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."

Comments

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: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.

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

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:Not contractually forbidden...

[LarsG]

Contract? What contract?

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

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:Little bit confused

[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: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.

Re:iTunes ripping?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Disney is the one they launched with. Many others have signed on since then, without fanfare. They aren't having much trouble getting studios to join.

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 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.

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: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.

Already changed the contract...

[Marnhinn]

From DVDCCA

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:iTunes ripping?

[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