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!

Ruling Prohibits Kaleidescape From Selling, Supporting Movie Servers

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the our-way-or-the-highway dept.

DRM 136

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.'"

cancel ×

136 comments

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

So... (5, Insightful)

lagartoflojo (998588) | more than 2 years ago | (#39330605)

What is Kaleidescape and why should I care?

(Yes, I know there's Google. But a bit of context would be nice.)

Kaleidescape is... (5, Informative)

earls (1367951) | more than 2 years ago | (#39330625)

"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.

Re:Kaleidescape is... (3, Informative)

BagOBones (574735) | more than 2 years ago | (#39330667)

A really high end, nearly fully automated ripping station, mostly use in the entertainment systems of the wealthy.

Re:Kaleidescape is... (3, Informative)

rahvin112 (446269) | more than 2 years ago | (#39330793)

You forgot the point where it's full to the brim with DRM and access controls, and the price is 5 digits large.

Re:Kaleidescape is... (5, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#39330735)

If memory serves, a ripping station that(in an ultimately doomed effort at compliance) ripped only bit-for-bit disk images(and yes, realistically, their price alone kept them away from most pirates).

Their theory of operation, not good enough to save them from the MFIAA, was that the rip was DMCA compliant because it didn't break any encryption at all, just made a bit-for-bit backup copy of the DVD in question. Then, upon user request, the encrypted bitstream from the disk image would be fed to an ordinary, licensed, decoder, same as any DVD player, with all the usual i's dotted and T's crossed(in terms of restricted outputs, macrovision, etc.)

Team content(for reasons unclear) declared a bitter war of attrition against a boutique luxury product purchased largely by cinemaphiles with huge movie collections that they used to enhance their enjoyment thereof, despite the fact that the pirate kiddies of the world weren't even inconvenienced in continuing to pile up multi-terabyte franken-NAS piracy servers.

Foolish, vindictive, and shortsighted. Not that that's a huge surprise.

Re:Kaleidescape is... (5, Informative)

adnoid (22293) | more than 2 years ago | (#39331239)

It's not really even a ripping station. It's a system for watching your DVDs and BDs in a really convenient manner.

Disclaimer: I work in the industry that Kaleidescape sells to, I work with a couple of people that used to work there, and I know Michael Malcom. And we've got one of their systems set up in our offices.

Your analysis is correct in that the system copies DVDs, BDs and CDs to a hard disk array that, in our case, is in a rack in the equipment room (it's got fans that are loud along with with the spinning drives) and plays them via a player with an HDMI output in a different part of the building. The units are connected via the same Ethernet network used for data. If you know the background, you know that the founders of the company approached the DVD CCA and did, indeed, get a license. The DVD CCA changed their mind about the license later. They are the ass clowns, in case there was any doubt.

It's not just the playback that's useful, the system allows you to set favorite scenes and jump right to them. We need to demonstrate various audio and video capabilities of the equipment we manufacture. Being able to jump from movie to movie, scene to scene with a push of a button - or to write a simple script to run a full demonstration - without having to wait for each disk to spin up, display the FBI warning, etc. is the reason we have the unit.

We've also bought every single title that's on it. When you are playing a scene from a movie to the people who were involved in making it, it would be really embarrassing to explain that you ripped it from a rental. Not that people that pay the amount that one of these systems cost are the kind of people who flinch at paying for a movie anyway.

Do you want to know who owns systems like this? There's one big group I know of - next time you see a movie, watch the names in big type in the credits. When their home systems stop working, I hope they direct their ire at the DVD CCA, because those are the folks that broke their toys.

Re:Kaleidescape is... (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 2 years ago | (#39332317)

Do you want to know who owns systems like this? There's one big group I know of - next time you see a movie, watch the names in big type in the credits. When their home systems stop working, I hope they direct their ire at the DVD CCA, because those are the folks that broke their toys.

Fat chance, because those big names are also controlled by the MPAA, and the DVD CCA will simply say their systems were disabled because of "piracy fears" and "you DO want your royalty cheques, right?".

Or maybe that's why the DVD Forum pulled the license - the MPAA exerted pressure to disallow "ripping" even if it was impossible to move the image to another system. In which case again, the MPAA controls those big names and any future work they can get.

Re:Kaleidescape is... (2)

mrops (927562) | more than 2 years ago | (#39331265)

More and more I read about MAFIAA, it really seems that they believe to have a successful business case for selling same movie to the same customer more than once. Once for your iPad, once for your iPhone, once for your TV1 and again for TV2, if they can get away with it. It seems they think it is logical that the user pays for right to view on every screen he owns.

IMO, its doomed to fail.

Re:Kaleidescape is... (5, Insightful)

Genda (560240) | more than 2 years ago | (#39332201)

I'm sorry but you're just not getting the message. They want you to pay for it each and every time you see it. They want you to have to sit through 10-30 minutes of commercials whether you see it on a TV, your iPad, or at a theater. They want to CONTROL every aspect, particle, atom of how and when it will be viewed and if you infringe on any atom of their control, they want to part you out for organs and tissue and make a profit on your earthly remains.

These are men who have raised avarice and control to art forms, and keep packs of hungry lawyer on tap, just to remind you if you should forget.

Re:Kaleidescape is... (2)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#39333951)

Yep. That's essentially it.

Those people want to do away with all copyrights as they exist now, outlaw all fair use, and create a system in which they have absolute control over their content regardless of where it is.

Rewriting copyrights and the laws from the ground up, bit by bit, lawyerpult by lawyerpult, till they have the system that is totally in their favor, and allows them to "monetize" their content to the maximum extent not currently allowed by common sense, ethics, morality, or the current legal system.

Re:Kaleidescape is... (2)

Kagato (116051) | more than 2 years ago | (#39331269)

This isn't a DMCA issue per se. The issue is they went with what they thought was the legal way of doing things. That is to say they actually licensed a DVD CCA license for the product. They were issued a DVD player license key and could lawfully use the DVD logo on their machine and marketing. The problem more or less is a contractual one between them and DVD CCA because they tried to do things on the up and up. There are other products out there that do the exact same thing. They aren't being sued because they aren't bound by a license agreement.

Goes to show, no good deed goes unpunished.

Re:Kaleidescape is... (1)

tqk (413719) | more than 2 years ago | (#39331279)

Foolish, vindictive, and shortsighted. Not that that's a huge surprise.

That's SOP. See CD players, VCRs, player pianos, wax tube recordings, ...

What if Apple did it? (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39331495)

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)

Re:What if Apple did it? (1)

steveha (103154) | more than 2 years ago | (#39333473)

Step 0 is to get the CCA to change the licensing terms on CSS descrambling. I don't think Apple could do that.

I don't understand why the MPAA guys are so rabid about DVD copying. Handbrake has been available for years, mainstream magazines have published how-to articles on how to use Handbrake to rip your DVDs and re-encode them to smaller files, and I have met people with home media centers that are stuffed to bursting with DVD images. Yet any attempt to try to do this legally is nuked in court.

Maybe the MPAA is deluding itself that Handbrake is so eldritch that only a few geeks have figured it out? (I've seen it and typical teenagers with time on their hands are not going to have a problem with it.) Whether they believe it or not, DVD ripping is already a mainstream activity. But no US-based company can ever release a product with a DVD-ripping feature.

Also, consider this: if you don't have a DVD-ripping feature, you might buy the same movie twice. You already bought the DVD, but you might go to iTunes and buy a download version so you can have it on your Apple TV. And in the near future, DVD sales might drop off, and Internet sales might be the biggest money-maker; I'm sure Apple is doing everything they can to try to set themselves up to grab the lion's share of the new download-only market. Either they don't care about DVDs, or they don't want to get the MPAA mad at them over DVDs when Internet downloads are just about to become a major business. (Apple is well-loved in Hollywood; why risk that?)

On Slashdot, the fact that DVDs are technically easy to rip and re-encode is a feature. For the MPAA and Apple, not so much.

steveha

Re:So... (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#39330707)

Its a 10,000$+ answer to a problem that a ripping program and a media player already solved. As much as I dislike the decision, I cant really bring myself to care due to the market they where targeting. Had they not tried to work with the CCA and had instead just made media servers and players that could be used in much the same way but without trying to preserve the encryption (and without advertising the devices as being intended for use with encrypted content) I think they would have faired better.

Re:So... (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39330931)

So you are against a company that tries to obey the law (per the DMCA) and instead suggest they should have been breaking the law (cracking encryption/not paying DVD license fees). That is illogical.

Another article worth reading. It does sound similar to a cartel, but I suppose it's no different than the Matsushita/JVC/Mitsubishi/Sharp cartel (which controlled licensing for VHS VCRs): http://www.cepro.com/article/industry_insider_dvd_cca_is_an_innovation_stifling_cartel/ [cepro.com]

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39331301)

It's not illogical at all. Preserving the encryption is a technologically stupid and unnecessary step that leads to a hilariously expensive product which could be cheap enough to be a common household appliance if it were designed without trying to appease a dinosaur that doesn't want to be appeased.

If you're not doing it the way the MAFIAA wants you to do it, i.e. if you don't play disc jockey, then you have a legal fight at your hands. You might as well truly fight for your rights so that you don't end up having to pay a fortune for a byzantine system if you win. What this company's managers probably thought to themselves was: "If we can come close enough to being legal and cut a deal, then we'll have a luxury product with a unique selling point. Guess what: No such luck.

Re:So... (2)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#39331937)

The cost of the product is entirely artificial and has nothing to do with preserving the DRM on the original media. You can do that with dd. Some people even prefer the "clone the disk" approach. It primarily escalates your storage requirements.

There is no moral superiority to complying with a clearly unjust law just so that you can spend $50,000 on an overpriced workaround that will get sued into oblivion anyways.

My original preference would have been for a physical disk jukebox approach but that tech never really developed in a sophisticated and affordable form.

Re:So... (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 2 years ago | (#39334633)

My original preference would have been for a physical disk jukebox approach but that tech never really developed in a sophisticated and affordable form.

Which is weird because I have a 300 disc CD player right beside me. I wonder if the MAFIAA had anything to do with a lack of 300 disc DVD players?

Re:So... (2)

sixsixtysix (1110135) | more than 2 years ago | (#39336003)

what, like this? [sony.com]

Re:So... (2)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 2 years ago | (#39331345)

When the law is illogical, it is illogical to respect it.

Re:So... (1)

DangerOnTheRanger (2373156) | more than 2 years ago | (#39332045)

Instead of breaking said illogical law, it would be better to tell others about it, so everyone else can see how bad it is. You get a lot more credibility that way.

Re:So... (1)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39334461)

Nobody cares how illogical the law is. The legislators who passed the DMCA have already received their checks, paperclipped to the draft of the law itself.

It doesn't matter if 200,000,000 Americans think the law is illogical, because they're not the ones coughing up the baksheesh, are they?

Re:So... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#39334239)

Rich people dont have the IQ to do that. Kalidescape did it for them, completely automatic, buy disc, insert in drive, next time you walk by remove the disc. zero effort ripping.

Using anyDVD+Handbrake and setting up a NAS with XBMC is way WAY beyond the abilities of the 1%

Re:So... (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39330797)

I was confused too so I read this article: http://www.cepro.com/article/kaleidescape_ruling_on_dvd_copying_could_quash_innovation [cepro.com] QUOTE: "It is a sad day for innovation when it comes to American-made consumer electronics manufacturers that try to abide by the intent of the law. Kaleidescape makes expensive servers that transfer DVDs âoebit-for-bitâ with CSS encryption intact."

It sounds like it is the equivalent of an iPod or other music server, which rips music from CDs and stores them in digital memory for playback. Except the Keleidoscape does it with DVDs.

And yes it is bogus that this judge thinks that is illegal. Could this case be used for precedent to block US from ripping our DVDs and CDs to home servers or iPods?

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39331005)

Could this case be used for precedent to block US from ripping our DVDs and CDs to home servers or iPods?

That's what the big media industry wants ins't it? They would love it if the court ruled that you have to buy a separate copy of the movie for each of your computers and media devices.

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39332521)

Could this case be used for precedent to block US from ripping our DVDs and CDs to home servers or iPods?

They can pry my ripping software from my cold, dead hands.

Re:So... (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | more than 2 years ago | (#39335015)

Software is information, you can't pry information from your hands, cold dead or otherwise.

Re:So... (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#39331861)

The phrase "DVD movie server" should have been a hint. I know it's asking a lot to actually read the original article but you should at least bother reading the summary.

Re:So... (0)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#39332493)

With such a retarded name (albeit that it must have sounded oh-so-fucking clever and hip after several beers) I'd find against them before even hearing the evidence.

Kaleidescape is the best DVD/BR platform. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39333339)

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...

This comic seems appropriate (4, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39330687)

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 [theoatmeal.com]

Re:This comic seems appropriate (5, Insightful)

sanosuke001 (640243) | more than 2 years ago | (#39330933)

That comic is spot on why I understand when people decide to torrent things. The corporations are making it increasingly hard for customers to give them money for things they are willing to pay for so, out of frustration, the would-be customer goes somewhere they won't get the arse-hole (you don't want to give me the arse-hole, do you, Gary?).

Another big issue is that they're just understanding that digital distribution is in for good (legal or torrent-based) but they expect you to pay the brick-and-mortar prices for digital versions. Again, this pushes people to torrent because they feel like they're getting fucked when the Blu-Ray in stores is $30 and the download is $35. For example, season 7 of "How I Met Your Mother" is $1.99 for SD and $2.99 for HD per episode on Amazon. 18 episodes total, so $35.82 or $53.82 total. Since the Blu-Ray isn't released for Season 7, the Season 4 Blu-Ray is $29.99 ("on sale" from $49.99). So, even if it weren't "on sale" the Blu-Ray version would be cheaper than the digital version.

Same thing for DRM and those pesky FBI Priacy warnings that aren't fast-forwardable; pirates have no issues, paying customers are berated for doing the right thing. Overall, it feels like they WANT their potential customers to say, "fuck it, i'll torrent" and not give them their money. Honestly, it's frustrating...

Re:This comic seems appropriate (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39331173)

You are spot-on with the pricing (Bluray cheaper than download version). Nuts. And it's not only DVD/Blurays, but also books. It's ridiculous that I have to pay the same price for a Kindle book as the real thing.

At least with the real thing, I can sell it on eBay/Amazon and recoup my money. So the net-cost of the physical item is only ~25% of the list price. Why on earth would I pay 100% for an e-book that I'm stuck with forever? (Or until my license runs out.)

The corporations need to wake-up to the fact that digital media should be much much cheaper. Like the magazine I have linked in my signature where the Kindle version is 1/3rd the paper price. That's how all pricing should operate.

Re:This comic seems appropriate (1)

chrismcb (983081) | more than 2 years ago | (#39332625)

That comic is spot on why I understand when people decide to torrent things. The corporations are making it increasingly hard for customers to give them money for things they are willing to pay for so, out of frustration, the would-be customer goes somewhere they won't get the arse-hole

Increasingly hard? If you mean by hard, you mean much easier than ever before sure. I can't ever remember when a movie or tv show was available on dvd/vhs/bluray immediately. In fact I remember when you couldn't even GET the TV series. And now most series are available.
MOST people I know pirate movies because they are greedy and want it for free. Some people try to rationalize it, as "it is easier" or "it is the only way." But really they mean "it is free."

Re:This comic seems appropriate (1)

sixsixtysix (1110135) | more than 2 years ago | (#39336147)

if you have a subscription, you've already paid for it. because i grew up in a time when i could record what was on tv and keep that copy for as long as i wanted, i have very strong feelings about tv entertainment. quality, ease of replication, lack of degradation, and that they are now making money on tv on dvd/blu-ray is 100% non-pertinent to the discussion.

they cripple the firewire on dvrs, ffs, when i should be able to copy any and all recordings over and do with them what i like, but somehow i'm the pirate for going and downloading said content? if i bought 100 computers and 100 capture cards, should that even matter? i once wrote of the "subscriber-capture paradox", where after something has aired and you are a subscriber, then you should really have no qualms about getting a copy by any means necessary, as you could do it yourself with the right equipment. anything gotten before airing become legit after it has aired.

i'd argue that, say comcast's xfinity tv site, hulu, or anything similar, doesn't cut it as there is no guarantee it will be available when you want to watch it. hell, even if you believe that the sony case allowing vcrs was solely for timeshifting, where does that time end? i may want to watch this season's offerings in 37 years. so, yeah, it is easier. it is currently the only way (for me), but i do pay for the whole gamut of channels, so i don't mean that it is free.

Re:This comic seems appropriate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39331009)

My only disagreement is this:

Just because the DVD won't be available until the fall is not justification to download it freely.

Yes, and a boring sunday service isn't a justification to fart in a church.

Re:This comic seems appropriate (1)

JonySuede (1908576) | more than 2 years ago | (#39331917)

you do not need to obtains justification beforehand to fart, you only need to provide excuses afterward !

Re:This comic seems appropriate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39331045)

The part I disagree with is the footer at that page.

All artwork and content on this site is Copyright © 2012 Matthew Inman. Please don't steal.

You see, I'd love to buy "5 Very Good Reasons to Punch a Dolphin in the Mouth!", but the stores only accept paypal, credit cards and google checkout, not cash.

Thankfully, the EPUB seems to be readily available from various trackers and news servers, and the cartoon you linked to clearly shows that the author understands the situation completely, and endorses the download in spite of the footer's plea.

Re:This comic seems appropriate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39333587)

Please explain how an online shop can accept cash.

Re:This comic seems appropriate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39335505)

by mail!
or they could accept cheques
or maybe bitcoins!

That they don't is their problem, not my problem for not just getting a credit card. Just as it's HBO's problem that they don't just accept my money for Game of Thrones alone, and not my problem for not wanting to pay for full access / waiting for it to be released outside of HBO.
Thusly Matthew justifies to the public anybody downloading Game of Thrones, and thusly I justify to the public anybody downloading his book.

Re:This comic seems appropriate (5, Insightful)

Anthony Mouse (1927662) | more than 2 years ago | (#39331119)

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).

Which is, of course, why they're idiots.

People are always talking about "justification" and "it isn't right" and similar moral indignation which ignores the simple fact that if someone can't buy the thing they want, they still have the option to pirate it. The answer to the question "how many sales are lost to piracy" when the product is not available for sale is always "all of the sales." Because you can't buy something you can't buy.

So here come the studios saying that they still make more from selling theater tickets to people who have to have it right away than they would get by selling the DVD sooner. Which is why they're still idiots. Nobody says you have to price the DVD at the same level while it's still in the theater or playing on HBO as you do a year later when you normally would have released it. Putting it for sale at a higher price gives people an option. And then some of those people will buy it. And some of them won't because it costs too much, so they'll either wait or pirate -- but since you never would have gotten those sales anyway, that doesn't matter.

The only sensible reason to not offer something immediately is that it would displace a different offering by the copyright holder which would have been more profitable. But that is not a reason for refusing to offer it at all, all it means is you should price the earliest DVD release so that you make as much on the DVD as you would by selling the number of theater tickets (or HBO subscriptions) that a DVD sale displaces. Hence, the studios are idiots. Completely regardless of the moral status of the pirates.

Re:This comic seems appropriate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39331775)

This model was used frequently by the major studios when VHS tapes were made available. The "new release" VHS copies were sold to Blockbuster and other video rental outfits at a retail price of about $100 per copy. Thus, they were essentially rental-only for the first few months (sometimes years, depending on rental revenue) after their original release. Eventually the prices would be reduced and the movie would be re-packaged and re-issued at "sell-through" pricing ($20-$50).

This pricing model may have been the reason that video rental stores arrived in the first place. Movies were too expensive for the average person to "own", therefore renting became a valid alternative.

Apparently, this model didn't work too well, because currently DVD and blu-ray movies are all released at "sell-through" pricing on initial sale to the public....and Blockbuster is nearly out of business.

charging more to rental stores (1)

KingAlanI (1270538) | more than 2 years ago | (#39332795)

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)

Re:This comic seems appropriate (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | more than 2 years ago | (#39335681)

I remember lifted ET tapes going for £85, I thought it was just crazed faddishness. Later I learned that library quality tape is much more durable than what you find in budget-shelf cassettes. I mean, MUCH thicker and with much denser magnetic trace. You could leave one library tape (oh, go on, ET) on a shelf next to a Maxell E180 with the same movie, guess which one will be still watchable in ten, fifteen, twenty years?

I'm still there. Still trawling through over four thousand tapes, ripping what I can't buy on pressed DVD or download off the 'Net (you know what? I don't care where it comes from; nobody has told me *how* I can or can't format shift, only that precedent says it's actually legal to format shift).

Re:This comic seems appropriate (1)

zzsmirkzz (974536) | more than 2 years ago | (#39331779)

I Agree. There were a number of times when I was at the theater where if I was given the option upon leaving to buy the DVD/BluRay of the movie I just watched, I would of. Note that I did not got back and pay to see it in the theater again. I figured instead of cutting out the theater, you include them. Give them the rights to sell the DVD's first (movie only), while they are in theaters, then do the normal black-out while it's between Theater and Store (in which no one is selling) and then have the stores get them with all the extras/special features.

Re:This comic seems appropriate (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39332391)

All true BUT if you could buy the new HBO episodes of Season 2; Game of Thrones the very first day, why would you subscribe to the channel? The answer is that you wouldn't. HBO releasing the DVD or online episodes immediately would be the same as committing suicide. They would lose subscribers to their channel (ditto any of the other cable channels).

They hold back the product in order to attract people to join Comcast or Dish, and then subscribe to HBO's new episodes.

Re:This comic seems appropriate (1)

KingAlanI (1270538) | more than 2 years ago | (#39332847)

the comic does say that he doesn't want to buy the whole channel just for one show.

Re:This comic seems appropriate (2)

Anthony Mouse (1927662) | more than 2 years ago | (#39335481)

All true BUT if you could buy the new HBO episodes of Season 2; Game of Thrones the very first day, why would you subscribe to the channel? The answer is that you wouldn't.

And...? The existing HBO model is totally braindead anyway. What possible benefit is there in not offering HBO as a website like Hulu, for the same price as it costs as a cable channel? Then HBO gets 100% of that money instead of sharing it with asshats like Comcast, and customers get to subscribe to HBO without subscribing to Comcast TV. Problem solved.

The sole thing standing in the way of that is that grandpa doesn't understand how to plug the internet into the TV, so you still have to offer the channel with Comcast to get his money, and Comcast will explode in a rage of fury if you even conceive of such a thing as cutting them out of the loop. But selling DVDs of the whole season the day the first episode comes out gets you around that: Grandpa knows how to use a DVD. Moreover, to get it on the first day you have to pay like a hundred bucks, which more than makes up for the non-100% of people who cancel their $14/month subscriptions. And once the subscriptions get to be a sufficiently small portion of their business, they can tell Comcast to pound sand because at that point they can afford to walk away and stay in business, which lets them set up the streaming service (whether Comcast capitulates or not) and be in a position to keep 100% of the now-larger amount of money their content sells for.

Re:This comic seems appropriate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39332623)

The answer to the question "how many sales are lost to piracy" when the product is not available for sale is always "all of the sales." Because you can't buy something you can't buy.

Proportionally, that's true. Of course in actual dollars, "none of the sales" gives the exact same value.

Re:This comic seems appropriate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39335617)

Devil's advocate: if the studios offered their films on DVD/BluRay on the day they were released in theaters, at a much higher price as you suggest, some people would choose to buy the DVD/BluRay disc instead of going to the theater. This sounds fine for the movie studios, but it's very bad for the theaters. Too much of this could lead to the collapse of the movie theater industry, and nobody knows what kind of impact THAT would have on the movie studios.

Similarly, HBO pays the movie studios a bunch of money for those not-yet-for-sale broadcast rights. If the movies were available on DVD/BluRay, it would make HBO subscriptions less valuable, which would be bad for HBO, which could mean that big pile of money currently being paid to the studios would go away. Will the studios make even more money from DVD/BluRay sales if that happens? Maybe! But it's a pretty big risk, and so far they haven't been willing to take that leap.

Re:This comic seems appropriate (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | more than 2 years ago | (#39335645)

I have an example of how idiotic the studios are: in 1980, Universal published the final season of Battlestar Galactica. In 1987, I recorded said show on VHS. From that point until February 2008, my only source of that show were those tapes (it was not available on prerecorded VHS, period. I ripped them to digital around 2004, which was lucky because the tapes by that time were incredibly well worn 3rd generation copies and ready to break). I did buy the DVDs the day they came out but I was royally PISSED OFF that Universal had waited so bleedin' long!

In the strictly legal sense, yes by that example I am a "pirate". Fuck it, I'll put my hand up to it. But you know what? If the studio had released the show a: on library quality tape soon after airing in the UK, b: on DVD when practicable and not just to cashcow the Larson/Moore rework, then I'd be less inclined to say "fuck the studios, I want what I want NOW, not on their schedule!"

Re:This comic seems appropriate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39336195)

how could you trust their shady accounting to determine how much was displaced? there is never enough profit, ever. they could do this for a season 2 or a movie sequel, make the same amount as the first, and still consider it a failure due to piracy.

Re:This comic seems appropriate (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 2 years ago | (#39331713)

"Cunthammer"

I just learned my new favorite word!

Re:This comic seems appropriate (1)

JonySuede (1908576) | more than 2 years ago | (#39332009)

Cunthammer is a fucking awesome word !
please help me to find a way to use that in context with a female suit that I particularly despise before next week !

Re:This comic seems appropriate (1)

DavidRawling (864446) | more than 2 years ago | (#39332919)

Jeez, you cunthammer ... anything in with a donut.

Total BS (1)

bbroerman (715822) | more than 2 years ago | (#39330691)

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...

Re:Total BS (5, Insightful)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 2 years ago | (#39330763)

So this rule forces people to use solutions that could actually remove copy protection or share outside of the home?

With employees like this the MPAA don't need enemies

Ummm .... (4, Interesting)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#39330703)

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.

Re:Ummm .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39330847)

Because they want the media damaged. They're defective by design.
Take a look at the historical materials used for media.

Vynil for records - easily scratched/destroyed
Plastc for compact discs, dvds, blu-ray, hd-dvd, laser disc - easily scratched/destroyed
thin film for reel-to-reel, 8-track, cassettes, vhs/beta - all easily mangled/destroyed

These materials make the medium cheap, but easily destroyed.

Placing them as digital copies where they aren't locked by a mechanism that allows them to *go offline* or *key lost* or some other method of *accidental destruction* means that the studios can't sell you multiple copies of the same materials anymore. They're scared shitless because of this.
They're whole plan involves selling you defective materials that you have to buy over and over again.

This platform, especially if it used a disk subsystem that doesn't suffer from bit-rot (say ZFS from Oracle), and they're out all future re-sales.

Re:Ummm .... (1)

berashith (222128) | more than 2 years ago | (#39330897)

There is no way to prove that the disk being copied is yours! Of course, somebody is providing physical media in this case, unlike torrents that are just outright stolen and distributed without any restriction. It is amazing the lengths that these people can go to that do no good at all for protecting their cause.

Re:Ummm .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39331233)

Torrents of pirated media have NOTHING TO DO WITH THEFT.

It is a rights issue.

Re:Ummm .... (1)

berashith (222128) | more than 2 years ago | (#39333025)

for some torrents this is true.

Re:Ummm .... (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39331019)

Xbox and AppleTV let you copy all of your DVDs to their hard drive, and then put the DVDs back into storage? I didn't think they had that capability, which would mean they aren't the same as the Kaleidoscape (which is more like a large iPod that rips DVDs instead of CDs).

Re:Ummm .... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#39331515)

Xbox and AppleTV let you copy all of your DVDs to their hard drive, and then put the DVDs back into storage?

No. I didn't realize the tool in question was allowing you to rip for later playback.

So, yeah, a fair bit of difference in those two.

Re:Ummm .... (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#39331517)

RDF.

Re:Ummm .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39333281)

"RDF."?

WTF?

I would RTFM if I knew what TFM would explain RDF.

Oh wow, Wikipedia to the rescue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RDF [wikipedia.org]

You must mean "Reality Distortion Field", as in the Steve Jobs awesomeness made people think an Apple TV could do more than it can do.

Am I right? What do I win? A no-prize most likely.

Re:Ummm .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39335693)

Or, you know, innocent misunderstanding. But hey, way to be a jump to conclusions jackass!

Re:Ummm .... (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#39331061)

Lots of people have juke boxes. I used to have two 400 DVD carousels. These would work fine if you had kids who you didn't want to handle the media.

The Kaleidescape is (was) unique in that it allows you to insert a DVD, rip it and then remove the DVD from the system and still be able to play the DVD because it copied the CSS keys.

Other DVD jukeboxes copy the DVD titles but don't copy the CSS keys so they require the physical DVD in order to play back the movie.

I imagine this is where Kaleidescape will have to go. I understand their BluRay systems already work this way.

Re:Ummm .... (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#39331095)

Why is this industry incapable of recognizing that users would prefer to have a juke-box with their movies?

Oh, they recognize it and they are very well aware of it. It is that they do not really care.
They want to make money and if customers get a nice product, that is a nice side effect, not the goal.

Re:Ummm .... (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 2 years ago | (#39331425)

The disk images were being sent to Kaleidescape's server's, not your local jukebox.

That's the problem.

Re:Ummm .... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39331663)

No, the disc images were being sent to the local Kaleidescape physical server in your home. I have a Kaleidescape and have owned their systems for about 8-9 years now.

Genius! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39332979)

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.

Hurray for Copyright! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39330755)

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.

Only one thing left to do! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39330795)

Make it open source!

It seems like part of this shouldn't be at issue (4, Insightful)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 2 years ago | (#39330877)

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.

The DMCA doesn't create fair use rights at all (2)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 2 years ago | (#39331011)

This is one of the areas that the DMCA creates an illusory right.

No, it isn't.

The law specifically states that the right to fair use, which includes time and format shifting, is not to be affected by the law.

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.

Re:The DMCA doesn't create fair use rights at all (3, Insightful)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 2 years ago | (#39331403)

That's a very fine point to put in it.

It is true that this chapter of the law does not grant fair use rights, but it is part of Title 17 (Chpt 1201 to be exact), not a standalone title.

The summary provided by the US Copyright Office attempts to address this condition, and utterly fails:

"This distinction [between unauthorized access and unauthorized copying] was employed to assure that the public will have the continued
ability to make fair use of copyrighted works. Since copying of a work may be a fair use under appropriate circumstances, section 1201 does not prohibit the act of circumventing a technological measure that prevents copying. By contrast, since the fair use doctrine is not a defense to the act of gaining unauthorized access to a work, the act of circumventing a technological measure in order to gain access is prohibited"

The problems is that since there is no mechanism for the CCA to grant copy authority, copying for fair use by the public requires that "unauthorized" access be granted. This isn't like the DAT recorders which implemented copy once which allowed fair use copies. Without access, no mechanism short of access to the material is available to the public to make a fair use copy. The law makes it impossible to obtain the method from anyone else. It's a key flaw in the logic of the text, and one that has, afaik, not been tested, at least in part because nobody who has a business model based on removing CCA has enough money to do so.

The right given in Title 17 is, therefore, made illusory by the law itself. I don't know how the courts view language in a law versus an interpretation of an illusory right in a contract, but there is a certain parity to the conditions.

Re:The DMCA doesn't create fair use rights at all (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 2 years ago | (#39331931)

That's a very fine point to put in it.

Not really. Its very simple: Fair use rights as explicit statutory rights have existed for decades longer than DMCA, and reflect rights that have been ruled to be Constitutional limits on copyright law due to the First Amendment.

It is indefensible to say that the DMCA created fair use rights (whether illusory or otherwise), since it didn't create them at all, since the rights were created (depending on exactly how you want to look at things) either by the adoption of the First Amendment, by the court rulings that the limits on copyright were mandated by the First Amendment, or by the adoption of explicit fair use rights in statute, all of which predate the DMCA by (at least) several decades.

It is true that this chapter of the law does not grant fair use rights, but it is part of Title 17

Yes, it is true that the DMCA is part of US Copyright law (which is the subject of Title 17 of the US Code), but the claim wasn't that US Copyright law, or the US Code more generally, created illusory rights, it was that the DMCA did. The problem here is the fallacy of division.

The DMCA did not create any of the rights related to fair use, it merely rendered rights that had existed for some time before the DMCA illusory.

Which, just to be clear, is far worse than if the DMCA had created illusory rights. A law creating illusory rights doesn't take away anything you had before the law was passed. A law rendering existing rights illusory denies established rights. The argument that the DMCA created illusory rights is an argument that it did nothing substantive. This minimizes its negative impact.

Re:It seems like part of this shouldn't be at issu (1)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 2 years ago | (#39331417)

The law specifically states that the right to fair use, which includes time and format shifting, is not to be affected by the law.

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.

EFF: fair use does not include format shifting yet (1)

rocket rancher (447670) | more than 2 years ago | (#39332679)

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 [eff.org] 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?

Re:EFF: fair use does not include format shifting (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | more than 2 years ago | (#39335735)

Format shifting for personal use, if not specifically rendered illegal by Statute, is fundamentally LEGAL.

This is true for ANYTHING.

Does it stop someone else supporting the servers? (1)

grahammm (9083) | more than 2 years ago | (#39330989)

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?

Re:Does it stop someone else supporting the server (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 2 years ago | (#39331435)

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.

Re:Does it stop someone else supporting the server (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39331695)

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.'

Re:Does it stop someone else supporting the server (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39331801)

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.

Re:Does it stop someone else supporting the server (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#39332013)

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.

Yet Another Out-of-Control Judge (3, Interesting)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 2 years ago | (#39331105)

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.

Re:Yet Another Out-of-Control Judge (1)

c0d3g33k (102699) | more than 2 years ago | (#39331273)

I hate to break it to you, but reel-to-reel and cassette decks (to put them in the right chronological order) did have recording capabilities.

Apart from that - totally enjoyed your post.

Re:Yet Another Out-of-Control Judge (2)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 2 years ago | (#39331959)

I don't know what's worse - people who think judges should be subject to the wrath of the mob, or people who think that only pinko-commie California judges behave in a way that they object to.

Reading crap like this makes me happy that out-of-control judges do exist, just to remind the posters of the independence of the judiciary.

Re:Yet Another Out-of-Control Judge (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#39332103)

I am not sure "bending over forwards for Hollywood" really makes this California judge "out of control". If anything, I suspect that's there expected mode of operation.

Although if there was ANY grey area in that contract at all then the judge should have found for k-scape. There are such things as precedents that are older than the nation and this is one of them.

Re:Yet Another Out-of-Control Judge (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39332495)

This judge ran for election, and likely received money from corporate backers to fund the campaign (and will receive money in the future). So he is far from "independent" but instead bought-and-paid for just like the top poster said.

Re:Yet Another Out-of-Control Judge (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 2 years ago | (#39333101)

I'm sure you have something to back up your claim of what is essentially bribery?

RealDVD and Kaleidescape (5, Informative)

steveha (103154) | more than 2 years ago | (#39332131)

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 [slashdot.org] 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 was the CCA, getting them over breach of contract! Kaleidescape already fought this battle and won. I'm curious to know how it is that they had to fight the battle again, and not only lost but got hit with an extreme and crippling injunction. I guess the CCA appealed the earlier case and this is the result? Anyone who understands the legal issues here, could you explain this please?

Also, the injunction is so extreme, Kaleidescape can't even service already-sold units. That seems surprising to me, especially for a case where it was already decided once in Kaleidescape's favor. You just know Kaleidescape will appeal this, if they have any money left to pay lawyers.

steveha

Re:RealDVD and Kaleidescape (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39332617)

+1 informative.

And it appears the original decision saying Kaleidoscape was "not infringing" was appealed by the DVD group to the Superior Court. Next it would go to the CA Appeals court, and then the CA Supreme Court. (Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer.)

No harm done. WTF is this case on about? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39333519)

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.

All that is needed now is.... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#39334193)

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.

Simple solution? (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | more than 2 years ago | (#39335405)

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.

Does this precedent also mean the end of... (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | more than 2 years ago | (#39335491)

Windows Media Center?

XBMC+DVD2XBOX?

'cos if it does, I'll be upset. I just got everything working the way I like it.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?