Slashdot Mirror
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."
Doesn't this mean they'll just change the contract on new DVDs?
Making you think you're crazy is a billion dollar industry.
"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
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.
Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together.
Does this mean DVD Jon can go back to work on the 2nd most useful piece of software ever written?
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.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
---
How exactly did the butcher baker and the candlestick maker end up in a tub together?
---
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.
I need to steal that acronym.
IAAL,BIANLY
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?
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
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.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
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 :)
Keep up with spy tech, man. The CIA & NSA have been putting RFID in tinfoil foe years now. Better to go with lead.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Seriously, the date on the linked story is March 29th, a full month ago. Slashdot's "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters." logo apparently doesn't mean anything about the timeliness of the news.
Our other top story today, Alexander Graham Bell thinks he's got most of the bugs out of his magic talking box. The "telephone" is expected to be released some time next spring, and an IPO is likely to follow shortly thereafter.
- 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.When information is power, privacy is freedom.
The FEC reports receiving massive numbers of declarations of campaign contributions. They all suspiciously appear to have come from MPAA members...
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.
..don't panic
"We'll be dancin'... dancin' in the streeeeeets!!"
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.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I stand in awe of the judge's intellect and testicular fortitude for actually laying this down on the DVDCCA.
But let's see how long it lasts before the DVDCCA chucks a shitload (more than a load, less than an assload) of money at someone and this decision is reversed.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
I stumbled over this in-depth article, based on interviews with Kaleidescape people. Describes the whole story of the Kaleidescape product from the beginning right through to the end of this court case.
Seems like DVD-CCA's original legal strategy was not really well thought-out. They tried to patch it up with a bunch of bluster and an "I AM ABOVE ZE LAW!" attitude, but the judge would have none of it.
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.
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. Video Ipods would take off!!!
I don't remember the details about this particular case, but could DVD X Copy be legal now?
-- lol pwned
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 those new 1TB drives for storing movies!! I don't think Apple would do it because they don't want to upset people trying to sell movies over iTunes, but on the other hand allowing people to rip CDs to iTunes hasn't slowed down iTunes music sales... I could see this doing good for the movie biz. The MPAA need to get over themselves. Users than know anything can download all day.. but HONEST people can't put their movies on ipods or itvs to make things easier. Apple already has approved methods in place... why stop it now.
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.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
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 putting it into stores there has to be some other form of compensation involved - because sales will be a small percentage of the people that have the content. Pay-per-view locking of some sort isn't going to work because it will be cracked and distributed.
I would guess the sorts of DVDs that get made are the ones going around the last election - very one-sided political statements that are distributed for free. What else? Maybe nothing.
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
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
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.
There is always a frontier where there is an open and willing mind
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.
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?
/. crowd some obscure 80s hair band.
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 use media in two places at a given time, it's not unreasonable to expect a person to buy two copies. This way if you get divorsed you don't end up with two people each with their own respective copy of "John Denver's Greatest Hits vol 2" when only one was purchaced. Granted it will end up happening anyway, i'm sure people our age might still have cassettes of Simon and Garfunkel made from copies of our parents vinyl, or for the younger
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
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 extra stuff they put on there and start watching a movie. If I put a movie on a device such as this, then it's probably because I want fast access to it, and don't want to go searching around the shelves for it. In the same way, I don't want to have to sit through FBI Warnings, or previews, or menu screens. I just want the movie to start.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
This actually makes me want to go and buy DVD's
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
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!!!
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 /.-ers make this mistake regularly.
But your premise is wrong as well; You don't have to be a DVD-CCA contractor to be interested in whether this case is binding. I would say that anyone who owned a $27K Kaleidescape jukebox would want to know the legal worth of a case affecting the licensing rights of the company they bought it from! Additionally, other products may (or may not) be affected, depending on the precedential value of this case. The article lead was "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 was that DVD servers are now legal. Finally, since when does one have to be legally affected by a case to want to know its exact legal effects? Most of the cases posed on /. are not posted for the parties of interest, but for the edification of /.-ers who can't get enough involving IP law.
For your client's sake, I hope you don't normally rush in and make comments without knowing what you're talking about.
I don't know how many disclaimers would make you happy, but I thought I made the distinction between "general legal discussion" and "full blown legal advice" pretty clear. Not clear enough for you though, I guess.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
"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 DVD CAA contractors can rely on this (at least until appealed), then the average /.-er should hold off on that "legally sanctioned" DVD server.
I've just seen the "a trial judge just ruled against a patent/copyright holder and this is great news for all of mankind" stories posted on /.
Good issue spotting though. Now get the hell off of /. and go study! (good luck).
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
I find this interesting: (a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures.-- (1) (A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter. It talks of a PERSON but not a commercial entity doing this for free. Anybody have any insights?
Were there separate discussions for those who RTFA and those who didn't, it would degenerate to most people posting in the didn't RTFA discussion whether they read it or not, because their posts would be most useful there.
My big pet peeve lately is anyone who refers to downloaded music/movies as digital... as opposed to CDs and DVDs?
For anyone that forgot, DVDs and CDs are quite digital on their own, there's nothing about the ripping or downloading process that makes them more digital.
If i had mod points I too would have modded him insightful. The number of idiots there are in society that expose their retardation whilst shopping retail is enormous. I even work in a fairly well to do neighborhood and it just makes things even more pathetic.
Hmmm... Pie...
but what they're doing is legal .. under copyright law, under DMCA, and under their CSS contract. That's the technicality that lets them SELL a product in the USA!!! Versus MythTV and everybody else that has marginally legal parts.