The most surprising part of this story is that RealNetworks is still in business. What a horrible piece of software, on the server and the client side.
They're still around for 2 reasons: patent holdings and content networks. RN holds some patents that are still used in a lot of software and makes revenue from licensing fees. They also own content networks and make money by selling advertising on them, similar to what AOL is now.
I find it distasteful to see <BIG COMPANY> using such a big hammer against a little guy who just posted a link. "Real" IS an English word, after all - their protections are therefore more limited. "Real Alternative" seems rather descriptive, and not at all confusing to consumers (as well as having a clever double meaning).
On a related note, I consider the early Real Player software to be malware, due to it's Trojan installation of other software and aggressive attempts to prevent removal. I've lost all trust in Real Networks - one of the reasons they've spun off their music service as a separate entity, I imagine.
The market certainly punished them for this. But were they ever taken to court over these practices (and violation of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act)?
I worked for Real (Progressive Networks originally, the name changed while I was there) way back in '96. The REALLY early players, RealAudio up through 3.0 and the first versions of RealVideo didn't install any of that crap. They didn't install anything but the player (including a browser plugin, but that was just a version of the player too). The malware didn't start until a year or two later, after I'd left, but it always made me sad the direction they went. When I was there, it felt like we were doing good things for the world. At least the part of the world that wanted to stream tiny blurry videos over 28.8k modems.
This is pretty awful too. I don't really know what reason Real has for existing any more. Rhapsody seemed like the only sort of worthwhile thing they had, but I just learned yesterday they spun that off last year. Weird.
Thanks for the insight. I think most people want to do the "right" thing. The competition to be "THE" way people play media was very intense between Real, Microsoft, and Apple. There was a lot of trickery on all sides uninstalling other people's players, making them not the default, etc.
Too bad this all devolved so terribly and not in the direction of the best experience for users.
Out of curiosity, how is a hyperlink - presumably one stored on a page - stored in a DNS cache. Because I didn't think DNS actually resolved the contents of an HTML file. I didn't even think it resolved directory structures.
Do they have to wait a few days for their fresh Wordpress installs to go live around the world in the Netherlands? And how could that even prove anything anyway even if a DNS somehow did more than link IPs to domain names?
Doesn't sound legit. And a bit of an oversight for a supposed tech site.
The translation of the apparent sources[1][2] doesn't seem to offer the same story. So I'd call bullshit on PC Advisor.
Years ago when I had to download Real Player for one reason or another, they wanted me to register my email with them. Not wanting to give them my email, I put in a rather snarky bogus email. This was the result: http://i.imgur.com/3tIav.jpg
Does Real Alternative rip out the codecs from a RealPlayer install and repackage them? If so, that is clear copyright infringement but suing over a link to the infringing software is asinine. If Real Alternative doesn't include any code from RealNetworks, then the case is even more chilling. If that is the case, when will they go hunting for VLC?
I don't like headlines line this. They misrepresent the problem.
The civil court system is supposed to allow for remedies of all kinds of wrongs. Thus, basically anyone needs to be able to sue anyone else for just about anything. And that's fine. It is then the responsibility of the courts to ensure that lawsuits cannot be used as tools for bullying and extortion.
Assuming this article presents the facts completely and accurately, the court system failed in its duty here. More to the point, RealNetworks did not "crush" this guy; the Dutch courts did, at their request.
So if you have a problem with this case, don't blame RealNetworks, blame the court. Blame the judge who ruled that servers should be confiscated without giving their owner the opportunity to answer the accusations beforehand. Furthermore, the way to fix the problem is to fix the civil court system, not talk about how lousy RN is.
- Real Player put down a request for an Ex Parte case (court case without a hearing).
- The Ex Parte case assumed that the webmaster was hosting the infringing software.
- When this hosting claim did not held in court, Real Player still decided to push the case for linking.
His view is along the lines of:
- lawyers have a responsibility too. If these Ex Parte cases have no merit, this should have consequences for the lawyer guiding his client into an Ex Parte case.
- Ex Parte cases are expensive and lawyers earn a lot, owing to the 150k+ legal costs (really high for Dutch standards). Frivolous Ex Parte cases could border on abuse of the legal system for monetary gain.
For me, a cursory glance on the internet _does_ show servers with the name of the suspect being referred to as mirrors for the Real Alternative software. Also shortly after the newest releases, suggesting a relation between the suspect and the unknown creator(s) of the software Real Alternative.
Real Alternative uses DLL's and marks (like logo's and icons) owned by Real Player, so it is hard to make a case for fair play.
There is likely a lot more to this case than a simple hyperlink, even if it is lawyers being lawyers. Linking to infringing software has no relation to Dutch Copyright law (since it is not republishing), and isn't even grounds for an Ex Parte.
I used to live in Seattle and walked by the Real offices fairly regularly. I can't help but wonder what the employees feel when their company does something so overtly evil like this.
Thankfully I've never worked for any company that's so blatantly evil. Sure, controversial decisions, but not like this.
It just wasn't very funny, creative, clever, or original. Every second comment on Reddit these days seems to be 'I love you so much', 'this', 'you win the internet', or 'sir, you are a scholar and a gentleman'.
Many of us here are Reddit refuges trying to escape this moronic behavior, please don't bring it here.
Exactly. The whole point of upvotes is to be able to express that "I found this funny/relevant/interesting/neat" idea without having to say so in a comment, which does nothing but dilute whatever's worthwhile in the thread without presenting anything of its own.
If you liked something, say so by upvoting - don't leave a comment unless you have something of your own to say.
I guess they still have some money flow due contracts sold in the 90ies. In Germany they sold many long term licenses to radio/tv stations - which is why you sometimes still can find real media links if you want to listen to online radio in Germany.
Why should this guy be punished for people downloading stuff from some other website?
Why is Real going after him and not the other website?
How can they know how much traffic this guys sent to the other website?
Real Networks is absolutely not relevant anymore. They had their "heyday" in the late 90's when dial-up was king. This is pure corporate fascism at its finest. Can't Real Networks go the way of the fallen -- and I use the term loosely -- "internet companies" of the last century.
This is disgusting. I wish we could have a world where you do not just get suddenly sued for doing no wrong. This could easily be you or me. Is there anything real we can do to stop this type of stuff from happening?
I don't know, but it does seem that in many cases the cost and aggravation of a suit are far worse than whatever remedy the suit seeks. That's the injustice of the whole thing.
Well, they did cost him enough for him not to be able to buy a house.
I can't believe something like this is happening. It's not like RealAlternative stole their code. You don't see Apple griefing about QuickTimeAlternative, and that uses it's full name.
Maybe. I skimmed the article and it seems he has to provide a lot of money upfront.
No idea about the dutch legal system, but it seems that the loser pays for the legal costs of the winner (as it should be in my book). So - since the claim ist totally bogus and idiotic, I'd expect him to get all the money back and RM to pay for it.
I won't stop you from sticking it to Rhapsody (their software has lost my music library several times,) but they've been independent from RealNetworks since April of last year.
Looking at the latest news, it seems that Dutch court would do anything that american corporations would ask it to, event against its local people. What makes them do so?
