Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 26th Aug 2011 22:06 UTC, submitted by Morgan
Legal And we have another contender for the stupidest technology-related lawsuit of 2011. Do you remember RealNetworks? The scourge of '90s web users? Lucky for us, their horrible media player is no longer a requirement on the web. Also lucky, for those of us who occasionally run into content encoded in any of Real's codecs, there's Real Alternative (download here). Well, apparently, RealNetworks is not happy with Real Alternative (download here), as the US company has completely destroyed the life of the Dutch maintainer of a website who dared to link to Real Alternative (download here).
Order by: Score:
Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Fri 26th Aug 2011 22:14 UTC
shmerl
Member since:
2010-06-08

All that just for linking?

By the way, mplayer can handle Real codecs nicely too.

Reply Score: 5

Not just linking
by danieldk on Fri 26th Aug 2011 22:19 UTC
danieldk
Member since:
2005-11-18

Fact: the guy hosted Real Alternative

http://calypso.tux.org/pipermail/xemacs-services/2007-September/000...

Judging from that message, he was also the developer of Real Alternative.

A cursory Google search shows that Real Alternative does not just implement RealPlayer compatibility, it actually contains Real Network's codecs.

If he didn't license the codec from Real Networks, he is violating copyrights.

Edit: the old website:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/3r83989

Edited 2011-08-26 22:31 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE: Not just linking
by Soulbender on Fri 26th Aug 2011 23:35 UTC in reply to "Not just linking"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Fact: the guy hosted Real Alternative


in 2007.

Judging from that message, he was also the developer of Real Alternative.


There's nothing in the message supporting your statement.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Not just linking
by morningtime on Sat 27th Aug 2011 22:12 UTC in reply to "Not just linking"
morningtime Member since:
2011-08-27

Both statements are wrong.

1. he hosted files on the German FreeNet system, which is a filehosting site, such as Tucows and many others

2. his link "filebuilds.edskes.net" was an A-record/CNAME of Freenet

3. he collected, and still does, latest releases of software, as we can see today on www.finalbuilds.com, which surely isn't a crime to do

4. he is not the developer of Real Alternative: the developers are the same as the team behind the K-Lite Codec Pack and Kazaa Lite, allegedly a bunch of Romanians / Eastern Europeans.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Not just linking
by danieldk on Sat 27th Aug 2011 22:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Not just linking"
danieldk Member since:
2005-11-18


1. he hosted files on the German FreeNet system, which is a filehosting site, such as Tucows and many others


Check the netcraft report of codecpack.nl. It was and is hosted on a server colocated at LeaseWeb, a Dutch colocator. As both the e-mail message and the archive.org cache indicates, the files were hosted on codecpack.nl. Hence, the files were hosted by a server in the Netherlands. Not in Germany.

3. he collected, and still does, latest releases of software, as we can see today on www.finalbuilds.com, which surely isn't a crime to do


It is, if it contains DLLs which he is not allowed to redistribute.

4. he is not the developer of Real Alternative: the developers are the same as the team behind the K-Lite Codec Pack and Kazaa Lite, allegedly a bunch of Romanians / Eastern Europeans.


That's certainly possible. However, he did announce new versions.

It's all smokes and mirrors. The people arguing this was just simple linking, and no hosting, have never shown any proof. This while all the evidence shows he hosted the files, and as such redistributes DLLs that were property of Real Networks.

At the same time, there is a whole lot of bad journalism without fact checking.

Edited 2011-08-27 22:46 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Not just linking
by howitzer86 on Sun 28th Aug 2011 19:28 UTC in reply to "Not just linking"
howitzer86 Member since:
2008-02-27

Now now, don't let the facts get in the way of good internet drama.

Reply Score: 2

you can also download it...
by legrimpeur on Fri 26th Aug 2011 22:19 UTC
legrimpeur
Member since:
2005-06-30

... here http://www.free-codecs.com/download/real_alternative.htm"

Edited 2011-08-26 22:20 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Good article
by void141 on Fri 26th Aug 2011 22:21 UTC
void141
Member since:
2011-08-26

But where can I get that Real Alternative? You got me interested now.

Reply Score: 17

RE: Good article
by umccullough on Fri 26th Aug 2011 22:37 UTC in reply to "Good article"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

But where can I get that Real Alternative? You got me interested now.


+1!

Where do I get this awesome download?

Reply Score: 7

RE: Good article
by delta0.delta0 on Sat 27th Aug 2011 03:09 UTC in reply to "Good article"
delta0.delta0 Member since:
2010-06-01

This article made me burst out laughing, brilliantly done, well done Thom.

Real Shit Networks, used by no one.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Good article
by j-kidd on Sun 28th Aug 2011 04:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Good article"
j-kidd Member since:
2005-07-06

Real Shit Networks, used by no one.


Unfortunately, for some unknown reasons, RMVB has been the de facto standard used by China and Hong Kong file sharers for the last 10+ years. That means more than 1.4 billions potential users around the world.

If you want to sell a digital media player in this market, RMVB support is as important as 1080p support.

Real Alternative wouldn't exist if those file sharers had a bit more sense.

Reply Score: 2

v Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Fri 26th Aug 2011 22:34 UTC
RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by Shannara on Fri 26th Aug 2011 22:41 UTC in reply to "Comment by ilovebeer"
Shannara Member since:
2005-07-06

Unfortunately, Tom didn't do research before posting this article ...

Bet he's really embarrassed now ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer
by Luis on Fri 26th Aug 2011 22:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ilovebeer"
Luis Member since:
2006-04-28

Well, to be fair, the site where the original article is published didn't do the necessary research when writing it. I don't think it's Thom's fault (he can't research to verify that every article linked to in osnews has all the correct information).

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 26th Aug 2011 22:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Doesn't change a thing, though. It's still an entirely idiotic overreaching response.

Just because the response may be legal does not mean I have to agree with it. Many people today have this inertia-induced idea that "people exist to serve the law", while in a decent society, it should be "laws exist to serve the people". This is clearly a case where things are going horribly wrong - and yes, I fully blame Real for that.

Reply Score: 23

RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer
by danieldk on Fri 26th Aug 2011 23:03 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer"
danieldk Member since:
2005-11-18

The article is incorrect, since it claims this was only about linking, while there is evidence that he was actually redistributing the software (which contains Real's proprietary codecs).

Apart from that, it's sad to see that the system is set up in such a manner that an individual cannot defend himself against a company without making enormous debts.

Edited 2011-08-26 23:04 UTC

Reply Score: 7

v RE[5]: Comment by ilovebeer
by Shannara on Sat 27th Aug 2011 02:47 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer"
RE[6]: Comment by ilovebeer
by JAlexoid on Sat 27th Aug 2011 03:20 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by ilovebeer"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Only in criminal cases you are given a state assigned attorney, this is a civil case.

Any fine should be detrimental, but not destructive to a person's livelihood.

Damages however in this case should be calculated in the form of lost income only.

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Comment by ilovebeer
by Shannara on Sat 27th Aug 2011 03:21 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by ilovebeer"
Shannara Member since:
2005-07-06

I fully agree

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer
by Soulbender on Fri 26th Aug 2011 23:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

This seems more like a case of "people should serve the company. All hail our glorious corporate leaders".

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Comment by ilovebeer
by phoudoin on Sun 28th Aug 2011 08:44 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

Aka worst cyberpunk forecast.

I blame Gibson for inception of the new century corporate power.
:-)

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer
by MacTO on Sat 27th Aug 2011 01:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer"
MacTO Member since:
2006-09-21

The law is serving "the people", it just happens to be a group of people who you don't agree with.

I agree that the legal system is fucked up. A legal system where one has to back down or take on enormous debts to defend themselves isn't really a justice system since it really boils down to might makes right.

But if Real Alternative is just copying the codec DLLs and if the accused party is only linking to them, the guy is still breaking the law because he is assisting and encouraging a crime. And if they go after him for that, well, that is the consequences of his actions. The only problem that I see is that the court system is wreaking havoc upon his life before judgement is even rendered.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Comment by ilovebeer
by Soulbender on Sat 27th Aug 2011 03:53 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

But if Real Alternative is just copying the codec DLLs and if the accused party is only linking to them, the guy is still breaking the law because he is assisting and encouraging a crime.


Really? That's the law? Where? If it's not in Holland it's irrelevant.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by ilovebeer
by Boldie on Sat 27th Aug 2011 18:14 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer"
Boldie Member since:
2007-03-26

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=www.free-codecs.com/download/r...

The above is a "I'm feeling lucky" search. Who is doing the evil linking now? Me? Osnews? Google?

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer
by redjujube on Sat 27th Aug 2011 06:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer"
redjujube Member since:
2011-08-27

Yes, laws exist to serve the people and in this case the law is serving the people who worked hard to develop the Real codec. Why should the law NOT serve those people? Why should the law instead serve the person who used Real's codec without permisssion? When are people going to get it through their thick friggin heads... theft of copyrighted materials/works is THEFT even if it's digital media or a codec? WTF is the matter with you people?

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by ilovebeer
by Alfman on Sat 27th Aug 2011 06:34 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

redjujube,

"When are people going to get it through their thick friggin heads... theft of copyrighted materials/works is THEFT even if it's digital media or a codec? WTF is the matter with you people?"

Tsk, tsk, tsk. People on osnews should know better than this...it's copyright infringement and not at all the same thing as theft. I can copy the mona lisa, or I can steal it. One is much worse than the other.


Edit: I just noticed that you are a new poster, so that's forgivable, but please try not to mix them up since many of us here do care about the semantics.

Edited 2011-08-27 06:40 UTC

Reply Score: 8

RE[5]: Comment by ilovebeer
by cmchittom on Sat 27th Aug 2011 12:28 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer"
cmchittom Member since:
2011-03-18

When are people going to get it through their thick friggin heads... theft of copyrighted materials/works is THEFT even if it's digital media or a codec? WTF is the matter with you people?


As I said over on Slashdot a while ago:[1]

I think we'll all benefit from calling a spade a spade: copyright infringement is not theft. That it is not theft does not mean that it's right—copyright infringement breaks the social contract between persons also, just in a different way from theft.

[1] http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2148376&cid=36105596

Reply Score: 7

RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer
by bfr99 on Sun 28th Aug 2011 13:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer"
bfr99 Member since:
2007-03-15

Doesn't change a thing, though. It's still an entirely idiotic overreaching response.

Just because the response may be legal does not mean I have to agree with it. Many people today have this inertia-induced idea that "people exist to serve the law", while in a decent society, it should be "laws exist to serve the people". This is clearly a case where things are going horribly wrong - and yes, I fully blame Real for that.

Broaden your horizons. There are those, perhaps many who believe the law is just and correct and are not merely passive.
A common logical fallacy is that those who disagree with oneself are somehow stupider, les informed, lazier or have some other flaw. Sometimes they merely disagree.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by umccullough on Fri 26th Aug 2011 22:47 UTC in reply to "Comment by ilovebeer"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

The guy took a risk and got in trouble. The victim in this case is Real Networks, not the guy who committed a crime against them. Don't lose sight of that fact.


Except, the guy did what he was asked to do, but RealNetworks are morons and didn't believe it:

"RealNetworks claims Edskes failed to remove the link to the software, and the reference in the DNS directories existed after February 12, 2010. However, the hosting provider checked backups and confirmed the removal of the link."

They proceeded to sue him anyway.

Nevermind that linking isn't distributing.

Edited 2011-08-26 22:50 UTC

Reply Score: 8

RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 26th Aug 2011 22:48 UTC in reply to "Comment by ilovebeer"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

It's all about fitting punishment. You don't destroy a person's life for something as silly as this. This is not a fitting punishment. I don't believe in eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.

I guess I'm from a different culture.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer
by bhtooefr on Fri 26th Aug 2011 22:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ilovebeer"
bhtooefr Member since:
2009-02-19

This isn't even an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

This is a limb for a minor cut.

Reply Score: 13

RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer
by M.Onty on Sat 27th Aug 2011 17:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer"
M.Onty Member since:
2009-10-23

... Or a pound of flesh, perhaps.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer
by Morgan on Sat 27th Aug 2011 08:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ilovebeer"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

That was my mindset when I submitted it. Why is this guy's life being destroyed over an intangible, and at this stage in RealNetworks' business plan, unprofitable product? They stopped supporting the version of the Real codec that Real Alternative uses a long time ago, and likely never really profited much on it in the past several years.

Yet they are causing an immense hardship to this young man, basically destroying his life, and even if they win they could never possibly collect damages from him as they have already bankrupted him in legal fees.

I don't care if he created Real Alternative, hosted it or just linked to it, none of those actions warrant the kind of gross financial destruction he has already suffered, before the trial is even over. I sincerely hope he wins and the judge orders RealNetworks to make him whole.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer
by steogede2 on Sat 27th Aug 2011 09:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ilovebeer"
steogede2 Member since:
2007-08-17

I don't believe in eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.


The whole point of "an eye for an eye", was to limit retribution - to have an even, fair and balanced justice system. There's nothing even, fair or balanced about what Real Networks are doing to this guy. It is amazing that he is accused of no crime (it is a civil case), but the impact on his life is worse than it would be if he had been convicted of a serious crime.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer
by No it isnt on Sat 27th Aug 2011 09:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ilovebeer"
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

Forcing him to use RealPlayer should be punishment enough.

Reply Score: 11

RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by JoeBuck on Fri 26th Aug 2011 23:22 UTC in reply to "Comment by ilovebeer"
JoeBuck Member since:
2006-01-11

Perhaps you had too much beer before you posted? Real does not allege that this person distributed software that infringes their rights. They allege that he published a link to a site that distributed it.

Reply Score: 2

v RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by Luminair on Sat 27th Aug 2011 01:45 UTC in reply to "Comment by ilovebeer"
RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by molnarcs on Sat 27th Aug 2011 05:07 UTC in reply to "Comment by ilovebeer"
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

Real Networks did not destroy this persons life. He took a risk by redistributing their codec without a license to do so, which is a crime. Real Networks, well within their rights, opted to use legal channels to protect their property. I don't see a problem here. Is the offenders age supposed to give him a magical pass from obeying copyright laws? Are some peoples apparent dislike for Real Networks supposed to somehow make Real Networks immune from legal protection of their products?

The guy took a risk and got in trouble. The victim in this case is Real Networks, not the guy who committed a crime against them. Don't lose sight of that fact.


My god, I can't believe people think like you! I mean come on! Are you saying he deserves this? That his (and his family's) life should be destroyed because copyright violations? Are you nuts? What a corporate whore...

Reply Score: 8

RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by Fergy on Sat 27th Aug 2011 18:09 UTC in reply to "Comment by ilovebeer"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

Real Networks did not destroy this persons life. He took a risk by redistributing their codec without a license to do so, which is a crime. Real Networks, well within their rights, opted to use legal channels to protect their property. I don't see a problem here. Is the offenders age supposed to give him a magical pass from obeying copyright laws? Are some peoples apparent dislike for Real Networks supposed to somehow make Real Networks immune from legal protection of their products?

The guy took a risk and got in trouble. The victim in this case is Real Networks, not the guy who committed a crime against them. Don't lose sight of that fact.

I think these kind of offenses should be punished by a fine that fits the crime. Now I think this 'crime' is less harmful to society than riding a bicycle without proper lights.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by plague on Sat 27th Aug 2011 23:59 UTC in reply to "Comment by ilovebeer"
plague Member since:
2006-05-08

So a big company with millions of dollars, who sue a twenty-something guy into oblivion because he linked to a website containing an alternative to their absolutely horrible codec, which they by the way used to try to get a monopoly during the 90's, is actually the victim? Yeah, suuuuuure, and pink elephants fly up in the clouds too.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Sun 28th Aug 2011 00:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ilovebeer"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

So a big company with millions of dollars, who sue a twenty-something guy into oblivion because he linked to a website containing an alternative to their absolutely horrible codec, which they by the way used to try to get a monopoly during the 90's, is actually the victim? Yeah, suuuuuure, and pink elephants fly up in the clouds too.

Yes, Real Networks is the victim in this case. It doesn't matter that they're a company and whatever financial resources they have is completely irrelevant. Neither of those things changes the FACT that they are the victim, not the criminal.

And as I said earlier, Real Networks was neither the ruling judge in this case, nor responsible for the sentencing. If you want to whine about some kind of pretend injustice you think happened, take it up with your lawmakers and more specifically, the ruling judge. The only thing Real Networks did was file a lawsuit -- something well within their legal rights to do. End of story.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer
by Luminair on Tue 30th Aug 2011 16:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer"
Luminair Member since:
2007-03-30

and you're being immoral

Reply Score: 2

That guy received what he deserved
by Alex Hitech on Fri 26th Aug 2011 23:02 UTC
Alex Hitech
Member since:
2005-12-29

Totally agree with a comment posted earlier. The guy knew beforehand that he was going to deal with something defended by copyright. He started his work anyway and achieved something that could hurt the company that owns the intellectual property. Obviously, the company does not like to lose money and IP.

When you consciously pull a stick that holds a stone in place you agree to be hurt by that stone. That guy totally deserves everything happened to him.

Reply Score: 0

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Just saw in your OSNews bio you like BeOS, SkyOS, and *NIX flavours. I also saw in your bio you work for IBM.

About 99% chance that BeOS, SkyOS, or any of the *NIX flavours you claim to like violates patents owned by IBM. Would you support IBM totally destroying the developers coding Haiku in their free time? Or would that be different?

I'm just curious.

Reply Score: 1

Alex Hitech Member since:
2005-12-29

Well, actually I didn't update my profile for a long time. Since August 22, 2009 I'm working for Microsoft.

I discourage infringing of patents, strongly believe in intellectual property and think that copyright is good. Actually, if anyone actively, consciously and by his own will infringes the property rights of any other developer, never mind a private person or an organization, he should be ready for fight - and, in my opinion, must be sentenced to punishment.

Reply Score: 1

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

There are so many conflicting stories here.... frankly I can't tell which is true!

If he was merely linking, well there's nothing morally wrong with that. I doubt there's anything even legally wrong with it either.

If he distributed a clone without violating copyrights or patents, there's nothing wrong or illegal with that.

If he distributed an independent clone which infringed software patents only, he's morally in the clear, but the law's an ass (he may be liable for "damages" caused by his clone).

If he distributed an unlicensed copy of real software codec, then he's both morally and legally wrong.

If this is about "real alternative" violating a real networks trademark, my personal opinion is that real networks customers won't be confused, but I guess it could go either way.


Who knows anymore, these days corporations can use the law for intimidation even if nothing illegal was done. And with judicial incompetency being at an all time, particularly around technology, nobody knows how they'll rule.

Reply Score: 3

cmchittom Member since:
2011-03-18

It's rare enough that I find a comment in a discussion online with which I completely and totally agree, that I thought it was worth mentioning. Well said. ;)

Reply Score: 1

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

They didn't let "a hardware patent" be ignored, they fought compaq in court and failed. it wasn't just "a hardware patent" Compaq had reverse engineered the frigging original BIOS.

IBM didn't let anything go, they lost horrifically, and that allowed the PC to take over the world.

Reply Score: 4

viton Member since:
2005-08-09

Every experienced programmer infringes a thousands of patents every year. There is no way around

Edited 2011-08-27 12:07 UTC

Reply Score: 5

l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

Your boss must be really proud ;) [edit: referring to "I'm working for Microsoft."]

Anyway, this story seems a total mess. But if they asked him to remove links, and he complied, then suing him was over the line and stupid. Apart from all the theoretical (c) infringement, IP protection and whatnot else. Real video/audio/player all are a thing of the past anyway, nobody is going to sympathize with them. Well, except maybe some other companies who see their magnificent products surpassed by others (yes, I'm going too far here, but just take a look at comments above, it goes both ways) and can't do else but sue, and then not even the creators, but some who link to it? Doesn't get any more stupid than that.

Edited 2011-08-27 14:32 UTC

Reply Score: 2

sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

Well, FYI, this makes you the lowest possible form of scum.

A blind faith in the law is the worst kind of stupidity. Stupid laws should be willfully violated by everyone at all times. In fact, this is pretty much the norm everywhere. Only people who are mentally broken or deeply sick believe in laws over people. There are a lot of you about, I'll admit, and that's surely a problem.

Okay, mod me down for being mean. Go ahead, I can take it.

Reply Score: 3

boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

Simply believing that a given legal regime is working or is a social benefit does not constitute "blind faith in law." Believing that a given legal regime is a good thing because it was arbitrarily already the law would be, but that's not what he said; he believes copyright protections are a good thing because of the effect they have.

I share your frustration with the flaws in copyright law, but I believe in rule of law as a public good, and I think the system we have works more than it doesn't.

Reply Score: 2

cmchittom Member since:
2011-03-18

Stupid laws should be willfully violated by everyone at all times.


What are your moral and/or philosophical grounds for this statement? I ask because, while I agree that there are many stupid laws, I tend to believe that one is only justified in willfully violating them when they directly infringe someone's natural rights.

Reply Score: 1

Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Well said! Stupid laws do exist, but so do good laws that are then twisted into evil use. It is the duty of the people to come together and change laws that violate the rights of the people for no reason. Sadly, in my country and abroad the bad laws tend to stay in effect and the good laws are struck down too often.

To put it another way, we are only as free as we allow ourselves to be, and we're often too lazy or ambivalent to care.

Reply Score: 2

sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

"Stupid laws should be willfully violated by everyone at all times.


What are your moral and/or philosophical grounds for this statement?
"

Speaking purely practically, it can be shown via a lengthy and involved process that laws which everyone violates should not exist (details are tedious, I'm sure you can work it out). I therefore conclude that if we each violate those laws we dislike the ones which wind up violated by everyone are the actual bad ones and should be removed. Of course, you run certain risks in operating this way.

Philosophically I do not believe in the supremacy of anyone else over myself, and I think that nobody else should, either. Unless you can prove beyond doubt that other people exist and are more important than you, only your own opinion matters (for what else is there?) A debate on the philosophical correctness of this conclusion, and on whether or not it is a necessary premise for the rest, would be interesting to me if you want to attempt it.

You should, of course, not close your mind, but instead seek to understand everything and figure out why things exist and what its worth is. If, after such consideration, you find that you have a problem with a law and see no value in it, or such limited value that its existence is not justified, then you had best violate it. You are the final authority on everything that exists because you cannot prove anything or anyone else being truer or more correct than yourself. Do you cede to a third party your innate authority as the only being who is, for all practical purposes, certain to exist? I hope you do not.

Morality is based on many things but is ultimately a decision that you make. You choose your sources of information, you choose your values and you thus choose your morals. Let no man impose upon you anything to which you do not consent; that would be Wrong. If you believe that someone is imposing something on you which is not in your interests or does not align with your beliefs you must either choose freely to consent to it or must act against it. Most of us will mostly choose to consent to the things which are socially normal in our society, because deviation from all social norms is quite difficult on a practical level. On certain matters we will occasionally choose not to consent.

I hope this clarifies for you the thinking that lead me to make my original statement. You said you agreed with it; do you also have a philosophical justification for doing so? I would be interesting in hearing it and comparing it with my own.

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Do you know of any proof that he is the one who crated and distributes Real Alternative? Linking is not distributing.
Besides, he did remove it as they requested and they still went ahead? That's just being assholes but I guess when absolutely no-one uses your product anymore you get a bit desperate.

Reply Score: 4

Icaria Member since:
2010-06-19

He started his work anyway and achieved something that could hurt the company that owns the intellectual property.


Real Player is a free download, Real make their money off licensing the technology to produce Real content, much like Adobe's Flash. Real Alternative is a repackaging of the codecs provided in the free download, minus the bullshit. Technically illegal but there's no realistic scenario in which this would 'hurt' Real; if anything, having a Real player that people don't detest helps them.

Reply Score: 3

Says it all, doesn't it?
by vitae on Fri 26th Aug 2011 23:18 UTC
vitae
Member since:
2006-02-20

"The software is available at many locations. The documents seen by Webwereld also show that the company is unaware of who the real creator of Real Alternative is"

Reply Score: 4

Come on, Guys
by churlish_Helmut on Fri 26th Aug 2011 23:46 UTC
churlish_Helmut
Member since:
2010-04-12

Come on... No One can be happy with this!

I mean. actually, when he striked again intellectual property, he needs to get an punishment.

Well, look what he has done: He took something from Real Networks. So what its the Damage? It can't be really high, because RealNetworks doesn't make much money and Real Alternative is an small unpopular program... Summa summarum no damage.

I believe in Eye for eye, tooth for tooth... which means: He should be sentenced to social work or something.

I mean this case is something like this: Stealing the lollipop from a child. A small case of thievery ... But was the court do? Cutting off his hand for this ...

I mean, come on: what is the relation between the action and the punishment?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Come on, Guys
by Alex Hitech on Fri 26th Aug 2011 23:51 UTC in reply to "Come on, Guys"
Alex Hitech Member since:
2005-12-29

Shouldn't the first punishment prevent from performing the second crime?

If not, what's the purpose in punishment at all?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Come on, Guys
by churlish_Helmut on Sat 27th Aug 2011 00:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Come on, Guys"
churlish_Helmut Member since:
2010-04-12

Well, it depends on what you do. If someone a murderer, he definitely should be punished to prison for lifetime at the first time.

But if you are an responsible person, an did some minor crime, you get something like an suspended sentence.

In this case, he is sentenced like an murderer by ruining his life by doing a minor crime... in my humble opinion.


Well and yes. I heard too they did something like this in saudi-arabia. I do not want to goof on the Saudi Arabian justice system, so this is a point.
Is that the same in the Dutch, Thom?

Edited 2011-08-27 00:14 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Come on, Guys
by phoudoin on Sun 28th Aug 2011 08:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Come on, Guys"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

For a punishment, first you need justice to decide it.
I'm not sure, but does the Justice ruled anything yet here?

If not, there is no ground for any punishment *yet*.
But corporates these days use their money to *threat* people, by ruining their life, without needed to have actual legal decision agreeing with their point: simply because sueing act will ruin people who can't afford the cost to defend themself.

I don't for you, but a society where you don't need to be right or even the justice to rule a decision but just big money to actually make *your* point alone against someone is not a fair society.

Whatever this guy did (or did not), it deserves the exact same access to fair justice. When the Justice, not RealNetworks laywers, will say he's culprit, here the punishment, then that could be called punishement, made on behalf of people (not RealNetworks) to the culprit.


Corporates instruments Justice now. It's no more justice, it's racket, revenge, abuse, it's "Take down or we'll ruin you in defense cost, even if we lost in the ends".

Justice is not that. It's not a personal tool for the few ones who can afford it.
Call it corporate justice, but not Justice.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Come on, Guys
by Elv13 on Fri 26th Aug 2011 23:52 UTC in reply to "Come on, Guys"
Elv13 Member since:
2006-06-12

Yea, in Saudi Arabia, they would actually cut your hand for that.

Reply Score: 3

I didn't realize people still use Real
by NeoX on Sat 27th Aug 2011 00:17 UTC
NeoX
Member since:
2006-02-19

Wow, I stopped using their piece of junk software in the 90's. If I do rarely come across a site that relies on it, I close my browser and never return to that site. :-)

Reply Score: 7

Comment by mappy
by mappy on Sat 27th Aug 2011 01:08 UTC
mappy
Member since:
2010-06-02

RealAlternative does contain the binary blobs from the official distribution, as well as the Gabest splitter for doing .rmvb via DirectShow. It works well, but it's become less popular now that Kostya has a reverse-engineered RV40 decoder in the ffmpeg trunk (and hence into mplayer, VLC et al). It's similar to the "Binary Codecs Package" that mplayer distributes (in fact, they even contain the same offending .dll's).

H.264 is pretty much superior to RV40 in every way; RealVideo is in fact based on an early incomplete draft of H.264, and it's said to contain some glaring bitstream errors that they've had to maintain compatibility with since its release, seriously hurting compression efficiency. A nice point about Real, though, is that at low bitrates RealVideo becomes heavily biased towards blurring rather than blocking, making it suitable for low-detail content (cartoons, old anime). H.264 still wins though.

One way this problem could have been avoided, would have been to release RealAlternative as a sort of downloader-patcher that acquired the official installer and extracted the necessary binaries on the fly - sort of like how Linux distributions get around the problem of mscorefonts-ttf by using that installer package

Edited 2011-08-27 01:09 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Sat 27th Aug 2011 01:27 UTC
ilovebeer
Member since:
2011-08-08

Real Networks is not at fault for protecting their interests whether its by warning or legal action. Real Networks is the victim of a crime, not the criminal. They are also not the ruling judge in this case and are not responsible for any punishment applied to the convicted.

If you have a problem with the punishment, it's something to address with law makers, not the victim. It's insane that anyone is suggesting Real Networks is at fault in any way, shape, or form. Or, to blame.

There's a reason the court sided in support of the copyright holder rather then the person who violated it.

Reply Score: 0

The Bigger Question is...
by tidux on Sat 27th Aug 2011 02:04 UTC
tidux
Member since:
2011-08-13

Who still uses RealPlayer in 2011?

Reply Score: 5

RE: The Bigger Question is...
by neticspace on Sat 27th Aug 2011 02:15 UTC in reply to "The Bigger Question is..."
neticspace Member since:
2009-06-09

My gut feeling tells me that RealNetworks keeps maintaining Rhapsody as its main business direction.

Reply Score: 3

RE: The Bigger Question is...
by Neolander on Sat 27th Aug 2011 07:24 UTC in reply to "The Bigger Question is..."
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

You need it to listen to emissions on the website of the French public radio broadcaster Radio France.

My mother uses that, and the Real plugin breaks and requires a reinstall on every single Firefox update. Very annoying.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: The Bigger Question is...
by Alfman on Sat 27th Aug 2011 07:58 UTC in reply to "RE: The Bigger Question is..."
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Neolander,

"My mother uses that, and the Real plugin breaks and requires a reinstall on every single Firefox update. Very annoying."

I have the nightly developer build of firefox which updates itself every day. And every single build of firefox breaks every single plugin, unless the author releases a plugin for that specific version it is automatically disabled by firefox.

Maybe there's a reason for this which I am not aware of? But my impression is that version controls are poorly engineered with regards to the way that firefox handles plugins. They should not be so fragile. If the API is compatible, the plugins should work regardless of version - I know you covered this in your OS papers.

To mozilla's credit they've put alot of work into the plugin auto upgrade mechanism, but if I were a plugin dev I'd be upset that plugins need to be updated so often in the first place.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: The Bigger Question is...
by Neolander on Sat 27th Aug 2011 08:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The Bigger Question is..."
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Well, for add-ons they plan to do something for Firefox 9 : https://wiki.mozilla.org/Features/Add-ons/Add-ons_Default_to_Compati...

But if you're talking about NPAPI plug-ins, like Real, Flash, and Java, I'm a bit surprised by this statement. Never played with nightlies for extended periods, but for Firefox Stable, I've almost always seen Flash and Java work perfectly after an update, at least on Win and OSX. (On Linux, Firefox 5 and 6 disable Flash on the behalf of a false claim that it is outdated, so I'm stuck with FF4)

Edited 2011-08-27 08:44 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: The Bigger Question is...
by Alfman on Sat 27th Aug 2011 09:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: The Bigger Question is..."
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Neolander,

"Well, for add-ons they plan to do something for Firefox 9"

This is great news! But firefox 9??? It's been a major problem since firefox 3.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: The Bigger Question is...
by Neolander on Sat 27th Aug 2011 11:10 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: The Bigger Question is..."
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Well, Mozilla have taken a big heap of decisions recently, and the decision to have a rapid release cycle makes add-on compatibility pretty much a necessity.

As for why it happens so late after they have taken the decision, I think that's because they give add-on developers some time to get ready. Firefox 9 may sound big, but with the new release cycle it's only a few months away...

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: The Bigger Question is...
by tidux on Tue 30th Aug 2011 21:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: The Bigger Question is..."
tidux Member since:
2011-08-13

Are you running Flash 11? If not, it really is outdated. If it's 64-bit, even more so.

Reply Score: 1

RE: The Bigger Question is...
by Stephen! on Sat 27th Aug 2011 08:44 UTC in reply to "The Bigger Question is..."
Stephen! Member since:
2007-11-24

Who still uses RealPlayer in 2011?


I still use it occasionally, although only the Linux version and RealPlayer Enterprise, which doesn't have the adverts.

Reply Score: 1

Streisand effect
by JAlexoid on Sat 27th Aug 2011 03:03 UTC
JAlexoid
Member since:
2009-05-19

Going for the Streisand effect are we?

Reply Score: 3

(download here)
by abimanyu on Sat 27th Aug 2011 03:05 UTC
abimanyu
Member since:
2011-08-08

(download here) very very funny

Reply Score: 2

I just don't get it Thom
by Berend de Boer on Sat 27th Aug 2011 06:56 UTC
Berend de Boer
Member since:
2005-10-19

Thom, please explain:

1. Google gets a $500,000 fine because it displays ads with medication, and you think that's great.

2. Someone steals someone else's code, and the sky is falling.

I just don't see the consistency.

Reply Score: 3

RE: I just don't get it Thom
by Neolander on Sat 27th Aug 2011 07:36 UTC in reply to "I just don't get it Thom"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Perhaps it makes more sense if said another way.

1. A mega-corporation helps the economy of the US sink even further by allowing people to buy drugs without paying the regular fee to the state. It has to pay a small fraction of its ridiculously high benefits as a punishment.

2. A young individual links to an alternate implementation of a crappy AV codec from the dark ages of the internet. He loses all of his computers, more than a year of revenues, and his independence from his family (in the form of the house he was planning to buy and the ability to sustain himself financially without borrowing).

Disproportionate retribution much ?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: I just don't get it Thom
by Alfman on Sat 27th Aug 2011 08:43 UTC in reply to "RE: I just don't get it Thom"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Neolander,

"Disproportionate retribution much ?"

Not to defend the crime, but man versus corporation is not really balanced.

Morally it seems that harm to a person is greater than harm to a corporation. It's true that the corporation is formed on behalf of shareholders who may be people (or recursively other corporations...), but legally shareholders/employees are independent non-responsible entities.

I'm not so sure it's ethically right to entitle corporations the same rights as individuals (as in the US). In the biological sense, a corporation doesn't have a home, it doesn't have a family or dependents, it doesn't have to worry about educating itself, it doesn't have to worry about getting a new job if it gets shut down, it doesn't get sick...

Corporations shield the employees/owners/etc who committed the acts from any liability. So even the exact same legal punishment wielded against a man and a corporation have entirely different repercussions.

It's not really fair that between two men who've committed the same crime, one as an individual, the other behind a corporation, only the individual risks loosing his home and personal assets.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: I just don't get it Thom
by Neolander on Sat 27th Aug 2011 08:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I just don't get it Thom"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Actually, I think that part of this could be addressed if the fines were defined as a percentage of each person or entity's revenue, just like some taxes are.

500k€ is nothing for Google, it's a crazy lot for a single individual.

On the other hand, if you ask a megacorp to put 10% of its revenue on the table, then chances are that shareholders will actually make sure something is done.

Edited 2011-08-27 08:49 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: I just don't get it Thom
by Alfman on Sat 27th Aug 2011 08:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I just don't get it Thom"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

I suppose you could make the punishment proportional to the company size (I have to think about that one).

But still a corporation can distribute it's wealth to owners (which can be another corp) only to keep small operating cash on hand.

Therefor, if the corporation is liable for a $1M payout and an individual is liable for a $200K payout. The corporation could declare bankruptcy and the owners who committed the crime could walk away. The individual who committed the same crime would loose his house, savings accounts, investments, etc.

In the US a corporation is considered it's own legal entity. Owners are not responsible for it's debts.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: I just don't get it Thom
by Neolander on Sat 27th Aug 2011 11:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I just don't get it Thom"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Yup, have to think about that some more.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: I just don't get it Thom
by danieldk on Sat 27th Aug 2011 10:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I just don't get it Thom"
danieldk Member since:
2005-11-18

Actually, I think that part of this could be addressed if the fines were defined as a percentage of each person or entity's revenue, just like some taxes are.


That would be crazy. Suppose I have virtually no income, and distribute Photoshop with license keys on my server. It would suddenly be very interesting for people to put copies of photoshop on their servers.

I agree there is something wrong in how the system treats individuals and small parties. But I am not sure that this is the solution.

It would, maybe, be more interesting to look at the actual loss. What is the loss if a million people download Photoshop, who could not afford to buy it in the first place?

What is the loss when somebody downloads twenty albums per month, when he only has the budget to buy five (and does so)?

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: I just don't get it Thom
by Neolander on Sat 27th Aug 2011 11:07 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I just don't get it Thom"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

If you have virtually no income, then you can't afford a server to put Photoshop on and its internet connection, I think.

The idea of proportional punishment is to make wrongdoers suffer in a similar way for a similar issue, regardless or how rich their are. You're right that it's not the only way to achieve this result. Prison sentences are another way. And as much as I hate this methodology, cutting home internet connections is "fair" too. It's a big loss for pretty much everyone nowadays.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: I just don't get it Thom
by Radio on Sat 27th Aug 2011 13:00 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I just don't get it Thom"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

"Actually, I think that part of this could be addressed if the fines were defined as a percentage of each person or entity's revenue, just like some taxes are.


That would be crazy.
"Well, europeans are crazy then:
http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-01-11/news/17823924_1_mph-limit-spe...

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: I just don't get it Thom
by JAlexoid on Sat 27th Aug 2011 15:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I just don't get it Thom"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Like the following
[quote]Anssi Vanjoki, 44, has been ordered to pay a fine of 116,000 euros ($103,600) after being caught breaking the speed limit on his Harley Davidson motorbike in the capital, Helsinki, in October last year.
...
In Finland, traffic fines are proportionate to the latest available data on an offender's income.[/quote]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1759791.stm

There should be minimal amounts, but not max.

Just like the TopGear presenters said on TV that they wouldn't even bother getting out of speeding tickets in California and just break the limit; in response to news that in California speeding fines are ridiculously low.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: I just don't get it Thom
by steogede2 on Sat 27th Aug 2011 10:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I just don't get it Thom"
steogede2 Member since:
2007-08-17

Not to defend the crime, but man versus corporation is not really balanced.


Just a reminder, this is a civil case. One of the reasons that most civilised countries provide public defenders in criminal cases is in recognition that the state is much more powerful and has more resources than te individual. Providing a public defender/legal aid protects the individuals right to a fair trial. Unfortunately few countries (I can't think of any*) offer the right to a fair trial in civil cases.

To everyone who says he 'stole' their IP: please remember that if he were accused of a crime then (in most civilised countries) the state would first decide if the prosecution was in the public interest. Then the state would provide him with a fair trial, including the means to defend himself. Then if he was convicted, the punishment would be proportionate to the crime.

This case is not in the in the interest of Real Network or their shareholders - except to make a scapegoat of this man. They can't win (financially speaking) - he can barely afford his own costs, if he loses he won't be able to pay them damages, he won't be able to pay their legal fees and he won't be able to pay the court costs. In my opinion this is malicious use of the courts.

Thom, I suspect the original article is wrong when it states that, if he loses, he would be required to pay Real Networks costs and that he would have to pay upto 210,000 EUR in fines. Is suspect that the court has the power to require him to pay the plaintiff costs and the court costs and they can impose damages of upto 210,000 EUR (paid to Real Networks). However, cases like this (which deal with something a trivial as a link), might attract "contemptuous damages" - i.e. Real Networks win and are awarded (say) a cent in damages and no costs.


* We do sort of do it a little in the UK, but only in certain cases, such as providing legal aid to claimants in medical negligence cases (where the defendants will be the NHS or heavily insured physicians).

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: I just don't get it Thom
by JAlexoid on Sat 27th Aug 2011 15:32 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I just don't get it Thom"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

One main thing to remember - this is a case in a court of Civil legal system. The judge will only use a very specific article or even a section of an article of a law to make his decision.

Reply Score: 3

RE: I just don't get it Thom
by steogede2 on Sat 27th Aug 2011 09:13 UTC in reply to "I just don't get it Thom"
steogede2 Member since:
2007-08-17

There's no point explaining it, if you had the capacity to understand it, you wouldn't need it explained to you.

Reply Score: 1

RE: I just don't get it Thom
by SaschaW on Sat 27th Aug 2011 18:13 UTC in reply to "I just don't get it Thom"
SaschaW Member since:
2007-07-19

Thom, please explain:

1. Google gets a $500,000 fine because it displays ads with medication, and you think that's great.

2. Someone steals someone else's code, and the sky is falling.

I just don't see the consistency.


Google is a large corporation. $500mi is pocket change to them. That's like a speeding ticket for average Joe.

In this case however it's destroying a human beings life, and for what? It's disgusting!

Reply Score: 2

RE: I just don't get it Thom
by narcissus on Sat 27th Aug 2011 22:58 UTC in reply to "I just don't get it Thom"
narcissus Member since:
2005-07-06

You missed a few zeros there, it's $500,000,000.00

Reply Score: 1

v Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Sat 27th Aug 2011 16:09 UTC
RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by Alfman on Sat 27th Aug 2011 17:29 UTC in reply to "Comment by ilovebeer"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

"So... People would rather defend & protect the criminal than the victim simply because the victim is a company. Amazing... "

Straw man.

"Try to comprehend the idea that laws and punishments are put in place to discourage illegal behavior and activities. If you are dumb enough to risk massive financial loss, potential jail time, and whatever else, just to steal and redistribute legally protected software, well..... Don't expect much sympathy."

Nobody stole anything, they *copied* it.

If I break into your home and steal your work, that's entirely different than copying it since the copy doesn't deprive you of the original.

Copyright law exists precisely because copying is not theft which would be covered under existing property law.

Nobody said he should not be punished for illegal activity, but that the punishment should fit the crime.

Edited 2011-08-27 17:33 UTC

Reply Score: 3

v RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer
by Alex Hitech on Sat 27th Aug 2011 17:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ilovebeer"
RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 27th Aug 2011 17:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

According to laws of several countries, e.g. Russia and Israel, theft is illegal obtaining of the goods. The legal owner may even not know that something was stolen. For example, imagine a warehouse with loose documentation - no-one knows what is stored there; and there's no way to find out if anything is missing; nevertheless, illegally obtaining something from that warehouse is still theft.

Therefore, illegal copying is theft.


And I should give a fcuk about Israel and Russia, why, exactly? Are you telling me their laws apply to us as well? Wtf?

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer
by Alex Hitech on Sat 27th Aug 2011 18:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer"
Alex Hitech Member since:
2005-12-29

And I should give a fcuk about Israel and Russia, why, exactly? Are you telling me their laws apply to us as well? Wtf?


I'm merely saying that, unless laws explicitly state something else, theft is illegal obtaining. Theft is unapproved possessing. Without any concern if the legal owner still holds the original.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by ilovebeer
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 27th Aug 2011 18:17 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

theft is illegal obtaining


Uhm, no.

The only law that matters here is the Dutch one, which states:

"Hij die enig goed dat geheel of ten dele aan een ander toebehoort wegneemt, met het oogmerk om het zich wederrechtelijk toe te eigenen, wordt, als schuldig aan diefstal, gestraft met gevangenisstraf van ten hoogste 4 jaren of geldboete van de vierde categorie."

Sorry.

Edited 2011-08-27 18:17 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by ilovebeer
by MOS6510 on Sat 27th Aug 2011 18:58 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by ilovebeer"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Wist je dat je geen pennen kan stelen van je werkgever? Dat is geen diefstal, maar ontvreemding. Je mag namelijk een pen pakken, gebruiken, maar niet tot je eigen bezit gaan rekenen. Beetje het zelfde als boodschappen doen, daar mag je ook alles pakken en in je wagentje stoppen.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by ilovebeer
by Doc Pain on Sun 28th Aug 2011 06:46 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

I'm merely saying that, unless laws explicitly state something else, theft is illegal obtaining. Theft is unapproved possessing.


That's a contradiction, because possessing is the result of obtaining. Without first obtaining something, no matter by which means, you can't possess it (unless you invented or created it). So theft is the act of illegal obtaining, not its result.

Maybe one of those handy guides can be used for clarification:

http://mybroadband.co.za/photos/data/500/piracy1.png

http://burnabrain.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/piracy-a-hand...

http://classicfun.ws/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Piracy-is-not-theft...

Without any concern if the legal owner still holds the original.


A further problem of theft is that it includes the concept that the original (i. e. the thing that gets stolen) is removed from the legal owner. It is quite hard to translate this concept to immaterial things, such as software (of which one could make an illegal copy), or even more abstract things like intellectual property (which one could infringe upon).

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by ilovebeer
by WereCatf on Sun 28th Aug 2011 09:15 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by ilovebeer"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

A further problem of theft is that it includes the concept that the original (i. e. the thing that gets stolen) is removed from the legal owner. It is quite hard to translate this concept to immaterial things, such as software (of which one could make an illegal copy), or even more abstract things like intellectual property (which one could infringe upon).


For some reason that is really hard for many people to grasp. "Theft" by very literal definition means removing something from someone else without permission and then keeping it for yourself; the person who originally had that something now no longer has access to it. In this case a clear loss of property has happened.

Unauthorized reproduction or copying is exactly that: an act where a duplicate is made without the permission of the owner of the original, he however still has access to the original and can continue to use it as before. In this case there has been no loss of property, only possibly a loss of income that could've otherwise been made. However, it's only a possibility, there's still no saying the parties who obtained the unauthorized copy would've bought it anyways if they couldn't have access to the unauthorized copy.

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Comment by ilovebeer
by Doc Pain on Sun 28th Aug 2011 10:58 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by ilovebeer"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

For some reason that is really hard for many people to grasp. "Theft" by very literal definition means removing something from someone else without permission and then keeping it for yourself; the person who originally had that something now no longer has access to it. In this case a clear loss of property has happened.


Your interpretation is valid, if you understand theft as the removal of control, e. g. how a piece of software gets distributed. This is a common problem anybody may face when releasing stuff online.

It's also valid to see theft as removal of income; I should say possible income here, as this may be a problem for some legislature: How to you prove you've lost something you never had, or that you will be losing it in the future? "Because of the thief, I could not sell 5000 copies, I could only sell 5 copies, so 4995 copies could not be sold." It may be a law-specific problem to prove that. In fact, there are some situations when the pure claim of possible loss is a sufficient proof (e. g. in german law where big companies can relativate their income prediction minus real income with tax payments).

The act of copying is also worth mentioning. Authorisation of such a copying process may be an issue, e. g. if the originator of a piece of software states that it is not allowed to mirror the download. However, not stating this explicitely will not neccessarily imply the opposite. It's also typical for stuff across the Internet to appear where it can be downloaded "elsewhere" - which is quite typical for (expensive) commercial software, but applies to software in general.

I think this also depends on local law primarily on how such cases are interpreted.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by ilovebeer
by Soulbender on Mon 29th Aug 2011 20:30 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by ilovebeer"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

For some reason that is really hard for many people to grasp.


Not at all, it is very simple to grasp. There are a lot of people who do not want to grasp it though.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by ilovebeer
by JAlexoid on Sun 28th Aug 2011 18:11 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

And even in case of Russia you are incorrect. Copyright infringement is not theft in Russia.(There is an explanation of the term by the Russian Supreme Court)
There is no legal concept of IP in a lot of countries, BTW.

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Comment by ilovebeer
by kristoph on Sun 28th Aug 2011 18:36 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by ilovebeer"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

IP laws are an absolute PITA in the US and yet, there is more venture dollars in the US then in the EU combined.

Maybe there is a correlation?

]{

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer
by Alfman on Sat 27th Aug 2011 19:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Alex Hitech,

"Therefore, illegal copying is theft."

"I'm merely saying that, unless laws explicitly state something else, theft is illegal obtaining. Theft is unapproved possessing. Without any concern if the legal owner still holds the original."

So, if I walked into an art gallery and took unauthorized photographs of a work, this is equivalent to actually stealing the work itself? To claim both are the same is ignorant.

I honestly don't know what it's like in Israel, but I'm guessing your stretching the truth there too. Can anyone else vouch that Israeli law treats physical theft identically to copyright violations?

"The legal owner may even not know that something was stolen. For example, imagine a warehouse with loose documentation - no-one knows what is stored there; and there's no way to find out if anything is missing"

How the hell are you going to file a police report if you don't know if anything is missing?


Not a single one of us has claimed that people shouldn't be prosecuted for copyright violation, so quit trying to use that angle to support your self righteousness.

Reply Score: 3

Go Thom
by weebnuts on Sat 27th Aug 2011 16:09 UTC
weebnuts
Member since:
2011-05-11

I like your gutsy move there, also I completely agree on Quicktime for Windows, what crap both of those are! Media Player classic and Real Alternative if you absolutely have to play any stupid RealMedia files is the way to go.

Reply Score: 1

v Thom is an Dutch Kook
by jefro on Sat 27th Aug 2011 16:31 UTC
RE: Thom is an Dutch Kook
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 27th Aug 2011 16:49 UTC in reply to "Thom is an Dutch Kook"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Hint. When you know you may be in violation of Socialist Dutch laws and a lawyer from a big company sends you a letter you need to think. Do I have the right and the money to fight? If so continue. If stupid continue. If you have stupid people that can also do stupid stuff then let them write an article on osnews.com

Then complain about everyone else.


If smart, take the code out and pull the plug.


And now in English?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Thom is an Dutch Kook
by Morgan on Mon 29th Aug 2011 00:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Thom is an Dutch Kook"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Now now, Thom! You've said yourself that OSNews welcomes those for whom English is a second language (as it is for you, if I'm not mistaken). Let's not get all persnickety here and demand the impossible from the chap. Here, I'll translate for you:

Greetings. I think I know more about Dutch law than you, despite you being a citizen and me being a near-illiterate moron. Be that as it may, I must warn you not to post links to the infringing software, unless you have the money and the initiative to fight RealNetworks as well. If you do have the money and the gravitas, by all means continue. However, I think you are stupid, and you should still continue. In fact, I stupid you stupid and stupid stupid stupid. (and something about an article on osnews.com)


There, that should clear things up nicely!

;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Thom is an Dutch Kook
by MOS6510 on Sat 27th Aug 2011 18:59 UTC in reply to "Thom is an Dutch Kook"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

This is a very cool post, even though like Thom I don't get it either.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Thom is an Dutch Kook
by m_abs on Sun 28th Aug 2011 18:50 UTC in reply to "Thom is an Dutch Kook"
m_abs Member since:
2005-07-06

Hint. When you know you may be in violation of Socialist Dutch laws and a lawyer from a big company sends you a letter you need to think. Do I have the right and the money to fight? If so continue. If stupid continue. If you have stupid people that can also do stupid stuff then let them write an article on osnews.com

Then complain about everyone else.


If smart, take the code out and pull the plug.

Sorry I don't read batshit, could you translate?

Reply Score: 2

Eh?
by antidroid on Sat 27th Aug 2011 18:52 UTC
antidroid
Member since:
2010-01-05

Sue him?
They should have hired him.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by fran
by fran on Sun 28th Aug 2011 00:29 UTC
fran
Member since:
2010-08-06

Free codecs! click below

http://www.vorbis.com/

Reply Score: 5

Labyrinth
Member since:
2008-09-15

So I don't really care if they get ripped off or ruined utterly.

Reply Score: 2

Is this for real?
by vasper on Sun 28th Aug 2011 14:05 UTC
vasper
Member since:
2005-07-22
v Osnews is just as crooked as can be now
by jefro on Sun 28th Aug 2011 16:49 UTC
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Tell me exactly why some people on these posts can NEVER have their comments marked down? Isn't that UNFAIR???? Why isn't there any post about that? Say I disagree with ohhh, for example some guy with a first name Thom. Could I reduce their posts rating and in essence CENSOR the post? What a flake Thom is. A real two faced schmuck.


...?

Reply Score: 1

kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

It's just you. Thom has a personal vendetta against you and he has arranged with the 'new world order' to ensure you can't mod people down.

Did you want to borrow my tin foil hat?

]{

Reply Score: 2

MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Some people who get voted up say interesting things, but most people who get voted up don't actually say anything interesting or new, but just repeat stuff that a lot of people here consider cool or popular.

Just write something like "Oh, f*ck Apple! I'll never buy anything from them again!" and you'll get loads of plusses.

If you say something that's true or very clever, but unpopular you get voted down. For example: Linux on the server rules, but SUCKS on the desktop.

Not that it really matters, because even if you are voted down all the way to the basement people will still read what you write and even reply to it.

Reply Score: 2

vitae Member since:
2006-02-20



but SUCKS on the desktop.


This is neither true nor clever, therefore I wouldn't be expecting any mod points for this "revelation". However, giving a list of the problems with desktop linux, suggesting practical solutions and refraining from kissing Steve Jobs @$$ while doing it might get you some.

Reply Score: 4

MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

I wanted to make a list regarding problems of the Linux desktop, but my computer only has 4 GB of memory which didn't seem enough.

But what about this: if it's so good, why do 99% of the users avoid a free os and spend money on Windows and OS X. Even after almost 2 decades users don't want it. Year after year moments and reasons came why Linux would take over the world, never happened. Users would run to the stores if Microsoft gave Windows 7 away for free. Even a free Vista would cause that.

I have used Linux for years and I know what's good about it and what's not. I was part of a group that ditched Windows 98 and the only one to remain a Linux user when the rest switched back to Windows when Windows 2000 arrived. I hold out for many years until I also gave up. Not on the server, but on the desktop.

Reply Score: 0

vitae Member since:
2006-02-20

Choose?? They choose to go to Walmart, Bestbuy, Kmart, Staples, Sam's and buy a pc which has Windows pre-installed. They don't care about OSes, the common user, they just want a damn computer. It comes with Windows, they use Windows. I suppose I could ask if Macs are perfect like so many of you describe them, why do they not dominate the desktop? However I would agree that "Year of the Linux desktop" nonsense should never have been started.

I'll tell you why I use Linux though.

1) Cost. Yep, especially in these difficult economics I don't need to be spending 75-100 dollars for the latest upgrade for ____ proprietary operating system, in which the changes will largely be cosmetic anyway. For those of you who money is no object, bully for you. Just recognize much of the world is struggling to get by, not pulling down $100k for a software engineer or systems admin job.

2)Versatility. Open source OSes (and this isn't just Linux, but BSD, Haiku, etc. which I also appreciate and use) offer more versatility to the user than any closed source one does. Some of us value that a great deal. Choice is important.

3)Malware. Sorry Windows people, but you got the marketshare, you bear the brunt of the attack. The malware writers are getting smarter by the day, designing ever more sophisticated pieces. MS announced recently that spyware on Windows 7 is 30% on the rise. It's not even a criticism of Windows per se, just an unfortunate reality. Going online with Windows is too much like looking over the ramparts at Helm's Deep at the tide of invading orcs.

4) It's not as complicated as people make it out to be, and that's the irony. I'm no Linux expert, but PCLOS works just fine for me. Is there quirks? Yep. But Windows has it's quirks too. I really only need a Windows partition for gaming and updating the Zune. Apparently Linux is good enough to be used on the desktop by government agencies, educational institutions and corporations, just not good enough for some users in this forum.

5) I have a genuine appreciation for what the open source community has achieved. They've come a long way since the early days, and some can spend their time comparing their work with what the corporations are doing, but that doesn't diminish all that FOSS has accomplished.

Reply Score: 4

ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

1. "Cost".
You're right in that free is usually more cost effective then not-free. However, you don't need a $100k/year job to afford Windows. You also very likely don't 'need the latest upgrade either'.

2. "Versatility".
Suggesting that Linux is somehow more versatile than Windows is silly at best. Some things Linux is great for, but other things total crap. Some things Windows is great for, but other things total crap. Pound for pound Windows easily beats out Linux.

3. "Malware".
You're correct in that Windows is a much larger target for malware than Linux. Of course, it occupies are far larger market share. However, that's not to say a Windows box can't be just as secure as a Linux box - in reality is can. Windows and Linux both are only as secure as the person setting it up makes it.

4. "It's not as complicated as people make it out to be, and that's the irony".
In some ways it is and in some ways it isn't, it really depends on the user. There's another irony that you didn't mention... The fact that Linux has and continues to become more & more like Windows, with the exact same goal - to reach and work for as many users as possible. The way many distros are put together these days it seems the only thing missing is the Windows logo and support for a wider range of hardware.

Apparently Linux is good enough to be used on the desktop by government agencies, educational institutions and corporations, just not good enough for some users in this forum.

Funny, the exact same could be said replacing "Linux" with "Windows". Windows, by far, has the lions share of those markets however.

5. "I have a genuine appreciation for what the open source community has achieved."
I feel the same. Granted the open-source community isn't without it's flaws. Linus Torvalds will be the first to tell you that. But overall some good work has been done and hopefully it will continue. I believe it will.

For the record, I'm both a Windows and a Linux user and have been for many years in personal and professional settings. If there's a single piece of advice I could give someone on this subject it would be don't be dumb or naive enough to think either of these OS'es is "better" then the other.

Reply Score: 1

vitae Member since:
2006-02-20

1. "Cost".
You're right in that free is usually more cost effective then not-free. However, you don't need a $100k/year job to afford Windows. You also very likely don't 'need the latest upgrade either'.

2. "Versatility".
Suggesting that Linux is somehow more versatile than Windows is silly at best. Some things Linux is great for, but other things total crap. Some things Windows is great for, but other things total crap. Pound for pound Windows easily beats out Linux.

3. "Malware".
You're correct in that Windows is a much larger target for malware than Linux. Of course, it occupies are far larger market share. However, that's not to say a Windows box can't be just as secure as a Linux box - in reality is can. Windows and Linux both are only as secure as the person setting it up makes it.

4. "It's not as complicated as people make it out to be, and that's the irony".
In some ways it is and in some ways it isn't, it really depends on the user. There's another irony that you didn't mention... The fact that Linux has and continues to become more & more like Windows, with the exact same goal - to reach and work for as many users as possible. The way many distros are put together these days it seems the only thing missing is the Windows logo and support for a wider range of hardware.

Apparently Linux is good enough to be used on the desktop by government agencies, educational institutions and corporations, just not good enough for some users in this forum.

Funny, the exact same could be said replacing "Linux" with "Windows". Windows, by far, has the lions share of those markets however.

5. "I have a genuine appreciation for what the open source community has achieved."
I feel the same. Granted the open-source community isn't without it's flaws. Linus Torvalds will be the first to tell you that. But overall some good work has been done and hopefully it will continue. I believe it will.

For the record, I'm both a Windows and a Linux user and have been for many years in personal and professional settings. If there's a single piece of advice I could give someone on this subject it would be don't be dumb or naive enough to think either of these OS'es is "better" then the other.


Dude, I'm trying to extoll the positives of open source without criticizing Windows, and you still go out of your way to shoot it down?

1) Considering XP ran out it's life cycle and is no longer supported, you do need to upgrade for security reasons. And when Windows 7 gets worked over enough, it will be necessary to upgrade to 8.

2) Are you serious? Linux runs on more different platforms than Windows, and can customized anyway you want it for a multitude of purposes. You can't do that with Windows. You get what they give you. Period.

3) Not unless you're as knowledgeable as the malware writers, otherwise you could easily have something rooting around in your box that you don't know about ie. Tigger/Syzor which fooled an awful lot of people. Plenty of people will say they've NEVER had malware, but the truth is you can never really know for sure.

4) The other guy was saying Linux sucks on the desktop, so I provides examples of organizations that don't agree.

5) I never said Linux was better. I just gave the reasons why I use it. Obviously it's a matter of opinion and always will be.

Seriously, too many people in here have obviously had too many bad experiences with rabid Linux users or something, because you simply cannot tolerate anybody saying good about it. You got a problem with somebody else, then take it up with THEM.

Reply Score: 2

ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

Dude, I'm trying to extoll the positives of open source without criticizing Windows, and you still go out of your way to shoot it down?

I simply replied to a post, and I didn't go out of my way to do it.

Considering XP ran out it's life cycle and is no longer supported, you do need to upgrade for security reasons. And when Windows 7 gets worked over enough, it will be necessary to upgrade to 8.

That's interesting. We've still got some boxes running XP, which are connected to the internet, and have never had a single issue with security. What people think they "need" and what they actually need are two different things.

Are you serious? Linux runs on more different platforms than Windows, and can customized anyway you want it for a multitude of purposes. You can't do that with Windows. You get what they give you. Period.

...And yet the majority of the world uses Windows. For users who like to compile source code, run file/web/email servers or do basic tasks, Linux does a terrific job. Beyond that however, no.

Not unless you're as knowledgeable as the malware writers, otherwise you could easily have something rooting around in your box that you don't know about ie. Tigger/Syzor which fooled an awful lot of people. Plenty of people will say they've NEVER had malware, but the truth is you can never really know for sure.

I'm sorry, are you talking about Windows or Linux here? Doesn't matter I suppose since the same is true for both.

Seriously, too many people in here have obviously had too many bad experiences with rabid Linux users or something, because you simply cannot tolerate anybody saying good about it. You got a problem with somebody else, then take it up with THEM.

Since you seem to be confused, let me clarify... I couldn't care less if someone praises Linux (or any OS), or bashes it into the ground. I'm replying to inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and flat out false information.

Oh yeah, and for the record, I said there are some things Linux is great at and that I'm a Linux user myself. That being said, try not to get your Linux panties in a twist the next time somebody corrects you.

Reply Score: 1

MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

I've used Linux for years and was very much in to it. I still have a Tux keychain, the cuddly toys, the books. Back then I used to buy the boxed version of Redhat, SuSE. At work I was the only one to use Linux on the desktop, but I did introduce Linux on the server so in a way everybody was making use of it.

However I was always busy upgrading my desktop, trying to make things work (better), fixing stuff, trying to replace crap apps by less crap ones. Al this stopped when I got a Mac.

My dream/goal at work was to replace Windows with Linux, on everyone's computer. That wasn't going to happen I soon found out, so I settled for OpenOffice to at least get rid of Microsoft Office. That never got past the trail stage as OO would mess up formatting of Office files or lack certain functions (mostly the spreadsheet).

People would send me Office files, walk over to me, ask me to open it and I did... waiting... waiting... why are you waiting? Well, it's still opening. Yeah for OpenOffice. Then it finally would open and often people would wonder if it was the same file they emailed to me because it looked kinda different.

I did install OpenOffice on PCs of friends 'n' neighbors, some not being happy at all, all replacing it by Microsoft Office.

My wife got Linux on her PC and I spend a lot of time fixing stuff for her, until she too gave up and stopped using a computer until she got my old iMac.

I know a number of smart people who gave Linux a go and none lasted. Sure Linux is free, great, choice 'n' freedom, but it just doesn't work as a consumer OS.

Android en webOS have shown you can take a Linux kernel and build something user friendly. But Linux distributions are a Linux kernel, GNU stuff and a bunch of apps thrown together and put up for download. It lacks a lot of polish, integration. And worse, most apps are just plain awful (with a number of exceptions).

Had there been one Linux flavor instead of 1.000.000 and with one desktop environment I'm sure it would have looked and worked much better. And even better: Linux combined with a Linux computer, so you'd have the OS and hardware made for each other. All hardware fully supported by the OS and its drivers.

Reply Score: 2

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

However I was always busy upgrading my desktop, trying to make things work (better), fixing stuff, trying to replace crap apps by less crap ones.


I used Linux for about 10 years, I too used to buy boxed copies of SuSE to support the devs and just to have the neat box to put up on the shelf for show. During all the 10 years of my Linux usage my experience was similar to yours: there was ALWAYS something that didn't work, always something in need of attention, and often just plain and simple things that couldn't even be made to work under Linux.

Finally I gave up and moved to Windows. I still use Linux on my server, but I don't anymore have it on any of my desktops or laptops. I simply do not want to have to always fiddle and tinker away needlessly. There are also some hardware features that are important to me and that don't work under Linux, so there's also that.

I do root for the whole F/OSS movement and there are some F/OSS apps that I really like and I really do hope for people to continue all the great work they've done so far. But rooting for and liking the F/OSS movement and software still doesn't change the fact that I feel Linux as a whole and as parts requires a lot, lot more polish and some harsh decisions to advance.

Reply Score: 2

MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

F/OSS is great, Linux is cool and fiddling around is both fun (if you like it) as well as a great learning experience.

It becomes less fun when you get married, become a parent and have a full time job i.e. have less time. It's also very annoying to keep fixing the same stuff again and again, like dvd/flash/mp3/graphics|sound card support (BTW stuff you don't need on a server and on a server I have far less problems, if any (apart from dependancy problems)).

If you have the time it can be fun 'n' cool to get everything to work, tweak it the way you want it, but if you don't have the time it's very annoying to run an update, do stuff, turn the computer off, turn it on the next day and watch it refusing to boot or fail to go in to graphical mode.

I don't like Windows, far from it, but I can't recall even Windows 95 doing crazy stuff after a system update.

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

that I feel Linux as a whole and as parts requires a lot, lot more polish and some harsh decisions to advance.


Replace "Linux" with "Windows" in that sentence and that is how I feel every time I'm unfortunate enough to have to use Windows.

Reply Score: 2

foregam Member since:
2010-11-17

[...] if it's so good, why do 99% of the users avoid a free os and spend money on Windows and OS X
Bzzzzt, wrong. Many buy it, but a lot more don't. As to why: to run Half Life 2 or whatever other cool game which doesn't have a Linux port (that's most of them).

Reply Score: 1

Comment by sonic2000gr
by sonic2000gr on Sun 28th Aug 2011 19:13 UTC
sonic2000gr
Member since:
2007-05-20

Heh, this is Thom at his best!

Reply Score: 2

Better without RealAlternative
by FunkyELF on Sun 28th Aug 2011 19:41 UTC
FunkyELF
Member since:
2006-07-26

By using RealAlternative you're still supporting Real Media as a codec. Best to not watch video's in that format. Is there seriously something in that format that someone couldn't live wihout?

Reply Score: 2

Damages incurred
by foregam on Mon 29th Aug 2011 13:52 UTC
foregam
Member since:
2010-11-17

OK, so that makes... nine... ten... eleven... times two hundred and ten thousand... *cling* You owe us €2310000, punk, and another €2190000 for slander and besmirching our good name.

Now seriously Thom, what are you going to do if RealSuckers' lawyers knock on your door tomorrow?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Damages incurred
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 29th Aug 2011 13:55 UTC in reply to "Damages incurred"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Now seriously Thom, what are you going to do if RealSuckers' lawyers knock on your door tomorrow?


Ask her out if she's hot?

Reply Score: 2

Some clarifications
by Syrion on Mon 29th Aug 2011 23:47 UTC
Syrion
Member since:
2011-08-29

Not mentioned before, but written in the source article:

Real Networks or it's lawyers never contacted Edskes before, nor did they sent any cease & desist letters.
While the current juridical procedure (preparing a hidden civil case without the defender being informed) is technicaly legal, it's a very unusual approach here in the Netherlands. So this search warrant and civil case was out of the blue for the defendant.

In another article by Webwereld (google translation: http://bit.ly/qq8aNL, for the record the mentioned Techworld merged with Webwereld) it is shown that the file submitted to the court has some serious errors from a technological point of view. I doubt that invalidates the case, since jurists not specialised in ICT (such as judges) are not known for their knowledge in those matters (funny detail: as the PS of the linked article states: the lawyer of Real Networks doesn't even know what Real Player does).

As someone stated earlier, according to Webwereld the "hosted" files were masked redirects to a files at a German network.

Not going to comment on the case itself (that's up for the judge), but I do think that Real Networks proved to be antagonistic cowards by going after a small fry who *linked* to a file, instead of going after the bigger sites which *host* the file ( http://www.google.com/search?q=download+%22real+alternative~*~@... ): it smells like the legal bullying tactics of the internets favourite cult.

Edited 2011-08-29 23:50 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Futurama take
by Claxus on Wed 31st Aug 2011 11:09 UTC
Claxus
Member since:
2007-07-19

(Slurm episode)
- Who wrote that horrible player?
- Why, those are the Real Networks.
- Tell them I hate them!

I don´t mind their protocol and codec. Just that their player has been an annoyance for very long. I don´t known why I haven't suffered from installing their player since I switched to mac.

Perhaps it´s not the technology, more their business model that needs some rethinking.

Reply Score: 1