Tenative Ruling Against Kaleidescape in DVD CCA Case

An anonymous reader wrote in with an update in the long drawn out legal proceedings between the DVD CCA and Kaleidescape, a manufacturer of a video jukeboxes. Despite a victory by Kaleidescape in 2007, they ended up back in court in November 2011. The DVD CCA insisted that ripping a DVD was in violation of the license granted to Kaleidescape; Kaleidescape disagreed since their jukebox made a bit-for-bit copy of the disc rather than first decrypting the contents. Unfortunately, in a preliminary ruling, the court agrees with the DVD CCA. Kaleidescape has released a statement.

Comments

Obviously

[bobstreo]

The Judge has received some re-election funds from the MPAA

Re:Obviously

[DoofusOfDeath]

The Judge has received some re-election funds from the MPAA

Just because you don't like the ruling, doesn't necessarily mean it's contrary to the law.

That being said, the MPAA and RIAA have been instrumental in writing the laws, so...

Re:Obviously

[Moryath]

It's funny, whenever someone suggests this sort of thing, they usually get modded down.

And yet the judge basically took the DVD-CCA's side and copy-pasted it into his ruling word for word. He ignored basically every argument Kaleidescape put forth. That's rare in court. Not only that, but the judge has done a major about-face since the last ruling in 2007. What changed in the intervening time? How do you go from a judge ruling that Kaleidescape had made good faith efforts to ensure their products were compliant, and were in fact compliant, to what came out today if money didn't change hands somewhere?

Re:Obviously

[LoverOfJoy]

How do you go from a judge ruling that Kaleidescape had made good faith efforts to ensure their products were compliant, and were in fact compliant, to what came out today if money didn't change hands somewhere?

Who needs money when you have incriminating photos?

Re:Obviously

[causality]

The Judge has received some re-election funds from the MPAA

Just because you don't like the ruling, doesn't necessarily mean it's contrary to the law.

That being said, the MPAA and RIAA have been instrumental in writing the laws, so...

If I were a judge I'd never rule in favor of something I know to be wrong, excessive, or unreasonable. Modern copyright suits like this one fit all three descriptions. If the law says otherwise, let them impeach me. Then I might lose my cushy prestigious job. Then I'd say hey, at least I put something on the line to try to bring some sanity to our legal system; how many others did the same?

You wonder why freedoms are eroding?

Re:Obviously

[causality]

Until they declare it illegal to resell DVDs or they tie the content to a specific piece of hardware for playback.

The bittorrent pirates couldn't dream of a better justification in the popular mind.

The copyright interests enjoy some public sympathy as long as they can portray themselves as the poor victims of rampant "theft" who just want a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. This mostly depends on the general public being ignorant and not considering it worthwhile to read up on the subject and learn about its nuances. Thus, what is generally known about them comes from propaganda (aka "PR") sponsored by them. If the cartels clamp down too hard, no amount of PR will prevent it from being generally known that they are a bunch of assholes and control freaks who will never be satisfied.

What you suggest is, sadly, the kind of thing they would do. It's also the dumbest thing they could do. Seems like a balance to me.

Re:Obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, they are in a lot of counties. This particular judge was elected - it took about 30 seconds of googling.

Re:Obviously

[compro01]

Actually, Superior Court judges in California (like the one this ruling was issued by) are elected.

The judge in question was elected in 2006, so he's also up for reelection this year.

Re:Obviously

[Ramin_HAL9001]

Until they declare it illegal to resell DVDs or they tie the content to a specific piece of hardware for playback.

The bittorrent pirates couldn't dream of a better justification in the popular mind. .... If the cartels clamp down too hard, no amount of PR will prevent it from being generally known that they are a bunch of assholes and control freaks who will never be satisfied.

I think you put way too much faith in the general public's attention span.

If the MAFIAA were to use their political clout and pass laws that made it illegal to watch a movie without a specific piece of hardware, which they have already done in a way, using region codes and forcing DRM on downloaded music, people will just sit back and take it, and continue to repeat the propaganda spoon-fed to them. "Its good for the economy, they have the right to make money in whatever way they want, pirates are bad, baaah baaah baaah baaah."

No one notices just how many liberties we have lost over the past 20 years (ironically, more and more so as technology has improved) because no one knows the technology well enough to know when a politician is passing yet another law to take their freedoms and property rights away. They think, "as long as I don't vote for those big-government Democrats, I'll be safe." If only it were that easy.

Re:Obviously

[Kjella]

You still require a basic DVD-ROM to even begin to physically read the disk. I don't think that is forced, and certainly not by law. You have a choice of DVD hardware to purchase.

Sure, you can pick the logo on the player but you don't have a choice. To play DVDs it must have a CSS key, to get a CSS key it must follow the CSS license and to play it in any other way would violate the DMCA (or EUCD in Europe or whatever fits your region). It doesn't matter if you've legally bought and own the disc, if you find a way to play it on your own you're a criminal. And because every manufacturer is under the whip of the CSS license, so are you. If they want to enforce region codes or don't want you to fast forward past the commercials they can impose those conditions on the manufacturers through the license who will then impose those restrictions on you. It's not required by law, they've just taken away all other ways of doing it legally - but it works much the same.

Technology could be so cool

[ichthus]

Technology could be so much better if the damned companies would just get out of our way:

-Let us tether our phones. Don't make us jailbreak/root the things to get the bandwidth and features we pay for. The phones are perfectly capable, so stop stifling us!

-Let us watch our movies on whatever device we want, whenever we want, without having to crack/decrypt or download someone else's cracked/decrypted copy.

-Embrace streaming. The infrastructure is there. The technology is mature. Drive-in theaters died a long time ago, and so will megaplexes. Deal with it. Stop fighting Netflix. Stop trying to cling onto your antiquated distribution platform.

I'm sure I have other rants, but I won't be able to think of them until my vein recedes back into my forehead.

Re:Huh?

[gnapster]

They're those flat shiny things that ISOs come on.

DVD ? DVDead.

[billcopc]

I'm quite familiar with the Kaleidescape system. It's effectively a DVD jukebox that uses disc images instead of physical media. In 2011, it's a very outdated piece of technology, but it remains one of the few idiot-proof systems out there. Pay gobs of money, plug it into your TV, fiddle the remote and you're off to the races.

From the very beginning, the system has required users to rip their own DVDs. You don't download shows to it, you have to pop in the disc and let the system create its own image. No disc, no love. Sure, you could toss in a burned disc, but by that point the encryption has already been broken. The only way you can willfully circumvent copyright laws with this thing is by renting/borrowing a movie, ripping it and returning the disc.

That said, if someone has the whimsical income to afford a $7000+ Kaleidescape system, they can probably afford to buy their movies legally. Once again, the movie industry doesn't have a goddamned clue.

Most ridiculous lawsuit ever?

[Anonymous Coward]

DVD CCA must be the most idiotic organization in the world. Why would you sue a company who provides the equipment to your boss's villas, yachts and planes? As someone who works in the industry and installs these systems II can guarantee you that every single one of the movie studio executives will have a Kaleidescape system in every single property or yacht they owe.

And who would seriously slash out between $10 000 and $1 000 000 on a Kaleidescape system just so that they could make copies of DVD's they don't owe? Who are the DVD CCA trying to kid?