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).
Thread beginning with comment 487140
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 26th Aug 2011 22:56 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 Parent Score: 23

RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer
by danieldk on Fri 26th Aug 2011 23:03 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 Parent Score: 7

RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer
by Soulbender on Fri 26th Aug 2011 23:40 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 Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer
by MacTO on Sat 27th Aug 2011 01:24 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 Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer
by redjujube on Sat 27th Aug 2011 06:14 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 Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer
by bfr99 on Sun 28th Aug 2011 13:59 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 Parent Score: 1