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.
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.
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...
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.
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...
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.
The libraries contained the original copyright notices from RealNetworks. If you reverse-engineer some software, why keep the original version information?
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".
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...
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.
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?
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.
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...
I am glad that Copyright Trolls like Righthaven exist. They are doing something very good, even though they don't want to. By misbehaving this badly, they put themselves on display as one of the worst copyright abusers in the USA. They provide plenty of reasons to reform copyright laws so these kinds of practices should become illegal. They provide reasons for people to demand a stop on copyrights, making public domain and creative commons more popular.
Thank you, Righthaven, for being such an annoying copyright Troll. This will motivate plenty of politicians to come up with some anti-Troll detergent...
Well, aren't those apes (monkeys) owned by someone? Technically speaking, wild animals could be considered state property while animals in zoo's would be owned by zoo owners. And since the apes cannot do their own business, their owners are the ones responsible for anything they do, right?
So, in this case the owner of the national park, that holds the monkey that snapped the picture, would be the copyright owner. And depending on the rules for this national park, it could be that a license is granted to the owner of the camera for this picture to redistribute it even further.
Seems to me, Prince is doing the right thing with these weird claims. You're giving him some additional, free publicity so his plan worked! Thank you for mentioning the name of some artist whom I've almost forgotten about... ;-)
In case you wonder, in many European countries it's possibly a crime or misdemeanor to store privacy-sensitive information on servers outside Europe if the company is located within Europe. Privacy laws are extremely strict here, thus having useful data of e.g. your customers, their orders and even which color they prefer is all classified. As a result, it is made more difficult for companies to use cloud applications for these kinds of purposes so you end up with Cloud databases with data that's not privacy-sensitive...
Danmark recently even forbade the use of Google Apps for administrative applications involving customer data... See http://www.linklaters.com/Publications/Publication1403Newsletter/TMT_Newsletter_March_2011/Pages/04_ Denmark_Cloud_Brought_Down_Earth.aspx
On the post: RealNetworks Destroying Dutch Webmaster's Life Because He Linked To A Reverse Engineered Alternative
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: RealNetworks Destroying Dutch Webmaster's Life Because He Linked To A Reverse Engineered Alternative
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: RealNetworks Destroying Dutch Webmaster's Life Because He Linked To A Reverse Engineered Alternative
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...
On the post: RealNetworks Destroying Dutch Webmaster's Life Because He Linked To A Reverse Engineered Alternative
Re: Re:
On the post: RealNetworks Destroying Dutch Webmaster's Life Because He Linked To A Reverse Engineered Alternative
Re: Time to boycott RealNetworks
On the post: RealNetworks Destroying Dutch Webmaster's Life Because He Linked To A Reverse Engineered Alternative
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.
On the post: RealNetworks Destroying Dutch Webmaster's Life Because He Linked To A Reverse Engineered Alternative
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: RealNetworks Destroying Dutch Webmaster's Life Because He Linked To A Reverse Engineered Alternative
Re:
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
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".
On the post: RealNetworks Destroying Dutch Webmaster's Life Because He Linked To A Reverse Engineered Alternative
Re:
On the post: RealNetworks Destroying Dutch Webmaster's Life Because He Linked To A Reverse Engineered Alternative
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
Re: Re: Re: Re: Uhoh... Derivate work?
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
Re: Re: Uhoh... Derivate work?
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
Uhoh... Derivate work?
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
Re: Re:
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...
On the post: Righthaven Loses Again (Yes, Again), With Another Judge... But Immediately Refiles Lawsuit
Thank you, Righthaven, for being such an annoying copyright Troll. This will motivate plenty of politicians to come up with some anti-Troll detergent...
On the post: Righthaven Told To Pay Up Legal Fees Owed By July 25th
On the post: Monkey Business: Can A Monkey License Its Copyrights To A News Agency?
So, in this case the owner of the national park, that holds the monkey that snapped the picture, would be the copyright owner. And depending on the rules for this national park, it could be that a license is granted to the owner of the camera for this picture to redistribute it even further.
On the post: Prince: Digital Music Has A Different Impact On Your Brain
Well, he's doing the right thing!
On the post: We're Missing The Point Of The Cloud: It's Not Supposed To Be Locked To A Single Service
I know why!
Danmark recently even forbade the use of Google Apps for administrative applications involving customer data... See http://www.linklaters.com/Publications/Publication1403Newsletter/TMT_Newsletter_March_2011/Pages/04_ Denmark_Cloud_Brought_Down_Earth.aspx
Next >>