Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Open Source, Real Media Mega-player? 362

Posted by CmdrTaco from the to-little-to-late dept.
chill writes "CNN is reporting "RealNetworks on Monday will unveil a new open source version of its streaming media software that supports multiple file formats for audio and video, including those that use Microsoft's Windows Media technology." and "RealNetworks did not formally license the ability to offer Windows Media software, but instead re-created the technology based on data streams sent between the server and player software, The New York Times reported. A Microsoft representative told the newspaper that the company would need to determine whether RealNetworks licensed the software before taking action. " I can't wait to see the actual license." Update: 07/22 19:10 GMT by T : The software can be downloaded from the Helix site, if you're interested.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Open Source, Real Media Mega-player? More

Open Source, Real Media Mega-player?

Comments Filter:

  • I hate (Score:5, Funny)

    by geekoid ( 135745 ) <dadinportland&yahoo,com> on Monday July 22, 2002 @01:20PM (#3931276) Homepage Journal
    when something I hate does something I like.

    • Re:I hate (Score:3, Interesting)

      by EyesWideOpen ( 198253 )
      I hate when something I hate does something I like.

      Ditto. Though I'm not entirely sure that I'm going to like what Real is planning on doing.

      I find Real's software (Jukebox, Realplayer) to be very annoying in that it registers itself in the [Windows] taskbar more persistently than another software I've seen and that it's also very persistent about ensuring that you register the product. Besides that, the display of the player is riddled with advertisements by default. And the new RealOne thing they have going on turned me away from the company for good, I think.

      • Re:I hate (Score:3, Interesting)

        by uncoveror ( 570620 )
        Once the source code for the new real player is available, someone is sure to strip out the crap, and make a spyware free version of it that doesn't bog your computer down. Until then, real player will continue to suck.

        • Re:I hate (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Rick the Red ( 307103 )
          Does this mean I'll finally get to see Real videos? I refuse to install their software as long as their license means I grant them the "right" to load anything they please on my computer. The relevant section of their license is "6. AUTOMATIC COMMUNICATIONS FEATURES." where they say stuff like "RN may match the user id to personally identifiable information" and "However, as we describe above, certain updates to RealOne Player functionality will happen automatically and without advance notification." Naturally, I can't provide a link as this license is not on-line, and naturally I'm not allowed to copy it here:

          "REALNETWORKS, INC.

          "END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT

          "REALNETWORKS PRODUCTS

          "REDISTRIBUTION NOT PERMITTED"

          Yeah, whatever. But your crap ain't go'n on my PC under those terms, buddy!

          So, how soon before we see a spy-ware free, non-self-"updating" version?

  • Ok, so they supposedly reverse engineered the MS protocol, then? It surely sounds like they did. The article says they are offering the client source immediately, and then the server source in a few months. Maybe they're waiting to deal with MS first.

  • Will it be vaporware? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by strredwolf ( 532 ) on Monday July 22, 2002 @01:23PM (#3931313) Homepage Journal
    License, smishence. We need the code. Give us the code. If it's going open source, it's going to get rewritten.

  • Part Open Source, Part Not (Score:5, Informative)

    by Bruce Perens ( 3872 ) <bruce@perens.com> on Monday July 22, 2002 @01:23PM (#3931316) Homepage Journal
    About the RealNetworks Release
    Bruce Perens
    Free Software Evangelist
    22-July-2002

    RealNetworks is announcing today that some of their software will be
    released as Open Source or Free Software. While RealNetworks is making a
    significant contribution to Open Source, today's release does not include
    the "crown jewels" -- their "codecs", the encoding and decoding software
    for their proprietary RealAudio and RealVideo formats. I will go into more
    detail regarding what they are proposing to release, and when, in this
    message.

    I'd also like to say what my role is in this. It is not to endorse, but
    to explain what's going on from an Open Source perspective. Some of the
    pieces announced today will be Open Source, but many will not be. Thus,
    I can't fully approve of what is going on. I will continue to lobby
    RealNetworks to follow today's step by going fully open, and I urge you to
    continue to use fully open codecs in preference to the RealNetworks ones.

    It was entertaining to see the first sentence of the invitation that
    RealNetworks sent to some of the press:

    > On Monday at 10am in SF, Eric Raymond, Bruce Perrins, Brian Bellendorf
    > etc. will all be attending a press conference with Real Networks and 30
    > other top industry companies for a significant industry announcement.

    I am flattered by their enthusiasm, especially since I'd told them
    repeatedly that I'd not be making an endorsement. This shows that
    RealNetworks may actually be able to deal with the Open Source community
    on the community's own terms. That will be essential if a real partnership
    is to come of today's announcement.

    So, what is RealNetworks proposing? They plan to release code in 90
    days. Some of the details of that code, including what parts are included
    in the release and how they are licensed, may change before then.

    RealNetworks "client engine", the thing that lives in the desktop or the
    web browser and drives the client half of their codec, will be available
    under a license that is derived from the Apple Public Source License, but
    with goals much closer to the GNU General Public License. The license text
    includes a patent grant. Like the APSL and the NPL licenses, it grants
    RealNetworks a right to relicense your code under any license of their choice.
    So it is unlike the GPL in that it gives one party more rights than all
    others. This license has yet to be approved by the Open Source Initiative
    board, or accepted by the Free Software Foundation, or even fully reviewed by
    yours truly. It may have to be modified before it is worthy of acceptance by
    the community.

    The Open Source client engine will probably include:

    > - RTSP/RTP/RTCP/SDP network playback
    > - UDP support
    > - Local file playback
    > - Single source A/V
    > - A/V data type interface
    > - file format interface
    > - some A/V codec support (TBD; standards-based, probably MP3 and 3GPP
    > codecs)

    I have an even longer list of other features that the Open Source client
    _may_ include, which I can't show you until they decide. On the list of
    functions that most likely won't be included, besides the codecs, there's
    a lot of utility and user-interface code.

    So, we're getting some network protocols that go on top of IP and UDP,
    and do their best to provide continuous playback despite the fact that
    the Internet doesn't guarantee throughput or latency. On top of that are
    file formats and data objects, and other pieces necessary to make an Open
    Source player for some already-open file formats. It is likely that many
    of the client pieces will be applicable to servers and encoders as well,
    although RealNetworks is not placing their server and "encoder engine"
    in Open Source. Combining the Open Source player with RealNetworks
    proprietary codecs will produce a player for the RealAudio and RealVideo
    formats on new platforms where no player existed before.

    Perhaps the greatest beneficiary of RealNetworks contribution could
    be the Ogg Vorbis audio format. Ogg is a fully Open Source codec,
    unencumbered by patents or royalty payment requirements, which
    offers audio quality comparable to, or better then, its proprietary
    competition. The Ogg encoder and servers, not just the client, are
    available as Open Source. The addition of RealNetworks network protocols
    and other utilities might make Ogg even better, and might facilitate the
    inclusion of Ogg as an option in RealNetworks proprietary products.

    RealNetworks server and "encoder engine", without the actual codecs,
    will be under a "community source" license. This means that source code
    will be disclosed to people who sign an agreement, and those people will
    get a lot less than the full set of rights that come with Open Source
    licensing. Since other streaming servers and encoders are already fully
    Open Source, we can't expect the Open Source community to have much to
    do with this part of RealNetworks code. However, community source does
    make life easier for RealNetworks partners, whose business depends on
    this code and who might not have had source code until now.

    The RealAudio and RealVideo codecs will be available in compiled form, as
    proprietary software that can be linked into a larger product. Again, no joy
    in the Free Software camp. However, these codecs will be available for use
    along with various Open Source pieces that Real is releasing, and thus it will
    be easier to for third parties to produce a half-proprietary Real-format player
    under Linux and on other operating systems where one is not supported today.

    Why is Real doing this? Obviously, they are under pressure from
    Microsoft's Media Player, and would like to prevent that product
    from achieving market domination. Increasing open-ness is a weapon in
    that battle, because a perception of open-ness will make more people
    consider RealNetworks products as standards rather than just products.
    But RealNetworks may not be able to afford to be open enough - their
    revenue today depends on licensing fees for the use of their software, and
    unless they can change their business model somewhat, it will be difficult
    for them to achieve a real partnership with the Open Source community.
    That community has little to gain by replacing Microsoft's proprietary
    audio format with RealNetworks still-proprietary audio format. The Free
    Software folks will continue to develop Ogg Vorbis and other solutions,
    although perhaps in a way that is more compatible with RealNetworks
    proprietary software. Thus, I consider todays announcement to be only a
    first step for RealNetworks, with additional steps necessary if they are
    to succeed. On behalf of the Open Source and Free Software developers, I
    hope to be able to help RealNetworks take those additional steps.

    Respectfully Submitted

    Bruce Perens

    • Re:Part Open Source, Part Not (Score:5, Informative)

      by buzzdecafe ( 583889 ) on Monday July 22, 2002 @01:25PM (#3931349)
      The Reg has digested this stuff here:

      http://www.theregus.com/content/6/25690.html [theregus.com]
    • >On the list of functions that most likely won't be included, besides the codecs, there's a lot of utility and user-interface code.

      Which is a pity, as their user-interface is terrible, and could do with some external inspection (although admittedly open source doesn't have the worlds greatest track record on that front either ;).

    • Real's web Site for this release opens. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Bruce Perens ( 3872 ) <bruce@perens.com> on Monday July 22, 2002 @01:34PM (#3931439) Homepage Journal
      See helxicommunity.org [helixcommunity.org]

      Bruce

      • The site talks about open-sourcing the Helix server, as well as the encoder. While the server isn't too much of a surprise, given the success of the Quicktime one, what is the encoder going to be?

        You said that it won't be the Real format, which is fine, but what formats will it encode for? Windows Media? MPEG? Or is it more just a pluggable framework for codecs?

    • Re:Part Open Source, Part Not (Score:5, Interesting)

      by liquidsin ( 398151 ) on Monday July 22, 2002 @01:34PM (#3931441) Homepage
      So if they have the right to take any derivative code and relicense it as they see fit, does that mean that once someone makes a usable version of their client software (which they seem unable to do themselves) they will just take it away and return it to a closed-source license?
      • According to Bruce's post, under the current plan, yes and no. They could take it and release it in a closed source license, but you would still be able to distribute the modifications you made as OSS. They would not be able to take your rights away, they would just have special rights with your modifications.

        Of course, he also pointed out that their license has not been given careful review, and could change for better or worse before release of any software.
      • They could just sue for patent infringement:

        No patent license is granted separate from the Covered Code, for code that you delete from the Covered Code, or for combinations of the Covered Code with other software or hardware.

        You may create a derivative work under copyright, but you don't have the right to run the code for profit (or whatever use can infringe a patent in your legislation).
      • See section 11 of the RPSL at http://www.helixcommunity.org/content/rpsl.htm

    • Could this make things worse? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DragonHawk ( 21256 ) on Monday July 22, 2002 @01:55PM (#3931619) Homepage Journal
      One of the major reasons streaming media is used today is not for live productions, but rather, as a misguided and ill-conceived form of copy-protection and content-control. If Real goes open, and that creates a perception that Real is easier to copy, will the media cartel (RIAA, MPAA, etc.) drop Real entirely, in favor of Windows Media or some other more suitably evil technology?

      In other words, could this make the Open Source streaming media situation worse, at least in the short-term?
      • Well, this release does not include any DRM, so it is likely that in the future (or even now) thare will be some DRM-protected RealMedia that the mostly-Open-Source player won't play.

        Bruce

        • Or perhaps it'll be another closed, DRM containing codec that can plug in to the open framework? We'll at least be able to watch things then if we want to make that choice, which is more than we can really say now.

    • Thanks! (Score:5, Informative)

      by robla ( 4860 ) on Monday July 22, 2002 @05:32PM (#3933287) Homepage Journal
      I'd like to thank Bruce for all of his help in distilling what we are offering. Bruce was in our press conference with his 802.11-equipped laptop helping to put out accurate information from a trusted source. We hope we can still win him over (as well as the rest of the community) when it comes to the value of our offering, which we think is quite substantial.

      Additionally, I'd like to thank Eric Raymond and Brian Behlendorf for also being here today, and for their valuable feedback in making sure we're doing the Right Thing(tm). We've also discussed many aspects of this with Emmett Plant and Jack Moffitt of Xiph.org/Vorbis fame as well as Tim O'Reilly and the folks at O'Reilly & Associates, and we're very excited about the opportunities on that horizon. Last but not least, I'd like to thank CollabNet for their incredible help on the launch, and we're looking forward to working with Mark Murphy and the rest of the crew to make Helix into a success.

      With regards to the business model, I feel I should respond. This is a very deliberately measured approach to joining the open source community. We have a responsibility to our shareholders to continue to make a profit over the long haul. In the short term, this means withholding some technology to continue forward without drastically altering our current business model.

      In the long term, we will be thinking very deeply about how to resolve the business paradox of making money while giving stuff away. It's not new territory for us, but this is certainly a new application of that expertise. Bruce, Eric, Mark Donovan (@RealNetworks) and I had a very interesting conversation at lunch about this, and I'd like to continue this conversation with the them and the rest of the community at OSCON this week.

      At any rate, we're very excited about this foray into what's a brave new world for our company. As with any company shifting away from a mosty proprietary software model, I imagine we'll have the occasional faux pas and hiccup. However, I'm incredibly excited about the step we've made, and
      hopeful that we can have a fruitful partnership with the community (and if someone can come up with a non-nausiating word for "synergistic"...I'll use that too!)

      Rob Lanphier
      Program Manager -- Interoperability
      RealNetworks

  • But.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by iONiUM ( 530420 ) on Monday July 22, 2002 @01:24PM (#3931331) Journal
    but instead re-created the technology based on data streams sent between the server and player software,

    Dare I say it, however isn't this exactly what BnetD did with Battle.Net? Why can Real media get away with it but not BnetD? This makes no sense at all.

  • The Player War? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Knacklappen ( 526643 ) <knacklappen@gmx.net> on Monday July 22, 2002 @01:24PM (#3931332) Journal
    Maybe we will soon wittness an updated version of The Player War (I still hope for a new Browser War...). If M$ can find a hair in RN's soop, they will almost certainly pick it up and make a big deal out of it, either as patent infringement or as proof that they indeed do *not* have a monopoly. Either way, it's going to be ugly...

    Good news is if the thing is waterproof and 100% Open Source... Maybe time to rejoice after all...

    • Re:The Player War? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Rivard ( 582784 ) on Monday July 22, 2002 @01:31PM (#3931416) Homepage
      This might be great, you're right. But it won't be: this is Real we are talking about, the pioneer of the clunky-as-all-hell media applications that do nothing for anyone but barely stream audio and crash when the juices start flowing.

      On the one hand, it is nice that Real is doing this for Open Sourcers, but, on the other, what other choice did they have?

      So, before anyone wets their skeeves with dreams of Open Source-everything, be prepared for this to be the first in an unwieldy trend of crap being released to be saved by open sources, with no credit given back to them.

      Some people say don't look a gift horse in the mouth, well this isn't a gift horse, it is just another media dinosaur waiting in the bushes to rip everyone off.

      But hey, I could be wrong.

  • reverse engineered? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Lxy ( 80823 ) on Monday July 22, 2002 @01:25PM (#3931345) Journal
    The article was light on details, but it sounds like RealNetworks was sniffing the data stream and reverse-engineering the Media Player protocol. I'm really hoping they did it the correct way, or Microsoft could literally sue them into oblivion.

    AFAIK, you can reverse engineer the protocol correctly. What you need to do is have a programmer or team of programmers reverse engineer the stream and create a working replica. Once they've successfully created a Windows Media streaming program, they sit in a conference room with a team of "virgin" programmers who haven't seen the source or any data from the stream. The virgin coders then talk with the team that reverse engineered the stream, but don't actually see the source or the technical information. The virgin coding team then takes that data and creates a new software component.

    I just really hope they took that vital step, otherwise RealNetworks is violating Microsoft's IP and will get sued off the face of the earth.

    • Re:reverse engineered? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Skyshadow ( 508 )
      Maybe my understanding of the DMCA is a bit off, but couldn't MS insinuate that, since an OSS media player that decodes Media Player could be used to circumvent someone's copyright protection (regardless of who), the reverse engineering was in violation of the DMCA?

      Of course, this is *assuming* that they did as you suggest and had isolated virgin programmers, which I hope they did for their sake (that said, I've seen companies do this on a couple of occassions for whatever legal reason).

      • Re:reverse engineered? (Score:2, Insightful)

        by jstott ( 212041 )
        Maybe my understanding of the DMCA is a bit off, but couldn't MS insinuate that, since an OSS media player that decodes Media Player could be used to circumvent someone's copyright protection (regardless of who), the reverse engineering was in violation of the DMCA?

        IANAL, but assuming RealMedia did a proper clean-room implementation, what they've done is an independant creative work. Microsoft's copyright has not been violeted because nothing of the new implementation belongs to Microsoft.

        There are also passages of the DMCA that deal with reverse-engineering for the purpose of inter-operability, but it will probably take a real lawyer to say anything intelligent about how applicable they may be to this situation.

        -JS

    • Assuming that RealNetworks did spend the extra money on making a legal reverse engineering of the MS protocols, this is an excellent way of distributing that information in such a way as to do some damage to Microsoft.
      However... it's probably a waste of time. MSFT will simply change their protocols. Any OSS player based on RealNetwork's code will remain a niche player. Sorry for the pun.
      History shows that you cannot fight MSFT head on. You have to invent a new game. Streaming video and audio in the classic manner is dead. Long live P2P TV!
      RealNetworks would have done better to invest their money in an open source P2P TV product.

    • Re:reverse engineered? (Score:5, Funny)

      by curunir ( 98273 ) on Monday July 22, 2002 @01:44PM (#3931530) Homepage Journal
      a team of "virgin" programmers

      Is there any other kind?
    • They don't actually have to sit and talk. In fact, IMHO, IANAL, ETC, it's probably better if they don't, just because information might leak out that could taint the clean team.

      Much better is for the reverse engineers to fully document the protocol on paper, then for the clean team to implement the protocol from that document, along with a statement that they did not do the reverse engineering and have not seen the original code.

      This is how Phoenix did their clean-room clone of the original IBM BIOS.

      Documenting the protocol on paper gives you two additional benefits. First, it gives you a written snapshot of the protocol at the time the implementation was done, and second, it can be used as documentary evidence in case of a lawsuit. Portions of the clean code can be compared to the spec, and to the original code, to show the differences in implementation.

    • Of course, if Microsoft has patents on any of this, it's likely that Real is out of luck even if they did a complete "clean room" implementation of the software.

    • You don't actually have to do a 'clean room' reverse engineering unless you are probably going to end up with lots of bit-for-bit stuff that looks like it was copied. In the case of Compaq and the IBM bios, you didn't have much space, and you weren't really doing much, so there was a really good chance that lots of the data would be exactly the same if it was going to work. If Compaq didn't use a clean room IBM could sue for copyright violation because the data would be the same.

      Most of the time you don't need a clean room.

    • Re:reverse engineered? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      In 1997 I worked for VXtreme as a developer on the server end. At the time there was a nice little market contest going on between Real and VXTreme to send video over the Internet, and Microsoft had a stupid thing called Net Show they were pushing but it required too much bandwidth.

      In the middle of 1997 I went into work one day, and we were all called, a company wide meeting, into the lunch room. A bunch of chairs for us as audience, and a row of chairs up front containing Microsoft people. They (M$oft) bought the company, and the software became Windows Media Player and the server component whose name I don't know.

      Over the course of the purchase it was disclosed that at the same time as M$oft bought VXtreme, they also did deals with Real and a couple other video companies. The deal with Real was some kind of cross licensing, and over all the deal was to change the whole market from this little competition to M$oft owning it and all the other players being tools vendors supporting M$oft. Of course Real and M$oft later had a falling out.

      My point is, that in 1997 Real and M$oft made a deal. I certainly don't know what was involved in that deal, and didn't care to look and find out more.

      Real may be in trouble.

      - David Herron
    • How, exactly, would the prosecution (microsoft) prove any of this???

  • Reverse Engineered?! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SirSlud ( 67381 ) on Monday July 22, 2002 @01:25PM (#3931350) Homepage
    Uh, they reverse engineered the Windows Media streaming formats?

    Woot! More, more! Nothing would make me happier than seeing some big fishes render MS's hushhush approach to file formats a moot tactic.

    IANAL, so I'll leave the speculative legal analyses to other posters, but that sure sounds illegal, doesn't it?

    Does this signify a complete failure of their content delivery service (SuperPass?) .. what is the pay off for them here? Sounds like they are trying to change the playing field, and force MS to have to stop relying on its time-honoured format/reader-monopoly approach to pushing market acceptance of its products .. ?

  • The Register also has an article about it (Score:4, Informative)

    by some guy I know ( 229718 ) on Monday July 22, 2002 @01:26PM (#3931364) Homepage
    Here. [theregus.com]

  • Interesting Comparison (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RazzleFrog ( 537054 ) on Monday July 22, 2002 @01:27PM (#3931374)
    The article compares Microsoft's battle with Real to their past battle with Netscape. It is an intersting comparison since both battles I believe were a combination of Microsoft's maneuvering and the other companies failure to put out an adequate product. Real has consistently put out bloated, resource-hogging, spywaring, bug-ridden software.

    RealOne is a huge improvement over previous products but you still have to be careful with it re-associating itself with certain file types. I think what has helped Real, though, is the fact the Windows Media Player really peaked at 6.4 and has itself become bloated.

  • Parallels with Netscape? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jvmatthe ( 116058 ) on Monday July 22, 2002 @01:30PM (#3931404) Homepage
    Step 1: Make a name for yourself in the market
    Step 2: Microsoft steps in and begins to eat up your market with their desktop integration
    Step 3: Struggle. Squirm.
    Step 4: Release source to your application.

    Granted, this might not be all of Real's assets in the way that Netscape released their browser source, but it could be the leg up that free software needs to get into the streaming and streaming client market. Also, it bears noting that Netscape (i.e. AOL/TW) invested tons of money to make the product work after they released the source. The Mozilla project certainly wouldn't be where it is today without that investment.

    Now, how would it proceed?

    Step 5: Company is marginalized, possibly dies.
    Step 6: Free software product lives on.

    We've already seen Nautilus from Eazel do this on the GNOME desktop (although some people seem to dislike the bloated desktop). It certainly is a possibility with Netscape, given the recent troubles at AOL/Time Warner. And I can't remember the time I read a positive article about Real, but then again, I might just be missing out.

    Now, I guess I should read the CNN article... ;^)
  • RealNetworks did not formally license the ability to offer Windows Media software, but instead re-created the technology based on data streams sent between the server and player software

    I'm not American, so my details on this would be hazy. But this is reverse engineering. And you're in trouble of the DMCA kind when you perform such an operation, I've observed.

    Am I correct?

    • Depends on whether or not you view ASF stream protocols as containing copy-protection, which non-DRM'd streams certainly don't. If there's no copy-protection to "circumvent" then surely the DMCA doesn't apply?

      The bigger problem for Real, I would imagine, is the (insane!) patents that Microsoft was able to obtain for the ASF protocol. Despite the fact that ASF is basically very simple, MS was able to obtain a patent, thus effectively preventing anyone from producing anything compatible with it unless they license the Windows Media Format SDK.

    • Re:DMCA Violation? (Score:3, Informative)

      by donutello ( 88309 )
      IIRC the DMCA explicitly allows reverse-engineering for the purpose of interoperability. It only does not allow reverse-engineering when it is used to circumvent a security mechanism.
      • Fair enough. What then when the security mechanism is there to protect against reverse engineering?

        • For copyright purposes: if the security mechanism is there to protect against reverse engineering, then it might me harder to reverse engineer, but thats all. *If* the purpose is legal (DMCA) then reverse engnineering is just legal, yes? If not DRMed, then reverse engineering is also just plain legal. The only problem is patents.
  • Reg required, etc, but this NYT article [nytimes.com], besides getting the scoop, is longer and better with details than CNN. Shocking, I know.

  • NY Times link (Score:2, Informative)

    by hoowee ( 581244 )
    similar article posted at NY Times: http://nytimes.com/2002/07/22/technology/22REAL.ht ml [nytimes.com]
  • they release Microsoft's codec and don't release their own codec. We should not become a tool in the wars between these behemoths. That is a road to mediocrity.

  • Um?! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by eddy ( 18759 ) on Monday July 22, 2002 @01:34PM (#3931445) Homepage Journal

    Didn't Real put Streambox [uh.edu] out of market because Streambox had reveng'ed the protocol to allow downloads of streaming media?!

    Maybe I'm remembering this wrong, but that would really smell of hypocrisy.

    • The streambox vcr client sent the "secret handshake" to a realmedia server, and realmedia sued over this because it was very easy to 'fake out' a streaming server in this way, and then ignore the 'don't save' bit.

      http://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/cjoyce/copyright/rel ease10/Real.html [uh.edu]

      24. In order [*11] to gain access to RealMedia content located on a RealServer, the VCR mimics a RealPlayer and circumvents the authentication procedure, or Secret Handshake, that a RealServer requires before it will stream content. In other words, the Streambox VCR is able to convince the RealServer into thinking that the VCR is, in fact, a RealPlayer.

      25. Having convinced a RealServer to begin streaming content, the Streambox VCR, like the RealPlayer, acts as a receiver. However, unlike the RealPlayer, the VCR ignores the Copy Switch that tells a RealPlayer whether an end-user is allowed to make a copy of (i.e., download) the RealMedia file as it is being streamed. The VCR thus allows the end-user to download RealMedia files even if the content owner has used the Copy Switch to prohibit end-users from downloading the files.

  • Marketing hype != OSS (Score:5, Informative)

    by tshoppa ( 513863 ) on Monday July 22, 2002 @01:35PM (#3931456)
    So far, what Real has shown is marketing hype. There is no open source software until they give us the source. And as Bruce and others have pointed out, they're only open-sourcing Microsoft's codecs, not their own; this is not the spirit nor the letter of open-source!
    • FYI: Real did announce that they are going to be submitting their RealVideo9 for incorporation into MPEG4. RV9 is an outstanding codec and I look forward to seeing MPEG4 being improved by it.

      http://www.realnetworks.com/company/press/releas es /2002/mpeg.html

  • Articles usage numbers suspect?? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mcwop ( 31034 ) on Monday July 22, 2002 @01:37PM (#3931473) Homepage
    Article states

    In April, RealMedia reached 17 million at-home viewers, compared with Windows Media at 15.1 million and Apple Computer's QuickTime at 7.3 million, according to Nielsen/NetRatings. At work, Windows Media drew about 12.2 million unique viewers, compared with RealMedia's 11.6 million and QuickTime's 5 million.

    In 2001 Quicktime was downloaded about 80 million times. My personal website experience also contradicts Quicktime usage numbers as well. Huh? Are they counting porn in those numbers?

    • NetRatings suspect? Maybe...

      You've got to consider certain things...

      NetRatings software availiable only for Windows:
      http://www.macopinion.com/columns/tangib le/00/02/2 4/

      Then, take a look at their website:
      http://pm.netratings.com/nnpm/owa/NRpubl icreports. toppropertiesweekly

      This list seems suspect. Obviously Microsoft tops the list since MSN.com is the default homepage for IE.

      Also, keep in mind that NetRatings is simply tracking its own users. The 7.3 million for QuickTime is amongst those being tracked. Obviously, this number will differ greatly from the actual number of downloads (which is also misleading as I'm sure you've downloaded QuickTime more than once due to re-installs, upgrades, etc.)

      Ratings (like statistics) tend to lie. How can RealPlayer have a larger install base on Windows when Media Player is installed by default? Who knows. Maybe they only track certain versions, intentional usage or something else.

      -NT
    • You're trying to compare # of downloads to # of unique viewers.

      Consider how many times each individual may have downloaded Quicktime, to reinstall, to upgrade, to move to a different computer, to load it on multiple computers...

      Of course how they determine unique viewers is likely questionable.
      • My personal experience is that users have all three players. They use the one needed for the particular viewing task. If they are counting paying or non-paying subscribers fine, but otherwise I suspect media player usage is quite different. The installed base has to be bigger than these numbers might lead some to believe.
    • I believe (though I could be wrong) that all 3 have some sort of viewing network on which you can watch content and these are the likely numbers that the article refers to. Considering that Windows Media is pre-installed on all Windows machines their numbers should be much higher than the other 2 which you have to expicitly download.
    • "I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX

      Is there such a thing as "defenseless shellfish?" Aren't the shells their defense? It is things like this that keep me up at night...
      • Depends on the perspective. The shell may provide defense against smaller fish, but the shell is no match for humans with sharp tools. Anyways, it may be slightly out of context. It is a pretty funny NOFX song though. Don't let it keep you up at night.
    • Don't discount porn too much. Porn is still a very large part of the Internet, and will always be a large part of Real and Microsoft Media Player's businesses.
  • A Microsoft representative told the newspaper that the company would need to determine whether RealNetworks licensed the software before taking action.
    Heh. Probably because: if they licensed it, then they broke a contract and can be sued. If they didn't license it, then there is no basis for any action. :-)

    Sorta like DVD players. Apex probably broke their contract, but mplayer/xine/etc didn't break anything.

  • I often wonder why format creators don't always do this (i.e. release specs for format into public domain, while maintaining control over servers/encoders).

    If I create/sell tools for a format, and give the players away for free anyway, I want as many people to use the format as possible. If the format becomes standard, I'm in a great position since I control the content creation side (i.e. where the $$$ is).

    So people creating open source players/viewers doesn't hurt me, it helps me enormously, since I don't have to expend resources maintaining all possible platforms.

    Doug

  • Speaking of reverse engineering protocols . . . (Score:5, Interesting)

    by 0bjectiv3 ( 216391 ) on Monday July 22, 2002 @01:46PM (#3931542)
    Microsoft did precisely the same thing to Novell's IPX/SPX protocol, developing a "clean room" implementation called NWLink. This protocol allowed for critical interoperability with Netware, and played a large role in companies' gradual migration to NT.

    In other words, Microsoft wouldn't be where it is today without reverse engineering.

    The sword cuts both ways, Billy.

  • Patent problems, not DMCA (Score:4, Insightful)

    by strags ( 209606 ) on Monday July 22, 2002 @01:46PM (#3931546)
    As far as I can see, the DMCA is unlikely to apply here since plain (non-DRM'd) ASF streams do not contain any form of copy protection.

    If I remember correctly, though, Microsoft has a patent on the ASF format scheme itself. The granting of this patent in the first place was ridiculous - (thought sadly commonplace these days) - ASF is a very simple format for multiplexing video/audio/whatever over a single stream. There's nothing innovative about it.

    Of course plenty of patents are issued these days for very unimaginative, uninnovative things - what makes MS's patent so unusual is that it's tantamount to patenting a file format - something that could effectively prevent otherwise legal reverse-engineering.

    The author of Virtual Dub [virtualdub.org] was forced to remove ASF compatibility after pressure from Microsoft regarding the patent.

    Microsoft - boldly leading us back into the dark ages of incompatibility!

    • Sounds like all that is necessary is an example of time-division multiplexing. Perhaps they could get somebody from AT&T who was doing this in the 60s.

    • If I remember correctly, though, Microsoft has a patent on the ASF format scheme itself. The granting of this patent in the first place was ridiculous - (thought sadly commonplace these days) - ASF is a very simple format for multiplexing video/audio/whatever over a single stream. There's nothing innovative about it.

      Very true, Microsoft owns this and numerous other rediculous patents, and, to be fair, plenty of other companies own software patents of varying stupidity as well.

      But this only matters to the United States, which seems to be doing all it can to make itself the technological backwater of the world, hamstringing itself with software (and business-method) patents, criminalizing reverse-engineering (DMCA), and now attempting to criminalize general computing itself through government mandated DRM (SSSCA/CBDTPA/BPDG) [the latter of which may happen through the back-door via the FCC, with no new legislation debated or passed, if Senator "Disney" Hollings has his way].

      Once this source has been released (assuming it has been released under a free license) it will be in the wild, so to speak, and remain free in the rest of the world even if those of us unfortunate enough to be living under the American Regime are not permitted to use it.

      Either way, releasing this under a free license would be a good thing. It remains to be seen, however, just how free Real's license turns out to be.

  • more details (Score:2, Informative)

    by bryam ( 449040 )
    REALNETWORKS ANNOUNCES HELIX -- THE FIRST COMPREHENSIVE, OPEN STANDARD FOR DIGITAL MEDIA DELIVERY

    RealNetworks forms the Helix Community with support from HP, Intel, Nokia, Oracle, PalmSource, Sony Corporation, Sun Microsystems and more than 20 Other Companies and Organizations

    read the complete announce [realnetworks.com]

  • Real is shooting themselves in the foot on this. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by InnovATIONS ( 588225 ) on Monday July 22, 2002 @01:56PM (#3931635)
    The smartest thing that M$ could do is just let Real do it. Then all M$ has to do is to create a version of Media Player that includes ALL of Real's protocols (after all they have made it clear through their actions that they believe it is perfectly acceptable to reverse-engineer a protocol based on a data stream) give this new version a nice interface with less advertizing clutter and make it available as minor free update available as part of a service patch. Not that we have never seen this done before, right? Do these companies ever learn?
  • Well, I suppose we'll have to see the license they use. Hopefully it will mean someone can strip out all the real networks garbage that spawns all over my machine when I install (or even use real player). Theoretically, Microsoft could even take their code and use it to support RM in media player. I have no idea why Real thinks people would want to watch WM stuff in real player, or anything at all in real player.
  • And if CmdrTaco goes back and fixes the "to"'s in the dept, it'll also be too little too late.

  • Open source and 'Secure' for Sony? (Score:3, Informative)

    by David Price ( 1200 ) on Monday July 22, 2002 @02:10PM (#3931768)
    Quoth Sony on the announcement page [realnetworks.com]:

    "Under the Ubiquitous 'Value' Network strategy, Sony aims to create a secure (emphasis added), user-friendly environment where people can enjoy a wide variety of online digital media contents via various networked CE devices and PCs."

    If Sony's definition of "secure" is what I think it is, then that means that they expect that this platform will contain DRM features to "protect" their content.

    DRM is fundamentally incompatible with open source. If, as I am given to understand, the only thing closed-source about this release is Real's codecs, then there are no barriers to arbitrary saving, copying, and redistribution of downloaded streams. There will no longer be such a thing as a 'stream-only' Real feed; the software can be altered to not respect the appropriate bits. There is no security for the likes of Sony when consumers have control over their own computers - it flies in the face of their DRM strategy.

    So what's up? Has Sony et al changed their mind about what defines "secure?" Has this consortium decided to give the content industries the cold shoulder? Or, if this is to contain some form of concession to the ??AAs, what technical shape will it take?

  • Well, that's the reason my company is bailing out of Real's products and going windows media (well, the 2nd reason I suppose):

    1. Real's server license costs and arm and a leg. Thousands of dollars a year. Windows Media server can be installed (for now) for free on MS Server operating systems.

    2. Real's player is an absolute pain in the ass to set up. Have to dodge around dozens of registration pages, email address requests, deselecting "additional bonus spam", etc. Then you get bombarded with advertising, and disabled features.

    Windows media - just doubleclick on the link on MS's web site, and it's installed. Done.

    Real REALLY dropped the ball on streaming media - they used to have a near monopoly on it, but the additional crap they shoveled on us made it useless.

  • cvs diff RealPlayer.c (Score:3, Funny)

    by panck ( 69848 ) on Monday July 22, 2002 @02:26PM (#3931871)
    Index: RealPlayer.c

    RCS file: /usr/cvs/real/RealPlayer.c,v
    retrieving revision 1.1
    diff -r1.1 RealPlayer.c
    68c68
    < get_and_show_banner_ad();
    ---
    > /* get_and_show_banner_ad() */;

  • Humorous exchange (Score:4, Funny)

    by slagdogg ( 549983 ) on Monday July 22, 2002 @02:28PM (#3931886)
    During the Q&A session of the webcast:

    Perens: I've been reading questions off of slashdot, most of which have been positive.

    Glaser: Are you sure you have the right URL?

  • Player? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Junta ( 36770 )
    I saw no mention of open sourcing the player, or even mention of anything that would necessarily do encoding... It seems the portion being open sourced would be transport and delivery, and even the license to that would be restrictive.

    This is a move to appeal to providers starting to go on the fence regarding Windows Media, not to end-users. This will offer the most tweakable solution to vendors and potentially a way to make the most efficient server in town, without opening the realmedia format. They know full well the minute they do that alternative players will pop up that don't show ads, that don't 'call home' to real, and offer an easy to use interface that is easier to get at than real will allow its player to be, and their player software will fall by the wayside.
    Without the ads/private information provided by their player, their business model would fall apart and they know it. They've been thus far relying on being encumbant to power their usage, and in the face of the Microsoft behemoth, that is going away.

    They are perfectly willing to sacrifice ad revenue and excessive personal info collection for their linux player for the sake of claiming to be more cross-platform (even their developing RealOne player doesn't do ads and doesn't even offer the 'gold pass' option). If they were sure that the information would only be used for linux and other 'fringe system' decoding, they would gladly open up their format. They don't seem to like developing their non-windows versions as they take forever to do so, and that would mean they no longer had to worry. Mplayer has had some success with their binary codecs, and I doubt they could care. The current linux user base would provide more bad than useful data anyway in their forms and not tend to be influenced by Real's marketing. Linux is just a nice platform to say 'look, look, does Windows media or quicktime work natively with linux? we must be better, we are cross-platform!"

    But the second ZoomPlayer had realmedia support, Real could kiss RealOne's popularity goodbye, and then next stop, chapter 11....

    • Re:Player? (Score:4, Informative)

      by civilizedINTENSITY ( 45686 ) on Monday July 22, 2002 @03:00PM (#3932139)
      I saw no mention of open sourcing the player...
      "RealNetworks will begin offering Helix's client source code within 90 days and then release the server source code in "subsequent months," the company said. Details will be further outlined on a special Web site for Helix developers."

  • mplayer (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Satai ( 111172 ) on Monday July 22, 2002 @03:28PM (#3932351)
    I really don't know why anyone didn't mention this before, but MPlayer [mplayerhq.hu] is now able to link to the Real libraries [mplayerhq.hu] and play Real formats. Those are closed codecs; but Helix looks like it'll be closed as well - so where's the advantage to using a Real sponsored player, when MPlayer uses all the same closed-source libraries, and the base system is GPL'd? If you contribute to MPlayer (which also plays ASF) then Real can't snag your work like they can with Helix...

  • An observation on the RPSL draft... (Score:3)

    by tlambert ( 566799 ) on Monday July 22, 2002 @04:17PM (#3932765)
    All in all, this is most similar to what SGI and IBM have done with their XFS and JFS software, respectively. Neither of these companies expects substantial contributions of code back that would bind them to the license they have placed on their code, when taking those contributions back into the commercial versions of their products.

    Some people have claimed that, like the MPL, the RPSL give Real Networks the right to use your code created under that license commercially. This is not true.

    Specifically, if we read section 4 of their license, we see that:
    4. Derivative Works. You may create a Derivative Work by combining Covered Code with other code not otherwise governed by the terms of this License and distribute the Derivative Work as an integrated product. In each such instance, You must make sure the requirements of this License are fulfilled for the Covered Code or any portion thereof, including all Modifications.
    Further, we see that Real Networks does not really expect to get anything of value to themselves from the efforts of Open Source programmers; specifically, in section 11, we see:
    11. Ownership. Subject to the licenses granted under this License, each Contributor retains all rights, title and interest in and to any Modifications made by such Contributor. RealNetworks retains all rights, title and interest in and to the Original Code and any Modifications made by or on behalf of RealNetworks ("RealNetworks Modifications"), and such RealNetworks Modifications will not be automatically subject to this License. RealNetworks may, at its sole discretion, choose to license such RealNetworks Modifications under this License, or on different terms from those contained in this License or may choose not to license them at all.
    The specific effect of the combination of these sections is that they seem to believe that they will not get anything commercially useful from the Open Source community that they are attempting to create, since they are not requiring the ability to commercially distribute the code under terms other than the license... which is not applicable to their commercially distributed code.

    -- Terry

  • Linux server preferred? (Score:3)

    by mikeee ( 137160 ) on Monday July 22, 2002 @05:00PM (#3933076)
    Just off that page they have a whitepaper on their server performance. Not surprisingly, they claim to beat WM by 125% on NT2K.

    However, they also claim that RM/Redhat 7.3 beats WM/NT2K on the same hardware by 340%, *twice* as fast as WM/NT on the same hardware!

  • REAL has the right to use it (Score:4, Interesting)

    by PRickard ( 16563 ) <pr&ms-bc,com> on Monday July 22, 2002 @05:35PM (#3933304) Homepage
    This is from my newsletter, March 20, 2000:

    *Streaming media pioneer RealNetworks last week licensed Microsoft's Windows Media technology, possibly to use in its own products. While Real refused to make any comment about its plans, Microsoft made much ado about the licensing and tried to play it up in the media as a major victory. But assuming Real actually uses the codecs, it could result in a defeat for Microsoft since adding support for another major file format to Real's existing products could make them more popular while Microsoft's own Media Player remains a one-act show. Nevertheless, Real stock dropped by 12 percent on the news. -|

    So the article is incorrect.

Slashdot Top Deals

Receiving a million dollars tax free will make you feel better than being flat broke and having a stomach ache. -- Dolph Sharp, "I'm O.K., You're Not So Hot"

Close