RealNetworks ’surprised’ by MPAA lawsuit
p2pnet news view | P2P | Music:- Beleagured RealNetworks, which recently apologised for disappointing users in the past, and which wanted “another shot” because “we`ve cleaned up our act,” in 2008 blew 11.2 million on the launch of Rhapsody North America, according to a 10K filing.
It also spent $44 million in advertising with MTVN, said paidContent earlier in the month.
With that in the background RealNetworks, its RealPlayer for years plagued by revelations of one critical security problem after another, said it didn’t think it’d be sued by Hollywood’s MPAA for marketing DVD copying software, says Wired.
“Today was L-for-Launch Day for RealNetworks` RealDVD, created to allow Windows users rip entire DVDs,” posted p2pnet in September, 2oo8, going on that the EFF’s Fred von Lohmann had pointed out industry DVDs are encrypted with CSS and if you decrypt them without permission, Hollywood lawyers, “may come a-callin”.
He was dead on: the company was accused of deliberately destroying evidence that would’ve been relevant in the subsequent copyright infringement case.
Real Denied the allegations, but the MPAA demanded a court order for RealNetworks, “to preserve relevant documents from now on,” although the damage had already been done and Real’s actions had “irreparably impaired the integrity of the judicial process,” said Ars Technica, quoting the MPAA.
Now, “We didn’t think litigation was probable,” Wired has Leo Cunningham, a RealNetworks lawyer, telling US District judge Marilyn Hall Patel during a brief hearing.
The assertion was made, “because, under rules of evidence, companies must retain records if they believe they are going to be sued,” says the story, going on:
“‘The MPAA claims RealNetworks destroyed a host of documents relating to RealDVD’s production — well before the MPAA sued it in September.”
MPAA lawyer Bart Williams told Patel it was obvious the MPAA would sue RealNetworks, says Wired, going on:
“He said RealNetworks should have known as such, even from the time of the product’s initial development two years ago.
” ‘This was not some theoretically possibility,’ Williams said. He also said, ‘They knew there would be a lawsuit’.”
apologised -RealNetworks – `give us another shot, February 24, 2009`
paidContent - RealNetworks Details Promotion Costs For Rhapsody North America, March 2, 2009
Wired – RealNetworks: ‘We Didn’t Think’ MPAA Would Sue Over DVD Copying Software, March 23, 2009
L-for-Launch Day – RealNetworks DVD ripper, September 8, 2008
p2pnet - MPAA sues RealNetwork, September 30, 2008
pointed out – Want to Back up your DVD? Here`s how , September 16, 2008
Ars Technica - MPAA: RealNetworks hamstrings lawsuit by destroying evidence, March 5, 200
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
March 24th, 2009 at 8:41 am
I remember when they trialed this and spoke here. I was surprised they even opened dialog. For me, I saw a change. Anyhow I wish them all the best in this lawsuit.
March 24th, 2009 at 9:16 am
Huh?
“âThe Seattle company said its software does not circumvent encryption software in violation of the DMCA. The software allows users to store copies of movies on their hard drives, which the company says is a fair use allowed under the DMCA.”
They bought a license from the DVD CCA guys so their software is legally able to deal with the (weak) DVD encryption?
Or did they just used DeCSS code in it?
copyprotection breaking/circumvention is illegal under your laws as far as I remember, even when it is done with the “excuse” of fair use as far as I remember.
And I do remember the old DeCSS episode back then when the MAFIAA was dying already according to their statements (I even listened to the audiotaperecordings of the 2600 guy “Goldstein” [nearly as painful as the tenenbaum tapes])
March 24th, 2009 at 9:53 am
RealNetworks…
RealClueless.
March 24th, 2009 at 9:53 am
They chose to work with “content” “owners” instead of working with those who use their software. They had a choice to say NO to DRM and not to carry “premium” “content” at all, but they chose to carry it.
I hope that this lawsuit will be a lesson for them.
Less outlets for “premium” “content” – more space to great works, be it indies or users who now become creators again.