To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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
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.
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.
you are stupid. next time you spit out some gum you're going to get a billy stick to the face for being a criminal. see you in the hospital, creep!
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...
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.
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.






Member since:
2011-08-08
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.