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.
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
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.
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 ]
- 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.
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?
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
RTFA and you shall discover the answer to your question. Is it really too much to ask?
Slashdot should have 2 conversations for every article. One for people who RTFA, one for those who don't. I'd have to sort through less garbage when reading Slashdot.