Ruling Prohibits Kaleidescape From Selling, Supporting Movie Servers 136
Stowie101 writes "Kaleidescape has lost its drawn-out legal battle with the DVD CCA. A judge has issued a permanent injunction that prohibits the sale and support, including product updates, of existing DVD movie servers. 'As part of the injunction, Kaleidescape and its dealers can no longer offer technical support for products that are already in the field, meaning existing servers can receive no updates or repairs.' Kaleidescape has filed an appeal and 'believes that under California law the injunction order should not come into effect unless the California Court of Appeal affirms Judge Monahan's decision.'"
So... (Score:5, Insightful)
(Yes, I know there's Google. But a bit of context would be nice.)
Re:Total BS (Score:5, Insightful)
So this rule forces people to use solutions that could actually remove copy protection or share outside of the home?
With employees like this the MPAA don't need enemies
It seems like part of this shouldn't be at issue (Score:5, Insightful)
This is one of the areas that the DMCA creates an illusory right. The law specifically states that the right to fair use, which includes time and format shifting, is not to be affected by the law. The law also prohibits anyone from assisting in removing copy protection.
The key is that the ability to remove the protection for fair use _must_ be available and reasonable for the average person who has paid for the product, or the right to format shift in accordance with fair use doctrine is purely illusory. This is pretty common, and when it comes up in contract law, it's pretty straightforward - you can't give illusory rights.
IA(of course)NAL, and even lawyers will disagree, but the law explicitly states a right (fair use) that is not to be altered, and then effectively alters that right by making it illegal for nearly everyone to obtain access to it.
I would like to see the law struck down - or at least the traffiking in copy protection removal devices and software removed for any fair use right, including personal use.
Re:This comic seems appropriate (Score:5, Insightful)
Another big issue is that they're just understanding that digital distribution is in for good (legal or torrent-based) but they expect you to pay the brick-and-mortar prices for digital versions. Again, this pushes people to torrent because they feel like they're getting fucked when the Blu-Ray in stores is $30 and the download is $35. For example, season 7 of "How I Met Your Mother" is $1.99 for SD and $2.99 for HD per episode on Amazon. 18 episodes total, so $35.82 or $53.82 total. Since the Blu-Ray isn't released for Season 7, the Season 4 Blu-Ray is $29.99 ("on sale" from $49.99). So, even if it weren't "on sale" the Blu-Ray version would be cheaper than the digital version.
Same thing for DRM and those pesky FBI Priacy warnings that aren't fast-forwardable; pirates have no issues, paying customers are berated for doing the right thing. Overall, it feels like they WANT their potential customers to say, "fuck it, i'll torrent" and not give them their money. Honestly, it's frustrating...
Re:This comic seems appropriate (Score:5, Insightful)
Oftentimes cable channels like HBO want to play the show over-and-over several times (for subscribers) before releasing it to everyone else. Movie studios do the same thing (release to theaters first; DVD later).
Which is, of course, why they're idiots.
People are always talking about "justification" and "it isn't right" and similar moral indignation which ignores the simple fact that if someone can't buy the thing they want, they still have the option to pirate it. The answer to the question "how many sales are lost to piracy" when the product is not available for sale is always "all of the sales." Because you can't buy something you can't buy.
So here come the studios saying that they still make more from selling theater tickets to people who have to have it right away than they would get by selling the DVD sooner. Which is why they're still idiots. Nobody says you have to price the DVD at the same level while it's still in the theater or playing on HBO as you do a year later when you normally would have released it. Putting it for sale at a higher price gives people an option. And then some of those people will buy it. And some of them won't because it costs too much, so they'll either wait or pirate -- but since you never would have gotten those sales anyway, that doesn't matter.
The only sensible reason to not offer something immediately is that it would displace a different offering by the copyright holder which would have been more profitable. But that is not a reason for refusing to offer it at all, all it means is you should price the earliest DVD release so that you make as much on the DVD as you would by selling the number of theater tickets (or HBO subscriptions) that a DVD sale displaces. Hence, the studios are idiots. Completely regardless of the moral status of the pirates.
Re:The DMCA doesn't create fair use rights at all (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a very fine point to put in it.
It is true that this chapter of the law does not grant fair use rights, but it is part of Title 17 (Chpt 1201 to be exact), not a standalone title.
The summary provided by the US Copyright Office attempts to address this condition, and utterly fails:
"This distinction [between unauthorized access and unauthorized copying] was employed to assure that the public will have the continued
ability to make fair use of copyrighted works. Since copying of a work may be a fair use under appropriate circumstances, section 1201 does not prohibit the act of circumventing a technological measure that prevents copying. By contrast, since the fair use doctrine is not a defense to the act of gaining unauthorized access to a work, the act of circumventing a technological measure in order to gain access is prohibited"
The problems is that since there is no mechanism for the CCA to grant copy authority, copying for fair use by the public requires that "unauthorized" access be granted. This isn't like the DAT recorders which implemented copy once which allowed fair use copies. Without access, no mechanism short of access to the material is available to the public to make a fair use copy. The law makes it impossible to obtain the method from anyone else. It's a key flaw in the logic of the text, and one that has, afaik, not been tested, at least in part because nobody who has a business model based on removing CCA has enough money to do so.
The right given in Title 17 is, therefore, made illusory by the law itself. I don't know how the courts view language in a law versus an interpretation of an illusory right in a contract, but there is a certain parity to the conditions.
Re:Kaleidescape is... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry but you're just not getting the message. They want you to pay for it each and every time you see it. They want you to have to sit through 10-30 minutes of commercials whether you see it on a TV, your iPad, or at a theater. They want to CONTROL every aspect, particle, atom of how and when it will be viewed and if you infringe on any atom of their control, they want to part you out for organs and tissue and make a profit on your earthly remains.
These are men who have raised avarice and control to art forms, and keep packs of hungry lawyer on tap, just to remind you if you should forget.