Slashdot Mirror
Ruling Prohibits Kaleidescape From Selling, Supporting Movie Servers
Stowie101 writes "Kaleidescape has lost its drawn-out legal battle with the DVD CCA. A judge has issued a permanent injunction that prohibits the sale and support, including product updates, of existing DVD movie servers. 'As part of the injunction, Kaleidescape and its dealers can no longer offer technical support for products that are already in the field, meaning existing servers can receive no updates or repairs.' Kaleidescape has filed an appeal and 'believes that under California law the injunction order should not come into effect unless the California Court of Appeal affirms Judge Monahan's decision.'"
What is Kaleidescape and why should I care?
(Yes, I know there's Google. But a bit of context would be nice.)
"Manufacturer of a movie server that digitally stores and organizes your Blu-ray and DVD movies, and makes them available from any television in your home."
So a ripping station.
My only disagreement is this:
Just because the DVD won't be available until the fall is not justification to download it freely. Oftentimes cable channels like HBO want to play the show over-and-over several times (for subscribers) before releasing it to everyone else. Movie studios do the same thing (release to theaters first; DVD later).
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
But, it wasn't removing the copy protection, and it wasn't sharing outside of the home... so I think this finding is BS... Still, it doesn't keep us from building our own. It's very simple, actually...
Logic is the beginning of reason, not the end of it.
So, I can do this with Apple TV. At one point, I did this with my XBox.
Things like Slingbox have allowed you to stream your media to your TV for years.
Why is this industry incapable of recognizing that users would prefer to have a juke-box with their movies? Especially people with kids I should think.
In this case, it sounds like the product tried very hard to not be helping illegal copying.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I'm sure the champaign corks are popping over at the Copyright Crowd penthouse offices.
In the mean time, this is yet another example how copyright is damaging for the 'regular folk' that now again will have to resort to physically inserting discs in devices in order to see a movie (and of course enjoy the whole warning 1 / warning 2 / unskippable previews / menu / warning 3 circus).
It's time for a complete re-think.
Make it open source!
This is one of the areas that the DMCA creates an illusory right. The law specifically states that the right to fair use, which includes time and format shifting, is not to be affected by the law. The law also prohibits anyone from assisting in removing copy protection.
The key is that the ability to remove the protection for fair use _must_ be available and reasonable for the average person who has paid for the product, or the right to format shift in accordance with fair use doctrine is purely illusory. This is pretty common, and when it comes up in contract law, it's pretty straightforward - you can't give illusory rights.
IA(of course)NAL, and even lawyers will disagree, but the law explicitly states a right (fair use) that is not to be altered, and then effectively alters that right by making it illegal for nearly everyone to obtain access to it.
I would like to see the law struck down - or at least the traffiking in copy protection removal devices and software removed for any fair use right, including personal use.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
This may prevent Kaleidescape and its dealers from supporting the servers, but does it prevent someone not connected with Kaleidescape from setting up a support operation for the servers?
No, it isn't.
Fair use is a pre-existing (compared to the DMCA) statutory right in copyright law (and, at least in part, reflects limitations on copyright imposed by the Constitutional rights of free speech & free press), and not a right created by the DMCA. Ergo, leaving aside questions of the exact extent of fair use and whether or not the DMCA renders it illusory, it can't be an example of the DMCA creating an illusory right, since the right existed (and not in an illusory form) prior to the DMCA.
It might be an example of the DMCA destroying a right and leaving a illusory shell behind, but that's a very different thing than creating an illusory right.
I see this as just another out-of-control (I won't go quite as far as bought off) California judge that the 99% of us would be far better off if s/he were removed from the bench permanently. With judges like this I'm surprised that we ever got as far as being allowed to have our own electric lights. S/he surly would have killed of the VCR if ever given the chance, likely along with the cassette and reel-to-reel decks as well if they had recording abilities. S/he would likely take out your DVR as well, given the chance.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Judge Kaplan wiped out that part of the law a decade ago, in the 2600 case. Those words truly mean nothing and there is not a single scenario that you can possibly imagine, where they would apply. Seriously. No one can name a single counter-example; it has never been successfully used.
Folks, the movie studios really don't want you to buy shiny discs and try to work with them. Every time you buy one, you just infuriate them. Your money is to the movie studios, what Jack the Ripper is to a woman alone at night.
Let a small number of pirates deal with the discs' problems so that the studios will be impacted the least. Let them deal with what it takes to play the latest BD+ obfuscation, and just download the repaired plaintext so that you don't have to violate DMCA.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
No, they can't, or they would then be charged with traffiking in circumvention devices. Of course, each individual may learn to program and keep their own software updated, but they can't share it with anyone else. It's like saying your free to make a phone call, and then covering your mouth with duct tape. You're still allowed to make a call.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
What if, in some future iPod, the Apple corporation gave us the ability not just to rip CDs but also DVDs, so we could listen to music or watch shows on-the-go?
Would the DVD Cartel.... er, Forum smack them down too? Or is Apple part of the cartel?
(ponder)
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
It's like saying your free to make a phone call, and then covering your mouth with duct tape.
Or simply changing the code so that 'Anderson.mouth=false.'
Repairing a kaleidescape server isn't going to have you charged with trafficking a circumvention device any more than fixing a computer for somebody makes you an accessory to whatever crimes they commit with their computer.
The software is incredibly reliable and if this was the end of Kaleidescape (which I don't think it will be) then there would be no new devices and as such, no need to update their software.
What would be needed would be to have a database that housed the movie meta data (actors, directors, cover artwork, ratings, bookmarks, etc) as well as the tools to create the format for the hard drives they use. The most difficult part would be to get the Kaleidescape servers in the field to update their software to locate the new database. Also, as the database housing doesn't generate revenue, it would be a cash sink for anybody wanting to host it if they were not able to sell hardware or service to offset the costs.
This is the key element. This is also the part that makes replicating the k-scape experience with other tools more complicated. Otherwise, ripping DVDs would be much like ripping CDs. All tools would connect to cddb (or dvddb) and everything would be sorted auto automagically.
All the gymnastics that's done now with DVD media management would evaporate.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I worked at RealNetworks for a while, on a doomed project called RealDVD. There were going to be two versions of RealDVD: a software-only version you could run on your laptop or whatever, and a software stack to be licensed to consumer electronics companies.
The reason RealNetworks thought there was a chance they could do this was: Kaleidescape. Kaleidescape made such a product, got sued, and won. There was a clear legal precedent.
For the next section, you are getting this third- or fourth-hand. I wasn't there for this. This is what I remember of how it was explained to me. I apologize in advance if anything here is incorrect.
What did Kaleidescape do? They signed up as a licensed and authorized customer of the official CSS unscrambling code, and built a licensed DVD player. Theirs just happened to have a big box full of hard drives that cached the disc images. (They had a quiet and stylish head-end unit for your living room, and some sort of big noisy box or boxes for the hard drives, which you would put in your basement or whatever.)
Once it was clear what Kaleidescape was up to, they got hit with a lawsuit for violation of contract. They were sued by the authority in charge of CSS, the CCA. In court, Kaleidescape pointed out that they had obeyed the contract to the letter: the contract didn't say anything about not copying the discs, or about the disc needing to be in the drive at the time of playback. (After they signed the contract, they received the technical specs, and the technical documents said "you can't copy the discs and the disc must be in the drive at the time of playback". Kaleidescape argued in court that this cannot be legally held to be part of the contract. The judge agreed.) Kaleidescape prevailed in court.
So, RealNetworks looked at this and said: clear legal precedent that this is legal to do. We had better do everything exactly the way Kaleidescape did it. So we ripped a bit-exact copy of each DVD, making no attempt to re-encode in MPEG4 or anything like that. We encrypted each disc image. We even made the UI pop up messages saying things like "remember, you can only do this if you own the disc". (It goes without saying, but RealNetworks also licensed CSS decryption, with all the hassles that entailed.)
Now, while Kaleidescape charged US $30,000 for their first model, and only US $10,000 for their "inexpensive" model, RealNetworks was going for a $300 price point on the consumer electronics product, and a $50 price point on the Windows software. No doubt this raised the level of concern from the MPAA; instead of a few rich people buying Kaleidescape units, the common people could buy RealDVD en masse.
The Windows software product shipped before we had the consumer electronics version ready to manufacture. It was sold by download, with an introductory price of $30.
The discussion here on Slashdot was nearly unanimous: hah, what morons those RealNetworks guys must be. Why would anyone buy a product that encrypts DVD images and is useless as a ripper, when we can just get Handbrake and do whatever we want?
Despite the /. scorn, the general consumer reaction to RealDVD was very positive, and sales were brisk.
Sales lasted about a week.
The MPAA picked a venue to sue RealNetworks, and asked the judge for an emergency injunction to shut down all sales of RealDVD. The judge (the same judge who ruled on the Napster case) granted the injunction.
This time, it wasn't a breach-of-contract suit. The DMCA gave them a big hammer and they used it. The judge agreed: DMCA says no copying, you guys are copying, you lose. There was more to it, but it was the DMCA that really did in RealDVD.
I wanted a RealDVD player in my living room. I believed in the product. It was not to be.
So when I saw this news, I figured the MPAA had used the DMCA to shut down Kaleidescape. Imagine my surprise when I found that it wa
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
This is one of the areas that the DMCA creates an illusory right. The law specifically states that the right to fair use, which includes time and format shifting, is not to be affected by the law. The law also prohibits anyone from assisting in removing copy protection.
The key is that the ability to remove the protection for fair use _must_ be available and reasonable for the average person who has paid for the product, or the right to format shift in accordance with fair use doctrine is purely illusory. This is pretty common, and when it comes up in contract law, it's pretty straightforward - you can't give illusory rights.
IA(of course)NAL, and even lawyers will disagree, but the law explicitly states a right (fair use) that is not to be altered, and then effectively alters that right by making it illegal for nearly everyone to obtain access to it.
I would like to see the law struck down - or at least the traffiking in copy protection removal devices and software removed for any fair use right, including personal use.
Just one minor nitpick: Fair use does not include format shifting. According the EFF Fair Use FAQ the legal basis for format shifting "...is not completely settled yet..."
I can see why it isn't settled yet. The proliferation of standards and viewing devices presents a golden opportunity for content providers. Content providers want to get paid as many times as they can for the same content -- that's simply good business. The idea is the same one that requires you to buy a ticket each time you watch a movie in a theater. As far as content providers are concerned, shifting your Blu-Ray content to your iPod is no different than paying for a ticket to see a movie and then staying in the theater to watch it again without paying again. Nobody argues that the latter is a fair use of your movie ticket; why should the former be treated any differently, if it has the effect on the content provider's bottom line? Content providers can (and should) do anything they can to protect such a lucrative market, and who can blame them?
I thought that was because copyright law treated paid rentals differently, in addition to any special needs of the rental business (different packaging, extra-durable tapes, whatever)
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Hold that thought! I'm envisioning a traditional music jukebox with a real arm and moving disks, only instead of cds this one houses dvds. Not only will the judge laugh them out of court if they dare to complain, but it also looks nice and retro.
Simply put, there is no better platform to listen/watch a CD/DVD/BluRay from than Kaleidescape.
Sure, there are those that pretend but that's it - when compared to Kaleidescape, they're only pretenders.
The magic is in the UI and really, the UI is simply amazing.
Say you highlight a movie called "Star Wars" and then around it, you'll see all of the other movies with similar names or actors (one instance.)
You can sort and search the movie database by actors, title,, genre, year, etc.
I've seen nothing else in the HTPC market that even comes close to it.
I really don't understand Hollywood's objection to Kaleidescape.
The people that can afford Kaleidescape aren't going to be downloading movies from bit torrent.
Maybe someone didn't get their expected/promised 5% cut or something like that?
Or are they upset that Kaleidescape lets you watch movies without DVD ads?
Or maybe it is an inprinciple thing where if they don't defend against Kaleidescape then they're weakened against other products (such as RealDvd) that they are concerned about?
One thing is for sure, if I was rich enough to actually afford a Kaleidescape server then my very next "order' would be every movie (on DVD/BR) that I wanted to watch and that I didn't have on original media. Kaleidescape makes having a large movie archive (> 100) accessible and manageable in ways that most folks here would only dream about.
But there's something else here that makes me wonder...
Meridian now offers similar technology for CDs and I can't help but wonder...
FTA:
"Every Kaleidescape customer must agree to copy only the DVDs that he rightfully owns, and must reaffirm this agreement upon copying each DVD. Kaleidescape Systems identify rental discs and prevent them from being imported. This combination of business practices and technology has been so effective that after years of searching for evidence that Kaleidescape's customers use their systems to steal content, the DVD CCA admitted in writing that Kaleidescape has done no harm to any of the motion picture studios, and was unable at trial to show any harm to the DVD CCA itself.
"Over the years, Americans have amassed over 13 billion DVDs and Blu-ray Discs – about 110 per household. This means that many American families have a few thousand dollars tied up in a library of movies they hoped to enjoy over and over. However, with collections that size, families soon realize that it takes so long to find what they're looking for that it just isn't worth buying more discs. This frustration has led to a well-publicized 58% decline in revenues from the sale of DVDs since 2006.
"The Kaleidescape System eliminates that frustration. Because it's so easy and fun for Kaleidescape customers to enjoy their movies, they start buying movies again, and with a bigger appetite. The average Kaleidescape family owns 506 movies on Blu-ray and DVD."
So let me get this straight: the DVD CCA wants people to buy *less* DVDs and *less* BluRay's?
If I was to think that there's a conspiracy here I'd say that they don't want DVD/BluRay sales to increase because then their arguments for "more control" (until they flip a switch and have total control) would be weakened.
For home automation integrators to have the balls to tell their ultra rich clients that their devices are illegal because of rich assholes. Hand them the phone numbers of the MPAA executives and executives of the movie studios and tell them that these people are directly trying to steal their property, and becauset hey own a kalidescape they hate them personally.
But unfortunately, none of them will. A class action lawsuit funded by the 1% will get the attention of the media cartels.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Shutdown the American company. Relocate somewhere else. Provide support to existing customers via internet. Continue to operate and wait for MPAA to file import injunctions, after they do, continue to sell to other slightly less insane counties. Keep all profit out of USA if they don't like it when you obey the law.
Windows Media Center?
XBMC+DVD2XBOX?
'cos if it does, I'll be upset. I just got everything working the way I like it.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Format shifting for personal use, if not specifically rendered illegal by Statute, is fundamentally LEGAL.
This is true for ANYTHING.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
The high-end personal accessories market is booming be it watches, mobile phones or sunglasses. Increasing consumerism has resulted in the people wanting to purchase personal accessories for more reasons than just utility. This craze has also resulted in a lot of duplicity and imitations, which have flooded the consumer market, which has tasted blood. One of the products which have been most imitated are the Oakleys sun glasses. Market estimates tell you that for the 25 per cent genuine Oakley sun glasses found in the market today, more than 75 per cent of are replica Oakley sunglasses.
But there are many ways to spot a replica Oakley sunglasses if you are out to buy one. One of the simplest ways for spotting a replica Oakley sunglasses is when they tell you that it comes dirt-cheap. Secondly try if it is the Internet that you are trying to buy the sunglasses, chances are that you would end up with a pair of replica Oakley sunglasses.
Another easy way to ensure that you do not end up with a set of replica Oakley sunglasses is by inspecting the packing material which these sun glasses are stored in. Make sure the retail pack is untampered and is not tacky. Oakley manufacturers include a complete set of a product information card, a microfibre storage bag, a warranty registration card, etc. The product information card in the bar-coded retail pack itself will be exhaustive with the model name and description of the product lens and frame.
If these do not form a part of the accessories of the sunglasses you have just bought, these are a set of replica Oakley sunglasses you have landed with.
One of the safest ways to buy an original Oakley sunglasses would be to step into a genuine Oakleys?store and pick it up, if you don have an Oakley store in the neighbourhood and are forced to buy it from the internet, here are some of the precautions which you need to adopt, unless you want to be conned into buying a pair of replica Oakley sunglasses.
Insist on payment to the seller by Paypal account. Chances are the sellers of the replica Oakley sunglasses will stay away from you. If you want ebay to be the medium of purchase, it would do you well to remember this tip. Most of the replica Oakley sunglasses sellers on ebay rarely have a 100 feedback rating or are very recently registered members, who switch user names once their feedback score slips when the cheat buyers by promising them original Oakleys, and later delivering replica Oakley sunglasses.
These were some of the tips, which should help you to distinguish between genuine Oakley sunglasses and replica Oakley sunglasses. But still there are some replica Oakley sunglasses, which almost match up to the original in matters of refinement. All the replicas really lack is the brand endorsement. So unless you are very sure that you want to buy the genuine Oakleys themselves, the replica Oakley sunglasses often serve as an economical and therefore, a popular choice.
In light of the Kaleidescape ruling i'd really like to know how Rovi are getting away with their dvd "cloud lifting" service that was just announced at CES 2012 - http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2012/01/ces-rovi-digital-copy-dvd-cloud.html BTW yes http://www.cloudification.net/ domain is still available for sale :)
So will they sell the support contracts and possibly the IP to another company, that is magically owned by the same people as own Kaliedescape? Will all the staff's contracts be transferred over as well?
You'd think the price of these units alone would make running the support contracts a worth while business. You can bet there's a way to do it without impinging on this (bonkers) legal decision.
like this
http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665925651
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random