RealNetworks speaks out about RealDVD lawsuit

In September, RealNetworks launched RealDVD, a $30 USD software application that allows users to make a copy of their DVDs and it play it back on their PCs.

By October however, the company had been sued by the MPAA and the Hollywood studios, and the software was taken down pending the verdict of the lawsuit.

Yesterday, lawyers for Real told a federal judge that they did not expect the studios to sue the company, and were somewhat shocked at the speed in which the lawsuit came down. Early in the month, the MPAA filed a new motion, accusing Real of destroying pertinent evidence relevant to the case but Real says they did not hold onto the evidence because they hadn't expected to be sued.

Making the software legal is the fact that no copy protection is broken during the process, and after being ripped, the image of the DVD still uses CSS encryption as well as another layer of DRM from Real themselves. The MPAA believes the program does break copy protections.

Written by: Andre Yoskowitz @ 28 Mar 2009 15:44

Advertisement - News comments available below the ad

8 comments

djboogie

dvds have been around since about 1999-2000, they can still all be backed up, And unlike many people, I actually DO make backups of DVDs I own, because I have a small boy that has ruined 2 movies by scratching them up.
there are so many ways to copy a dvd, that this news is baffling to say the least. Its like shutting down napster and expecting people to stop downloading music.

In fact, news like this only assists the copying community, when one software is closed down, another one is written. Most of the time DVD shrink will STILL copy a dvd, and its not even been updated for years, any dvd shrink cannot do, dvdfab decrypter (and a bunch of others) takes care of.

What most companies have done is realised they are not going to stop copying of copyright discs etc, instead they reduce the cost of a movie after its been out a while ($5-$10 for top rated movies is a good price, considering you GENERALLY have to use a dual layer disc to have all the extras)

Blu ray isnt too much of an issue for copying, yet, because frankly, its not cost effective unless youre playing from a hard drive (blank discs are still too expensive), it actually sometimes works out cheaper to buy the movie than copy it.........see now thats a step in the right direction (for the sellers of originals etc)

by releasing movies at lower prices.....(Ive seen quantum of solace blu ray for $18 on ebay (no tax free shipping). I'd be much more inclined to buy it, than to rent and copy it. Thats really the best way to move forward. Its costs nothing to produce a disc in comparison to vhs or vinyl record, so frankly I have no sympathy fo rrecord and movie companies that expect 600% profits. Actors are also way overpaid, record companies also live on too much profit margins compared to music artists who actually go on the road not sit on their ass. you want to help the industry promote live tours not cd's, do a wage cap on actors and companies such as sony coprporate bosses.

28.3.2009 16:56 #1

Blessedon

Quote:Blu ray isn't too much of an issue for copying, yet...its not cost effective unless you're playing from a hard drive (blank discs are still too expensive), it actually sometimes works out cheaper to buy the movie than copy itRight, copying to BD-R is not yet cost effective but will probably be soon as prices continue to drop.
However, it's hard to beat the cost of hard drive storage; A 1.5tb (1.3 actual) drive costs $125 and holds about 60 movie-only files at average 22gb each, that's $2.08 per movie.

28.3.2009 17:49 #2

ZippyDSM

Quote:Quote:Blu ray isn't too much of an issue for copying, yet...its not cost effective unless you're playing from a hard drive (blank discs are still too expensive), it actually sometimes works out cheaper to buy the movie than copy itRight, copying to BD-R is not yet cost effective but will probably be soon as prices continue to drop.
However, it's hard to beat the cost of hard drive storage; A 1.5tb (1.3 actual) drive costs $125 and holds about 60 movie-only files at average 22gb each, that's $2.08 per movie.
My 4 month old 1 TB WD HDD started giving me IO errors I don;t know how much of my 900GB on it is damaged.

You basically have to to get twice as much HDD storage to ensure its as safe as on a BR disc. So in some cases its worth the price.
if you buy 2 BR discs a month....

29.3.2009 13:50 #3

defgod

Quote:Quote:Blu ray isn't too much of an issue for copying, yet...its not cost effective unless you're playing from a hard drive (blank discs are still too expensive), it actually sometimes works out cheaper to buy the movie than copy itRight, copying to BD-R is not yet cost effective but will probably be soon as prices continue to drop.
However, it's hard to beat the cost of hard drive storage; A 1.5tb (1.3 actual) drive costs $125 and holds about 60 movie-only files at average 22gb each, that's $2.08 per movie.By the time Blu-ray is cost effective large hard drives will be so cheap that it will be even cheaper to use hard drive storage than BD-R disks. Of course solid state storage might actually be cheap enough by then to use that instead of a standard hard drive. I also believe that BD-R disks cost what they do now relies more on trying to prohibit copying than on production costs.

29.3.2009 18:11 #4

ZippyDSM

Quote:Quote:Quote:Blu ray isn't too much of an issue for copying, yet...its not cost effective unless you're playing from a hard drive (blank discs are still too expensive), it actually sometimes works out cheaper to buy the movie than copy itRight, copying to BD-R is not yet cost effective but will probably be soon as prices continue to drop.
However, it's hard to beat the cost of hard drive storage; A 1.5tb (1.3 actual) drive costs $125 and holds about 60 movie-only files at average 22gb each, that's $2.08 per movie.By the time Blu-ray is cost effective large hard drives will be so cheap that it will be even cheaper to use hard drive storage than BD-R disks. Of course solid state storage might actually be cheap enough by then to use that instead of a standard hard drive. I also believe that BD-R disks cost what they do now relies more on trying to prohibit copying than on production costs.
I doubt it it will take 5 years for SSD drives of 1TB or more to be under 200$, and BR discs will be under 2$ a disc for 25 GB.....

29.3.2009 20:59 #5

defgod

Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Blu ray isn't too much of an issue for copying, yet...its not cost effective unless you're playing from a hard drive (blank discs are still too expensive), it actually sometimes works out cheaper to buy the movie than copy itRight, copying to BD-R is not yet cost effective but will probably be soon as prices continue to drop.
However, it's hard to beat the cost of hard drive storage; A 1.5tb (1.3 actual) drive costs $125 and holds about 60 movie-only files at average 22gb each, that's $2.08 per movie.By the time Blu-ray is cost effective large hard drives will be so cheap that it will be even cheaper to use hard drive storage than BD-R disks. Of course solid state storage might actually be cheap enough by then to use that instead of a standard hard drive. I also believe that BD-R disks cost what they do now relies more on trying to prohibit copying than on production costs.
I doubt it it will take 5 years for SSD drives of 1TB or more to be under 200$, and BR discs will be under 2$ a disc for 25 GB.....Ok people need to quit nitpicking at the little things and look at things as a whole. As stated in the previous post solid state might actually be cheap enough. Not will be.

30.3.2009 11:17 #6

Mez

I LOVE IT!

Pretty hard to sue without evidence! The MPAA doesn't have a case. They can't prove wrong doing and they can't sue without evedence. Real can claim they were complying as best they could. They did pull the app off the market quickly. They are in the clear.

2.4.2009 08:38 #7

alewis

The point djboogie was making is this: make the goods cheap enough that owning makes more sense than copying. The classic example of this is the paperback book. It was - initially - so cheap as to not be worthwhile photocopying...

The modern comparison? If a film costs �3-�5 to buy and own as an original, it isn't worth most peoples time to download it and shrink to DVD (or burn to DL), and print a label. Or scribble a label.

Ok, there will always be *some* whom will do so, but that is essentialy "lossage", and is common in any commercial system in any society and has been since the start of time. Lossage can be anything - failed cpu cores in fab plants is an example.

Unlike the music industry (still stuck with CD), Hollywood is lucky - it has already had a bite of the digital cherry (DVD) and has a second chance with Blu-Ray. They know that the initial price of the media and the hardware will be high. They know prices will fall. They know that a reasonable quality disk printing system will appear. All of which 'threatens' their revenue stream. They can try to fight the inevitable via DRM, copy-protection, legislation and taxation - and in all probabillity lose and alienate the customer base. Or, they could pre-empt by making the media so cheap, it aint worth the hassle to download/copy. And get global-market sized sales.

Imagine: 1080p (optional 720p?) copy of the film, complete with stereo, DTS, DD (5.1, 7.1, etc) uncompressed soundtracks. Commentaries, features, and bonus features. And an .avi/mkv/whatever file format HD version of the film, compressed at source at slightly higher than "scene standard" bit rate and file-size, with surround sound audio, say 15GB in size. And maybe a 1.5GB .avi. And if space permits, an at-source encoded 4.3GB .iso image (ie better quality than an encoded/transcoded rip of a retail to DVD-R).

Ok, some might be a bit OTT but you get the flavour. Now, would I spend hours downloading the 1080p .mkv rip at 4-14GB, or the 25GB BD-R, the �100 BD-writer, and �5/disk BD. Or do I just pop into HMV/Virgin/Tescos and buy it for say �5-�7??? Option B....

2.4.2009 15:41 #8

AfterDawn: News