Kaleidescape Triumphant in Court Case, DVD Ripping Ruled Legal

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."

Not contractually forbidden...

[fatduck]

Doesn't this mean they'll just change the contract on new DVDs?

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't this mean they'll just change the contract on new DVDs?

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:

[jawtheshark]

Oh, I'm sure they can make the clerk say: "By agreeing this sale, you may not space-shift this DVD to other media. Have a nice day." ;-)

Re:Not contractually forbidden...

[packeteer]

It's ignorant pricks like you that make my life miserable. I used to work in retail when i was going to college. It was hell. So many people assume that clerks are either stupid or just plain lesser people. I'm sorry if you run into some boneheads but that is inevitable. In the office i work in now i work with plenty of morons, retail doesn't have a monopoly on stupid people.

Re:Not contractually forbidden...

[Ucklak]

The other side of the coin in that is that if you work in retail or even better, food service, you come across plenty of people that shouldn't be part of human society.
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...

[Grave]

Shopping and dealing with retail employees never made me lose faith in humanity. Working in retail and dealing with so many horrible excuses for human beings has made me question whether we as a race really deserve to exist. But I have faith that Darwin will take care of things.

Re:

[zakezuke]

Shopping and dealing with retail employees never made me lose faith in humanity. Working in retail and dealing with so many horrible excuses for human beings has made me question whether we as a race really deserve to exist. But I have faith that Darwin will take care of things.

No, because stupid people make babies.

Re:

[Fordiman]

Natural selection still applies; the selection parameters have changed, and perhaps even become a bit lax compared to 'uncivilized' settings, but the mechanism of selection is still in force.

Here's hoping for a good set of Darwin awards this year.

Re:Not contractually forbidden...

[thelastquestion]

yes, there are breeds of dogs that would not survive, and you pointed out the reason: MEN did this to dogs, just like they did to pidgeons, etc. which is not natural at all. what you don't seem to get is that the rules of 'what is fittest' have not changed at all. what HAS changed is mankind's ability to alter their environment, which makes the rules no longer apply to humans. there is no longer any significant amount of evolution because we can keep those with normally fatal diseases alive, and stupid fat people aren't eaten by lions and tigers, et cetera. my point is that technology has made it so that anyone can survive, however unfit they are.

Re:

[DrSkwid]

> I fail to see how natural selection comes into play at all.
Try basing your perspective on a timescale longer than 2 generations!
It's only six or so generations since the Industrial Revolution. Natural selection has hardly had chance to respond to much of that.

Keeping Hawking alive isn't anything like "evolution has stopped being applied to humans".
The premise is laughably naive.

Re:

[Lehk228]

http://www.customerssuck.com/board/index.php [customerssuck.com]

Re:

[Hal_Porter]

The cash register could say it sotto voce when it detects a DVD sale via the UPC bar code. It could mutter sinister parts of EULAs too like "no warranty given or implied ... liability limited to the purchase price ... computers explode all the time ... we KNOW where YOU live. Have a nice day, except where prohibited by the DMCA"

Re:Not contractually forbidden...

[LarsG]

Contract? What contract?

The contract that DVD player manufacturers enter with the DVDCCA. RTFA?

Re:

[spikedvodka]

Ya know... Just because someone works in retail, doesn't mean that they're [insert slam here]! I've seen a lot of people talking about how retail clerks suck, having worked retail in the past let me clue you in on a little secret:
Act polite and friendly to the clerks, and they will more often than not act polite and friendly towards you. This is especially true in stores that you might frequent often

Heck, Walmart even has a program they call "CHANT... Customers Have A Name Too", the logical expansion for mo

Re:

[JohnFluxx]

Heh, same applies everywhere.

Occasionally people complain about linux irc channels or mailing lists, saying that people didn't help them, told them to rtfm, or were rude. When you actually see the conversations they are talking about, it was 99% of the time them that were rude first.

Re:Not contractually forbidden...

[Andy_R]

It's not the contract on DVDs that's being discussed, it's the contract between the owners of CSS and manufacturers who buy into CSS. Kaleidescape signed the contract that gives them the right to make legitimate machines that unscramble CSS, the CSS cartel claim that contract includes a 'thou shalt not make dvd servers' clause, the judge agreed with Kaleidescape that the contract does not say that, since Kaleidescape didn't get to see that particular rule until after they joined the cartel.

Re:Not contractually forbidden...

[crt]

Right - this was just a contract dispute between Kaleidoscope and the DVDCCA. Other DVD player manufacturers may have similar contracts, and could now build in DVD-ripping/storage, but you can be sure that the DVDCCA will be changing their contracts moving forward to eliminate this behavior in the future.

Already changed the contract...

[Marnhinn]

From DVDCCA [dvdcca.org]

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...

[PetoskeyGuy]

Right - this was just a contract dispute between Kaleidoscope and the DVDCCA. Other DVD player manufacturers may have similar contracts, and could now build in DVD-ripping/storage, but you can be sure that the DVDCCA will be changing their contracts moving forward to eliminate this behavior in the future.

I'm sure Kaleidoscope hopes they do change the license to prevent storage in the future. They already have the machines developed and their agreement is already in place. It sounds like they may be one of the only licensee to not agree to the DVD backup clause. If the DVDCCA decides to prevent this type of thing from happening in the future they would just be placing a barrier to entry to future Kaleidoscope competitors.

Re:

[rm69990]

Ummm, this contract is entered into between the CSS Group (whatever their name is) and device manufacturers or software player distributors, NOT between users and the CSS Group. I've never seen a license agreement on a DVD before.

Re:

[rm69990]

*cough* *clears throat* *cough*

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...

[jafo]

"Ever wanted to rip all your DVDs to a big network server [...]"

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...

[enharmonix]

"Ever wanted to rip all your DVDs to a big network server [...]"

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.

Well, this is slashdot. You would think accessing boxes or a server in the basement was as simple as rolling out of bed... <rimshot />

Re:

[Sique]

This is much better than being stored in boxes in the basement, and streaming the content off a sever, also in the basement.

I fullheartedly agree. I wouldn't be too interested in any stream coming out of a sever in the basement. Actually I would call a plumber immediately to have him plug the hole and stop the stream.

iTunes ripping?

[mh101]

Does this mean Apple will be able to legally add DVD ripping to iTunes? If so, that could help sell more AppleTV units, especially in all the countries that can't buy movies from iTS.

Re:iTunes ripping?

[r3m0t]

No. Firstly, the lawsuit was not about "legally writing ripping software" - it was specifically about whether the companies who had gained a license for Content Scrambling System can write those programs. It doesn't mean anybody can use DVD Shrink to break "protection".

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?

[Wesley Felter]

Apple already has a CSS license for their "DVD Player" app, but your other points stand.

Re:

[r3m0t]

Actually, they would probably need a license for the iPod if they wanted that functionality.

Re:iTunes ripping?

[Lumpy]

Which is why we only sell mpeg/Divx content playback servers. Sorry sir this will NOT rip DVD's.

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:

[aaarrrgggh]

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.

Actually, the key for Apple is to create a market where people have an incentive to put movies into iTunes in the first place. Once people put in movies they already own, they have a library and future purchases are more likely to be made onl

Re:

[rm69990]

Apple could care less where people get their media, as long as they buy their hardware. Apple breaks even on the iTunes store....it's simply there to push iPods and AppleTVs (and iPhones soon).

Re:

[Evets]

I tivo pay-per-view movies all the time - which is effectively the same thing that you guys are talking about. I rent a movie once and then I can watch it as many times as I want in the future.

The issue for DVD sales is much different than CD sales. Very rarely do people buy a DVD and then watch it 100 times. Even with one of these devices, I would expect that most people would watch a movie less than a total of 10 times.

You would think that a "backup copy" would fall under fair use - the same as having

Re:

[NotmyNick]

1) The decision was handed down today. How did they manage to file an appeal so quickly. /snark TFA has a discussion about this very subject. I suggest you read it or invest in some reading comprehension lessons.
2)I don't have any knowledge on the former, but the latter is also addressed in TFA
3)Jobs will piss himself off. Uhuh. Guess who is on Disney's board as largest individual stockholder. I'll give you two guesses. People expect to be able to use things that they purchase in a way that is most co

Re:

[r3m0t]

1) They haven't filed the appeal yet, but they have made a press release saying that they will appeal. If Apple published the feature, they would immediately (in a legal timescale ;-)) file lawsuit and Apple would not have precedent. Better for Apple to wait until this case is decided.

2) I know that the article said DVDCCA would have trouble pulling themselves together, but it seems that, in fact, they already have. (See other posts about an updated publication.) They could even just refuse to license Apple

DVD Shrink is legal to use, fwiw

[Overzeetop]

Anybody can use DVD shrink to rip (okay, you can't - you need a deccrypter like dvd decrypter, but play along) discs you own for personal use. It's right in the DMCA - your fair use rights have never technically been diminished.

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:

[rm69990]

Ummm, as far as I'm aware you're completely and utterly wrong. Could you please point out the section in the DMCA you speak of.

Oh, and DVD Shrink is perfectly capable of decrypting CSS on its own. Have you ever actually used DVD Shrink?

Re:

[stinerman]

No, its always been the case that you can break encryption for fair use reasons. You just can't tell anyone how you did it or distribute the software you used to do it.

So it is legal to use DVD Shrink, etc. It is just not legal to distribute it or (probably) tell anyone it exists.

Re:DVD Shrink is legal to use, fwiw

[cpt kangarooski]

Well, at least yours is a better bit of misinformation than usual.

But you're still wrong, and I suspect that the cause is that you didn't read carefully. To wit:

17 USC 1201
(a)(1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. ...

(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
(3) As used in this subsection--
(A) to "circumvent a technological measure" means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and
(B) a technological measure "effectively controls access to a work" if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.

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.

Re:

[Joce640k]

"Anybody can use DVD shrink to rip (okay, you can't - you need a deccrypter like dvd decrypter, but play along) "

I could have sworn I used DVD shrink to rip a DVD directly last week...no decrypter needed.

Re:

[frdmfghtr]

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.

How would this hurt iTunes sales? If I already own a movie on DVD, I'm not about to buy it again so I can stream it from my server to my living room. I'll bet there are more than a few others who share that sentiment. If they can't rip th

Re:

[Karlt1]

"3) Apple risks pissing off the movie studios that offer video on iTunes stores. (AFAIK, only Disney so far.)"

Apple has movies from Disney (and its subsidiaries), Paramount, MGM. and Lions Gate

Re:

[rm69990]

There's always handbrake. Not exactly legal per se, but if the MPAA really wants to drive away customers, they'll sue people for ripping legally purchased media for the sole purpose of convenience.

Misleading Title

[sangreal66]

As usual, the title Zonk has chosen for this post ("Kaleidescape Triumphant in Court Case, DVD Ripping Ruled Legal") directly contradicts the actual article:

Because of this ruling, the Judge did not have to get into copyright issues, so the Kaleidescape ruling has no copyright implications. It is not a statement on the legality of ripping DVDs.

Re:

[cybereal]

If only Google Reader would add filtering so I don't have to accidentally click on Zonked Slashdot posts!

Re:Misleading Title

[whoever57]

As usual, the title Zonk has chosen for this post ("Kaleidescape Triumphant in Court Case, DVD Ripping Ruled Legal") directly contradicts the actual article:

All Zonk had to do was read the article that CowboyNeal posted some 31 days ago. [slashdot.org]

Yup, it's a dupe, but my/CowboyNeal's version had a non-misleading summary.

Re:

[rm69990]

Why oh why can't Slashdot just fire Zonk? He makes reading Slashdot on the weekends painful. I've seen plenty of messed up summaries, but Zonk's screwups are so blatant that you almost feel like tracking him down just to smack him in the head. Ugh....

Re:Misleading Title

[Kalriath]

Needs to be old news to qualify for posting here on Slashdot. It can also be one or more of the following: Microsoft bashing, Apple touting, RIAA smashing, or just wrong.

Re:

[frdmfghtr]

Or a dupe.

Re:

[gEvil (beta)]

If you ever submitted a story you'd know its the submitter who chooses the title.

And if you've ever had a story accepted, you know that the 'editors' frequently change titles and summaries...

Re:

[rm69990]

And it's the editor's responsibility to ensure its accuracy. Zonk just chooses to not bother to do that. I still suspect he's a monkey, or one of those flamingo-head things from the Simpsons that just hits "accept" every few minutes. Naw...maybe not, the flamingo-head would probably do a better job.

Forget it unless you live in Santa Clara, CA

[unassimilatible]

This case has exactly *zero* precedential value, unless you live in Santa Clara, CA, and then only if your case comes in front of the same judge. And you can bet this case will be appealed to a court that actually can create binding authority.

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:

[TheGratefulNet]

This case has exactly *zero* precedential value, unless you live in Santa Clara, CA

I guess that's me, then.

and knowing that its the silicon valley, probably a quarter of slash is also here, too.

Re:

[mabhatter654]

considering 75% of the tech headquarters are in southern California it has precedent for a good chunk of the tech industry!

Re:

[mr_matticus]

Santa Clara isn't in southern California...

This is also a trial court case. It sets no precedent, period.

Re:Forget it unless you live in Santa Clara, CA

[Anonymous Coward]

For a group of people so obsessed with IP law, most of you /.-ers have no idea how the American legal system works:

That is why you who are lawyers need to speak up and explain it to us. /. is full of people from all type of backgrounds. Most of these people have a great insight into their speciality. They need to speak up when something is wrong, so that the rest of us can be educated.

Like many /. readers, I come here to be educated as well as entertained. This is due to the quality of people that /. attracts. (Granted some /.'ers have no clue about anything)

Re:

[zeroyuugi]

(Granted some /.'ers have no clue about anything)

Yes, and we call them editors =D

Re:

[TheoMurpse]

That is why you who are lawyers need to speak up and explain it to us.

Points:

1. We usually do comment. NewYorkCountryLawyer comments often about copyright issues (but typically only the RIAA issues since that is what he is involved in), and I (although only a law student at this point) tend to offer my knowledge as well. There are a few others whose names I don't remember, but comment here often. Holy hell, NYCL has 18 comments posted on /. just today!
2. The issue here is that people on /. don't seem to underst

Re:

[rm69990]

The problem is when you get the majority spouting nonsense while acting like they know what they are talking about. I've seen that happen numerous times, and I don't even bother correcting at that point because it seems like a lost cause. One culprit is people who post on SCO articles. I still see Slashdot posters who think it's a patent case, or who don't know the difference between Caldera and SCO.

That's the example that came to mind right away. I could name some more if I thought about it for a minute.

Re:

[burris]

Uh, even if this was a supreme court decision, the precedent wouldn't be useful for slashdotters because slashdotters aren't CSS licensees. This was a breach of contract case and only "legit" companies with deep pockets get to make a deal with the DVD-CCA. About the only impact this may have on slashdot readers is existing CSS licensees might start making devices like Kaleidascape. If the DVD-CCA doesn't like this behavior, expect the language of the CSS license to change.

For your client's sake, I hope y

How many disclaimers do you generally need?

[unassimilatible]

Uh, even if this was a supreme court decision, the precedent wouldn't be useful for slashdotters because slashdotters aren't CSS licensees.

Assuming for argument that you know this for certain, this is exactly why I included the disclaimer (YMMV and IIALBNYL) - telling /.-ers that I am not, in fact, their lawyer. I purposely limited my input to a single issue, precedent. Of course I would analyze the entire case were I retained by a client. But I was not, so I chimed in on the precedent issue only, since

Re:

[MaceyHW]

IANAL but I am a law student taking his Civpro II exam tomorrow and this is significant unless it's overturned on appeal. The issue isn't the precedential value in terms of copyright, which is of course nil (even if the court had reached those issues) but it's value in future suits brought by DVD CAA. California permits "non-mutual defensive issue preclusion", so if DVD CCA sues anyone else who's signed an identical or very similar contract (which I assume would most if not all of the other manufacturers)

We agree more than disagree

[unassimilatible]

Yes, your issue preclusion argument is somewhat correct, but of course the trial judge is still wide open to appeal. My point ("this is not precedent") was made as a response to the lead in the article:

"Ever wanted to rip all your DVDs to a big network server so that you could select and play them back to your TV?"

The implication from the submission is that now everyone can go run DVD jukebox servers with impunity. So in a sense, you preclusion point argues in my favor; that is, if, as you argue, only

Re:

[Reziac]

Thanks for the explanation. As the other reply says, most of us here aren't lawyers, and have no more legal grok than the average non-geek. Consider yourself the lawyer equivalent of a programmer explaining a function in a compiler. :)

That said, and reasonably assuming your info is exact and correct, ISTM that "precedent" must have been stretched a bit, since I've occasionally heard of some local judge relying on a previous local decision to guide his own actions in a similar case, *as if* he had no other c

Re:

[cpt kangarooski]

Oh, I don't know. First, trial court opinions can be used as precedents, they're just not binding on anyone. They can still have influential value, however. Second, the opinions needn't be published, at least not anymore, not in the federal courts. States may vary. And after all, in this age of Westlaw and Lexis, who cares about whether an opinion was formally published so long as it can be gotten to? The publication requirement really does need to be killed off as it no longer serves a useful purpose.

Re:

[StikyPad]

*Posted anonymously for obvious reasons.

Can I borrow some tinfoil?

Like they don't put RFID in tinfoil

[unassimilatible]

Keep up with spy tech, man. The CIA & NSA have been putting RFID in tinfoil foe years now. Better to go with lead.

Re:

[The_Wilschon]

Better yet, just eat the lead. Then you don't have to wear a ridiculous hat because the protection is inside of you! You'll be completely protected for the rest of your (mercifully (for us) short) life.

Little bit confused

[Hennell]

Does this mean that Kaleidescape can rip dvds to a server, sell us products that do the same or that we ourselves can? This paragraph:

Because of this ruling, the Judge did not have to get into copyright issues, so the Kaleidescape ruling has no copyright implications. It is not a statement on the legality of ripping DVDs.

suggests that it applies only to them. Or have I missed (or missread) something?
---
How exactly did the butcher baker and the candlestick maker end up in a tub together?
---

Re:

[ardyer]

No, you understand it right. The ruling only applies to the Contract signed between the two parties. Other contracts may be different, or heck, the appeals court may overrule anyways. However, Kaleidescape could still be liable for copyright violations. That will have to go to a federal court to be determined.

Re:

[c_forq]

As I understand it the case means Kaleidescape can sell machines that store and re-transmit DVD data you give it. As I understand it the thought isn't you are ripping the DVD, the thought is you are using the Kaleidescape server (which happens to rip the DVD, which Kaleidescape's contract allows it to do).

RTFA...

[igotmybfg]

From the article:

Because of this ruling, the Judge did not have to get into copyright issues, so the Kaleidescape ruling has no copyright implications. It is not a statement on the legality of ripping DVDs.

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:

[Wesley Felter]

Yes, but all the other vendors signed the same contract, so presumably they can all rip DVDs now. Also, the CSS contract was the only thing preventing legal personal DVD ripping tools, so it is important to have the last roadblock taken down.

Re:

[igotmybfg]

My guess would be that the MPAA will still put up a fight based on copyright/fair use (or lack thereof).

Good news...

[djupedal]

Just the thing to start the week off right. With 40 DVDs already ripped and sitting on a 320 gb HD, I can get to work on the next few dozen, dozen and work in peace for a change :)

Re:

[rm69990]

Read the article...the title is blatantly false. No surprise there, considering Zonk posted this. Of all people, you would think he would read the article.

Seriously, I would love to work for Slashdot. He apparently hates his job, considering the mediocre work he does.

Re: Good news...

[djupedal]

Whoa, that little "I could care less either way..." J O K E flew right over your pointy little head, now, didn't it..?

Shooting fish in a barrel was never that easy. Must be the seven digit UID.

Try again, boy - your Dad paid for three shots, so ask him to please re-cock that shiny air-rifle for ya' and this time remember to close only one eye.

In other news...

[Windcatcher]

The FEC reports receiving massive numbers of declarations of campaign contributions. They all suspiciously appear to have come from MPAA members...

This is why I predict the format wars moot

[xtal]

Everyone is just going to playback HD content from a fixed server .. just like mp3s rendered the physical storage medium obsolete. Only a matter of time.. sooner, now, with the AppleTV box.

Re:

[Khyber]

Isn't a hard drive a physical storage medium? Wouldn't anything holding data be physical in the first place?

Re:

[Technician]

Only a matter of time.. sooner, now, with the AppleTV box.


or Linux MCE. I have the media server up. I am still building the PC on an E6700 Core 2 Dueo chip as funds come in. Memory and a hot video card are next.

Answer to your question ...

[ScrewMaster]

Ever wanted to rip all your DVDs to a big network server so that you could select and play them back to your TV?

Uh, yes, actually. Not that it's particularly difficult to do anymore.

The only hurdle left now is the legacy of Jack Valenti.

What about DVD X Copy

[tehwebguy]

I don't remember the details about this particular case, but could DVD X Copy be legal now?

Re:

[Wesley Felter]

A DVD-ripping utility would be legal if it preserves CSS on any rips that it makes and the vendor signed the CSS license. Most rippers do neither, so they're still illegal.

Won't stand long

[cdrguru]

Anything that says I can copy a DVD and play it without the original DVD being involved means I can distribute. I copy it to my server and then pass the physical DVD to a friend, who then copies it to some other hard drive. And so on and so forth. This is distribution, period.

However, this is probably just a small step along the way. Where we are going is clearly if it digitial it is going to be redistributed across the planet. This means that for someone to go to the expense of making a DVD and puttin

Re:

[rm69990]

RTFA, or else TFS.

Re:

[freedom_india]

The fact that you can buy a gun in VA does NOT mean you can go around firing at will.
Get your as$ correct first.
The ruling only states that IF i have bought a DVD (first or second sale), i can watch the contents of it WITHOUT needing the DVD in the same place where i watch.
Meaning i can rip DS9 , and watch it on my iBook in a flight between LAX and NYC. I don;t need the DVD to be present in-flight.
What the ruling does NOT mean is distributing it delibrately to others to induce them to watch without having

If DVD ripping is legal then..

[JustNiz]

Doesn't this make adding copy protection to the disks in the first place illegal?
My thinking is that this is obstructing a legal activity (i.e. making legal backups of DVDs) and must therefore be illegal in itself.

Oh the Irony!!!

[popo]

This actually makes me want to go and buy DVD's ... and the industry is opposed to it.

RIAA/MPAA can call off the dogs

[TechnoJargon]

It is interesting that this case will continue considering the article a few days ago entitiled MPAA Committed To Fair Use and DRM. The MPAA nows seems somewhat willing to give into fair use for DVDs. IF they want to show us they are committed to fair use then this should now not be an issue for them and they can call off their partners DVD Copy Control Association. Just my thought!!!

Re:Reasonable but...

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

Understand I'm rather a moderate as far as fair use rights go. I don't feel legally the user should be given carte blanche to copy everything they own an unlimited number of times.

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:

[Hektor_Troy]

I fully agree with the GP post. An unlimited number of copies is unacceptable. I think we should be limited to a number of copies equaling our age in days - plus 70.

After all - that's not an unlimited copyright. I mean ...

Re:

[zakezuke]

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?

It fits with the spirit of software, and the spirit of how media was sold in the first place.

For example, you bought a 16mm copy of a film. It's designed to be played in a projector. As film is fragile, it would not be unreasonable to have a backup of the film and use the backup as the original is intended, one machine at a given time.

If you intend to u

Re:Reasonable but...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Understand I'm rather a moderate as far as fair use rights go. I don't feel legaly the user should be given carteblanche to copy everything they own an unlimited number of times.

What a perfect example of how successful the MAFIAA's publicity campaign has been when people who think they should be able to do whatever they want with whatever they've purchased are considered the "extremists" and the ones who favor the reach of corporate control into their own living room consider themselves "moderate."

I don't feel that DVD-video should be treated much differently than software, where the law permits one backup of a given disk.

No, the US law does not restrict the number of backups - see Title 17, Section 117 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs [copyright.gov] where it says:

• 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:

[DamnStupidElf]

I don't feel that DVD-video should be treated much differently than software, where the law permits one backup of a given disk. Unless the license says otherwise, you may install the media on one device.

So does RAID5 count as 1 backup or 1 and 1/n backups? Copyright law is silly because it's still concerned with physical copies 50 years after digital computers effectively made copies free.

Re:

[mabhatter654]

but these guys weren't breaking the CSS encryption on their product. They kept the data encrypted on their server... the user can't access it to make a copy elsewhere, it's just stored. By being official licensees there are no copyright issues because the USER isn't making any copies. In short they've implemented the kind of system the MPAA people keep saying would be "legal" with all the appropriate protections. I'd like to see Apple jump on board with one of these as and iTV attachment with one of thos

No it's about licensing terms

[DrYak]

It not the actual action of ripping the software that is disputed (which theoretically would fall in the "personal backup" category).

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

[rm69990]

RTFA and you shall discover the answer to your question. Is it really too much to ask?

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:

[mabhatter654]

actually it does because these guys have a legit license to use CSS.. they're not hacking it. They're just selling a "Tivo" for DVDs. Put the DVD in and it STAYS encrypted on their hardware. Their device keeps the discs internally under CSS so they can't be actually copied.

in short they're not breaking ANY rules!!! Like everybody says, this could be a huge win for companies like Apple... if they allowed you to backup your DVDs into iTunes with CSS + your iTunes account they shouldn't have any problem.

Re:

[CastrTroy]

Except if they have to store the entire disk, unencrypted, then you lose half the point of ripping it to the computer in the first place. First problem is that most DVDs would probably take up 6-8 Gigs of space. Meaning a 500 GB hard disk could only store 71 movies. That sounds like a lot, but once you start getting into TV Seasons, it doesn't store all that much stuff. Second, is that it probably doesn't remove any of the FBI Warnings, special features, or Menus. I really like to just skip all the ext

Re:

[Myopic]

Dude, I've heard about that "telephone" but it sounds stupid. Who would want one? There's no one to call on it!