this software are freely copyable.
    Also, there's the trademark dispute. Real Alternative uses the Real.ico icon in a few locations. Plus the name itself could be a trademark dispute since it's a competing product misusing the name "Real".

  • On the post: RealNetworks Destroying Dutch Webmaster's Life Because He Linked To A Reverse Engineered Alternative

    Lisa Westveld ( profile ), 26 Aug, 2011 @ 11:01am

    Re:

    Please keep in mind that in this case, Dutch laws apply, not the US laws! We in the Netherlands have slightly different laws for these cases.

  • On the post: RealNetworks Destroying Dutch Webmaster's Life Because He Linked To A Reverse Engineered Alternative

    Lisa Westveld ( profile ), 26 Aug, 2011 @ 10:58am

    Real Alternative is in a trademark dispute with RealNetworks and uses an icon plus files that are part of the RealNetworks software. These files are copyrighted and RealNetworks wants to take the author of this software to court and put a stop on the distribution of this software.
    Unfortunately, no one knows who the real author is, so RealNetworks can't sue anyone over this. The Dutch webmaster seemed to be a possible candidate to sue, though. He was involved in the distribution of the software and had a few mirrors for the software on his own site, He also seemed to be the first who knew about new releases, making him very suspicious.

    Anyways, the Real Alternative software is probably infringing the RealNetworks products, thus it should be considered illegal. Only problem: RealNetwork doesn't seem to be able to put a stop to it's distribution since it's distributed as if it's freeware.

    Also, even though RealNetworks seized edskes's computers, they had no right to examine their contents without permission from Edskes or the court. They examined the content of these computers without permission and thus RealNetworks broke the law. But Edskes is slowly going bankrupt because of the expenses of this case so it's unlikely that he will be able to sue RealNetworks over this...

  • On the post: Photographer David Slater Claims That Because He Thought Monkeys Might Take Pictures, Copyright Is His

    Lisa Westveld ( profile ), 19 Jul, 2011 @ 12:03am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Uhoh... Derivate work?

    Yep, the court will have to decide. But until proven otherwise, David Slater will have the copyright on the derived work. Innocent until proven otherwise.
    Fortunately for TechDirt, they are covered by the "Fair Use" principle, which allows them to use the picture to discuss about this picture.

  • On the post: Photographer David Slater Claims That Because He Thought Monkeys Might Take Pictures, Copyright Is His

    Lisa Westveld ( profile ), 17 Jul, 2011 @ 09:54pm

    Re: Re: Uhoh... Derivate work?

    Speculating. :-) Of course, David Slater should then explain what he did to modify the original picture to be able to claim copyright over those modifications.
    Besides, I don't think he posted the original. As I understand, a work is only part of the public domain if it's published without an author, or when the author puts it in the public domain. Slater only published a derived work but not the original.
    Would cutting and resizing a photo count as a new, derivate work according to British law?

  • On the post: Photographer David Slater Claims That Because He Thought Monkeys Might Take Pictures, Copyright Is His

    Lisa Westveld ( profile ), 17 Jul, 2011 @ 10:59am

    Uhoh... Derivate work?

    Well, okay... Let's assume TechDirt is right. This monkey took a picture and a monkey cannot be seen as the maker of this picture. Thus, it has no owner.
    However, David Slater did not publish the original photo! He used the original photo to create a derivate work! He probably changed the size a bit, maybe straightened the monkey up a bit, blurred the background, adjusted the contrast, brightened the colors and whatever more. As a result, David might not be the maker of the original photo, but he is the maker of this derivate work!
    Thus, David is the rightful author of this derivate.

    Sure, the original photo becomes part of the public domain once it is published. But no one published the original, did they? David could simply erase the original thus making it impossible for the original photo to become part of the public domain! Then all we have is his derivate work, which is close to the original, but not exactly the same.

  • On the post: Righthaven Loses Again (Yes, Again), With Another Judge… But Immediately Refiles Lawsuit

    Lisa Westveld ( profile ), 14 Jul, 2011 @ 08:06am

    Re: Re:

    And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
    In the Netherlands there's a saying that even a donkey isn't stupid enough to bump it's head against the same stone twice.
    Even a donkey would know when to stop. It makes a nice comparison with Righthaven too. They're both asses...

Next >>