facebook rss twitter

Judge upholds RealDVD suspension, remains uncertain of DMCA violation

by Parm Mann on 9 October 2008, 12:07

Tags: RealDVD, RealNetworks

Quick Link: HEXUS.net/qapph

Add to My Vault: x

A software package designed by RealNetworks to allow users to creature digital copies of their DVDs has been indefinitely suspended from distribution by Californian Judge Marilyn Hall Patel.

RealDVD, originally described by its makers as a means to "save your movies legally, and with confidence" - faced tough opposition as soon it launched. Despite having sold an estimated 30,000 copies in a matter of days, it became temporarily suspended by a federal court at the request of all six major Hollywood studios - who argued that the software allows users to rent, copy and return movies from a rental store.

That temporary suspension, however, now appears to be indefinite as Judge Marilyn Hall Patel has enforced the sales block until further notice. Judge Patel - who has previously presided over landmark cases such as Bernstein v. US Department of State and RIAA vs. Napster - states "I'm not satisfied that in fact this technology is not in violation of the DMCA", and the suspension won't be lifted until RealNetworks can prove otherwise.

RealNetworks' attorney James DiBoise pointed out that RealDVD provides a bit-for-bit copy of the DVD, and that any residing copy protection remains intact. Hollywood studios, however, remain adamant that any such copy protection must be read from the original disc itself.

RealNetworks vows to continue to "work diligently to provide you with software that allows you to make a legal copy of your DVDs for your own use", but we wouldn't expect distribution to resume anytime soon - if at all.



HEXUS Forums :: 3 Comments

Login with Forum Account

Don't have an account? Register today!
Whats the difference between this and the Kaleidescape systems? How are they able to store your dvds without infringing any laws?
Hold on a minute, the judge wants realnetworks to prove that it hasn't infringed copyright laws, rather than the other 6 having to prove that realnetworks has infringed copyright laws. Maybe I'm reading it wrong but isn't that basically ‘guilty until proven innocent’?
Yeah, pretty much. Isn't that part of the DMCA though, you have to prove you didn't vioate it rather than it being proved you did?