Slashdot Mirror
DVDCCA Sues Maker of Luxury DVD Jukebox
McSpew writes "The DVD Copy Control Association has decided to sue Kaleidescape for violating its CSS license. Kaleidescape's crime? They make a super-high-end (~$27k) DVD jukebox system that caches DVD movies onto a server (3.3TB of disk space). Kaleidescape says they've complied with the terms of their CSS license and they're considering countersuing. I want one, but I'm not a pro athlete, rapper or movie star, so I'll probably have to roll my own."
Okay, so instead of going after those evil soccer-mom pirate types, the target is going to be folks who can pay more for a server than the software itself? $27k/(3.3TB/9G) = $74 per title. That a lot of jack compared to a 300 disc Sony changer at $299.
Note: I'm using 9G average, figuring on the odd 2 disc set balancing out the typical 7G on a disc.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
DVDCCA was also tipped off that other DVD players keep extra copies of parts of the movie in something called "RAM". Also, it has been rumored that Pentium-based DVD player software keeps even more copies of the movie in something called "L1", "L2", and sometimes "L3". More lawsuits to be announced shortly.
Karma: -2147483648 (Mostly affected by integer overflow)
The DVD Copy Control Association is just upset that they didn't think of it first.
:)
If they had, they could have made a seperate, more restrictive, more expensive license.
Regardless of the legality of the suit, the DCCA seems to be suing a company that caters to the most loyal DVD purchasers in the world. Such a misguided move can only have negative effects upon the DVD industry.
Many Bothans died to bring you this sig.
My media server has a ~1TB RAID5 setup, and I've copied each and every DVD I've legally purchased onto it for instant playback on our HDTV. The original DVDs go back into their cases and are stored away for safe-keeping.
Have I exercised fair use? Definitely. Have I broken some laws? Probably. But I'm not going to give up the fair use as a result.
And yeah, I should post this anonymously, in case the MPAA reads Slashdot comments, but dammit, we've gotta stand up!
With this type of goofy draconian suing going on and the supposed implementation of anti-copying hardware going into production on DVD drives for PCs, how much longer can we expect to have equipment available to consumers that will allow us to roll our own without either
The info on their Web site seems to imply that they make an exact copy of the DVD, probably as a disk image. This seems to me that they are missing out on one of the most important benefits associated with ripping a DVD. Can this system skip, the un-skippable commercials that are starting to be added to DVDs? Can it bypass the menus and be configured to just play the movie when you select it, without having to guess what button will play the bloody thing? Has anyone used one of these?
"I want one, but I'm not a pro athlete, rapper or movie star, so I'll probably have to roll my own"
Dude! I think they roll their own too:
Ricky Williams
Snoop Dog
Woody Harrelson
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
Q: Does loading a DVD into the Kaleidescape Server bypass DVD copy protection?
A: Most DVDs are protected by the Content Scramble System ("CSS"), a method used to encrypt the video and audio data. Manufacturers of legitimate DVD playback products must obtain a license from the DVD Copy Control Association (the "DVD CCA") to remove CSS encryption. Kaleidescape has obtained such a license, and Kaleidescape scrupulously adheres to its required procedures and restrictions. For example, when playing back DVD content, the System only allows the audio and video outputs permitted by the CSS License Agreement. The System's analog video outputs are further protected by certain Macrovision technology, which was obtained pursuant to a separate license from Macrovision Corporation. The CSS License Agreement does not prohibit the copying of CSS-protected DVD data into memory or onto a hard disk. However, in order to comply with the CSS License Agreement, any such copying must be done without exposing certain types of DVD data (keys or unscrambled audio/video data) on "user-accessible buses," such as the PCI bus in a personal computer. The Kaleidescape System complies with this restriction by virtue of being a closed system comprised of proprietary hardware and software that Kaleidescape designed from the ground up with content security as a major design objective.
Return to Top
Q: Can I share movies loaded on my Kaleidescape System with other users or other homes?
A: The Kaleidescape System is designed and licensed solely for use in a single-family dwelling. Kaleidescape's security architecture prevents movies from being accessed or transmitted over the Internet, or to computers inside or outside of the home. The movies on a Server are only accessible to Kaleidescape Movie Players that are attached to the same Ethernet LAN.
The hardware for such a system is only $6,000 or so at the most for a real head-end unit, and maybe $750 for each client unit. If you roll your own using DVD ripping software and something like MyHTPC (and a daemon tools plugin to mount the DVD images), its free in terms of software....
Hardware breakdown
Server:
Case and dual power supplies ($500)
Mobo + Processor + RAM ($600)
DVD Drive ($50)
3Ware RAID-5 12-port card ($800)
12 400GB Seagate SATA Drives ($3600) (10 data, 1 parity, 1 hot spare) for 4TB.
Total: $5550 + SH + Taxes
Client:
Shuttle SFF box ($300)
CPU, RAM ($300)
40GB HD ($70)
DVD Drive ($50)
RF or IR keyboard/mouse ($70)
Total: $790 for each client
So I'm thinking the DVDCCA license is REALLY expensive if they charge $27,000 per unit.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
What's to stop people from going to Blockbuster Video, renting DVDs and copying them to their computer?? I guess the DVDCCA needs to sue all makers of dvd drives and hard drives (in addition to RAM) for computers too...
Perhaps rich, angry DVD fans will succeed where angry slashdot DVD fans fail. I suspect that anyone who can afford a $27,000 DVD player has more clout than 27,000 nerds when it comes to getting this mess straightened out in court.
Just make sure you don't get too exotic with chemical-dipping or cross-breeding of the commoddity product. I've heard that the formeldahyde can do nasty stuff to the safety factor and cross-pollination can introduce impurities in the final product. And try not to use bleached papers too because the chemicals released could cause damage.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
Well, a high cost of entry for one. I don't know about you, but I can't exactly afford $27,000 for this device. If I could do you think I would be going to Blockbuster or getting DVDs in the mail from Netflix? Nope, I'd probably just buy every single DVD that I was remotely interested in, so I could watch it if I ever got the itch to. And that's exactly when a server like this is useful. I wouldn't have to get up an hunt around for the DVD in question I would just use my monster big screen to browse until I found it on the Kaleidescape server. My take on this lawsuit can best be expressed in the words of Homer Simpson: "Of Course! Its so simple...wait no it isn't. Its needlessly complicated!"
What witty sig? I can't be witty, I'm a Methodist.
The only "legitimate" software that allowed that was shut down by the DVD consortium. For just that reason.
The short answer: nothing. But that doesn't mean that these "DVD jukeboxes" should be outlawed, since the *potential* for abuse is not good enough grounds to make something illegal.
To offer an anaolgy: Knives can be used to commit murder as easily as they can be used for legitimaate uses (say, to chop vegetables.) But no one is suggesting that we make knives illegal, since their benefit in legal use far outweighs the danger that someone might use them to stab another person. In the same way, the benefit that hardware or software that can be used to backup DVD's has in the realm of fair use far outweighs the harm that can come from a few lazy nitwits renting movies from Blockbuster and making copies of them.
Many Bothans died to bring you this sig.
What's to stop people from going to [Insert Hunting Store Here], buying a rifle and shooting people with it?
That *is* violation of the law. Isn't it?
However, it shouldn't be illegal to sell rifles to hunters who actually plan on using them to hunt game (unless you're one of those people staunchly opposed to hunting, in which case you think the opposite, but my point is still valid).
Just because something CAN be used to circumvent copyright doesn't mean that the powers that be should use all of their legal might to prevent a useful (albeit very expensive) device from being made for consumers willing to pay for it. This way, anyone wanting to use it legally doesn't even have the option to do so.
~jaraxle
WHO is going to pay $27K to save $19.95?.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
To assume that these are being used for piracy is a bit paranoid. You're talking about paying $27k for the ability to "pirate" $6k in software. There's no significant financial incentive to use this device for copyright infringement purposes.
A devil's advocate moment -
For these end users it is a convinience to use this device to "pirate" stuff, not a way to save money. People lend dvd's all the time and if you have this device you can borrow a bunch of dvds and dump them into it - not because you cannot afford it but because a - you do not have to and b - it is easier
Thing is while it makes no financial sense to the so called "pirate", the DVD makers do loose significant amount in revenue. Even if the owner of such device buys the dvd and then gives it to someone else.
-Em
RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
>"What's to stop people from going to Blockbuster Video, renting a few hundred DVDs and copying them to this device?
That *is* violation of the DVD consortium license. Isn't it?"
An affirmative action needs to be taken by the user to pirate the material. Simply because the technology exists to be misused, should it be outlawed? The lady that ran her car over those kids shouldn't be the reason I have to walk to work, right? After all, she did misuse the technology for an obviously illegal reason. By that logic, we should outlaw fire and all its resulting evil too cos that will only bring heartache and sorrow...
I dont think they have any problem with this perticular system, the problem they have is; if they don't sue these guys off planet, they don't have a leg to stand on when some "cheap labor country manufacturer" comes with an afordable solution.
The only "legitimate" software that allowed that was shut down by the DVD consortium
What software is that? Surely you don't mean DeCSS, they dropped that battle. And there's absolutely nothing stopping you from ripping a DVD to your hard drive now, and burning it to DVD-R with the CSS encryption intact.
The $27K pricetag??
You're right though. As pointed out elsewhere in this thread, they're probably moving to block the precedent before someone does it with cheaper hardware.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Ok you sold me one. Where do I sign?
"Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
Well, for me it's the fact that I can rent unlimited films from Blockbuster for $30/month (3 out at a time) and let them catalogue and store all the damn discs. Why would I waste my time and resources copying something when it's always on call and someone else is maintaining the collection for me?
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
At $27,000 at 500 DVD, that $54 dollars a disc. Since $54 per disc is about three times the cost of the DVD, I'm not sure of the advantage.
It's certainly not to save the disc by avoiding using it, because at $54 per disc it'd be cheaper to simply buy a second copy and not open it.
Are we simply that lazy that it's worth paying three times the cost of the disc rather than to get up and stick it in yourself?
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
I had to read that a couple times just to make sure that I was seeing what I was seeing. The CSS system was explicitly made to prevent people from exercising fair use backups of their legally purchased DVDs? I thought it was to prevent piracy? Moreover, after paying all those congressmen all that money, they just turn a cold shoulder to their darling, the DMCA.
Kinda seems lazy on their part. At least they could properly cite the corrupt, consumer-hostile law they explicitly created to castrate fair use.
So if you are a poor individual you get sued directly, but if you are rich and can afford $27k systems, then the company that is struggleing to get a product to market gets sued? Well you can't blame them for being smart about the targets.
you would discover that it is not possible, since the part of the disc that holds the CSS keys is not writable.
I'll take your word for it, but "dd if=/dev/dvd of=MyDVD" I've done, and it plays just fine off the hard drive.
But I can't do it to my dvd's?
No wonder the DMCA was passed and how Hollywood desperately wants to switch to DVD audio.
Control and setting up artificial monopolies indeed.
http://saveie6.com/
You don't NEED a license to get a knife or gun. You do need one to manufacture DVD players and if you violate the terms of that license, you can get sued in a civil court.
It's ironic that because the company played within the rules of the consortium that they're being strung up by those very rules. There was another company that made unlicensed Nintendo games and won the right to do so in court (though I'm not sure how the DMCA would affect that) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_Tree
The *main* problem is that if the consortium allowed this product out in the market, that would be a de-facto demonstration that it's OK for licensed DVD manufacturers to rip DVDs to hard drives (no matter the cost).
I'm not FOR the consortium. I'm merely pointing out that it's in violation of the consortium agreement.
Teach these ignorant jerks in Congress about these fancy new com-pu-ters and how they actually work. That "L1" "L2" and "L3" comment was excellent.
I thought it was misleading and pedantic. There is a common-sense difference between a temporary copy and a permanent copy. Geeks who ehxibit no common sense will just get laughed out of Congress.
The law. The same thing that prevents me from killing somebody with that Ginsu that I just bought, and that prevents Ginsu from being sued for it.
Not Kaleidoscope's fault that somebody chose to break the law.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Well sure, but you're using "hacker" tools and a "hacker" OS. The skills and tools of piratical "hackers" like you don't count.
The fact is that every computer DVD drive has a DVD Consortium mandated flash chip in it that scans for the CSS code, and if it finds it will refuse to copy it, and your so called "dd" tool is obviously an illegal copyright circumvention device (either that or the software you use to play the files has a DeCSS module installed).
Expect the helicopters shortly.
KFG
These units are pretty damn cool. I say units plural because you need three components. 1) Ripper 2) Storage/Server 3) Player
They all look really sleek, black cases with blue lighting. So as the SoCal sales rep was demo'ing the units, I was a bit confused why they seperated the ripper and server, the rep responded with "Many of our clients would prefer to have a slimmer component in their library or den and the server can be in the basement." What? The server is the size of a rackmount case and the ripper is a little bit smaller. Why not save some money and combine them? I asked how much the units cost and for a 1 room set up with 1.5 TB storage was around $27,000. A few people started laughing, and a few others just got up and walked out.
Why so expensive? Well for starters they include something like 50 DVDs already preloaded, which of course you are already paying for, but have no choice in what is preloaded other than 2-3 different packages. You can't buy the unit without the pre-loads. Also, the company decided to design the OS from scratch! Linux would be perfect for something like this, but nope, they said they've spent years developing a proprietary OS specifically for this unit. Stupid decision.
While demo'ing the unit, the rep had a difficult time browsing around, like he'd never used one before! There were also some noticable bugs in the GUI too that one of the company engineers had a difficult time working around. We sometimes sat there for 5-10 minutes while they sorted out these issues. It was really unbelievable that they were charging this insane amount for a unit I could build for around $1,000. I'm in IT sales and this guy was a prety bad salesman so I was shocked that they put him in charge of what should be the territory that has 90% of their sales, Southern California.
In speaking with many other companies showing off their latest media centers, PVRs, etc..., I saw some pretty impressive ones well priced too. Speaking with their reps, Kaliedescape was apparently the joke of the expo. They loved laughing and joking about that company.
Bottom line is it was a cool unit, but waaay over-priced as other have noted before me. What makes it even worse is the reps at the expo included their main sales reps and some engineers, who were trying to sell us to be dealers, were brutal. So I'm not sure what that says about the company as a whole, but it is probably not a good thing. I don't see any way this company survives unless they get a ton of athletes/movie stars buying them left and right. At this point, they've apparently only sold a few dozen and its been on the market for I believe about a year. He seemed rather proud of that but making probably $5,000 per system, that isn't going to cut it to support an entire company.
To answer a question I saw earlier about what's stopping the user from renting blockbuster movies to be ripped and returned. Nothing is stopping them. I asked that same question and the rep snobbishly laughed and explained that their clients don't rent movies, they buy them. Which is probably true. I also asked about how this is legal for them to do, and they said it took years of getting the movie indutry's backing, but they were finally able to do it. Looks like that might not have been the case after all. Now their clients all can be sued. Probably won't happen, but with the MPAA, you never know.
I'm an avid anti-*AA person (DVDCCA is close enough). But in this case, I really don't care. I think it's funny actually. I'll laugh if they sue this company in to bankruptcy. They're going to die off anyways, why not speed up the process.
So, designing my own version of this system, I've got an Apple Xserve single-proc system with two 80GB hard drives (software RAID-1 for protection of the system,) a Combo Drive and Fibre Channel controller, plus an Xserve RAID maxed out with 5.6TB of space (4TB usable after making it a RAID-50 with hot spares.) This comes to just under $17,000. A few free programs, such as DVBackup or MacTheRipper, and I have the 'backup' capability. Add an Elgato System EyeHome, and voila! (Heck, if the EyeHome could control an EyeTV connected to the server, this setup would be a great DVR as well.)
Or program your own custom interface that uses an iBook or iMac as the client. Add a computer-accessory IR remote, and you're all set.
Total cost $17450 with an EyeHome, and two AirPort Express base stations (one connected to the server, one to the EyeHome, for wireless transmission.) Add $330 or $350 for an EyeTV (SD or HD, respectively.)
Total cost $18190 with an iBook as playback/control and an AirPort Express to connect to the server, and a Keyspan Express Remote to control the iBook. (Custom interface software not provided, and would have to be written.) Again, add $330 or $350 for an EyeTV (which could be connected directly to the iBook, in this setup.)
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
a few lazy nitwits renting movies from Blockbuster and making copies of them
I'm going to post anonymously for obvious reasons.
You are overlooking the fact that once enough common citizens have the capability to make perfect digital copies a revolution in the distribution of content is underway. These unauthorized reproducers of content have the power to liberate content from the distribution channels into which it is locked.
Here's my real world example. I have been using several programs--DVDBackup, Miraizon's "Cinematize", DVD Studio Pro, and occasionally Nakasuji Associate's "MPEG Append"--to make full, lossless copies of DVD material. I get the original copyrighted material from my University library, but a public library would do.
Now, I'm not redistributing these copies, yet. But in the future, when bandwidth is cheap and 7GB can be uploaded in say, 5 minutes, you can bet that someone like me is going to upload their cache. These movies are still copyrighted under the interminable Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, but that Act means nothing when people can make perfect digital copies.
And why do you think Microsoft wants to write their "secure" Bios? To make things "safer" for Linux and Windows users?
Nope, to move the flash chip security from the software level to the hardware level and to stop all those evil Linux hacker people from using dd to copy their precious!
--
Am I supposed to feel sad because some stupid rapper asshat can't steel the movies anymore?
--
No you're supposed to feel bad because you don't know the difference between steel and steal.
OK, this is a bit of a generalisation, but how is it that the people with the money tend to be college drop out-types. Even Bill Gates who is/was the richest guy in the world dropped out. What do they do to our brains in there?
Engineering is the art of compromise.
What's to stop people from going to Blockbuster Video, renting a few hundred DVDs and copying them to this device?
They should sue GNU too:
dd if=/dev/dvdrom of=/video/biglebowski.udf bs=32M
because substantial non-infringing uses are irrelevant.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Roll your own with Myth TV
I rip all my DVD's to disk. Sure I don't have 3.3 TB, but I do rip tot Xvid onto 3 250Mb disks (0.75TB) So I guess I can store more video. HA!
Cost? less than 300$ (not counting the surpluss PC)
$29k? That's just stupid!
I can foresee a day in the near future where CVS logs are used as court records to go after infringers...
The Kaleidescape is simply awesome. I've set one up and used it a few times, and it's incredible. The interface is so smooth, easy and fun to use, it's just a really cool DVD system. Paired with a high-end Vantage, Crestron, or AMX touchscreen for control, it has got to be the best movie experience around.
It does skip the ads on the disc, and allows you to go straight to the movie, but it also lets you navigate through the DVD menus.
I think this lawsuit is a load of crap, because the copy made of the disc is an exact copy, it doesn't store a decrypted version, the decryption happens all within the player at the other end of the network, just like a normal DVD player. Also, not that it couldn't be hacked, but the server doesn't provide any way to get into it's file system from the network to get at the stored copies.
This could potentially be used to *steal* copies of a friends DVD or of a rented movie, but, as mentioned by others already, the people that would use this aren't the type to steal movies, or even to borrow or rent movies. It would be a pity and a shame to see the DVD industry come down on such an incredibly well-built and useful product.
Pity we couldn't help the little guy in this case, merely just to help them win and set a precedent, whether or not you like (or afford) their business model.
Jonathanjk.com
Im pretty sure he was talking about it not working after you burn it back out to DVD. That wont work, for precisely the reason he states. What you do will work, because what you are essentially creating is a virtual DVD drive.
I don't think the parent understands the market for this device. Products that are engineered for the high-end market don't use off the shelf hardware, and they have major hardware and software engineering that goes into them. Everything from the UI to the Audio and Video Hardware to the network protocols has had many many hours of research, design and testing. This is much more than a Dell PC that shares movies to other Dells. Plus, the people who are willing to buy this kind of system aren't the Slashdot-do-it-yourself types who will spend hours screwing around with kernels and config files and daemons and everything. These people just pay their A/V dealers to take the thing out of the box, plug it into the network, and turn it on. That's all it takes, and it works! I've set this one up before, and it is that easy, because the product is engineered to death at the factory, not in some /.er's basement lab. And don't forget that this is designed to be controlled by super high-end home automation systems, like 15" Crestron touchscreens, that also control everything else in the house.
/. crowd will never understand, who will always say "Why would someone pay for that when I could build it?" The answer is, because it's already built much better, it's easier to use, and they have the $$$.
There's a whole hgh-end electronics world that most of the
I must wonder, what is the movie industry thinking with this lawsuit. This device is their friend. Anybody with $27K to blow on a device is going to be buying legit anyway (except perhaps when it can't be bought at any price, but that's their fault there) and having such a device will induce them to buy even more DVDs.
The company has taken big steps to make copying hard and they appear to be in compliance with the license.
Suing them is going to both directly reduce sales, piss off a lot of hollywood people (who are supposed to benefit from copyrights according to the MPAA), and will hurt their credibility in legal circuits and the court of public opinion. Oh, and assuming it actually went to court, they would lose.
It may play off the hard drive, but you won't be able to copy it to another dvd, which is what the grandparent poster was saying. The parent poster was correct- you cannot make a bit perfect copy of an encrypted DVD. The guys at DVD/CCA may be a bit clueless overall, but they at least were smart enough not to make that obvious mistake.
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
More coverage on the topic at LIVEdigitally, including pictures. Click here to read (http://www.livedigitally.com/2004/12/hollywood-su es-their-only-friend.html)
If someone wanted to buy one of these to make copies of rented or borrowed movies, It's not going to work... At $27000 (you'd have to spend more to actually get one that would hold the maximum number of DVDs), and at $20/DVD, you'd have to *steal* 1350 DVDs to break even. The system doesn't hold nearly that many DVDs.
I know this is all about precedence and the "someday there will be cheaper systems that do this", but come on. This system does not INDUCE copyright violation. It does not make copyright violation cost effective. It does not make it possible to share a DVD with other users in different homes. Far from it. The DVDCCA needs to do the math themselves, then realize that the only decryption that ever happens is in the player unit itself, so there's no way to get a copy of the decrypted data.
I think it's stupid too, but I do see their motivation. Right now, a device like this is $27,000.00. Think about how much cheaper hard drives have gotten over the last 5-10 years. In another 5 years, our desktops will have the same storage capacity and devices like this could be sold at much more affordable prices. I don't think someone with $27,000 would bother pirating movies, but if you make the device $200-$300...well, I'd be off to Blockbuster myself :)
Tech News, Reviews and Tutorials
sorry:
"I don't think someone with $27,000 would "
should have read
"I don't think someone with $27,000 for a dvd player would"
Tech News, Reviews and Tutorials
Could there be a similarity? Robertson boasted about the end of the retail record industry as we know it, and these guys bring out an absurdly expensive machine. Attention getters? Is there an ego at work here? Perhaps success will be won by coming in low and slow.
Gary Dunn
Open Slate Project
Don't get the license, you don't have access to css disks.. which is pretty much every mainstream movie.
No license, no product.
I have no sympathy for someone who gets sued if they are gluttonous enough to spend $27K on a bunch of hard drives with blue lights on the front!
At that price level, we are talking people with tons of disposable income. They may alrady have $50k-$100k AV rooms. It's just a nice, convenient toy that lets them easily keep all their movies in one spot and get at them easily.
Could you DIY for less? Of course, that's not the target market.
Shooting people is a crime that will get you noticed by the police, arrested and thrown in jail.
Ripping DVDs is a crime (DMCA circumvention)... but how does it get noticed if it's in your own home? The last thing we need is the bad guys (the movie studios)throwing up their hands and saying "OK, have your fair use, but we need a way of checking for fair use...".
Just a random thought.
When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
DVD+R OTOH is different. There are no technical measures on the media itself which would prevent writing the CSS keys to them. However, recorders are designed to only write dummy information to those sectors in the lead-in area - a hacked firmware probably would allow to circumvent that. I don't think I have seen such a hacked firmware though, most likely because the interest in such a firmware is probably too small (as opposed to hacked firmwares which circumvent region codes).
Not to mention that normally, the blockbuster versions of the films are very diferent from the stores ones!
(normally no extras at all, and no remastering or extra footage)
Keep these lawsuits coming! I mean it. We'll be back to using stone tablets in no time, and only authorized rocksmiths will be allowed to distribute them to gov't approved customers only. Plus you will be required to register your hammer and chisel with your local publisher. Purchasing any of these tools of mass infringement(TMI's) will require a thrity day cooling off period. Anything that helps the general population understand the folly(tragedy really) of copyright can only help get this kind of corruption off the books, and maybe, if enough people wake up to what's happening, they actually vote some reasonable people into office. Yeah, riiiight! (Insert diety here) help us all.
What?
Expect the helicopters shortly.
:)
I almost hope they do sue me. First it would look hilarious to have a Slashdot thread as the single piece of evidence. Second, How they manage to enforce the US' DMCA laws outside of the US (I'm never travelling there anyway - I saw what they did to Dmitri). And third, MPlayer does NOT use DeCSS at all.
But yeah, I did laugh. Good reply.
What you do will work, because what you are essentially creating is a virtual DVD drive.
That was actually my point. How is that different from what these Jukebox people are doing, besides having actually paid them for a license?
which is what the grandparent poster was saying.
And thats why I said "I'll take your word for it". Did I say something to contradict his statement in my reply?
>The law.
The law doesn't *prevent* anything.
The law exists in order that there will be consequences for people's actions which are hamful to society.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
This product will have millions of people buying it for $27,000.00 in order to rip off the next big movie hit that comes out on a $15.00 DVD!
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
<3 Jabberkatz. +1 Insightful!
huh? care to explain that? i'm pretty sure the DVDs you rent at blickbuster are the same ones you're able to buy in stores... with the exception of "special edition" DVDs that are released after a first DVD of that movie is already out. (as opposed to the "special editions" that are the only editions available)
At the same time, the licensor clearly intended that this sort of use not be permitted by the license.
So either the licensee failed to read the license correctly, or the licensor failed to write a license agreement that met their objectives.
If it turns out to be the licensor who goofed, I wonder if the system then becomes illegal because it is a restraint of trade that does not meet any valid business purpose?
In any case, this will be a case worth watching.
Squirrel!
Well, I guess I was wrong. Apparently the DVDCCA won't let anyone make a product enabling fair use of dvd's, even if they do pay for a license and player key.
Moderation Totals: Flamebait=2, Troll=1, Redundant=1, Insightful=6, Overrated=1, Underrated=1, Total=12. (not mine)
In this case, the CAT5 is refering to a standard 100 BaseT IP network. I don't know much about their protocol, but I would think it shouldn't have to be encrypted or anything... the only thing being transmitted is the already encrypted data that's on the DVD. It's not making a copy of the DVD across the network (except when you first import a disc, and even then, it's just going to one place where it can't be shared with any non-Kaleidescape computer).
Playing a movie asynchronously in two locations is possible with the Kaleidescape, and be on the fringes of legality, put that's not what the DVDCCA is up in arms about. Their complaining about the "the wholesale copying of protected DVDs". Wholesale is hardly the word to describe it. This doesn't make DVDs available on a peer to peer network or in any other way to the rest of the Internet. It doesn't even make them available to any non-Kaleidescape devices. The decryption doesn't happen until the data gets to the player unit, just like any other DVD player, so this doesn't make copying a DVD any more feasible than any PC with a DVD-ROM drive. The DVDCCA needs to look at exactly what the Kaleidescape does and what it doesn't do, instead of freaking out because *Oh my gosh!* something gets copied.
So the problem is simply that the right media (truly virgin DVD-Rs with a writeable space where the keys go) is not manufactured and sold?
What's stopping that? Is there some law preventing the manufacture of not-broken DVDRs?
From the article, it would seem that the jukebox software isnt presenting the ripped DVDs 'as is' but is infact altering the content to directly play the main feature among other things. I guess that that is what they are complaining about.
That's exactly what MPlayer does, as a result of not supporting the menus. I really don't care to watch the commercials/previews either.
*sigh* I don't much care for our new Chinese overlords.
I, for one, welcome our new chinese overlords.
I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
Exactly. The law, and by extention, the threat of punishment, is what is intended to stop people from doing bad things with random objects.
This DVD thingy could be used to illegally copy DVDs? Fine. Who cares? That's not what it's expressly designed and marketed to do, so it's up to the USER not to do such things.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
I speak from experience that I have DVDs that have different barcodes on them than recorded in Amazon.com's database. I even possess two copies of Commando, same edition, but different barcodes, purchased at different times and not returned to the store in time.
The makers of DVDs can easily mark copies for sale from different vendors; it isn't beyond their ability to have different pressings for them as well. (I don't know for certain that these two releases of Commando are identical; they're both still shrink-wrapped.)
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
This isn't a matter of Kaleidescape violating a law.
This is a matter of Kaleidescape violating a license, a contract with the DVDCCA.
The DVDCCA could just make the license tougher to explicitly disallow any future licensee (and all renewals) from being able to produce a server like this. What they want is a ruling that says that the term as it exists in their current license against this is enforceable, which will send a signal to everyone to stay out of that market.
It would help if we could see the license, but I suspect you have to be able to put up enough money to buy it before you're able to even see it, and that it contains non-disclosure elements.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
All I was poiting out what what law was being violated. Once again Decss doesn't violate the patents, and depending on how the supreme court views the DMCA might not be illegal after all. This also means that it's only illegal in the US.
That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
I had always thought CSS served the dual purpose of scrambling the DVD to prevent unauthorized copying (end-user) *and* playback (manufacturer). Let's not revise history and forget that because we have DVD burners and P2P capable of DVD-sharing now that it was so when the CSS was developed. When DVDs first arrived, there were no DVD burners and it would have seemed absurd for anyone to transfer the whole DVD on P2P--having an iron lock on manufacturers also meant having an iron lock on consumers, and in case anyone were to break that, contract law could be used on the manufacturers and the DMCA could be used on the end-users.
The biggest example of the latter 'iron lock' and what it meant to Hollywood? Off the top of my head, how about the MPAA going after Jon Johansen for playing a DVD on Linux and the subsequent DMCA-blocking of 2600's link to DeCSS?
You do know that legally, a copy is a copy, and the only reason you have the right to run software is because someone was smart enough to explicitly state so in the law? I'm actually surprised noone's attacked that part of the law yet - get that overturned and you really do have total control over how media is played, as you just claim copyright infringement when someone plays it in a manner you didn't authorize.
FC Closer