RealNetworks Agrees To Pay $4.5 Million In Legal Fees To Hollywood Over RealDVD; Gives Up
from the something's-wrong-with-the-system dept
We still can't quite understand Hollywood's crusade against RealNetworks over its RealDVD offering. The software presented a way for DVD owners to backup their DVDs. It didn't allow for distribution -- unlike 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.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, drm, dvds, movies, realdvd, ripped dvds
Companies: mpaa, realnetworks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Apple, which is even more restrictive?
Linux, which does NOT have commercial support, and would require all of their users to be retrained on how to use an OS, how to deal with non-standard file types, and how to use applications that they never saw before?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This is a flat out lie. Many major Linux distributors, such as Red Hat, base their entire business model on providing such support.
"would require all of their users to be retrained on how to use an OS"
So, by your definition, nobody should use any non-MS solution? Even upgrading from Office 2003 to 2007, or XP to Window 7 requires some retraining, so it's not really a valid excuse.
"how to deal with non-standard file types"
This is also a lie. Linux is perfectly capable of handling almost all file formats. Those that it can't handle 100% are encumbered by patents and/or obfuscated. In which case you have to ask yourself - do you want your company's data to be totally dependent on a single software provider's product?
"how to use applications that they never saw before"
Like Firefox? Many applications are either cross-platform or work well under WINE. Yes, there are exceptions, but your reasoning is far from the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Most users just want a web browser, email client and an office package, along with a few other bits and pieces. All of that is installed *by default* on most Linux distros, meaning that the average user won't even have to work out how to install a program before they can do something useful (which is far from a user-unfriendly process nowadays). The issues that stop it becoming more mainstream are really just branding (e.g. people have been conditioned to look for "Photoshop" and "iTunes" instead of "a photo editing package" and "a media player") and lack of support from a few major companies (Apple, Microsoft, Adobe) rather than anything inherent in a user-aimed desktop distro like Ubuntu.
Anyway, the points I was responding to were either outright lies, or implied that no user training is involved with MS products. I don't mind people who don't like Linux overall, as long as their opinions are based on facts and not lies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Until they really need it. Then watch how fast they learn, at least the borderline trivial stuff. My wife, a long time Windows XP user, "got her hands on" a collection of tracks that were in flac format. She asked me what the hell these files were and where were the mp3 files she was expecting. So I created a shell account on our Ubuntu home file server, added mp3 lame and support utils from the repository, then wrote her a shell script that converts all flac (and ogg) files in the cwd to mp3; now a few months later she logs into her shell acct on that server to not only convert audio but video files too. Something you can't do on Windows without some effort and a little cash.
Necessity made her into a Linux shell user and it wasn't that painful a transition for her.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have to disagree with you, Ubuntu is really user friendly though there is a bit of a learning curve. However, with just a touch of corporate IT support, Ubuntu would be as easy, or even easier to use than Windows.
Linux's degree of user friendliness is entirely dependent on what package it is wrapped up in. Most aren't user friendly, some are very user friendly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, but Linux is far from the novice-friendly OS Linux users would have you believe. 90% of Linux software is written using a set of unwritten rules;
1. Ready to run binaries should never be provided, always make the user compile their own.
2. Every Linux program must require at least two other programs/packages to be installed first.
3. No linux program should ever be written to do in one step, what the user can be made to do in two or more steps. Having 3-5 steps that must be performed manually is the preferred average. For example: No archive program should ever perform both the functions of joining files together and compressing them. Separate programs must always be used for both steps.
4. Whenever possible, programs should be command line and/or hotkey controlled only. If a GUI is required it should be written by a different author and installed separately, preferably following rules 1-3.
5. Every program must have at least 3-4 different ways of enabling or disabling every option. For example: During compiling, via a command line option, via a config file, via an option inside the program, via a user's global config, or via a system's global config. Accordingly, there must be a confusing list of which options override which others.
6. A list of command line options can be provided for small programs, but under no circumstances shall detailed help or instructions be included with the program. The only permissable form of more indepth help is either a web page on the net (must be at least 2 versions behind the current release) or a bare-bones "Wiki" written by advanced users of the software who will gloss over all the details that beginners are looking for.
7. If a program is anything larger than a small command line program, the authors will under no circumstances, provide a direct method for getting in touch with them. All bugs reports will handled through trackers. The only help that should be provided to end users is a forum where other users can answer the easy questions and completely ignore any users who have a genuine problem that doesn't qualify as a bug.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
BTW, I use Linux as my primary OS on 3 different machines, so I know what I'm talking about. Most of the points you raise are outdated at best, while those issues that still exist (e.g. package dependency) are often invisible to users. Installing a piece of software that's available in your distro's repositories is usually as simple as selecting it from a list, and the installer takes care of the rest. It takes less clicks than the average Windows installer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's also worth noting that the few points that rang even remotely true in Rekrul's post don't apply to Linux specifically, but to open source software as a whole. There are many well-documented and fully-featured Linux applications, and many Windows-only open source projects that suffer from these problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, there's a curve, but I haven't found it to be as bad for non-techies as you paint it. See my other story above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
writing them down sort of stops them from being unwritten.
also, your list of complaints must be at least 15 years old. if we are going to have a 15 year old argument you should explain to me why windows NT isn't plug and play.
1. Ready to run binaries should never be provided, always make the user compile their own.
BS. the apt and rpm systems install ready to run binaries, and apt will even down load it for you.
and 99% of the time compiling your own is just typing 3 commands:
./configure
./make
./make install
the process is positively onerous.
2. Every Linux program must require at least two other programs/packages to be installed first.
BS. on windows you almost always need a .NET runtime, some sort of VB, MFC, visual studio runtime, or a java VM to run a program.
3. No linux program should ever be written to do in one step, what the user can be made to do in two or more steps. Having 3-5 steps that must be performed manually is the preferred average. For example: No archive program should ever perform both the functions of joining files together and compressing them. Separate programs must always be used for both steps.
BS. windows still can't open tar or rar files to this day without additional software. the -z and -Z options for tar are at least 15 years old.
4. Whenever possible, programs should be command line and/or hotkey controlled only. If a GUI is required it should be written by a different author and installed separately, preferably following rules 1-3.
BS. firefox is the gui frontend to what program? open office is the gui front end to what program? gaim is the gui frontend to what program?
how do you graphically release and renew the IP in windows? oh that's right winipcfg disappeared after win95. what is netsh and why doesn't it have a gui?
5. Every program must have at least 3-4 different ways of enabling or disabling every option. For example: During compiling, via a command line option, via a config file, via an option inside the program, via a user's global config, or via a system's global config. Accordingly, there must be a confusing list of which options override which others.
BS. what is the windows registry for? what are all those folders in your windows user profile? local settings? application data? surely those don't affect things in strange and arbitrary ways, right? why are there all those .inf and .ini files there?
6. A list of command line options can be provided for small programs, but under no circumstances shall detailed help or instructions be included with the program. The only permissable form of more indepth help is either a web page on the net (must be at least 2 versions behind the current release) or a bare-bones "Wiki" written by advanced users of the software who will gloss over all the details that beginners are looking for.
BS. you want me to post a hijackthis log to the internet?
7. If a program is anything larger than a small command line program, the authors will under no circumstances, provide a direct method for getting in touch with them. All bugs reports will handled through trackers. The only help that should be provided to end users is a forum where other users can answer the easy questions and completely ignore any users who have a genuine problem that doesn't qualify as a bug.
BS. you know the guy who wrote active directory? yeah, me neither, and i damn sure don't know how to contact him. how about the guy that wrote internet explorer? i would *REALLY* like to talk to that guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you believe that every executable image on Windows is a total, complete, and dependency-free monolithic application then you are only showing your utter lack of knowledge. Every time an installation of Windows to any Linux distro? The difference is HOURS. That's where you Windows "requirements" are; right there with the megs of other cruft that you may never use.
Linux does away with you carrying everything you could possibly (not "do need", but "might need") need by calling dependencies up at install time. Is it better for novice users? Maybe not. Then again, is it ok to get 3rd parties involved to charge you EXTRA over and above the cost of the OS to allow you to play a dvd on your pc? Or can you learn a few extra commands to install the free software to do it? Depends on how much time your willing to invest to save the cash I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Really? Then explain this page;
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/RestrictedFormats/BluRayAndHDDVD
Let's see;
1. Programs provided as source code? Check.
2. Programs with dependancies? Check.
3. Forcing the user to follow a bunch of steps manually? Check.
4. Command line only with a GUI provided by someone else? In the case of MPlayer, check.
5. Multiple ways of specifying the same options? Check. (MPlayer: From the command line, from a system-wide config file, from a user specific config file, from a file-specific config file, from within the program)
6. No complete docs. Ok, the programs used there seem to be the exception.
7. No way to contact the authors directly. Partial check. You can contact the author of DumpHD on the Doom9 forum, but what about the people writing MPlayer and ffmpeg? Oh, you can join the mailing lists...
Or how about PING (Ping Is Not Ghost)? Here's the start of the "How to" section. How many steps are required to create and burn an image of your drive?
http://ping.windowsdream.com/ping/doc-2.01/using.html
Not to mention that not only does it not burn the image directly, it doesn't even separate the files into the required groupings for you. The section on burning the files to multiple discs is a complete mess with the examples showing various files appearing and disappearing from one "screenshot" to the next, examples of files being shown that don't conform to any example given previously, etc.
I didn't say what I wrote applied to all Linux programs, but it seems to apply to a large number of them. And yes, the same points apply to other open source software as well. Just try and get someone to help you diagnose an out of the ordinary problem with Firefox or Thunderbird. Unless it's something really common, nobody on the forums knows anything. The authors would probably know, but you can't contact them, you can only post in the forums or talk to a volunteer who has no idea why it's not working properly for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Really? Then explain this page;"
From the link you provided:
"Ubuntu 9.10 contains a version of Mplayer that is capable of reading decrypted Blu-ray files."
The damn program is supplied with the new versions of Ubuntu, ready to go. As for the rest of the steps, yeah they're clunky but that'll be down to patent and copyright/DMCA issues rather than technical issues - the problem steps are to bypass the DRM. Your argument is an argument against DRM, not Linux. Same issue with Red Hat not supplying DECSS and MP3 codecs a few years ago - no technical reason for it, they just couldn't afford to get sued by the **AA.
Other than that, there's nothing to stop you using VLC, XBLC, Ogle, XINE, Kaffeine, Totem or any other piece of software you want to use to play back non-DRMed video files - you have the same level of choice as you do on Windows. Most of these programs can be found in your distribution's repositories, and all dependencies are automatically resolved.
"2. Programs with dependancies? Check."
Windows programs also have dependencies. Don't believe me? Try installing a Java or .NET-based program without the required framework installed and tell me if it doesn't come up with a dependency error. Sorry if this confuses you, but it's not exactly rocket science. Besides, as already mentioned, dependencies are automatically taken care of if you're using a comprehensive repository. This does not normally happen in Windows.
"3. Forcing the user to follow a bunch of steps manually? Check."
Which steps? All I'm seeing the the equivalent of "if you want to use DRMed media, first install the following software". How is this different from Windows, apart from the fact that a drooling moron might get confused while following the step-by-step?
"4. Command line only with a GUI provided by someone else? In the case of MPlayer, check."
I fail to see why this is a problem. There are plenty of Windows programs that also do this, it's just more hidden from the average user. Besides, who's forcing you to use such a program instead of a fully integrated application?
"5. Multiple ways of specifying the same options? Check. (MPlayer: From the command line, from a system-wide config file, from a user specific config file, from a file-specific config file, from within the program)"
Again, if you don't like this, choose a different damn program! Windows programs also store preferences in different locations (registry only, registry + other files, no registry in the case of WOW, and so on).
"6. No complete docs. Ok, the programs used there seem to be the exception."
I'd be interested to see which Windows program you've used recently that has 100% perfect documentation. I certainly use several programs at work where Google is far more helpful than any supplied docs.
I'm sure there's similar counterpoints to your Ghost analog, but I don't use those kinds of programs. What I do is store all of my data and program settings in my /home directory, back that up regularly, and spend minimal amounts of time restoring it from a fresh install if need be.
"The authors would probably know, but you can't contact them, you can only post in the forums or talk to a volunteer who has no idea why it's not working properly for you."
...unless you pay for support from the company supplying you the distro or other provider. You want your software both free *and* fully featured and supported? You'd be surprised at how many Windows providers don't do this either. I mean, how many authors do you directly deal with on closed source projects? Maybe you have a paid representative who is able to relay information to the authors (on a support contract you paid for directly or indirectly), but contact the author themselves for every issue you come across? Highly unlikely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The problem is that those are the kinds of instructions I see every time I go looking for a program to do something and I end up on a Linux site by mistake.
I'm not saying that Windows or Windows programs are perfect. There are a lot of aspects of Windows that seem to have been designed by either a moron, or by someone who had never used a computer before. However, Linux seems to have just as many quirks and WTF? aspects, they're just different.
And if the end user is into games at all, then Linux isn't even an option. No, I don't consider WINE to be a viable method for gaming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
check.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1998 called. It wants it's FUD back.
> users would have you believe. 90% of Linux software is
> written using a set of unwritten rules;
>
> 1. Ready to run binaries should never be provided,
> always make the user compile their own.
You lost it at this point. Linux has had very slick binary
software managers since about forever. The current crop of
dominant desktop Linuxen use to those slick package managers
to very good effect.
In this particular area (multimedia codec support), Linux blows the doors clean off of MacOS and is also better than Windows. Linux is more than just stuff like Slackware or Gentoo. It alway shas been.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I award you the iron medal of irony for suggesting that the FOSS community uses non-standard anything in comparison to Microsoft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
microsoft file types would be standard if you hippies would quit using everything things other than windows and office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Linux has commercial support, Red Hat and Canonical are just the most famous.
Migration to open source can be initiated on windows, using the software first no need to dive with both feet. Abiword, Gnumeric, OpenOffice, GNUCash(I like this one) etc all work on windows. Most security tools and network stuff is already done in linux so no need for migration at the IT level.
Which files are not standart? video files? text files? PDF files?
So which was the contention again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Putting a toe in the water...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The contention is that video card and wireless network manufacturers have chosen not to support opens source properly so, if you have a laptop, the odds are that one of those devices will not work fully (or even at all) under Linux without considerable effort and head-scratching.
Of course if you can't get your wireless card to work then all those wonderful automatic downloads won't happen. A real chicken and egg situation.
This is the true weakness of open source at present, and I say this with great sorrow as I am a firm supporter of Free software and dearly wish it wasn't true. However it is not the fault of the OS community and they (we) are working very hard to fix it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not really. Most mainstream Linux distros have a live CD (or USB) option available, so you can see if anything is going to cause problems before you install a single byte. It's also usually possible to find out whether a piece of hardware is going to work correctly before you buy it, and some manufacturers are known to be much more Linux-friendly than others. The information's out there if you spend a few moments in Google, especially if you're dealing with a major distro aimed at desktop users.
There's really no excuse in this day and age to not be able to run most major hardware types on Linux. The problem is that you have to do a small amount of prior thinking, which many users aren't very good at doing. In the last few months, I've installed Linux on 2 older Dell desktop units, a 2-year old Acer laptop and a Toshiba - all installed from a live Kubuntu install on the same USB stick. The only thing I ever had problems with was the IR input on one of the laptops, which I would never ever use anyway. Linux was quicker than Windows, almost everything worked out of the box, and I had a complementary set of application software ready to go immediately.
By contrast, one of the Dells was a bitch to install XP on to (e.g., no CD drive, no native drivers for the Ethernet - I had to download them via Linux), and the Acer keeps overheating under XP for some reason (never under Linux, though).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
- You're funny. Do you intentionally say silly things or are you uninformed? I have to use microsoft products at the office, and I find the constant rearranging of everything in new releases to be quite annoying. There are many hours of wasted time as a result of this, but you imply quite the opposite - microsoft products do not require any retraining - and that is funny.
And, as already pointed out, your other talking points are also incorrect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
i like the assumption that a company trained it's users to begin with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The call of the fear monger.
> require all of their users to be retrained on how to use
> an OS, how to deal with non-standard file types, and how
> to use applications that they never saw before?
Mindless, Nonsense, FUD.
Apple is restrictive, but it's easy enough to install better tools that aren't so restrictive. Linux is where most of these tools to "liberate" MacOS are coming from. They are also widely used among Windows users.
Everyone is using the same stuff and the same file formats. The really leading edge stuff is not the stuff that's under the thumb of Apple, or Adobe or even Microsoft.
In general, many tools are cross platform. The data formats are cross platform and well understood by everyone. If a novice might have trouble with one of them it is due to the fact that they are inherently complex and many devices (like the ones from Apple) are somewhat crippled.
Even then, stuff like Handbrake is available for every platform.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Beating that drum
My grandma used Linux with no training, lol.
Non-standard file types? WTH are you talking about?
Commercial support is widely available for Linux, not sure about the quality though.
Applications you have never seen before? You mean like every time Microsoft releases a new version of office and redesigns the entire interface?
The only thing holding back Linux adoption at this point is Microsoft and the jokers like DS who are self appointed lackeys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It has nothing to do with the relative merits of the products. Real is not starting from that position -- quite the opposite, in fact, in that their history makes them a harder sell from step one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not because they made it more valuable
No, no, no.... you have it all wrong. It's not because they made the products more valuable. It's because they made the products more valuable without paying a large initial fee plus 3/4 of their profits for the privilege to do so.
... yeah, that logic doesn't make any sense to me either
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They didn't really kill it..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've said it hundreds of times, when the copyright industry is faced with competition, it sues. If it cannot sue, it has the laws change so it can sue, then it sues. If suing doesn't work, it uses the police power of the state to eliminate the competition.
Lucky for the movie industry, it only needed step one of its master plan.
Oh, and where is the competition? Because the movie industry would rather you buy a separate portable movie rather than use your DVD collection for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's the big deal?
Of course we were advised on the backup law back in the 90's and it has probably changed. So many of our laws in the US have been amended and we (the public) hear nothing and as a result we simply hope we are not breaking the law.
Our company bought a corporate copy of Windows XP and made an install copy. Now the copy is wearing out. I am glad I installed all 450 of our computers with a copy or I would have to buy another corp copy and spend thousands on it again. Good for Microsoft but not good for me as a consumer. I don't want to buy another copy of anything just because it wore out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's the big deal?
Yes, it is.
UNLESS the thing you're backing up has any form of DRM. The anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA makes it illegal to break any type of DRM even for perfectly legal purposes with your legally purchased content.
As for your situation, Microsoft doesn't care how you install Windows on however many computers you have, as long as you have a legally purchased license for each install.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What's the big deal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's the big deal?
In the end, all it does is drive more and more people to find the underground tools to safeguard their purchases. Once they figure out how, they are generally happy to instruct their friends who run into the same problem. It's an issue with exponential growth.
In the end, the abject failure by "major IP owners"* to collaborate with innovators will eventually destroy their business models. With 6+ billion people in the world, you can't stop nor even hope to control the eventual flood of innovation. The best you can do is find a way to go with the flow.
* major IP owners: i.e. MPAA, RIAA and lawsuit happy software companies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's the big deal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is the kind of thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Vs what...
Apple, which is even more restrictive?
Linux, which does NOT have commercial support, and would require all of their users to be retrained on how to use an OS, how to deal with non-standard file types, and how to use applications that they never saw before?"
A fanboy is a fanboy is a fanboy.
Hollywood? Are you reading? Check this out and start suing.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&&rls=en&q=copy+dvd+free+software
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Since I still have the originals the quality issue isn't an issue, I can watch the full DVD whenever I choose.
And yes, I use software in Linux to do it, but there's also 5-6 other software programs installed on my Windows PC that can do this too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
make the 4.5 million last
not banned in rest of the world
not illegal in rest of the world perhaps real should just stop doing business in the usa like everyone else is doing.
rest of earth can live without the lazy pricks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not about piracy...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Value
Not sure I agree. Perhaps more palatable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Welcome to the future. We've been waiting for you.
Having all of your DVDs in a Tivo-like device is very handy and it does infact make your DVDs more useful and usable.
Of course it's just an extension of the mp3 jukebox idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FTW!
SlySoft AnyDVD FTW! It gets past all of your encryption schemes, has no restrictions, and you can't touch it.
I just need to wallow in this schadenfreude a bit, because this case has been pissing me off from the very beginning. This judge is absolutely out of her mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FTW!
It would have been nice to at least be able to consider a less grey-market, less potentially virus ridden option, but I can't do that now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This was all about copying rentals
This issue was all about the ability to archive a DVD you didn't own. I can see big media's point here. If this product was commercially available, anybody could rent it from Blockbuster and save it to a hard drive. They would have had to make rentals illegal. No one would get away with trying to do that.
I agree with the comments here that it was a pointless product, but only to those with tech savvy. For the mainstream buyers, this would have been a very useful tool and thus dangerous for the MPAA to allow. Media doesn't care that we can make an AVI. They want to make sure everyone can't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This was all about copying rentals
You can also do that...with every other DVD ripping program in existence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This was all about copying rentals
Big media still fails.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
always be underground?
Or AnyDVD and CloneDVD. Never used CloneDVD muself.
look at slysoft.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, some of the more complicated stuff requires compilation, but out of the box Ubuntu can copy/burn DVD's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]