# Lifestyles & Discussion > Science & Technology >  Judge rules against RealNetworks DVD copy software

## disorderlyvision

http://www.miamiherald.com/business/...y/1182152.html




> LOS ANGELES -- A federal judge has barred RealNetworks Inc. from selling a device that allows consumers to copy DVDs to their computer hard drives, pending a full trial.
> 
> Walt Disney Co., Sony Corp. and Universal Studios, among others, filed suit against Seattle-based RealNetworks in 2008, saying its RealDVD device is an illegal pirating tool. The Hollywood studios contend that RealDVD would keep consumers from paying retail for movies on DVD that could be rented cheaply, copied and returned.
> 
> RealNetworks has said its product legally meets growing consumer demand to convert their DVDs to digital form for convenient storage and viewing. RealNetworks lawyers have argued that RealDVD is equipped with piracy protections that limit a DVD owner to making a single copy. They also said the device provides consumers with a legitimate way to back up copies of movies legally purchased. 
> 
> On Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Marilyn Hall Patel ruled in favor of the movie studios in granting a preliminary injunction against RealDVD, declaring that the technology would allow consumers renting and buying DVDs to violate copyright laws.
> 
> In a 58-page document, Patel said RealNetworks failed to show that the RealDVD products are to be used by consumers primarily for legitimate purposes.
> ...

----------


## youngbuck

There are so many programs out there to burn copyrighted and encrypted DVDs with.  I even have a couple of them myself, and REAL isn't one of them.

This is just like when they shut down 321 Studios for making DVDXCopy.  There were plenty of software developers to take their place.

----------


## torchbearer

CloneDVD.

----------


## IPSecure

> A federal judge has barred RealNetworks Inc. from selling a device...


So, they can give it away?

----------


## ChaosControl

Stupid, crap like this just makes me want to pirate more though.

----------


## pcosmar

> Stupid, crap like this just makes me want to pirate more though.


I feel that too, 
I don't pirate, but  I do possess the tools. There is no reason that a person should not be able to make back-up copies of their disks.

p.s. I also own a crowbar and a slim-jim. But I don't break into cars or homes.

----------


## Bman

> Stupid, crap like this just makes me want to pirate more though.


This type of attitude helps create this situation.

The court is completely wrong in this situation.  That being said.

If someone sells you something and says I am selling this to you but you cannot duplicate or copy this item, and then you go and break the contract you are responsible for the penalties of breaking the agreed contract.

----------


## pcosmar

> said.
> 
> If someone sells you something and says I am selling this to you but you cannot duplicate or copy this item, and then you go and break the contract you are responsible for the penalties of breaking the agreed contract.


Wrong. There is no contract. 
You sell me a disc, I don't care what you tell me I can not do with it. It is not yours anymore. It becomes mine, I possess it, paid for it.
Money changes hands. Deal is over.
I am not renting it. I own it.
That is not hard to understand.

You seem to think that if I buy a used car from Joe Dirt , that  the manufacturer can tell me what I can and can not do with it.

----------


## Bman

> Wrong. There is no contract. 
> You sell me a disc, I don't care what you tell me I can not do with it. It is not yours anymore. It becomes mine, I possess it, paid for it.
> Money changes hands. Deal is over.
> I am not renting it. I own it.
> That is not hard to understand.
> 
> You seem to think that if I buy a used car from Joe Dirt , that  the manufacturer can tell me what I can and can not do with it.


So you don't agree with contracts?

----------


## pcosmar

> So you don't agree with contracts?


I buy a product, There is no contract beyond the price tag.
I have never signed a piece of paper agreeing to anything.
I pick up a piecteof plastic with a price, if I agree with the price, I pay money.
End of transaction.

----------


## Bman

> I buy a product, There is no contract beyond the price tag.


SO if you buy a gun you should face no penalties for shooting someone or ANY object with that weapon.  Since you bought it there was no responsibility put on you since you didn't sign a legal form?

There is a contract beyond the price.  The way we know it now is as a copyright.  It is clearly marked on the object when you buy it.  It's no ones responsibility but your own to understand what you are buying.  It has a contract and if you violate the contract you can and should be held accountable.  That's how contracts work no matter the object.

----------


## torchbearer

> SO if you buy a gun you should face no penalties for shooting someone or ANY object with that weapon.


Huh? That doesn't even make sense.
How does that even compare to contracts and purchases?

----------


## pcosmar

> SO if you buy a gun you should face no penalties for shooting someone or ANY object with that weapon.  Since you bought it there was no responsibility put on you since you didn't sign a legal form?
> 
> There is a contract beyond the price.  .


Isn't that  the definition of a straw-man argument?
It is certainly confused logic. one might say Mindless.


There is no contract beyond price. With a hammer or a gun.
There is no contract beyond price It does not matter if it is a plastic disc, or a plastic cup.
If the manufacturer does not like it, they can take it OFF the market.

----------


## Bman

> Huh? That doesn't even make sense.
> How does that even compare to contracts and purchases?


I was making the point that just because he wasn't presented a piece of paper with the rules of purchase, didn't mean that there wasn't any rules after the purchase.

A purchase is a contract.  It's a contract of agreed trade.  If you don't like the agreement you shouldn't have made the purchase.

----------


## Bman

> Isn't that  the definition of a straw-man argument?
> It is certainly confused logic. one might say Mindless.
> 
> 
> There is no contract beyond price. With a hammer or a gun.
> There is no contract beyond price It does not matter if it is a plastic disc, or a plastic cup.
> If the manufacturer does not like it, they can take it OFF the market.


No.  If you don't like their selling terms you DON'T buy it.  You accept a contract it is your responsibility to live up to your agreement.

----------


## torchbearer

> I was making the point that just because he wasn't presented a piece of paper with the rules of purchase, didn't mean that there wasn't any rules after the purchase.
> 
> A purchase is a contract.  It's a contract of agreed trade.  If you don't like the agreement you shouldn't have made the purchase.


then you chose a bad example.

If there is a contract, then its not a purchase but its a lease with conditions.
Have you ever seen Bandarik's class on the constitution? He explains rights and privileges.
If you are given privileges to a movie, meaning it has conditions and rights reserved to the movie studio- then you didn't purchase the movie, you leased it from them.
In a purchase, all rights are bought by someone.

When you buy a gun, you can do anything with it as long as you don't violate someone else rights. The same as anything.
If you buy a gun, but Ruger says you can only use it on wednesdays, then its a lease.

----------


## pcosmar

> No.  If you don't like their selling terms you DON'T buy it.


Actually there are several that I don't.
I refuse to support Sony (one of those in this suit).
I do not support Micro$oft. 
I am opposed to DRM and have returned items to the store for refund because of it. But if I buy a second hand disc. I will do with it as I damn well please.




> You accept a contract it is your responsibility to live up to your agreement.


There is NO CONTRACT. 
There is a purchase price. I agree to nothing more than the price.
Beyond that , they can kiss my ass.

----------


## Bman

> In a purchase, all rights are bought by someone.


Ok.  If that's the definition of purchase than the person didn't sell you the item as a purchase.

Doesn't change the fact that if you participate in a contract you are reponsible for your end of the contract.

----------


## Bman

> There is a purchase price. I agree to nothing more than the price.
> Beyond that , they can kiss my ass.


Wouldn't it be socialism to tell someone how they can sell their item?

----------


## torchbearer

> Ok.  If that's the definition of purchase than the person didn't sell you the item as a purchase.
> 
> Doesn't change the fact that if you participate in a contract you are reponsible for your end of the contract.


The last DVD I bought had no contract for me to sign. 
If the movie producers want to lease me rights, they need to be upfront and honest about it.

----------


## pcosmar

> Wouldn't it be socialism to tell someone how they can sell their item?


They can sell it or not.
If I buy it it is MINE.

They can't sell it and then say I can't do whatever with it. It is not theirs. It is mine.
It is called ownership. 
It WAS theirs, they sold it. now it is MINE.

----------


## Bman

> They can sell it or not.
> If I buy it it is MINE.
> 
> They can't sell it and then say I can't do whatever with it. It is not theirs. It is mine.


But you aren't just buying the physical item.  That is not what the seller was selling.  Maybe it's the words I use.  The deal was give me x amount of dollars and I will give you this.  Not my fault if you have buyers remorse.  You made the deal now deal with it.  No one forced you to make that deal.

----------


## pcosmar

> But you aren't just buying the physical item.  That is not what the seller was selling.  Maybe it's the words I use.  The deal was give me x amount of dollars and I will give you this.  Not my fault if you have buyers remorse.  You made the deal now deal with it.  No one forced you to make that deal.


No, that is as wrong as the previous owners of my house trying to move back in saying , But we built it , it's ours.
See how stupid that sounds.
They sold it, I own it. it is mine.
If they don't like it then they need to NOT sell it.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Wrong. There is no contract. 
> You sell me a disc, I don't care what you tell me I can not do with it. It is not yours anymore. It becomes mine, I possess it, paid for it.
> Money changes hands. Deal is over.
> I am not renting it. I own it.
> That is not hard to understand.
> 
> You seem to think that if I buy a used car from Joe Dirt , that  the manufacturer can tell me what I can and can not do with it.





> There is a contract beyond the price. The way we know it now is as a copyright. It is clearly marked on the object when you buy it. It's no ones responsibility but your own to understand what you are buying. It has a contract and if you violate the contract you can and should be held accountable. That's how contracts work no matter the object.





> There is no contract beyond price. With a hammer or a gun.
> There is no contract beyond price It does not matter if it is a plastic disc, or a plastic cup.
> If the manufacturer does not like it, they can take it OFF the market.






> I was making the point that just because he wasn't presented a piece of paper with the rules of purchase, didn't mean that there wasn't any rules after the purchase.
> 
> A purchase is a contract. It's a contract of agreed trade. If you don't like the agreement you shouldn't have made the purchase.





> The last DVD I bought had no contract for me to sign. 
> If the movie producers want to lease me rights, they need to be upfront and honest about it.


There is NO contract involved in buying a DVD, CD, etc.

However one is subject to US federal copyright law regardless of signing a contract!

And just because you possess the physical medium does not mean you have all of the privileges (often erroneously called "rights") to do what you want with that specific work.

----------


## Matt Collins

> then you chose a bad example.
> 
> If there is a contract, then its not a purchase but its a lease with conditions.
> Have you ever seen Bandarik's class on the constitution? He explains rights and privileges.
> If you are given privileges to a movie, meaning it has conditions and rights reserved to the movie studio- then you didn't purchase the movie, you leased it from them.
> In a purchase, all rights are bought by someone.


Brent, 

I consider Badnarik Constitution course absolutely fundamental for understanding the law and American government. Probably more than anything it alone has shaped my understanding of libertarianism while Judge Napolitano and Kevin Gutzman have shaped my understanding of Constitutionalism.

Badnarik gets some things wrong, but one can cherry-pick some very powerful, critical, and essential ideas from his course.

That being said, the first problem is that it's called "copyright". It should be called "copyprivilege"; remember the government can't grant rights, it can only grant privileges. 

Continuing with that logic one will quickly see what the result is. When one fixes a work of art (the expression of an idea) in a "tangible medium of expression" certain privileges (called copyrights) are automatically bestowed upon the owner. Among those exclusive privileges for a limited time are copying, distributing, performance, display, transmission, etc. In other words federal law dictates that only the "copyprivilege"  holder may partake in those activities. It grants a limited monopoly to the original artist. There is no contract involved, it's statutory.


I have taken several law courses on "copyright". Hopefully that sheds some light on the discussion.

----------


## torchbearer

> There is NO contract involved in buying a DVD, CD, etc.
> 
> However one is subject to US federal copyright law regardless of signing a contract!
> 
> And just because you possess the physical medium does not mean you have all of the privileges (often erroneously called "rights") to do what you want with that specific work.


I can make a backup copy of everything I own. Legally.

----------


## pcosmar

I understand Copyright.
I am not talking about selling someones work.
I am not talking about P2P sharing.

I am talking about *Fair Use.*
http://w2.eff.org/IP/eff_fair_use_faq.php



> A use which is considered "fair" does not infringe copyright, even if it involves one of the exclusive rights of copyright holders. Fair use allows consumers to make a copy of part or all of a copyrighted work, even where the copyright holder has not given permission or objects to your use of the work.

----------


## BlackTerrel

One judge can make such an important ruling?

----------


## tron paul

U.S. District Court Judge Marilyn Hall Patel is the whore that banned the first big mp3 player, the Diamond Rio, but later OK'd Apple's iPod despite the same complaints of infringing use.

Patel is a nothing but a whore for the Hollywood Copyright Cabal.  Law, fact, and precedent are nothing to her, only the concerns of the obsolete but monied Big Content interests matter to her.

Her opinions are an embarrassment.  She changes her mind based on how much money and power the plaintiffs and defendants have to offer, and does a bad job of rationalizing her flip-flopping.

----------


## Matt Collins

> I can make a backup copy of everything I own. Legally.





> I understand Copyright.
> I am not talking about selling someones work.
> I am not talking about P2P sharing.
> 
> I am talking about *Fair Use.*
> http://w2.eff.org/IP/eff_fair_use_faq.php


Exactly. That is called the Fair Use Defense which is accepted most of the time.

----------


## torchbearer

> Exactly. That is called the Fair Use Defense.


The RealNetworks DVD copy software was created so that users could back up their movies.
The judge says the company can't do that.
The judge is incorrect.

----------


## pcosmar

So can anyone tell me if Sony was punished for installing Rootkits on computers Illegally? 
Who went to Jail over that? 

Come On. We have so many that want to defend this Bull$#@!.
Why are not Sony Employees, Board members, Some one charged with this CRIME?

----------


## Matt Collins

> The RealNetworks DVD copy software was created so that users could back up their movies.
> The judge says the company can't do that.
> The judge is incorrect.


I haven't read the brief, but my understanding is that the judge has said that RealNet cannot do that because it breaks the CSS encryption to do so. According to the DMCA (look it up heh) one may not break any the encryption on "copyrighted" material.

----------


## torchbearer

> I haven't read the brief, but my understanding is that the judge has said that RealNet cannot do that because it breaks the CSS encryption to do so. According to the DMCA (look it up heh) one may not break any the encryption on "copyrighted" material.


Huh? So they can't offer software that allows you to backup dvds?
If they are to convert the video to realplayer codec, that have to decrypt it first.

----------


## Matt Collins

> If they are to convert the video to realplayer codec, that have to decrypt it first.


Exactly. And breaking that encryption is against the DMCA.

----------


## torchbearer

> Exactly. And breaking that encryption is against the DMCA.


then the DMCA steps over the bounds of property rights. sorry.

----------


## LibertyRevolution

Yeah, the problem lies with circumventing the encryption on the DVD, doing so is illegal. You as owner of the DVD can claim fair use on making a copy, but the software company cant use fair use to justify breaking the copyright encryption.

----------


## torchbearer

> Yeah, the problem lies with circumventing the encryption on the DVD, doing so is illegal. You as owner of the DVD can claim fair use on making a copy, but the software company cant use fair use to justify breaking the copyright encryption.


then every movie that is on any hard drive is there illegally.
some software company had to have a decoder.

----------


## pcosmar

> then the DMCA steps over the bounds of property rights. sorry.


That is my belief. Many share it.
http://www.defectivebydesign.org/
http://nodrm.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defective_by_Design

----------


## LibertyRevolution

my understanding is that media players software makers pay for rights to decoders for playback.

----------


## Matt Collins

> then every movie that is on any hard drive is there illegally.
> some software company had to have a decoder.


Bingo!




> then the DMCA steps over the bounds of property rights. sorry.


Pretty much correct.



Copy privilege law isn't the problem, it's all of the ancillary nonsense that goes with it. Technology evolves and the law adapts MUCH slower. But they want to turn the entire country into a police state in order to protect their limited monopoly.

----------


## torchbearer

> my understanding is that media players software makers pay for rights to decoders for playback.


and Real Player hasn't?
They've been able to playback DVDs for as long as I can remember.

----------

