RSSReal gets into the DVD ripping business
By Ed Oswald | Published September 8, 2008, 1:09 PM
Seemingly without the direct blessing of the movie industry, RealNetworks has introduced a new application that allows consumers to "rip" DVDs.
Set to debut before the end of the month, RealDVD will retail for $40 and will allow the user to copy a complete DVD image to a hard drive, though very likely in a format that only RealDVD can play. This would include the disc artwork and any extras that may be on the disc.
A version is available for Windows XP and Vista, where additional licenses can be purchased for $20. Real said it is working on a version of the client for Mac OS X.
"Of course people are going to ask how is this legal?" asks a Real corporate blog post this morning from spokesperson Lacy Kemp. "Simply, we don't break any encryption on the DVD and [we] are a licensed member of the DVD-CCA. It's that simple, and that means it gives you the unhindered ability to do what has been done illegally for awhile."
What may save Real from any type of legal ramifications is the fact that the copy protection mechanisms are preserved onto the ripped copy. This differs from other software of more questionable legality, which removes the DRM and allow it to be distributed freely. RealDVD also locks the copy down to the specific hard drive it's saved on -- the file will not play on any other machine, and the images cannot be burned to another DVD. However, if the hard drive is portable, images from that drive can be played on up to five PCs where RealDVD is installed, the company states this morning.
Movie industry executives may still have issues with RealDVD, which could be viewed as just one more way consumers can get around buying discs. Rental services and studios do not share a cut of DVD rentals, the way they did with VHS cassettes years ago. If more consumers acquire perfectly viewable movies from Blockbuster or Netflix, paying $3.99 instead of $14.99 -- or worse, borrowing the disc from a friend -- any DVD ripping software can be considered a net negative for the movie industry.
RealDVD has no way to prevent consumers from abusing the rental system. Essentially, all a consumer would need to do is "rent, rip, and return," as the industry puts it. The only things possibly holding consumers back is size, and maybe time: Ripped discs would take up anywhere from four to eight gigabytes, and time -- each disc takes a little over a half-hour to rip.
Yet Real may have the courts on its side. After a string of successful prosecutions against DVD ripping software makers in the middle of this decade, the courts have recently begun to side with developers, with some caveats.
It appears as if the courts will permit software as long as it provides for some type of copyright protection that prevents the original ripper from sharing it with others. The Motion Picture Association of America is appealing the decision in the Kaleidescape case, which opened the door for this category of software to be distributed legitimately.
Welcome to 2003?
A HD-DVD/Blu-ray ripper would have been a lot more useful and interesting, Real. I can't even believe Real is still around with the s*** they've been peddling for all these years.
Score: 0
|Perfect timing since Seagate now has their 1.5TB hard drive available.
Score: 0
|NOT ANOTHER REAL PROPRIETARY FORMAT!
Gosh I wish this company would just cease to be.
Standards standards standards!
Score: 0
|interesting but personally I think its a bad precedence for the concept.
Real would do better I think in allowing better caching and streaming of their rentals. Much in the way Hulu does. (had to make my own plugin for mediacenter to get hulu to work in the extenders unfortuantly)
Then allow for Media center integration so it can be streamed out to extenders so people can watch their rental on TV.
I mean tech can do that anyway, but I mean for the novices that would be a good way to go for them.
I just think the concept of allowing a rental that becomes a legal DVD, which in turn can be reripped into DRMless media... Its just a bad concept all around IMHO. Much in the same way iTunes does with CDs. yea they are DRMed, but you simply rerip the created cd and bingo undrmed mp3s.
Its not stopping anything is the point so why bother? I think the tech needs to just going into more streaming options and better codecs for those streams. Then they can control the streaming server side.
Score: 0
|We bother with putting the DRM on because if we don't it can't go to market legally. I know people hate DRM- it's not the cool thing, but it's how we have to make things if we want to stay out of trouble.
Oh and it does work with Media Center (not sure if you were asking...)
Score: 0
|Old news I use DVD to Iphone Converter suite and it DOES take out the DRM
http://www.e-zsoft.com/iPhone-Converter-Suite.html
Score: 0
|I am not sure why so many think this is new???
Virtual DVD players are common - and they allow you to download movies or games and play them without having to have the original disk in residence during viewing.
There is no attempt to break any copyguard. Its essentially a bit copy with everything exactly the same and it requires that you have the source to load it.
This is not, nor does it attempt, to be a file sharing technique or scheme, nor an attempt to break copyguard - and anyone who does so is liable to the degree that they choose to expose themselves. No one is going to go after anyone who simply does this for their own movie or game at home - while anyone who tries to do this P2P online deserves what they get.
You try that, and you are subject to be hung up to dry.
And anyone who is still wondering about this obviously has not gotten their act together sufficiently to just get SlySoft's AnyDVD Suite...which BTW, as Barbados & Antigua are exempt per the WTO from American copyright law, they can legally sell it online! And the stuff works EXTREMELY well and is religiously upgraded. Just remember that you are still liable and don't be stupid and share the stuff P2P online!
Score: 0
|It may be the first time that a major US company has opted to defy the spirit of the DMCA in such an obvious way.
I do remember hearing sometime back about an outfit that created home theaters, I believe it was a US company, but a small one, and they would rip client DVD's to the media server at the heart of the system. I think they were sued, but did not follow-up on the situation.
It is still frustrating to know that the DMCA is still in place. It NEVER should have been signed in the first place.
At the very least, an exception for PRIVATE HOME USE-ONLY backups should be allowed. US citizens have been copying LP's to tape for years, then tape to optical disks.
It's a logical progression of individual fair-use rights regarding content that you have legally purchased.
For a long time, people have been recording songs off of the radio and shows off of TV, including music videos, and the Supreme Court had already established "Time s***ing" as a fair use concept.
I'm frustrated that someone with the means has not yet challenged the legality of the DMCA based upon that earlier Supreme Court ruling. The bill that was passed was not a constitutional amendment that was passed by a majority of states, so a lawsuit to challenge certain aspects of the law would have seemed like a no-brainer.
A simple lawsuit - ie - "Does a consumer have a right to create backup copies of entertainment media that they have legally purchased, provided the use of such copies is limited to an individual and/or direct family members only?
You buy Dumbo for your kids to watch on DVD. Can you make a backup of that disk and take it in your mini-van and have the child view that backup copy as you drive?
Can you record a show off of the television onto VHS, DVD-R, DVR, etc. and have multiple members of the family view it, provided it is not intended for viewing in a public situation (large gatherings away from the home or in the home that consist primarily of people who are not in residence at the family home)?
I do wish that I had the patience, will-power and the funds necessary to do such a thing myself. It is something I feel very strongly about due to the inconsistency of modern laws vs the Supreme Court precedents already established. I'm only talking about FAIR-USE RIGHTS here - a very specific and limited area of the law, I would think.
Regardless, I do appreciate the anti-drm backlash that has finally started to create some change. The ability to go to Amazon.com and purchase high-quality, non-protected songs on an individual basis or as an album is a very big step in the right direction and I hope further advances are soon to come.f
For a company to make a profit off of end-user individual fair use rights seems a bit "wrong" to me. I don't like that you should have to pay for something that should be free, at least in this particular situation.
It's frustrating that one of the senators in Washington State is Maria Cantwell, who worked for Real and became rich off of that before running, and she insists that she does not feel that the DMCA is challengeable in part because she does not support individual fair use rights on products they purchase. Perhaps even a bit ironic...
Score: 0
|While a court decision invalidating part of the DMCA would be nice, a BETTER solution would be reasonable legislation.
But all of that is rather a moot issue in a practical sense.
No major action has targeted anyone simply making backups of material they purchased - so the said need for such protection is moot.
The problem so many want to debate and try to turn into a personal fair use issue has been the wanton distribution of said files via P2P networks! And that is, and should remain, illegal.
And the means already exist to backup anything you want, including the BR+ copyguards and all of the assorted add-ons. And SlySoft's AnyDVD Suite does that admirably.
Should personal backups - if that is indeed what they are- be considered fair use? Sure.
But the red herring of whining about the DMCA and the fair use of simply making a personal backup has yet to be used against someone who simply is making a personal backup. And the tools to do so have been available for some time.And to that end, the point is moot.
And to that degree the point remains that anyone sharing the files via P2P networks are not only incompetent idiots, but they are deserving of the legal liability.
Fair use personal backups and copies have nothing to do with the redistribution of files to others. Duh.
Score: 0
|Based on the RIAA and it's incredible over-reactions in the consumer market, I would think it may be reasonable to consider that the MPAA may begin heading in that direction.
I disagree with your assessment that the points are moot, but you are certainly entitled to it.
I would like to see a reaffirmation of consumer-level Fair Use rights by the Supreme Court, but I understand that may never happen. It took them a very long time to choose and rule on a case involving individual gun rights, after all. :)
Anyway, I more than anything wanted to vent, and while I may be expressing a viewpoint that you do not respect or agree with, I'm still glad I typed it and got that out of my system.
A little speculation on my part is certain no reason for a snarky retort, but hey, I guess you are entitled to vent at me as I was entitled to vent at the situation, so perhaps we can simply let it lie there and not pursue the argument any further?
Happy viewing, protected or not,
Score: 0
|Nope, this is based upon your fantasies.
The FACT is that your fantasies have not occurred!
So much for your imagined threats.
And pray tell, if you ONLY make the these backups/copies ARE INDEED FOR YOUR OWN PERSONAL USE AND YOU DO NOT REDISTRIBUTE THEM, HOW in hell would they ever know? Duh!
But whatever you do, don't think this through and instead let your paranoia run rampant!
Or does your paranoia imagine them installing cameras in everyone's home as well? Oh oh! Another fantasy concern!
Reasoned speculation based upon precedent, no problem.
Paranoid fantasy without a basis for them even discovering that you have made a personal copy...YES, a significant problem!
Don't go out without your tin foil hat!
Score: 0
|I don't know if their license ever expires, but good luck renewing when it does.
Score: 0
|I'm baffled as to how this doesn't violate the DMCA that Clinton signed into law.
It's not April 1st, so I guess this isn't a prank, right?
Score: 0
|Something tells me a company as big as real worked with the media companies to get this together. I doubt seriously that this large of a company would make such a mistake as to just violate every known law.
Score: 0
|Yeah or I could use one of the many great free programs and do the same thing without the DRM and without dealing with Real and their crap.
Score: 0
|""Simply, we don't break any encryption on the DVD and [we] are a licensed member of the DVD-CCA. It's that simple, and that means it gives you the unhindered ability to do what has been done illegally for awhile.""
I thought copying the data to a hard drive, no matter of encryption removal or not, it was still a legal grey area..?
Score: 0
|Not really:
It's legal if you have a legal decoder (software/hardware licensed by MPAA), which you usually have to pay for.
It's illegal if you use an illegal decoder (such as deCSS).
Now, proving that you used an illegal decoder versus a legal one is nearly impossible. That's probably where your gray area comes in.
Score: 0
|And then depends on your country of origin - fairly sure even if the Real software is licensed to make a copy of the DVD without breaking the DRM - it's still a copy and therefore illegal in Australia.
Not that it matters, because AFACT aren't interested in prosecuting individuals for copying their own DVDs - they're only after distributors and uploaders.
Score: 0
|