View Single Post
Old 12-29-2009, 09:35 PM   #74
calvin-c
Guru
calvin-c ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.calvin-c ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.calvin-c ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.calvin-c ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.calvin-c ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.calvin-c ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.calvin-c ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.calvin-c ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.calvin-c ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.calvin-c ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.calvin-c ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 787
Karma: 1575310
Join Date: Jul 2009
Device: Moon+ Pro
Quote:
Originally Posted by DawnFalcon View Post
They didn't have "control" of the DRM either per-se. That's why they couldn't do Windows Media files, and there was a cat and mouse game with, for example, Apple on being able to change their DRM.

It was a server-side product, though, so the user never had a DRM-free product and it survived several legal challenges.
I don't think I understand. If they didn't have any control over the DRM then I don't see how they would have been able to convert the format. They might not have had 'full' control over it, i.e might not have been able to alter it, but it sounds to me like they had enough control over it to remove & re-apply it. (And, apparently, to do so in a legal manner.) I don't see any reason why it wouldn't survive a legal challenge, unless the control was obtained in an illegal way. As long as Real applied contractually-allowed DRM before distributing the modified file they would have been OK. (And if all the contract doesn't specify the type of DRM allowed then any DRM should be OK. No DRM would probably violate the contract under 'failure to use due care' or something like that, unless it's specifically allowed.)
calvin-c is offline   Reply With Quote