Media Server Manufacturer Wins in Court

whoever57 writes "The DVD Copy Control Association (DVD CCA) has lost its bid to shut down Kaleidescope, which manufactures media servers that can copy DVDs (along with decryption keys) to built in hard drives. The DVD CCA claimed that this violated the terms of the contracts that control DVD-related equipment because the DVD need not be physically present for payback. However, the judge ruled against the DVD CCA on the narrow grounds that part of the specification of the Content Scrambling System was not part of the overall license agreement. This may open up the market for similar devices."

Comments

Re:Typo

[Workaphobia]

Er, guess I shouldn't be a hypocrite. That one and this one are both "related to grammar or spelling mistakes" as well.

Re:iTunes

[mrchaotica]

I wouldn't be so sure about that... unlike CD ripping, which existed in iTunes long before the music store was opened, Apple is already pushing paid, DRM'd, movie downloads. From Apple's perspective, adding DVD ripping is not just unnecessary (because people accept iTunes as-is), but counterproductive (because it would cut into the iTunes store movie revenue).

Odd argument.

[eddy]

Assuming this is correct, the argument seems very weak, almost completely counter-intuitive:

"In closing arguments Coats warned that a ruling in favor of Kaleidescape "could open the flood gates to copycats. Prices could come down to that of a laptop for products that are not as elegant as Kaleidescape's but have the same basic functionality," Coats said."

So by ruling for the defendant, the judge would open the floodgates to innovation, increased competition and more jobs in the market?

Yeah, I can see how one must warn against a ruling with evil results such as those.

It's fairly simple...

[sdo1]

Anything I BUY should be MINE to do with what I please within the privacy of my own home or in/on my own property (with obvious exceptions such as causing physical harm to others, etc.). And I should NOT be illegal in any way to provide the tools to allow me to exercise that right.

I'm thrilled that the courts are slowly, every so slowly, starting to realize this. They need to look past the fact that it's a DVD and realize that its a collection of bits on a piece of plastic. I understand copyright and why it's not legal for me to distribute it to millions or to re-sell copies of it, but copyright is limited not absolute. Having a copyright on something does not mean that you get to dictate how and where it is used in perpetuity.

If I buy a piece of furniture and I want another one like it for another room, should it be illegal for me to pull out my tape measure, buy some wood, and build myself another one just like it?

If I buy a small print from a local artist to hang in my bedroom, should it be illegal for me to scan it, manipulate the colors, and print another copy that matches the decor in the guest room?

If I have a VHS tape that I'd like to preserve, should it be illegal for me to capture it, do a little noise reduction and clean-up on the video, and burn it to DVD?

And if I have a shelf of DVDs, should it be illegal to rip them and stick them on a server in my own home. Should it be illegal to provide the tools that allow me to do that? Of course not. It's no more illegal than to make the hammer I use to put together the copy of the chair.

-S

Re:It's fairly simple...

[313373_bot]

I believe that the discussion has been misguided for a long time. "Making a copy" shouldn't be a "right" that can be bought or sold, taken, managed or enforced by law. The problem ethical in the first place, and economical in second. For instance: if I buy a movie on tape, and later want to digitize and burn it on disc, no harm is done to anyone - so, no ethical problem. But if, say, the MPAA wanted to force me buying the movie again on dvd, based solely on the idea of copyright, this is immoral gouging. On the other hand, if the version on dvd is much better (clean sound, image, extras), I might want to buy it again, *if* the price is reasonable. This is just a silly example, but it's all a give and take in the end. What is wrong is trying to radicalize things, calling copyright infringement theft and suing people. Both sides lose, you get the idea.

Re:iTunes

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello DVD-ripping in iTunes! And not a moment too soon as they just started shipping the Apple TV.

Am I the only one who doesn't react to every story by thinking "But how does this relate to Apple?" It's lame and I'm sick of it, frankly.

Re:Payback's a bitch

[BootNinja]

If you want real news, perhaps you should try frequenting a real news site.

Re:iTunes

[AusIV]

The primary purpose of the iTunes music store is to generate content to help sell iPods. If it becomes legal to copy DVDs to computers (and iPods), I wouldn't be surprised to see iTunes allow the ripping of DVDs to an iPod compatible for mat.

Effectual copy protection?

[hedwards]

I think that this is good. I don't think that it will last, but I think that this is good. The copy protection on DVDs has always been weak. One could as soon as DVD burners came out to the masses copy single layer DVDs without any sort of cracks, a bit later came the DL DVD burners allowing all of the rest to be copied.

All that the content management stuff ever did was prevent playing the movies in a non approved player. Really insignificant, except to Linux users, because any DVD player at all would play the copies just fine.

Re:iTunes

[shmlco]

And sell more AppleTVs to play them back with...