Slashdot Log In
Kaleidescape Triumphant in Court Case, DVD Ripping Ruled Legal
Posted by
Zonk
on Sun Apr 29, 2007 03:15 PM
from the only-when-you-own-it-netflixers dept.
from the only-when-you-own-it-netflixers dept.
Jim Buzbee writes "Ever wanted to rip all your DVDs to a big network server so that you could select and play them back to your TV? Up until now, manufacturers have been wary of building a device to allow this type of usage because they've been afraid a lawsuit. The DVD Copy Control Association had claimed this was contractually forbidden, but now
a judge says otherwise stating, 'nothing in the agreement prevents you from making copies of DVDs. Nothing requires that a DVD be present during playback.' Kaleidescape has finally won their long-standing lawsuit, a case we first talked about early in 2005."
Related Stories
[+]
Kaleidescape CEO Speaks Out About CSS Lawsuit 212 comments
An anonymous reader writes "Engadget has an interview with Michael Malcolm, the CEO of Kaleidescape, which you might remember as the high-end DVD jukebox manufacturer that was sued by the DVD Copy Control Association for violating its CSS license.
Despite the fact that anyone who can afford a $27,000+ DVD jukebox also usually ends up buying
hundreds of movies to load onto it, the DVD-CCA wants
them to redesign the Kaleidescape to require the presence of
the physical DVD disc in the drive during authentication and playback.
Besides defeating the whole purpose of having a jukebox in the first
place (none of their jukeboxes allow for copying, streaming, or sharing
DVDs), Malcolm says he can't find any clause in their CSS license which
would require them to implement this "feature" anyway and they're about
to file a counter-action against the DVD-CCA."
[+]
Criminalizing The Consumer - Where DRM Went Wrong 75 comments
][nTrUdEr writes "The Economist has posted an editorial on how DRM has gone wrong. What ostensibly began as a tool to ensure artists received due compensation for their work has been turned, and now criminalizes the consumer for wanting to use what they have purchased. 'Despite the number of iTunes downloaded for a fee, Apple would be in trouble if people were prevented from transferring legitimately owned CDs to their iPods. The software Apple gives away to iPod customers is designed to let them do just that. Most people think it ludicrous that they can't do the same with the DVDs they own. Now it seems, despite squeals from the movie industry, the law is finally moving in the video fan's favour. The issue in the recent case was whether Kaleidescape, a maker of digital "jukeboxes" that store a person's video and music collections and distribute the entertainment around the home, had breached the terms of the DVD Content Control Association's CSS (content scrambling system) license.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Not contractually forbidden... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Contract? What contract? I don't remember signing a contract. I put my $20 on the counter, the cashier put the DVD in a bag and said, "Have a nice day."
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Not contractually forbidden... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not contractually forbidden... (Score:5, Insightful)
People ARE stupid.
There are stories a plenty of food service or retail employees that come across gems of humans that lack common sense. Those stories are much more interesting than the 'holier than thou' patron that comes across a dweeb employee that is having a bad day.
Re:Not contractually forbidden... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not contractually forbidden... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not contractually forbidden... (Score:5, Informative)
The contract that DVD player manufacturers enter with the DVDCCA. RTFA?
Re:Not contractually forbidden... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not contractually forbidden... (Score:5, Informative)
Already changed the contract... (Score:5, Informative)
February 7th 2007 Announcement:
An updated version of the CSS Procedural Specifications is available now. A downloadable copy is available by completing the on-line inquiry form.
That is the document that they submitted to the court as part of the "contract". It is the first update to it since 2005. My guess is they realized they were going to lose and hence the update to the license.
Re:Not contractually forbidden... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you don't know what you're talking about...at least try to RTFA.
This contract doesn't cover DVDs, this is the contract between the DVDCCA and Device Manufacturers.
On the contrary... (Score:5, Funny)
No, I want a butt-load of DVD jewel boxes occupying cabinet after cabinet in my living-room so they'll be convenient in the event I might want to watch one. This is much better than being stored in boxes in the basement, and streaming the content off a sever, also in the basement.
I have literally avoided buying DVDs in the past because I didn't want to increase the clutter of storage.
Sean
Re:On the contrary... (Score:5, Funny)
Well, this is slashdot. You would think accessing boxes or a server in the basement was as simple as rolling out of bed... <rimshot />
iTunes ripping? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:iTunes ripping? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are a few problems that would face Apple if they wanted to add that functionality:
1) DVD CCA is appealing the decision.
2) Apple would need to get a license for CSS, and DVD CCA will probably change the terms of the license to disallow such programs.
3) Apple risks pissing off the movie studios that offer video on iTunes stores. (AFAIK, only Disney so far.) People expect to be able to rip CDs, so that's OK. But if people aren't expecting to rip DVDs, why let them? It would cannibalise sales from iTunes Video Store.
4) The Kaleidoscope system maintained the copy protection, whereas iTunes would need to downscale and crop/letterbox the video in order to make the feature useful to smaller iPods - and in the process, re-protect it somehow.
Re:iTunes ripping? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:iTunes ripping? (Score:4, Interesting)
WE then leave a unlabeled CD with them with copies of DVD shrink and DVD decryptor and the web address to buy anyDVD and Fair Use Wizard.
What the customer does on their own is not or problem, we simply sold them a video playback server.
They want to make it easy for joe-blow to rip his own dvd's into the system. it aint gonna happen. Sony already screws with everything and the best kaladiescope server made cant cope with it, you still haveto rip to a PC with special software to get past some of the protections.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
DVD Shrink is legal to use, fwiw (Score:5, Informative)
What you can't do is rip for someone else, or help anyone to rip. The distribution of DVDdecrypter is illegal (per the DMCA), but it's okay to write the software, posess the software, and use the software to decrypt for personal reasons. That's the fucked-up catch - you can do anything you want, but you can't help anybody else do it.
I know that this is hard to understand, but I figured I'd post it anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, and DVD Shrink is perfectly capable of decrypting CSS on its own. Have you ever actually used DVD Shrink?
Re:DVD Shrink is legal to use, fwiw (Score:4, Informative)
But you're still wrong, and I suspect that the cause is that you didn't read carefully. To wit:
So no, no one can unauthorizedly decrypt an encrypted DVD, since that constitutes circumvention, and no one can make or traffic in devices, including software, which can do it.
What you were citing was not 1201(a), which has to do with circumvention, but 1201(b), which has to do with copyright protection. The reason that 1201(b) lacks a parallel to 1201(a)(1)(A) is because it doesn't need one. Breaking a copyright protection mechanism is copyright infringement, and is already covered pretty adequately elsewhere in the law.
Furthermore, that last bit about "OTHER RIGHTS, ETC., NOT AFFECTED" indicates that previous fair use law remains in force, allowing the legal owner of a copy to make an additional copy for backup purposes, so long as the original remains in their possession.
Well, two caveats. First, fair use doesn't always permit the owner of a copy to make a backup. It only permits that if, under all the circumstances, it would be fair. Fair use is a case-by-case issue, and you cannot make accurate blanket statements as to what is and isn't fair. It is entirely possible that while Alice might be able to make such copies pursuant to fair use, Bob might not be able to, due to their differing circumstances, even if each is the owner of the copies from which the use is made.
Second, so what? Fair use is a defense to copyright infringement. It is not a defense to circumvention. If you unauthorizedly decrypt a DVD, even if it is a fair use, you still circumvented and can be sued for that. This is the downside to 'other defenses not affected' -- they weren't enlarged to handle the new situation.
Misleading Title (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Misleading Title (Score:5, Informative)
Yup, it's a dupe, but my/CowboyNeal's version had a non-misleading summary.
Re:Misleading Title (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
And if you've ever had a story accepted, you know that the 'editors' frequently change titles and summaries...
Forget it unless you live in Santa Clara, CA (Score:5, Informative)
For a group of people so obsessed with IP law, most of you /.-ers have no idea how the American legal system works: Trial court cases are not precedent for future cases. Only published appellate cases constitute precedent, and then only in their own jurisdiction.
IAALBNYL (I Am A Lawyer But Not Your Lawyer). This is not legal advice. Do not rely on it as such. This is merely a layman's discussion of general issues. YMMV.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess that's me, then.
and knowing that its the silicon valley, probably a quarter of slash is also here, too.
Re:Forget it unless you live in Santa Clara, CA (Score:5, Insightful)
That is why you who are lawyers need to speak up and explain it to us.
Like many
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can I borrow some tinfoil?
Like they don't put RFID in tinfoil (Score:2)
Little bit confused (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
RTFA... (Score:5, Informative)
In other words, the case was about whether or not a single, specific contract was breached (which is fairly common type of case in civil courts) - it is not some sweeping endorsement of DVD ripping, as the headline would have you believe. The ruling merely states that the contract Kaleidescape signed with the DVD CCA doesn't preclude ripping DVDs, aka a question of contract law, not copyright law.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Good news... (Score:2)
Oh the Irony!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
This actually makes me want to go and buy DVD's
Re:Reasonable but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why not? I'm not trying to troll -- I honestly would like to know what your philosophy is. Why would a limited number of copies be OK but an unlimited not?
Re:Reasonable but... (Score:5, Informative)
- 2 that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful
thus indicating that multiple archival copies are allowed.Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So does RAID5 count as 1 backup or 1 and 1/n backu
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No it's about licensing terms (Score:5, Interesting)
It's the fact that they are running officially licensed code from the CSS cartel to uncrypt the DVD prior of putting them on the server, and the CSS cartel sued them pretending that their license should be interpreted as "using the code to make DVD server isn't allowed". The whole suit was whether or not Kaleidoscope could be forbidden to do this based on the licensing term.
Result : No, they can't be stopped, because at the time of signing the licensing terme weren't clear enough to forbid the server.
This has nothing to do with DVD John's work. His work is his own code made to circumvent the CSS encryption (using the fact that the algorithm itself is piss-poor and only marginally better than a rot13). He is not using code from the CSS cartel and thus the interpretation of that code's license doesn't apply.
- Because it's a code done to grant users' access to content that they have legally bought, because it provides a solution in situation which lacks a viable option (like enables DVD playing on Linux and other systems, even if software is only produced for Windows & Mac) and because it's doesn't contain original code from the CSS cartel (no way. It doesn't to the same thing as the official code. DVD Jon's code brute-forces the decryption key using flaws in the CSS implementation), it is legal in most juridiction.
- In the USA, because of the DMCA and the fact that DVD Jon's code is used to circumvent the CSS encryption it is illegal, even if it the only solution for legally owned material on Linux and even if the CSS encryption is to flawed to be considered as an efficient encryption. Only some exception to the DMCA may be invoked (using DVD Jon's code to decrypt DVDs for school or using it once DVDs are deprecated)
The situation is different for HD-DVD and BlueRay Discs with the recent work of Muslix64. On that case, there's no problem with the code it self, its just a re-implementation of a publicly described algorithme (AACS decryption). The whole trick is to provide the actual keys needed to decrypt the data on websites or P2P networks. The code itself isn't illegal. The key sharing is what can be contested by the AACS makers.
Re:DVD Decrypter (Score:5, Funny)
Slashdot should have 2 conversations for every article. One for people who RTFA, one for those who don't. I'd have to sort through less garbage when reading Slashdot.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)