RealNetworks Destroying Dutch Webmaster's Life Because He Linked To A Reverse Engineered Alternative
from the seriously? dept
Via Slashdot, we get the story of a Dutch webmaster who is involved in a ridiculous lawsuit that RealNetworks (it still exists?) is putting him through. Apparently there's a bit of free software out there called Real Alternative which, not surprisingly, is an alternative player for Real Media files. RealNetworks hasn't been happy about this software for a while, even though it seems unlikely that many people still encode things in Real Media's format. Either way, the company was successful in scaring the main distribution source about a year ago and has since gone after others.However, in this case, it seems pretty clear that they've gone way too far. They sued a Dutch webmaster, Hilbrand Edskes, not because he was hosting or distributing the software, but because he had a link to the software on a webpage he maintains that lists a variety of freeware programs. It's not hard to find all sorts of sites, including big names like CNET, that still distribute Real Alternative. Yet for whatever reason, it appears Real Networks chose to go after this guy for maintaining a list of freeware programs.
Making matters even more confusing and ridiculous, is that it appears that Edskes actually did remove the link when asked. Real claims he did not, but the company who seized his computers (after a judge ordered it, following a court filing from Real) admits that the links were actually removed right after he was told to remove them, and Edskes' hosting company also confirms, via its backups, that he removed the link. But Real still saw the link at a later date due to some DNS caching... so it's pushing ahead with the lawsuit. The article details how it's already cost Edskes €66,000 in legal fees, and Real is asking for about €210,000 in fines and for its own €75,000 legal fees.
Even if Real Alternative is infringing (a claim that I think is pretty questionable in its own right), it's pretty ridiculous to then sue someone just for linking to it, and to continue to sue him even after he shows that he removed the link in question. Real Networks was famous for having some nasty business practices and for forcing crapware on people, and it seems to be continuing that trend in the legal world as well.
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, links, real alternative, reverse engineering
Companies: realnetworks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Without exposure, without the links, "real alternative" would be a non-issue, as nobody would ever know about it. It takes promotion and exposure to get a product to be known by the masses and used.
The location of the actual file should not be material to intent, which was to distribute the "alternative".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This is the type of situation where they guy attempts to seperate himself from illegal activity by not hosting the content, but only makes his money by having the content on his site. It is a paradox that only could past muster on Techdirt.
Remember, Mike doesn't support piracy, he just appears to support sites and ideas that support piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Also, this is one example for why the forced dissolution of corporations and companies should be allowed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The difference between this and a listing in the phone book is that this listing was created by the site owner, reviewed, and with additional information provided. He didn't give up a blank ad space and let them just have whatever there, he didn't just bot all pages and sort them (like a search engine), he manually reviewed pages and lists features and benefits of the software that is distributed via links on his site.
He knew what was on the link, and listed it anyway. He gets to enjoy the consequences of his actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
By your logic, if someone asks where a crackhouse is, and a person tells them, that person is guilty of selling crack.
Quick! Drop everything and take the bar exam! You'll pass in a second.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Great minds think alike or something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, if I review software and find it does what it proposes to do. Does so well or not, put my review on my site, and link to the software I am now legally responsible for that software and any infringement it has?
That would of course destroy the freeware, shareware, and garage shop application market, giving the corporate application market more business. Oh, wait... isn't that exactly what this is about... again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So if you point out a crack house down the corner did you distribute crack?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is just stupid LoL
Do you know where your groceries come from? Immigration should knock on your door and fine you for supporting illegal workers LoL
Do you bought an iPhone? should you be responsible for all those people who committed suicide on Foxconn? You should know Foxconn is bad why do you support it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, it's idiots like you who can't let such things like facts, or even grade school reading comprehension, get in the way of hyperbole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Case in point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This guy wasn't pirating. He wasn't even linking to pirated software. He linked to software that is accused of patent infringement.
Different animal entirely.
Also, he wasn't trying to insulate himself from or evade responsibility about anything at all. He ran a site which linked to a lot of freeware and shareware. This program just happened to be one that had a legal problem, and when this was pointed out to him, he removed the link.
This person in no way did anything illegal or even remotely immoral by any rational standard, even the most draconian ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This demonstrates how dangerous your ideas are. You don't seem to understand the difference between supporting somebody's right to do something and supporting what they do.
I support the right of people to lobby for gun control, or against gay marriage, or to give America back to the Indians, even though I would disagree agree with EVERY ONE of those ideas.
You don't understand freedom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
THE PEDOPHILES' PLAN FOR LEGALIZING THEIR PERVERSION
On the Pedophilia Issue:
What the APA Should Have Known
Some people don't want ever to consider that sexual acts between children and adults(the legal definition of it) could ever be consensual and good, right now it is clear cut for the legal system and a very vocal part of the population is against muddying the issue with things like when it is good for the child to have sexual relations? it is always harmful?
The issue discussed by some is about sexuality and how people learn about it, should it really have an age limit defined by a government? or should it be something that society should learn to define by itself?
That is not the same thing as trying to punish rapists, that causes real harm to people no matter what their age or sex is.
Still that is not a subject I like to discuss or am interested in the fact is that, there are groups of people that also deserve to be heard if we believe that everybody have a right to be heard then paedophiles, racists and violent speech and hate speech also should be tolerate and be able to let those groups speak out about it.
Would you be able to go defend those people in public?
Because if you are not, than you are just being the same thing as the other guy there just in the opposite side of the same coin.
I would defend their right to free speech, I may hate their guts, but they should be able to say anything they want to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Next you will be telling us that SourceForge is evil too, because it distributes *alternatives* to all kinds of stuff.
(I put alternatives in air quotes, because the OS's from MS and Apple and most of the software that runs on them are now the alternatives to Linux/GPL and OSS for me personally)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
SO I guess that's "okay" for "pirating people" to "use" without needing "permission", right?
Sheesh!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Second, he linked to it. He did not have it on his system for download. He didn't offer it for download, himself. You are basically saying it's illegal for him to point at a site that offers it for download, which we are all calling you out on, since that's bull.
Your self-righteousness pegs you as either an anti-TD troll, or someone who works/shills for Real. I'm guessing the former. If so, learn to do a better job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Umm. Have you actually checked out the repositories on any decent Linux distro lately? For just about any popular Windows application there is an open source alternative for it. From MS Office all the way up to AutoCAD and most everything in between.
SO I guess that's "okay" for "pirating people" to "use" without needing "permission", right?
Not sure what that means, but it is just fine and dandy to reverse engineer and create a product with the same functionality as something else. (See the automobile aftermarket parts industry for examples)
I see the argument put forth all the time here that people should just create their own content and not *steal* other peoples. Well, that is exactly what OSS is all about, creating alternatives. Is that somehow bad now? Why? Because some large company isn't profiting from it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Of course, maybe what you mean is that Real Alternative has been judged illegal in the Netherlands. Is there a court case you can link to? That would be interesting too. That and the fact that you're held liable for infringing content on somebody else's website.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This story just helped me find a great "alternative" to Real Networks. Mission accomplished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
LOL, me too. Now if only I could go back in time to when people still used that shitty format.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sue CBS (they own CNet).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wow, utter and complete reading comprehension fail on this one. Please see the quoted text above. Edskes removed the link(s) per request. It was confirmed by multiple sources. RealNetworks sues anyways because of in-built nature of the Internet and WWW.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Cobblers!
Just ype "Real player Alternative" into Google and you will get to it.
Why don't they go after Google.
Anyway realplayer is freeware (free beer) so whaT IS THE POINT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> which was to distribute the "alternative".
Considering "the alternative" is legal, why should that even be an issue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Perhaps...
Things tend to balance out like that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds to me like the "Real reason" is just like the patent trolls - precedent. CNet and other big companies won't get their equipment seized, and they have big coffers to fight this. If Real can get one win, or a semi-sealed settlement where the guy admits wrongdoing, they might be able to use this to threaten others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In trouble
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not that I don't believe you, but do you have a citation for that? Are you sure they were copied and not reversed engineered (as the post title suggests)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Fair enough. Although, if only the source of the open source components was used, then that is not infringement.
But not all DLLs used by this software are freely copyable.
Not sure what you mean. DLL's can be reversed engineered and functionality approximated fairly easily these days.
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".
I agree, those do sound like trademark violations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As far as I know, you don't have to modify open source to use it in you project. That's what is good about open source - as long as you make your source available, you can do pretty much whatever you want with it.
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.
You're right, those do sound like they were simply copied.
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.
Well, I don't use WinDoze for coding anymore. I also have not bothered with anything having do with RealNetworks in a very long time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
that does not give you permission to be stupid or ignorant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thank you for your wonderfully constructive comment. Keep it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It probably is, but should it be?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1489257/
I mean really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The "real" issue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Has Real Alternative been found illegal in a court somewhere?
According to the article, the guy actually removed the link; but they are still litigating for 43 days of infringement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Some forums and sites do actively ban this software from their sites because of concerns about it being legal or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sorry, I have a hard time believing this line. If there were no defender, wouldn't that make it easier to find illegal, not harder?
Try googling "default judgement".
If there is nobody to defend something, then usually everything the plaintiff states is accepted as fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Without defendant there's just no case. A default judgement has no value if the defendant isn't even an US Citizen...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Not under Dutch Law. You can subpoena someone with just a last name and nothing else, but you can't subpoena a John Doe. Basically you'd have to start a new court case every time someone new hosts the files.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Streisand effect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No-one uses Real Media???
Ah but plenty of government agencies have paid up licenses that they just HAVE to use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmm
Google Search: "Files encoded with Real Networ.." Bah lost interest. Closed Browser, went back to playing Conan Unchained.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time to boycott RealNetworks
I wonder if there is some Real Alternative to play the RealNetworks files?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time to boycott RealNetworks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time to boycott RealNetworks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Real was always the worst software
They are in the last gasps of existence (actually I thought they were already gone), so I guess it doesn't matter what they do - except to the poor webmaster they decided to pick on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's a clue. If it doesn't come in standard formats, playable by any player, then I don't want it and won't get it. If I find that is what it is, then I will delete the thing and be done with it. There is no way in the world that RealNetworks will ever have software on my machine. Not today, not tomorrow, not next year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm not gonna...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm not gonna...
I'm gonna give away lemonade as my sign of solidarity. That way I get the added bonus of some anonymous moron on the internet calling me a jackass for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only problem was the CDs had a virus on them.
When called on it, they did give me a free full version of their software
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Seriously, I also thought they had already gone out of business. I rarely encounter the format anymore, and when I do I immediately convert it to ogm using one of the dozens of freely available converters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kind of ironic that Real is a behind the times company getting a mention on Techdirt.
I knew when I saw the title in my rss feed who they would be going after. What a bunch of jerks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Real Networks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Real Networks
It's probably being cached in a Domain Name Server !!!! LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Caching DNS !!!
So a Domain Name Server is caching WEB pages now Mike ???
and here I was thinking that a Domain Name server spent it's time SERVING UP DOMAIN NAMES (that is converting a domain name like 'google.com' to an IP address !!.. silly me ...
Masnick as this is a typical display of the understanding of anything at all related to the internet.
But ofcourse, you get found out all the time displaying complete ignorance about most things, does not seem to make you do anything different.
It's all money in the bank for you Mike, and sure beats a real job..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Caching DNS !!!
He is reporting the facts as Real is reporting them to the court.
Do you often imagine yourself as Mike, on those lonely nights after a couple of glasses of wine?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Caching DNS !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Caching DNS !!!
and one day, when you have a few years to spare, you can find out what a domain name server does, and how it works...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Caching DNS !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Caching DNS !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Caching DNS !!!
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Caching DNS !!!
DNS do not know about 'links' or anthing else, or if something was hosted at another location.
The SIMPLE fact is, this.
A DNS converts a DOMAIN NAME to an IP address, the links he was getting in trouble for hosting were AT HIS IP ADDRESS.
Real probably did not even bother to use a DNS to go to his web site, they would have just typed in his IP address, and the web page that came up had the infringing material on it.
NOTHING TO DO WITH DNS, and no matter how long it takes the DNS system to update, it DOES NOT CHANGE the content of the IP address it relates too.
If there is no DNS record, when you type in the domain name NOTHING WILL HAPPEN..
Basically Mike is willing to LIE to ensure he gets his weak argument across regardless of what people might think of him doing that.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Caching DNS !!!
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Destroying life
you dont hype things up do you Masnick !!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Other cars were speeding too!".
"that other guy had some weed too!"
"It's a riot, everyone was looting"
"other sites offer it, so why go after this one guy?"
Sometimes the logic of the piracy apologists is beyond understanding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's time to bring back the Golden Rule.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The story continues
Since it's clear that the lawyers of RealNetworks - P.N.A.M. Claassen and E.F. Vaal of the Dutch law firm AKD Prinsen Van Wijmen Breda - have lied in court, they nor RealNetworks want to respond to any questions of the press.
But there is more:
What RealNetworks' liars/lawyers Peter Claassen and Eli�tte Vaal of AKD did on behalf of RealNetworks Inc. was initiate a so called ex-parte proceeding. In this filthy legal proceeding the defendant is not informed at all before the court gives a ruling. This means Claassen and Vaal could tell the judge all lies and one sided points of view they could think of without anyone arguing against it, since there was no hearing.
The next move after obtaining the ex-parte proceeding was to force the removal of the hyperlink and confiscate computers. This is done by a court accredited party. The plaintiff, RealNetworks, nor its lawyers like Peter Claassen and Eli�tte Vaal of AKD, are allowed any access to the evidence or to get any information about the evidence, unless the defendant gives permission or in case of a new court order. But the accredited forensic IT, digital factfinding and litigation support party, named DigiJuris B.V. Nijkerk, gave information about the evidence to RealNetworks' lawyer Peter Claassen of AKD without permission.
A recorded phone conversation published on Webwereld.nl between B. Borst from DigiJuris B.V. Nijkerk and RealNetworks' lawyer P.N.A.M. Claassen of AKD clearly shows that the plaintiff got information about the content of the confiscated computers.
In their dialogue Bas Borst (DigiJuris) and Peter Claassen (RealNetworks) decide that the confiscated computers may only be returned under the condition that the Real Alternative software is deleted, while knowing the application is just an installed version for personal use as can be found on most freeware download sites. You can even hear Bas Borst say that what was found on the computers has nothing to do with programming, distributing or anything like that.
Knowing that giving the plaintiff any information was strictly prohibited, it is unclear why bailiff E.A. Dragstra of Pranger Agin Gerechtsdeurwaarders en Bewijsbeslagspecialisten allowed Bas Borst to do so. The fact remains that in this way RealNetworks has illegally received information from DigiJuris B.V. Nijkerk' Bas Borst in the presence of bailiff Egbert Dragstra, who was responsible for Bas Borst.
RealNetworks' lawyer Peter Claassen of AKD started the case in 2008. That makes it striking to see that he still doesn't even know what RealPlayer or Real Alternative is. In the mentioned telephone conversation Bas Borst from DigiJuris B.V. Nijkerk has to explain to the lawyer of RealNetworks that you can play music with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where are Real in 2020 ?
It's 2020 where the fuck is Real now lol, exactly where they deserve to be, no where haha nasty bastards shame eh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]