Corporate Behemoth Keeps Ripping "Real" 121
First, the reasons I don't think that RealPlayer has much effect on actual piracy. Yes, if a pirate has uploaded your favorite song to YouTube, you can save a copy of the video file to hear the song over and over, but you can do the same thing on YouTube itself as long as you're connected to the Internet. The anonymous network exec in the Variety article points out that RealPlayer "allows you to own [content] forever on your hard drive, even if the Web site that distributed that content illegally has taken it down in because we've complained." But regardless of what complaints they've been sending, almost all popular songs are currently available for listening on YouTube so that anyone with a Net connection can get them on demand, and that's a separate issue, with or without RealPlayer.
So then it becomes a question of whether RealPlayer enables the user to do more interesting things with the song or video, like take it with them on an iPod. RealPlayer only lets you save YouTube videos as an FLV file. But as long as doing things like playing an FLV file on an iPod requires an outside hack, that option is only available to people who are resourceful enough to go out and find tools like that (admittedly not a very high bar, but too hard for many people). So, suppose you define a "resourceful" person as someone smart enough to figure out how to convert an FLV file into an iPod-viewable format. Then there are two possibilities: (a) either a person is not that "resourceful", in which case if they want content to take with them, they'll still have to get it through legitimate channels like the iTunes store, or (b) if the person is "resourceful", they would have known about tools for ripping YouTube videos to MP3, long before RealPlayer 11 came out (in fact, most sites that come up in a search for "flv to mp3 converter" are just rippers specifically for YouTube). In either case, RealPlayer's ability to save FLV files has no impact on the market for the song.
I haven't talked about some outlier cases where RealPlayer could perhaps help a novice user avoid paying for content (if a novice pirate didn't know enough to download a movie from a BitTorrent network, they could perhaps save up enough interesting videos from YouTube for a long plane ride where they won't have Internet access). But there's an easy way to get a verdict on RealPlayer's impact on piracy: How much have you heard teenagers talking about it? You heard teens through the years buzzing about Napster, KaZaA, and BitTorrent, but... RealPlayer? The cliche among teenagers today is to go "find something on YouTube", but "and then grab it with RealPlayer" has yet to prove useful enough to enter the vernacular.
Similarly, RealPlayer can be used to rip streams from Pandora, but it's just hard enough to do it that most people are likely to give up. Before going into details, I should say that I'm against anyone trying to circumvent paying for music. Most of the time when you read that on the Web, it carries this nudge-wink subtext right before the author launches into a detailed description about how, exactly, to circumvent paying for music. But I really do believe that there is a vast untapped potential of unwritten good music out there, and that it could be tapped if there were only lower barriers of entry for musicians, better channels to distribute music to users, and a guarantee that users would pay instead of stealing it -- all of which is helped by services like Pandora. On the other hand, I also believe that if a copying scheme can be circumvented, and especially if it can be circumvented in a way that's fairly easy to discover, there's no point in keeping it secret: We might as well push things forward by acknowledging that the scheme is beatable, and deciding what to do about it.
The outing commences: if you save a stream from Pandora, RealPlayer will give you an error if you try to play the stream back from your RealPlayer library. But if you find the "mp4" file in your RealPlayer downloads, you can play it in WinAmp. However, the file as saved will not play in Windows Media Player, iTunes, or RealPlayer itself. Plus, since Pandora does not let you pick which song you want to listen to on demand, your stream might contain all the songs that you had to skip past to get the one you wanted, and you'd have to find a utility to edit the mp4 file to get rid of that cruft at the beginnig. At some point, the effort probably exceeds the dollar you'd have to pay to get the song on iTunes (or, if you're a pirate, the effort to find it on a p2p network).
Again, the "teenager buzz test" is instructive. You do hear kids these days talking about listening to songs on Pandora, but not about ripping them with RealPlayer.
Where I think RealPlayer will make the most difference in the long run is in its political and legal impact, by legitimizing stream-ripping as something that "real" companies, so to speak, are allowed to do. In 2006, Google sent a cease-and-desist letter to TechCrunch for hosting a tool that lets users save YouTube videos to their hard drives. Michael Arrington of TechCrunch blogged at the time, "I am likely to remove the tool to preserve my relationship with the company [Google/YouTube]", but the tool is still up, and I don't know whether it was ever taken down at all (TechCrunch did not respond to an inquiry). Today, there are more YouTube rippers than ever, several of them even running AdSense ads. (I'm not sure if that's within Google's rules, but I mentioned those sites while e-mailing back and forth with Google for this article, and they're all still running AdSense ads a week later.) Certainly Google would look pretty silly trying to force TechCrunch to take their ripper down today, now that Google itself is distributing RealPlayer as part of the Google Pack.
RealNetworks could argue that the main difference between RealPlayer 11, and the Streambox Ripper that they sued to have outlawed in 2001, was that the Streambox Ripper ignored the "do not copy" flag present in some RealAudio and RealVideo streams, and thus violated the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. RealNetworks says the do-not-copy flag is no longer used, having been supplanted by more sophisticated Digital Rights Management, and RealPlayer 11 will honor any DRM-protected streams and refuse to save them. But how much difference is there between "ignoring" the do-not-copy flag and "ignoring" the Terms of Service for sites like YouTube (which the program may not be aware of, but which its makers certainly are)?
We've all heard about the First Amendment implications of DeCSS code, the code for decrypting the copy-protection scheme on DVDs, being outlawed in the U.S. But the Streambox case set the bar for "violating the DMCA" considerably lower -- the Streambox Ripper didn't actively decrypt anything, it just ignored a flag set in the streaming media. What are the implications if "ignoring" a flag counts as "breaking" copy protection? Suppose Behemoth Corp releases Version 1 of some media format, and I release a third-party player that plays Version 1. Then Behemoth Corp releases the specs for Version 2 of the format, which is similar enough that it works in Version 1 players, except Version 2 now contains a "do-not-copy" flag, which my player doesn't know about. Is my player now illegal? (Well, in this case Behemoth Corp would just make sure that Version 2 doesn't play in Version 1 players. But what about general-purpose programs like Total Recorder that can record any sound playing through your computer to an MP3 file? Does that program become illegal if a company releases a new sound file format that they don't want to be copyable?) So I think the acceptance of RealPlayer has nudged us closer to legal acceptance of software that can interact with third-party sites and programs in a way that their makers don't like. That's good. It should not be against the law to make a program that interacts with third-party web sites in a way that they haven't given permission for, something I literally grew up saying.
It's brave of Google especially to be distributing RealPlayer along with the Google Pack, at the same time that YouTube is constantly attacked for enabling copyright violations. A content owner mounting a lawsuit against Google, would be foolish not to say something like, "Your Honor, not only does YouTube host thousands of videos violating the intellectual property rights of my clients, they even distribute a tool called RealPlayer that lets people violate YouTube's own Terms of Service by saving the videos to their hard drive!" Logically, of course, it's a weak argument -- RealPlayer is universally available whether Google distributes it or not -- but rhetorically the argument is golden.
On the other hand, since that hasn't happened, and RealPlayer 11 is pretty well entrenched after being out for a year, the result has probably been an expansion of our rights. Anyone else who got sued or threatened for releasing a ripping program would be able to point to RealNetworks. "Look at them, Your Honor, their Web site even tells people, 'Grab videos from thousands of Web sites with just one click', something that those 'thousands of Web sites' would probably not be thrilled with. If it's legal for RealNetworks to tell people that, how can it be illegal for me just to have a ripping program on my site?"
If a small-time programmer had made themselves a legal test case before RealPlayer 11 came out, things might have gone differently; it is an unfortunate truth that courts are probably more likely to consider something legal when it is done by a large and legitimate-looking company like RealNetworks. Big companies do well in court partly because their lawyers are paid to make good arguments, but they almost certainly also get more benefit of the doubt just by virtue of being big companies. I think the time is long overdue for using controlled experiments to measure the bias and objectivity of judges -- for example, having different actors, one white and one black, go into different courtrooms for "mock trials" (which the judges think are real), where both actors are standing trial for exactly identical crimes and their lawyers say exactly identical things, and repeat this experiment enough times to see how differently black and white defendants are treated. (We already see this, for example, in the disparity of sentences for powder cocaine vs. crack, but skeptics may have a point when they say that's not a controlled experiment, because the effects of crack and cocaine are different.) Similarly, have mock trials where a small-time "activist" and a large company are sued for doing exactly the same thing. I would bet that the disparity in the outcomes of those cases would far exceed any bias due to race or gender.
But since it was RealNetworks, with their lawyers and their NASDAQ listing and their former exec in the U.S. Senate, that brought ripping to the masses, that probably makes it OK for you and me. It's not fair, but in this case, it's a good thing.
The Real Story is that... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Real Story is that... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The Real Story is that... (Score:5, Interesting)
They actually deliver their promise, even in broadband thanks to these plugins actually being designed to stream media. Real switches to UDP, switches bandwidth when in need and perform great on low bandwidth. I couldn't watch a single "flash player" BBC thing in its full.
Also if there wasn't a competitor, example like Real in hand, BBC iPlayer would be wmedia only along with wmedia drm. MS lost it when people showed how many platforms Real supports even including Symbian and Solaris.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
<Var ContentMarker="1"/>
to the mount points in your rmserver.cfg file. It does nothing, though, to protect your other media types.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The Real Story is that... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ads, and bullshit are strictly features of the windows version.
I highly recommend you check it out.
Re:The Real Story is that... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Oh cool, so they have a Slashdot comment ripper as well?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
All my friends use Real Player - all of them! It is the "best player" for windows. When it fails, THEN they give Vlc a try.
I have tried it myself, it is no more "Real One" hegemony. It is still a behemoth, but does not go out of their way to be intrusive anymore (for values of intrusion applicable to Windows).
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The Real Story is that... (Score:5, Insightful)
If a big multinational corporation doesn't have to obey the law, why should you? I've said "when my congresscritters start writing respectable laws I'll respect the law" before, but I'm going to have to add "as long as corporations won't obey the law I'll be damned if I will either". Especially since those same foreign corporations have access to "my" legislators and I don't.
Someone is bount to reply that Real is an American company, but as long as a single foreigner can buy a share of its stock, it's no more an American company than Sony or BP and should neither be able to "contribute" to my legislators or have any access to them at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it hypocracy in this case? I was under the impression that Real tried to stop the "Ripper", but failed. Then they considered this and evolved. If you can't beat them; steal their features and sell it.
Re: (Score:2)
From the summary it looks like they did in fact stop Streambox, and now are doing what they stopped Streambox from doing.
Not that I actually RTFA or anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Because you're not a multinational. Duh!
Re:The Real Story is that... Maybe REAL is trying (Score:1)
Freedom... Limited (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, if you use their software. They are still against any competitors doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
In the early 2000s I found "Real Alternative", which is a no-nonsense, stripped-down player and browser plugin (incl. Firefox) for RealAudio and some video. At the time it seemed like a miracle, an unbelievable breath of fresh air after the adware-infested official player that took over your machine. I've carried version 1.22 (realalt122.exe, 5.8MB, md5 506f4d76f3a13971cc4c4110050921f7) from one Windows machine to the next over that time, since I know it's fast, uses little
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It's going to take more than them becoming "The Pirate's Best Friend" for me to install their crappy software. I don't know what it is about Real - they always leave me feeling dirty when I see their software in action... Note that I don't say 'when I use their software'; I don't recall willingly using it; usually I'm trying to figure out how the auto-updater became active aga
How to "rip" videos with your browser (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:How to "rip" videos with your browser (Score:5, Insightful)
As they choose to use 1994's "Embed huge file inside page" trick, their horrible bandwidth waste finally gets a punishment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
cannot seem to do it with firefox (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
And quite convenient it is, too. Thanks.
Re: (Score:1)
Wait... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
RealPlayer is a blight on humanity (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
</attempt-to-explain-joke>
Of course, everyone is free to pirate except user (Score:4, Interesting)
Also targeting Real Networks will really work on Slashdot considering there are thousands of people who types almost memorised things like "Spyware!" when they hear Real Networks, a company who offers entire source in GPL on https://www.helixcommunity.org/ [helixcommunity.org]
Nice, targeted article which you can only expect from a media professional having a pinpoint target. It wouldn't be wise to target Apple Inc. who offers "Save as source" in their Quicktime Plugin for ages when user pays $30 to their software making it "Pro".
Re:Of course, everyone is free to pirate except us (Score:2)
And Quicktime doesn't let you rip movies from Youtube, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Some spends time to "Do Not Allow Save" flag of Quicktime file but never seen that "Save As
Re: (Score:2)
Youtube uses Flash, not Quicktime.
No longer relevant (Score:5, Informative)
The only effect this might have (and the reason it scares companies)? It might reduce ad revenue from page views because Joe Sixpack can now store the "funny" clip of some guy getting his 'nads crushed by a 2x4, rather than needing to reload it live every time he wants to make his friends squirm. But even that depends on Joe Sixpack remembering where he saved the file, no small feat for Joe (in my experience).
Re: (Score:2)
It might reduce ad revenue from page views because Joe Sixpack can now store the "funny" clip of some guy getting his 'nads crushed by a 2x4, rather than needing to reload it live every time he wants to make his friends squirm.
Unlikely. If Joe's got a decent connection, he's much more likely to simply type "2x4 nads" into YouTube's search if he wants to show it again. Much easier than making disk space and remembering where you put it.
No, this only really becomes useful if you want to put it somewhere you don't have access to YouTube -- like an iPod. Or if you're like me -- Flash performance on my Linux sucks so much that anything fullscreen is completely unwatchable, so if it's worth watching fullscreen, I download it and play
Re: (Score:2)
Average Joe has no idea wtf MPlayer or DownloadHelper are. In reality those are just small free projects.
But he knows what RealPlayer is, and he knows there's the all-important corporation behind it. If RealPlayer lets you do this stuff, it must be OK.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised no one mentioned a surefire way of ripping YouTube, Dailymotion, and practically every other streaming site there is - without installing anything more than Flash player, and letting it cache the entire video.
Then in firefox, you go to about:cache,
I followed the link right below... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
hasn't affected piracy? (Score:5, Informative)
I can remember... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I can remember... (Score:5, Interesting)
Most of things Real Networks and others have done happened because of Microsoft. Why? When they figured Microsoft can easily steal their media extensions , they were forced to put a startup item. When others saw it, people ended up having "winamp agent", "quicktime task", "real taskbar" on their windows taskbar. I can't blame anyone for putting a small agent which maintains extensions on Windows because the Windows vendor doesn't play nice. I had to install "Yahoo Companion" just to make sure IE 7 stays with Yahoo search engine, to prevent it from changing "accidentally" to MSN Livesearch.
When MS decided to put Windows Media 7 preinstalled (remember how good was 6.4?), the companies were forced to code a "all in one" application which will have library, CD burning and to cover the costs, advertisement of paid content. They also figured the Microsoft one does GUID without asking user so they decided to enable it for their best server customers who offers paid content (guess who?). It was a horrible mistake. The people didn't bother to check the competition directly attacked them and become hero in end user eye.
Now they produce complete open source software for all platforms (except codecs) and still, they get hit instead of the ultimate privacy invaders like Google.
I would say "Karma" but it is beyond it. Something strange happening. For example, it is almost impossible for one to be on slashdot and never heard the Helix project (not you) and whine around saying Spyware spyware.
Re:I can remember... (Score:4, Insightful)
What? You willingly typed your search query in, you willingly signed up to use their email service, you willingly allowed them to place cookies on your computer, clicked their ads, etc. etc. etc. Google can't get any info about you unless you give it some.
That is nowhere near the same thing as media players that phone home on you, when you expect them to just play your movie.
And you don't have to have all that crap in your system tray if you don't want it to be there. You can always not install it there in the first place and/or remove it yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you get rid of the 'safely remove devices' systray icon? That seems to never go away. What's worse are those apps that you can't do a simple rt-click & close, where instead you have to exit it from the File menu,or from the systray icon. Irritating.
Sadly, Linux apps are now catching up with annoying taskbar icons as well. A
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I had to install "Yahoo Companion" just to make sure IE 7 stays with Yahoo search engine, to prevent it from changing "accidentally" to MSN Livesearch.
I hate to be a pedantic asshat... But how did you have that problem?
I've used Internet Explorer 7 since Beta 1, and it's never done that. When you open the browser for the first time, it takes you to a page to pick what search engine you want as the default. I always pick Google, and it sticks.
I also work for Technical Support on a college campus.
Re: (Score:2)
It could be another convenient windows bug effecting minor number of users, you know...
Re: (Score:2)
Hee hee. Make sure you check "use this as my default search engine", and it could help to remove MSNLive from the list of search providers after that. (And make sure it's plugged in...) Besides, you can choose whatever search engine you want from the drop-down list to the right of the search box; I have Google, thottbot, and Wikipedia.
Magic and kittens!
April 1 was months ago... (Score:2)
Not quite yet, Bill, keep your pants on.
Re: (Score:2)
"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno." --John McCain
He just won my vote. Thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
Only 200-odd million to go! Up and away...!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Real screwed up way more than just that. I remember a time when it took more than 60 clicks to turn off all their advertising, spyware, file extension hijacking, realplayer notification crap, junk icon installers, auto downloaders, toolbars, bug-me-when-I-open-the-program type warnings (you didn't buy me, you didn't update me, you don't love me anymore
Re: (Score:2)
Really??? My experience is the opposite, that Real is one of the few applications that's gotten less bloated over the years. When Real first came out it was horribly bloated, slow, and adware-riddled, and current Real (while I don't use it) isn't nearly as bad.
Re:I can remember... (Score:5, Interesting)
They should figure it a lot earlier. They should see the feedback of their MacOS/ OS X version and compare it to Windows one. It is very common for OS X machines to have Realplayer since they always shipped a media player rather than circus they ship with Windows version.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
alsadump and videodump (Score:1)
That should bring discussions like this to an earlier end. (and maybe lead them directly to "trusted computing"/DRMed hardware)
Re: (Score:2)
If you can see it, hear it, or read it, it can be copied. No exceptions.
For games it is a bit harder.
Re: (Score:2)
Rogue Amoeba - Audio Hijack Pro: Record any audio on Mac OS X [rogueamoeba.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Another issue is, Flash is not designed for streaming media and it can't do even 1990's tricks like bandwidth switching back and forth. Result? People figure they can't watch the video conveniently and decide to use "Save As" instead of watching it embedded along with the "Text ads" right next to it. That kills them.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're using a relatively modern distribution, you're already using PulseAudio for sound, and thus have parec.
The actual real story is (Score:2)
What the hell /.? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What the hell /.? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You have to wait... (Score:4, Funny)
tm
Re: (Score:1)
I guess what I'm saying is, should we really harp on them for the way things were on
Re: (Score:1)
If I want to rip a protected audio stream, I use (Score:1, Interesting)
Some fun lawsuits ... (Score:2)
I wonder how Streambox could do with a claim that RN has ripped off their product design? Perhaps they could apply for a patent on their software, then charge RN with patent violation.
All sorts of possibilities come to mind. Of course, the
Rhapsody rocks. yes, Real is cool (Score:1)
Really not that difficult (Score:3, Informative)
Whether RealPlayer 11 can capture youtube audio is rather besides the point, as the "analog hole" will always be available.
YouTube to iPod, even Apple helps... (Score:1, Informative)
But Apple even helps out.
You can import the video as a "movie" or their new category, "music video". The music video choice means the song will play normally in a playlist in iTunes or on the iPod, but it will also play the video while playing the song. The nice fea
Corporate Behemoth? Real? (Score:3, Interesting)
Adding stream ripping is nothing but a desperate attempt to promote their software. They haven't the slightest desire to make people's lives easier, they are just desperately trying to regain market share.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except Microsoft, all decided not to re-invent wheel. Everyone does things based on a real standard like MPEG4/AAC now, there is no Codec war anymore. All except that spoiled, rich Microsoft who never paid for their mistakes have decided the existing ISO standards
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Corporate Behemoth? Real? (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, I checked the financial listings.
To quote Mr. Hammer, let's break it down:
Number 3 is kind of important. It means they are not actually making money. The tiny profit they show is due to investment income -- not anything they actually make or sell.
That is, they've taken investor's money, invested it themselves, and they are using the returns to pad the top line *just enough* to stay positive.
Number 4 is important because it means that, despite the fact that they are growing revenue, they are making less money. Less actual money on more sales. In other words, they are investing more cash into sales operations and getting less return on that additional operating expense, indicating that they are having a hard time selling anything that people want to buy.
All those things aside, it's time to face facts:
Re: (Score:1)
A Win Win (Score:2)
step 2) pc video recorder
step 3) youtube upload
step 4) real ripper
step 5) I get a copy!
In the end, tivo will get blocked by networks, pc software will just stop working as they are now with DVDs, youtube and real will get sued by the studios, and I will get arrested.
Logical argument? Huh? (Score:2)
You're new around here, aren't you?
I will take Winamp over Realplayer (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: How to "rip" videos with your browser (Score:3, Informative)
I bought Streambox ripper and Streambox VCR before Real put the kibosh on them. They were and still are good programs for rippping real media files. Then convert the RM files to some other format with Super...
I noticed that StationRipper.. (Score:1, Informative)
Who needs special tools for ripping? View Source! (Score:2)
Anyone who knows a bit of HTML will find it trivial to rip most anything from web pages. The hardest to rip are movies/audio delivered using SWFs, however you can usually decompile them to get the resources or references to external resources you need.
Some sites think they can be tricky by checking referers on these externally obtained resources or other safeguards, but with even the toughest safeguards I've seen one thing has remained true... the data always has to be sent to your computer SOMEHOW so yo
YouTube Caches its videos on your hard drive... (Score:1)