Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Tenative Ruling Against Kaleidescape in DVD CCA Case

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the your-license-means-what-we-say-it-means dept.

DRM 150

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.

cancel ×

150 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

first (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38873253)

post?

Obviously (5, Insightful)

bobstreo (1320787) | more than 2 years ago | (#38873257)

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

Re:Obviously (4, Insightful)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 2 years ago | (#38873301)

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 (1)

bobstreo (1320787) | more than 2 years ago | (#38873323)

Oh I don't actually care about the ruling. I only buy used blu-rays and dvds. Or watch last decades movies on NetFlix.

Re:Obviously (2)

SirGeek (120712) | more than 2 years ago | (#38873377)

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

Re:Obviously (4, Interesting)

causality (777677) | more than 2 years ago | (#38873667)

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 (5, Insightful)

Ramin_HAL9001 (1677134) | more than 2 years ago | (#38873931)

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 (3, Insightful)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#38874105)

which they have already done in a way, using region codes and forcing DRM on downloaded music

Uhhhh, not they have not. Purchased music is widely available in DRM-free formats and has been for some time now.

Region codes do not force a specific piece of hardware at all. 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. Additionally, as stupid as region codes were, they were incredibly easy to bypass, even for the most unsophisticated person. When purchasing a new DVD-ROM you get to set the region code. At least on the last couple I purchased, and you could reset it up to five times. I believe I even found some DVD players that ignored region codes entirely. I can't say for sure... but I imagine they would be quite popular in some places.

You missed his point. The populace usually does not notice until you stop them from doing something they want and without an exceptionally good reason.

Telling people that a DVD jukebox is illegal, when they purchased the jukebox and all the movies, is something that they will notice and get pissed about. Once that happens, that is all the motivation they need to bring out Google, start talking to friends, and then..... welcome to the world wide web of pirating.

In my experience, once somebody finds out how easy it is to get stuff for free, they never pay again. I will pay for music, software, and DVDs out of principle, but I know I am not in the majority.

The poster you are replying to is right. The absolute last thing the content companies want is to provide motivation for people to get educated on their options. That is because none of those options is good for the content companies, even the legal ones.

Re:Obviously (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38874229)

You're right about the music, wrong on the region codes. How many people do you think watch their DVD's exclusively with their computers?

Re:Obviously (2)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#38874405)

I'm not wrong on the region codes either. In the past I knew you could buy region code specific DVD players and have them shipped in. Not unusual. My last pair of glasses was shipped in from Hong Kong.

But wait... It gets so much better!

Multiple Region Code DVD Players FTW :) [amazon.com]

Re:Obviously (1)

wolverine1999 (126497) | more than 2 years ago | (#38874531)

But you still can't bypass Region Codes on blu-ray.... so.... what do you think?

Re:Obviously (2, Interesting)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#38874577)

I think nothing. Bluray was never remotely a consideration for me. I refuse to support it with a single dollar for a single second. Bluray has encryption that keeps changing which requires firmware updates and they are progressively moving towards Internet enabled players to verify playback licensing and retrieve encryption updates.

I won't touch the shit.

It is marginally better than DVD anyways. The way I see it, if I paid for the DVD copy, I am entitled to the higher resolution copy. The argument that the higher resolution copyright is different and requires extra compensation if complete fucking bullshit. By that argument, music could be sold differently depending on the bitrate.

Besides, a quick Google search shows that over 70% of all Bluray titles are region free anyways, that it is trivial to bypass, and it is not firmware based.

Give it enough time and you will see region free Bluray players as well.

Re:Obviously (2)

scharkalvin (72228) | more than 2 years ago | (#38876599)

I've avoided buying a BD machine for some time now. I'm happy enough with my Oppo DVD player (which BTW can have the region codes disabled by a simple set of key presses on the remote control). Unless I'm mistaken BD uses a different surround sound encoding from DVD which would be incompatible with my current older AV receiver. Even worse, many BD players no longer have digital output (RCA or IR jacks) and pass the surround encoded audio ONLY via the HDMI cables which my receiver doesn't have. At least Oppo's latest 3D BD player still has 7.1 ANALOG audio outputs, but it cost's $500 (actually worth it as it plays EVERY format 5.25" optical disk ever made including superaudio CD's and DVD's). It might be cheaper to buy this machine than a cheaper one and have to pay more for replacing my receiver. But I'm not going to replace my collection of DVD's (which look GREAT when scan converted up to 1080P by the Oppo DVD player on my large screen LCD TV). When the public library starts lending movies ONLY in BD I'll have to get a BD player, but not till then.

Re:Obviously (4, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#38875679)

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.

Re:Obviously (3, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#38874363)

Not necessarily. Or at least, in my experience.

Take my dad. The most un-technical person on this planet outside of an Amish village. Lately, he actually replaced his VHS recorder with a DVD player. He is, though, a person who doesn't give half a shit about "the economy" as long as he doesn't profit from it. As it is with most people around Europe, I might add. Sadly, he also doesn't give too much about his liberties. As does most of Europe...

But he has a keen sense about being ripped off. And being ripped off includes everything he's used to and cannot do anymore. He's used to borrowing movies from a friend. Take that from him and he'll certainly notice. And not in a good way. And as much as he is a die-hard conservative, something like that won't sit well with him.

Re:Obviously (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#38876667)

What you suggest is, sadly, the kind of thing they would do. It's also the dumbest thing they could do.

The PC game/software companies got away with it, didn't they? You see any used PC games for sale these days?

Re:Obviously (4, Interesting)

causality (777677) | more than 2 years ago | (#38873631)

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 (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38873923)

Used to be plenty of judges who thought like you.

Send a white man to life in prison for murdering a black man? Don't be preposterous!

Don't worry, there are still plenty of vigilante's in robes out there.

Re:Obviously (2)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#38874065)

It's very possible the judge is not morally opposed to current copyright law. Most people aren't, you know, especially older people.

Re:Obviously (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38875153)

Older people also agreed with the policies of [censured] party out of responsibility. //This post was automatically Godwinned by a select group of conservative, older people out of responsibility towards arbitrary higher authority.

Re:Obviously (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38875991)

If I were a judge I'd never rule in favor of something I know to be wrong, excessive, or unreasonable.

"Judge" is a political position. You have too much integrity to gain it in the first place to have to worry about losing it. THAT is why freedoms are eroding.

Re:Obviously (3, Insightful)

SlithyMagister (822218) | more than 2 years ago | (#38874103)

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...

It's the LAW I don't like

However your comment is a beautiful encapsulation of the entire problem.
First, the courts are for sale, since judges are elected.
Second, the people who write the laws are for sale.

American politicians are little more than puppets for the wealthy and powerful to play with.

Re:Obviously (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38874453)

No it doesnt, but let's drop the pretense that judges are uncoruptuble.

Re:Obviously (5, Interesting)

Moryath (553296) | more than 2 years ago | (#38873303)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38873375)

I wonder if they're going to appeal given this is already their second case. It would be good to see a freedom-friendly precedent set by a higher-up (and hopefully less corruptible) court.

Re:Obviously (4, Interesting)

LoverOfJoy (820058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38873497)

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 (0)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38874815)

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?

Or credit card records of their payments to "The Happy Bottom" transsexual escort service. :D

Strat

Re:Obviously (1)

Sigg3.net (886486) | more than 2 years ago | (#38874929)

Pics or it didn't happen!

Re:Obviously (1)

wbr1 (2538558) | more than 2 years ago | (#38876003)

Or youhavedowloaded.com style logs of Zoophilia downloads. Do you think that judge really wants hos relationship with sheep exposed?

Re:Obviously (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38873559)

We all have been lied to, there's no such thing as Hollywood accounting... it's always been the "re-election campaign funding". That's why labels and studios have a hard time making money, it's not easy to maintain those politicians!

Re:Obviously (0)

thebigmacd (545973) | more than 2 years ago | (#38873749)

I know the idea is funny, but judges aren't elected.

Re:Obviously (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38873781)

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

Re:Obviously (4, Informative)

compro01 (777531) | more than 2 years ago | (#38873867)

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 (2)

I(rispee_I(reme (310391) | more than 2 years ago | (#38875785)

While it's technically true that judges are elected, it is unusual for a sitting judge to lose an election.

This is because the candidates for judgeship are local lawyers.

If they lose the election, it is highly likely they will find themselves arguing a case in front of a judge they've campaigned against.

This tends to ensure that judges run unopposed. That's what I've observed, anyway.

To be fair, that does not seem to be true for this judge (yet), as he took office in 2006 and is just nearing the end of his first six-year term...
but this article [metroactive.com] says that an overwhelming majority of sitting judges (90+%) run unopposed in California. I'd be surprised if Santa Clara county is the exception.

Re:Obviously (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 2 years ago | (#38876079)

Which is why making judges an elected position is such a shitty idea.

Who came up with this ass backwards concept?

Re:Obviously (2)

geezer nerd (1041858) | more than 2 years ago | (#38873911)

Federal judges are not elected. They are appointed for life. But, if you read the TFA you will discover that the court in discussion is NOT a federal court. It is a state court, and judges ARE routinely elected for state courts.

Re:Obviously (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38874641)

You can't miss this,#### casual'mingle. 'co 'm #### is a wonderful place for seeking causal encounters and short term relationship, explore the excitement and your lost passion in your life. You will never regret for dating with s3xy beauties/guys in your area. Life is short, have funnnnn11

Re:Obviously (1)

rhook (943951) | more than 2 years ago | (#38874925)

Judges are appointed not elected.

Re:Obviously (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#38875553)

No the judge is a whiny bitch that cant afford a Kaleidescape system in his home.

Re:Obviously (2)

91degrees (207121) | more than 2 years ago | (#38876527)

Seems to be a case of the DVD-CCA saying "the letter of the law states this", and Kaleidoscope saying "yes, but that's ridiculous, this in no way harms the DVD-CCA". The judge is simply siding with the law here. That's the way it should work. The problem is that the law's rubbish.

Strange that the DVD-CCA actually has an objection.

tentative (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38873263)

that's right

God (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38873327)

I invented a one-voice musical notation for LoseThos music. LoseThos songs are CPP programs that can make graphics in addition to sound. God made my melodies and I put lyrics on my hymns. Files are compressed, not encrypted.

God says...
C:\LoseThos\www.losethos.com\text\QUIX.TXT

d knight Don Quixote of La Mancha, who has commanded
me to present myself before your Grace, that your Highness dispose of me
at your pleasure'?" Oh, how our good gentleman enjoyed the delivery of
this speech, especially when he had thought of some one to call his Lady!
There was, so the story goes, in a village near his own a very
good-looking farm-girl with whom he had been at one time in love, though,
so far as is known, she never knew it nor gave a thought to the matter.
Her name was Aldonza Lor

Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38873331)

Whats a DVD?

Re:Huh? (5, Funny)

gnapster (1401889) | more than 2 years ago | (#38873417)

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

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38873467)

I don't know, but I heard your mom is into DVDA...

Technology could be so cool (4, Insightful)

ichthus (72442) | more than 2 years ago | (#38873391)

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:Technology could be so cool (2)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#38873689)

The phrase you're looking for is 'nickel and diming'. Start using that more regularly in a negative context and maybe we'll start seeing some change.

Re:Technology could be so cool (3, Insightful)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 2 years ago | (#38873757)

it is not nickel and diming, it is insisting on being a horse and buggy maker in a car world. The RIAA and MPAA are throwing away huge wads of money to cling to a business model that no longer works.

Re:Technology could be so cool (1)

causality (777677) | more than 2 years ago | (#38873839)

it is not nickel and diming

But it is.

it is insisting on being a horse and buggy maker in a car world

That's the goal, yes. The method by which they reach the goal is nickel-and-diming. Confusing the two led you to believe that one of them must be false.

The RIAA and MPAA are throwing away huge wads of money to cling to a business model that no longer works.

Makes you wonder how they can afford all of that if their claims of how badly piracy hurts their bottom line had merit... Imagine how much more profit their shareholders would enjoy if they saved this money instead. If you want to hit them where it hurts, reveal to those shareholders why they should be outraged about this and why they should be divesting or at least demanding an investigation. It could be as simple as demonstrating they waste more money on lawsuits and political contributions than they gain in return from deterrence of piracy. Executives do have certain legal obligations to look after shareholders' interests.

Re:Technology could be so cool (2)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#38873949)

Makes you wonder how they can afford all of that if their claims of how badly piracy hurts their bottom line had merit... Imagine how much more profit their shareholders would enjoy if they saved this money instead. If you want to hit them where it hurts, reveal to those shareholders why they should be outraged about this and why they should be divesting or at least demanding an investigation. It could be as simple as demonstrating they waste more money on lawsuits and political contributions than they gain in return from deterrence of piracy. Executives do have certain legal obligations to look after shareholders' interests.

The legal obligations, specifically fiduciary responsibility, are rather minor, and unless they are engaging in straight up embezzlement, they probably won't even lose their jobs.

However, I don't think it's directly about money anyway. It's about competition. So long as they have strict control, they can keep legitimate competition at bay, even if it costs them potential profits. That's a big part of why they bought the CTEA. Preventing anything remotely new from entering the public domain means that competition can't creep up unless it already has their level of budget. They may not make as much money as they can, but it's a better assurance of long-term survival.

Re:Technology could be so cool (1)

FrkyD (545855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38876163)

This. The music industry has been wildly successful in protecting their ancient business model. By maintaining an absurdly high barrier to entry (currently done by oppressive licensing fees) they have been able to either bankrupt, jail, or buy out potential competitors to their empire of middlemen. The entire IP legal situation is turning into something where only companies with existing IP portfolios (wether patent or copyright) will be able to even consider creating new products or markets.

Of course, when it finally gets to the point that Patent holders square off against Copyright holders, things might get interesting. Maybe not interesting in a good way, but certainly interesting in a get out the popcorn way.

Re:Technology could be so cool (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#38874477)

Yes, it is. You can't tether unless you pay a fee. You can't stream until people stop buying the more expensive media. You can't shift media, you're expected to re-purchase the content. This is all about finding new and ingenius ways of making you hand over cash.

Re:Technology could be so cool (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#38875175)

riaa and mpaa are horse licensors, they don't have a business in the new world.

Re:Technology could be so cool (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#38875433)

a business model that no longer works.

It works just fine when you have the Congress and Senate in your pocket to write absurd laws that favor your industry.

Re:Technology could be so cool (3, Interesting)

CODiNE (27417) | more than 2 years ago | (#38873943)

Wanted to pick up a copy of Tucker: The man and his dream today. So I check out used prices on Amazon and Paypal. Both selling used from $60-90. Daaaang. Well I wanted to avoid DRM and have a nice portable copy, but $60 is a bit much for that, so I figured I'll get it for $10 on iTunes and only play it on iDevices. Eh.

Well it's only for rent at $4. Every single comment in the reviews mentions that it should be for sale. Huh... oh maybe Amazon is selling it. Dang, $4 rental there too.

What's the point in making it rental only? It's not like the makers profit off the used DVD market, or did one of them buy a pallet of them? Besides that, the movie is from 1994, it should be $0.99 and not "new release" price.

Oh well, I'm not going to pirate it... I'm going to wait for it from the library. If I can't own it I won't pay to rent it. Total cost to the movie studios? -$10.

There you have it, one good rant deserves another.

Re:Technology could be so cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38874497)

Rant away, ranter boy

Re:Technology could be so cool (3, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#38874723)

I'd agree with two out of three but frankly the world was a better place before the iPhone and everybody trying to use a wireless like a landline. there is only a limited amount of wireless bandwidth you know, and in many places its already saturated to the max just with all the teens blabbing their asses off all day, tethering your laptop and trying to treat it like a landline just makes the whole thing suck worse for everyone else. Wait until you fucking get home or use Wifi dude, don't be a bandwidth piggie.

As for TFA all my customers are switching to media tanks so meh to the MPAA. Once they are all using Nboxes and WDTVs I'm sure they'll find out about the wonders of TPB, just another case where the pirated version is the better version. i mean here it is 2012 and they expect people to feed discs into the thing like its 1997, wake up and smell the technology jerks! Music has already gone to MP3 because with no DRM they'll play anywhere, yet here they are saying only this DRM encrusted crap is the only way you can play a movie. Well i hate to break the news to them but MP3 didn't become the default format because the record companies liked it, it became the default because of piracy, because people wanted easy and simple which the record companies didn't give them. The same thing is happening with movies as even that $40 DVD player from Walmart is now playing DivX .avi and MKV files. Do they think grandma is making MKVs of the kid's baseball game? nope its just folks bypassing the bullshit yet again.

It took years of dragging the record companies before we could bring their stupid asses to the giant money trough that is selling MP3s, it looks like it'll be another decade to do the same to the MPAA. What a bunch of total dipshits, they'd rather spend millions in bribes trying to make the world 1979 again than face the fact that times change, just retarded.

Re:Technology could be so cool (1)

executioner (113014) | more than 2 years ago | (#38876543)

-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 couldn't agree more the antiquated distribution platform needs a rewrite for the 21st century. Although Drive-in theaters are not completely dead yet. We have one locally where I am at that shows double features every night during the summer showing current movies or sometimes ones that have been out a few months. I can get myself and my two boys in for less then $10 and about the same for snacks. so for $20 I get three people into see 2 movies. go to a traditional movie theatre and that has just ballooned to $50 or $60 dollars for the 3 of us to see 1 movie. I'll continue to go to the Drive-in as long as it is around 78th year this coming season I believe.

I also have to agree with the person who said that Money (or some sort of Graft) had to have changed hands for the judge to change so radically from 2007 to now. It is a sad commentary on were we are heading when judges and politicians cannot be bothered to do what is right and actually try to learn about what they are making laws about. the content laws and changes from the content industries that they are trying to make like, Game companies trying to kill the used game market, (you know resale of movies and cds will be next), SOPA (lets not forget C-11 in Canada, ACTA in Europe etc. they are trying to get the provisions passed outside the US and then will come back and say they have these laws lets be equals), DCMA, RIAA/MPAA biting the hand that feeds it by suing customers.

I forsee a day when my consumption of media companies content will be at zero, i have already made my decision if the new Xbox 720 comes out with used game restrictions I will stay on the current systems and continue to purchase the games that do not have these restrictions.

What ever happened to the days of fair use it seems like it is slowly dying a painful death at the hands of media companies that would rather we pay for media each time we listen to it.

Time to change the civil adjucation process (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38873415)

Just let both parties put up a binding contract of injunctive relief. Then they submit it together with an undisclosed amount of money to the court. Whichever side submitted the most wins and their contract is enforced. The other side gets the money, minus, say, 10% that go to taxes. Problem solved: better, predictable justice for all instead of the travesty of "who bought the judge" all the while pretending that there is such a thing as fairness.

Re:Time to change the civil adjucation process (1)

Stiletto (12066) | more than 2 years ago | (#38873623)

So richest (he who offers the most money) wins? How is that an improvement?

Re:Time to change the civil adjucation process (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38873673)

Because the poorest gets (90% of) a fat stack of cash, I guess. Seems kinda dumb, but at least it "fixes" corruption.

Re:Time to change the civil adjucation process (1)

Rik Rohl (1399705) | more than 2 years ago | (#38873803)

It's out in the open, and people don't have to bother trying to fight a case that is obviously a foregone conclusion.

Re:Time to change the civil adjucation process (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38875009)

Follow-up comment: it gets interesting in cases where part of the demand is a demand for remuneration (as in "the other party is to pay $1M"). Still, there's a whole opportunity for investing in other peoples lawsuits if you believe they are on the "right" side of things...

Re:Time to change the civil adjucation process (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38875741)

But that would be like stealing work from lawyers!

DVD ? DVDead. (5, Informative)

billcopc (196330) | more than 2 years ago | (#38873455)

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.

Re:DVD ? DVDead. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38873759)

What the MPAA wanted to make sure is that a Kalidescape system didn't become an everyday item. The technology is Kalidescape is not that difficult, and today you can do the same with:

1. NAS storage server
2. Computer with ripping software of your choice
3. XBMC running on cheap receivers.
4. Download movie/tv info from tvdb.com/IMDB/etc.

All of the above can be put together for well under $1000.

What a company cannot do in the US is put all of the above together into an easy to setup package. Kalidescape got away with it by exploiting language in the CSS licensing agreements, but it appears that they will finally be shut down. Just another reason to never do business in the US.

Re:DVD ? DVDead. (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | more than 2 years ago | (#38875365)

What the MPAA wanted to make sure is that a Kalidescape system didn't become an everyday item. The technology is Kalidescape is not that difficult, and today you can do the same with:

1. NAS storage server 2. Computer with ripping software of your choice 3. XBMC running on cheap receivers. 4. Download movie/tv info from tvdb.com/IMDB/etc.

All of the above can be put together for well under $1000.

You can also do it with Apple TV and iTunes; with a lot less fiddling around, so there is even a solution for the non-trchincally inclined.

Re:DVD ? DVDead. (2)

wagnerrp (1305589) | more than 2 years ago | (#38873929)

The only way you can willfully circumvent copyright laws with this thing is by renting/borrowing a movie, ripping it and returning the disc.

The newer Bluray models don't even allow that. You still rip it to hard disk rather than accessing the disc each time, but you have to purchase disc vaults that only allow you to play content secured inside. Now sure, you could cut the things open to retrieve the discs, but I doubt it would let you add a new disc to a slot it thought was already filled, and at $7000 each for 320 discs, it costs more for the unit than it did to purchase the movies themselves.

Re:DVD ? DVDead. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38874291)

So it's $7000 to save you getting up and moving a disc from a box on a shelf to the player's tray? Sounds about right. Where can I get one?

Re:DVD ? DVDead. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38874021)

Oh, they have a clue alright. It's just that it doesn't match up with your idea of the same.

It's always been about CONTROL, not Copyright.

Re:DVD ? DVDead. (2)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 2 years ago | (#38874371)

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.

This is the key point that makes the whole argument absurd. Many of the Kaleidescape buyers don't even deal with ripping DVDs themselves, they give their collection and/or just tell the HT installers what they want on it (who then go buy a crapload of legal DVDs) and pay someone else to do all of the work for them. Total plug-and-play system for rich people, they probably only ever watch a fraction of the movies they own, and I'm sure somehow the MPAA will argue it's costing the industry billions of dollars per year...

Re:DVD ? DVDead. (2)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#38875581)

Dated technology? have you touched one lately? It's far more advanced than any of the crap any geek can build at home. They did a full DVD rip to try and satisfy the stupid MPAA.

The only thing that makes it dated is they tried like hell to keep the industry happy. The DVD images still have their CSS encryption on them, Which was their stupid mistake. You cant keep organized crime happy.

Looks like (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38873509)

Looks like the MPAA bought themselves another judge. The MPAA are trying to protect an obsolete distribution/business model and we play the price. Assholes. I wonder if that's what automobile owners said about the blacksmith's union at the turn of the century. Let's hope the progress triumphs over greed.

tenative? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38873543)

...

Nothing new (-1, Offtopic)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38873591)

The predecessors to the TSA have long taken a dim view of bomb, gun, and other "terrorist" jokes. I've known people who missed meetings due to being overheard joking by the wrong airline staff member.

Why would "overhearing" a public twitter post be any different than overhearing a wisecrack between passengers in a lineup?

Re:Nothing new (1, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 2 years ago | (#38873619)

Or any different than posting to the wrong thread?

Re:Nothing new (0)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38875337)

Ouch. Yes, definitely the wrong thread. I must have clicked when I should have menued. *LOL*

Sorry about that, folks. 'twas an accident, not a hijack.

going west.... (1)

harvey the nerd (582806) | more than 2 years ago | (#38873609)

Move to Asia, buy non US hardware. Problem solved.

unless the manufacturer adds some kind of authen.. (0)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#38873687)

read that again:

unless the manufacturer adds some kind of authentication mechanism, such a carousel that stores the physical discs

doh! how stoopid are they!

ok, so the ripped copies are also in a carousel. that good? we all good now?

fine. SHIP IT.

oh wait, there's more demands? too late. we just shipped and you ok'd it.

(fucking morans)

every teen and probably half the adults know how to rip a dvd. this is not amoral and not technically hard. a well known company has been selling product from a certain south island for 10 (?) years now. not illegal and no one has shut THEM down.

so, what the fuck? hmmm? wtf!??

they (mpaa and judges in their pocket) can't even lie with a straight face anymore.

Re:unless the manufacturer adds some kind of authe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38873955)

(fucking morans)

Did you just try to infer how stupid someone is by calling them a moron, and then you misspelled it?

Re:unless the manufacturer adds some kind of authe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38874095)

(fucking morans)

Did you just try to infer how stupid someone is by calling them a moron, and then you misspelled it?

What a maroon! Ha ha ha! What an ignoranimous! Ha ha ha ha!

I fail to understand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38873739)

My job is to design and install systems that utilize Kaleidescape systems, and I can say for a fact that most systems i've installed are in the $40,000-$80,000 range for everything combined (they are normally installed in tandem with an expensive control system). Even though DVD's are dead, I find it hard to believe that the DVD licensing association would not even budge for a company who has made EVERY effort to allow for legal storage and retrieval of discs. The type of customer who is buying something like this has LOTS of money to spend on luxuries and is not likely to care about copyright infringement or purchasing movies, it just needs to be stupid simple and convenient. Why must media companies make it so difficult to make every legal attempt for customers to spend their money and do what they please with what was purchased? I am baffled by media conglomerates unwillingness to adapt to ANYTHING new when it comes to technology? I don't care about established institutions you are still trying to squeeze money out of, point is I (and to also my very rich customers) are going to do whatever is easiest, weather the media companies like it or not!

Re:I fail to understand (1)

Fishead (658061) | more than 2 years ago | (#38873907)

Totally agree! I saw one of these on a $65M USD world class yacht that I was installing a navigation camera on. Beautiful system that is almost as convenient as ripping the bloody movies, but goes to GREAT length to accommodate the "law" as it stands.

Who wants to be the lucky dog to tell the billionaire owner of the yacht that he has to now switch DVDs like the rest of us because he isn't "allowed" to have the disks pre-loaded on his Kaleidescape that he paid $40,000 to $80,000 for? While I was working on the yacht, I remember the Captain getting a box of DVD's from a crew member to catalog and put into the cargo hold. It was understood that if the movie is loaded into the system, the disk has to stay on board. I was shocked that they'd even care, but I guess if you have deep pockets you become a big target? Funny way to treat your customers, especially seeing as these are the guys who'd sign a blank cheque to just buy one of every movie in case they ever get the urge to watch it.

attack on media streamers, overall? (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#38873741)

so, for folks that have 'popcorn hour' boxes and WD media players, asus players, etc - are we all supposed to throw these in the trash, now?

they play remote files.

the essence of this ruling is that playing files is illegal (if they were on a dvd and you ripped it).

essentially, its back to dvd-jon (remember him?) and how dvd ripping is the start of the end of civ as we know it.

isn't there a precedence set by the fact that popcorn hour style boxes have legally been allowed for 5+ years, now?

then again, almost all (if not all) of the media streamer companies are mikey mouse (excuse the expression!) and they can easily be bullied. I just wonder if they'll be required to have a physical disk verify feature before they allow remote file access to movies.

where is the court really going with this? I wonder if they even thought it all out. I bet they have not and are simply running with blinders on, being paid by mpaa and not really thinking on their own...

Re:attack on media streamers, overall? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38873807)

Every other media player out there has skirted the law by not providing the crucial component (codec or decrypting library) as part of the default product sold in the US. When you connect the product, the necessary components are downloaded from a country that has no such restrictions. Kaliedescape and one other now defunct media management company were the only companies who tried to legally build a compliant product. Unfortunately media companies in their always unwillingness to adapt, don't see their efforts in that way.

Tentative (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38873935)

May I just note that the word is "tentative", not "tenative"? Been bugging me from the get-go.

blogger (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38874249)

article is very useful for me, I'll wait for other articles from this site
I know bloggers regards Indonesia

Tenative? (3, Informative)

Red_Chaos1 (95148) | more than 2 years ago | (#38874539)

I think you meant tentative. Does nobody use spell check these days?

Stop Posting Links to Slashdot Fucktards (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38874543)

Look, if you want to post a story fine. But imbed links to the real stories and news articles not back to Slashdot so that we have click on another link for fucks sake. If you have enough time to make a link to slashdot, you have enough fucking time to link to a useful fucking article. Like what the fuck??!!!! Fuck off already. Do you think having more links makes the story better. Fine then make two or three links to the same story, but make it to an ACTUAL FUCKING NEWS ARTICLE! Not back to slashdot. Jesus H Fucking Christ already.

Re:Stop Posting Links to Slashdot Fucktards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38874819)

Let me guess. You clicked that link, then clicked the "related article" link that brought you back to the original. You then clicked the second link to another old article, and so on for a couple of hours until you finally figured it out?

Re:Stop Posting Links to Slashdot Fucktards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38875075)

Look, if you want to post a story fine. But imbed links to the real stories and news articles not back to Slashdot so that we have click on another link for fucks sake. If you have enough time to make a link to slashdot, you have enough fucking time to link to a useful fucking article. Like what the fuck??!!!! Fuck off already. Do you think having more links makes the story better. Fine then make two or three links to the same story, but make it to an ACTUAL FUCKING NEWS ARTICLE! Not back to slashdot. Jesus H Fucking Christ already.

Woke up on the wrong side of the bed did we?

Most ridiculous lawsuit ever? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38874861)

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?

Intent clearly hasn't been factored in (2)

thatkid_2002 (1529917) | more than 2 years ago | (#38875045)

Kaleidescape servers are really expensive equipment from my experience. Normal consumers are not buying these devices. Kaliedescape servers are only installed in businesses and multi-million dollar houses where generally only legal media is used. It seems to me that they are being manufactured, marketed, sold and (in general) used in a fairly law-abiding spirit. This law suit does nothing but aggravate the situation.

The device should be legal in Canada (2)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38875273)

Maybe they need to move their headquarters. The right to back up media is enshrined in Canadian law, because we OWN our media, not "license" or "lease" it. So unless the *AA companies want to GUARANTEE to replace damaged or lost media AT NO CHARGE TO THE CONSUMER, they have to suck it up, give up on DMCA-type legislation, and go home with their tails between their legs like the whipped dogs they are. :P

Re:The device should be legal in Canada (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#38875519)

I think they are in Canada, it is just that the market is rich people and that means the US for the most part. As of a few years ago their only product was the very top end and designed for holding an unlimited number of movies (they claimed every movie ever created was possible).
They have at least part of their company here in Waterloo, Canada. I actually had an interview with them here, at that time they were really throwing money around trying and succeeded at looking impressive to Waterloo coop students.

Re:The device should be legal in Canada (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#38875611)

"market is rich people and that means the US for the most part."

The system is far more popular in the middle east. Saudi Arabia as well as a the UAE are two of the largest installed base of these systems in the world. In fact as a expert integrator I get offers all the time to spend a month reprogramming some rich guys home or land yacht over there. Saudis make the american rich look like poor paupers.

the war can never be won (2)

goose-incarnated (1145029) | more than 2 years ago | (#38875333)

They only need to win once for any stupid shit they wish to do. We need to win every single time to stop them doing stupid shit. Ergo, this war cannot be won :( All rights will eventually be lost.

Tenative Ruling? (1)

boyfaceddog (788041) | more than 2 years ago | (#38876301)

Do you mean 'tentative'?

Can I have your job, Mr. Editor?

Re:Tenative Ruling? (1)

skywire (469351) | more than 2 years ago | (#38876549)

You wouldn't want it. His job is to deliberately misspell simple words so as to generate posts like yours.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?