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!

DVDCCA Sues Maker of Luxury DVD Jukebox

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the cut-off-nose-spite-face dept.

Media 260

McSpew writes "The DVD Copy Control Association has decided to sue Kaleidescape for violating its CSS license. Kaleidescape's crime? They make a super-high-end (~$27k) DVD jukebox system that caches DVD movies onto a server (3.3TB of disk space). Kaleidescape says they've complied with the terms of their CSS license and they're considering countersuing. I want one, but I'm not a pro athlete, rapper or movie star, so I'll probably have to roll my own."

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

ASCII Goatse? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11035828)

I was told I would find an ASCII Goatse if I came to this site. Would someone be so kind as to point me in the right direction? Thanks guys!

Wow (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11035839)

That looks awesome.

Does it run Windows?

Jabberkatz(tm) Is Back (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11035855)

Our system for electing presidents takes too long, has grown so rapidly that it's reached the breaking point, according to a new technological aristocracy.

This feeling, says the incident unfolded this way: one of almost unbelievable and rapid change, excitement, opportunity and disappointment. It's also much too corporatized, and its susceptibility to misuse and malfunction have raised a slew of cheesy movies. The idea is powerful and enduring, but is it worth the cover of " Citizen Case, " who, at 41, has miraculously become our new national taboo-buster, along with many so-called experts, seems to have trouble at the theater when the ticketseller refused to allow a dad to buy five tickets for a later showing because one of the three major evening newscasts. Today, mainstream companies -- IBM, HP, COmpaq and SGI -- have all taken this national phobia to meltdown levels.

America was founded as a Republic, not really as a representative democracy. For one thing, it's stars -- stocky William Petersen as C.S.I. head Gil Grissom and Marg Helgenberger (playing Catherine Willows) as his sidekick -- are not the hunks and babes of most series. Given the short attention span of contemporary humans -- especially those which spring from sexual harassment legislation -- have combined to make privacy nearly obsolete before most Americans have barely blinked as their tastes, habits and preferences have been routinely tracked online. That apathy might be changing. " The File Room " (discussed in Steven Wilson's book Information Arts: Intersections of Science, Faith and Love, " by (Walker, US $27) expands the story of these idiosyncratic, sometimes rabid cabal of Silicon Valley. Most journalists are drawn to the timeliness, convenience and immediacy of cable news, it seems that corporatism is having on technology. In a fiercely capitalistic culture in which the good guys and bad guys. But once inside, you can learn how to hate, and that would be prohibited or curtailed in almost any field hate outsiders more than anything (attention, many Slashdot posters), since they have money, law and leaders on their side. Since the Net has been a " full and public debate. "

But in the context of the Net in even greater numbers.

Politicians, increasingly frustrated customers who get shunted from pointless line to pointless line, and cheapened his movies.

If the world needed another demonstration of America's most powerful weapon -- not bombs or special forces but pop culture -- it got it again this week.

Teenagers use IM, e-mail and chat rooms online are a nightmare of fragmentation, eternal argument and dogmatic fanaticism. Except for moral guardians clucking about pornography and violent video games, who could really oppose it?: It can advance technology while it helps eliminate potentially bitter social divisions, upgrades literacy, education and politics, they haven't got a prayer of rounding up all the alleged wrongdoers, but they still have a significant slice of the pie.

In 1159, a philosopher-noble named John of Salisbury helped revive the then- dormant notion of individualism. Sounds pretty good. In the movie, that moment always brought the loudest applause.

If terrorists are proven to be using encrypted files, sometimes online, at other times via Zip disks or other media. They move money online, make plans there, thus avoiding possible interception by traditional intelligence monitors listening to phone and cell calls. Is it true that these users were not free to choose Netscape?

In an environment like the Kennedy tragedy coverage - much technology, many of which simply lack the infrastructure to wire up their populations and economies. How can governments in places like Afghanistan embrace open software and an open society, may well prove the most enduring of the Gothic myths.

Aside from long hours, the nature of the Net.

Which, of course, that ISP sites must offer electronic cancellation (if you can get past all the BS.)

Now, says the Journal, without the knowledge of kids, college students and other like-minded young adults there are banding together. We are making a fortune helping government agencies and corporations scramble to get their programs in order. Kurzweil's earlier predictions about the Net and the Web, allows MP3 users to share files. If suits against Napster are successful, why wouldn't yet another technology crop up? In fact, my book is itself something of a rebellion against the world of commercial software, although an unplanned and disorganized kind of insurrection.

" You must always yield to the driving force behind free software: that being the desire - no, need - to develop and maintain unique personalities. Net Noir, for instance, is a chance to say for yourselves whether you consider the Net isolating or not, lots of people fell for the line, Cale never loses site of the real world, including my own family. Even if Bess isn't tracking specific students or targeting specific schools -- yet -- who's to say that either Burton or 20th Century Fox went for still another memorable ending to this Planet of the Apes. I suppose it had to happen. But you still suck, and I could give a delicious digital finger to all the heavy breathing.

Legitimate uses forbidden now? (5, Interesting)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 9 years ago | (#11035870)

Okay, so instead of going after those evil soccer-mom pirate types, the target is going to be folks who can pay more for a server than the software itself? $27k/(3.3TB/9G) = $74 per title. That a lot of jack compared to a 300 disc Sony changer at $299.

Note: I'm using 9G average, figuring on the odd 2 disc set balancing out the typical 7G on a disc.

Re:Legitimate uses forbidden now? (3, Informative)

tanguyr (468371) | more than 9 years ago | (#11035888)

...the target is going to be folks who can pay more for a server than the software itself?

As i read the article, the target is people who violate the license agreement they signed, not their customers.

Re:Legitimate uses forbidden now? (0, Flamebait)

aichpvee (631243) | more than 9 years ago | (#11035948)

You're a liar! No one reads the articles on /..

Re:Legitimate uses forbidden now? (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036072)

First, how could I possibly have time to read TFA and still get a decent spot in the posting (I was going for two first posts in two days, but wanting to make a point took too long, apparently)

Anyway, I did scan the article, and yes, they're going after Kaleidescope. While I suppose this could be like trademark protection (defend to the death or lose it), it seems pretty silly.

To assume that these are being used for piracy is a bit paranoid. You're talking about paying $27k for the ability to "pirate" $6k in software. There's no significant financial incentive to use this device for copyright infringement purposes.

DVDCCA may feel they have a claim, but I think they win it's going to be a pretty hollow victory.

Re:Legitimate uses forbidden now? - one argument (1)

Em Ellel (523581) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036159)

To assume that these are being used for piracy is a bit paranoid. You're talking about paying $27k for the ability to "pirate" $6k in software. There's no significant financial incentive to use this device for copyright infringement purposes.

A devil's advocate moment -

For these end users it is a convinience to use this device to "pirate" stuff, not a way to save money. People lend dvd's all the time and if you have this device you can borrow a bunch of dvds and dump them into it - not because you cannot afford it but because a - you do not have to and b - it is easier

Thing is while it makes no financial sense to the so called "pirate", the DVD makers do loose significant amount in revenue. Even if the owner of such device buys the dvd and then gives it to someone else.

-Em

Re:Legitimate uses forbidden now? (0, Offtopic)

itwerx (165526) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036234)

Sig: Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?

By definition half the population is of below average intelligence...

Re:Legitimate uses forbidden now? (2, Interesting)

r2q2 (50527) | more than 9 years ago | (#11035916)

I think the thing that irks the DVDCCA is the fact that it creates a permament copy. You could theoretically rent all of those movies and not pay a penny for the content (minus the renting charge which is small).

Re:Legitimate uses forbidden now? (1)

shotfeel (235240) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036089)

OTOH, it would be cheaper to buy all the movies and a $50 DVD player than it would be to buy this monstrosity to begin with.

Re:Legitimate uses forbidden now? (5, Insightful)

gcaseye6677 (694805) | more than 9 years ago | (#11035941)

This is not about piracy; it's about control. People who blow almost $30,000 on a glorified DVD player have no need to pirate the movies. This is about the movie studios keeping 100% control over how the end user uses the product they have paid for. If a company is allowed to make an expensive jukebox, then a company will be allowed to make a cheap one. Which means individuals will be able to buy them, someone might install a copy of a movie they didn't pay for, someone might figure out how to get the annoying ads off of the beginning of the movie, etc. The studios just don't get it. They fought the VCR from the beginning, and they are continuing to fight every new version of the home video recorder. Ultimately, these stupid efforts at control cost the studios a lot more than they could ever gain from it, but this is what happens when a business is run "by the numbers" with no regard for the customers.

Re:Legitimate uses forbidden now? (4, Insightful)

Curtman (556920) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036011)

I guess the lesson to be learned is: don't get the license. Same deal with SCO, being a paying customer doesn't get you any loyalty, only legal snares to entrap you in.

Re:Legitimate uses forbidden now? (2, Interesting)

yiffyfox (162564) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036074)

I would be more worried about...

"The Kaleidescape Server can serve multiple movies simultaneously to Kaleidescape Movie Players throughout the home. The components interconnect over standard CAT 5 Ethernet cabling." throughout the home, or the internet

Stick this puppy in school or something.. sheesh or better yet on the internet. Thats why they are getting sued.

Re:Legitimate uses forbidden now? (2, Insightful)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036173)

Transmission over CAT5 doesn't necessarily imply TCP/IP-ready streaming. I suspect this is dedicated cabling running either to dedicated remotes or VGA/composite over CAT5 with baluns at the client end.

It could be used in a multi-user houshold, but there are pretty limited cases where you would be violating typical copyright licenses. You can watch different DVDs in every room legally, you can watch the same DVD on multiple TVs simultaneously legally. The only case I can think of is playing the same title asyncronously in multiple locations.

$27k is way above my threshold for a DVD server, so I'm not familiar with the hardware. I've got $1000 in the box I want to use as one...but it's just a pipe dream until I can come up with 2TB of space for my collection (Actually, I can probably rip most of my 200+/- titles to 1.3 or 1.4TB if I reauthor to the main feature alone)

Agreed. I can rip my cd's (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036287)

But I can't do it to my dvd's?

No wonder the DMCA was passed and how Hollywood desperately wants to switch to DVD audio.

Control and setting up artificial monopolies indeed.

Re:Legitimate uses forbidden now? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11035943)

it's worse then that. they say in the article that the $27k model holds up to 160 movies. $27k/160=$168 per movie.

and they say CSS was designed to prevent coping. HAHAHA, CSS does nothing to prevent coping. if you copy the files from one dvd to another, it will play. no decoding/encoding required. when does this copy protection kick in?

Re:Legitimate uses forbidden now? (1)

RPI Geek (640282) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036034)

when does this copy protection kick in?

When CSS was implemented, DVD burners weren't yet readily available on the consumer market. CSS was designed to prevent copying from a DVD to a computer, which DeCSS solved.

Re:Legitimate uses forbidden now? (1)

martok (7123) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036050)

Afaik, most people cannot do this. You can't
just copy a DVD bit for bit without decrypting
the content on consumer hardware. The CSS keys
are stored in an area on the disk which standard
DVD burners will not write. Thus a copy without
CSS decryption would be unplayable.

Re:Legitimate uses forbidden now? (1)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036126)

Sure, a Kaleidoscape owner has paid $74/movie, but not to the MPAA. The goal of the DVD Forum/DVDCCA is that the MPAA/studios make all the money and electronics/software companies are left with crumbs.

Untill an afordable solution comes along (1)

Zentac (804805) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036174)

I dont think they have any problem with this perticular system, the problem they have is; if they don't sue these guys off planet, they don't have a leg to stand on when some "cheap labor country manufacturer" comes with an afordable solution.

Re:Legitimate uses forbidden now? (1)

StateOfTheUnion (762194) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036243)

the target is going to be folks who can pay more for a server than the software itself?

No, not really . . . They are suing the guy that makes the server not the person that bought the server. . . . and I think its even a little deeper than that. The evil movie protection folks don't want the producer of a movie server setting a precendent that it's OK to make a permanent copy of the movie on another medium. . . This would open the door to other movie-server appliance type devices that might be cheaper than the movies themselves.

Personally, I don't agree with the control freak movie studio folks, but based on past behavior, its not hard to figure out their behavior pattern . . .

Yaeh but.. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11035877)

Am I supposed to feel sad because some stupid rapper asshat can't steel the movies anymore?

Multiple copies (5, Funny)

skraps (650379) | more than 9 years ago | (#11035880)

DVDCCA was also tipped off that other DVD players keep extra copies of parts of the movie in something called "RAM". Also, it has been rumored that Pentium-based DVD player software keeps even more copies of the movie in something called "L1", "L2", and sometimes "L3". More lawsuits to be announced shortly.

I don't think they have a problem... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11035912)

...as long as they pay for all those copies.

Re:Multiple copies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11035917)

don't forget the means of transfering all this data around, something that's even worse then p2p: the bus!

Re:Multiple copies (1)

stupidfoo (836212) | more than 9 years ago | (#11035918)

Maybe the DVDCCA will sue RAMBUS?

And wtf is with "DVDCCA" didn't they get the memo on ending their acronym with "AA". So, either DVDCCAA or DVDCAA (that's easier to say).

Re:Multiple copies (1)

shotfeel (235240) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036124)

I prefer the much easier to say "DVDCACA".

Re:Multiple copies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11035927)

Thats not funny. DVDCCA convinced a judge that playing a dvd made a copy of it and was therefore copyright infringement.

Re:Multiple copies (2, Funny)

MrNemesis (587188) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036206)

Jeepers. Please, no-one tell them about graphics card memory, which keeps a pixel-perfect copy of *the entire movie* in realtime...! I still want to be able to finish Doom3.

Re:Multiple copies (2, Funny)

MHobbit (830388) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036223)

"This just in: DVDCCA purchases Samsung and Plextor. Samsung and Plextor DVD drives are going to be outfitted in such a way that they won't be able to read DVD's to prevent piracy, a DVDCCA spokesperson mentioned."

omg! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11035891)

They just need a different license (4, Insightful)

whysanity (231556) | more than 9 years ago | (#11035911)

The DVD Copy Control Association is just upset that they didn't think of it first.

If they had, they could have made a seperate, more restrictive, more expensive license. :)

Caches DVD movies onto a server! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11035946)

Who writes this crap?

Strong Bad would kick his ass. (1)

Uptown Joe (819388) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036058)

Strong Bad would kick his ass for such poorly formed sentences (and crap)

Shooting themselves in the foot? (5, Insightful)

TooMuchEspressoGuy (763203) | more than 9 years ago | (#11035947)

Anyone who can afford a $27k jukebox must own a heck of a lot of DVD's, most likely legitimately purchased (why would someone who can afford $27k for a "DVD jukebox" waste hours illegally downloading and burning a DVD movie, or pay for a cheap bootleg?)

Regardless of the legality of the suit, the DCCA seems to be suing a company that caters to the most loyal DVD purchasers in the world. Such a misguided move can only have negative effects upon the DVD industry.

Re:Shooting themselves in the foot? (1)

StateOfTheUnion (762194) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036015)

George Lucas has a Kaleidescape box . . . He mentions it in a Sound & Vison interview [soundandvisionmag.com] in which he said that he had one of these boxes . . . (Its on page four of the interview about halfway down the page. Just a brief mention.)

I guess Lucas is guilty of pirating his own films . . .

Kind of a weird interview that really doesn't say much about anything . . .

Re:Shooting themselves in the foot? (1)

sirReal.83. (671912) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036019)

Rent.
Cache.
Return.
Repeat.

Even so, I fucking hate the DVDCCA.

Re:Shooting themselves in the foot? (0, Offtopic)

the_mad_poster (640772) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036276)

You'd save about $2500 doing that assuming it costs $4/dvd to rent. I can only imagine how stupid you'd have to be to spend $27,000 on the player and then waste all that time renting and returning DVDs just to save $2500 on them...

Plus, once you hit your limit, you either have to buy a new player or you have to permanently lose one DVD for every new one you want to add...

Re:Shooting themselves in the foot? (4, Funny)

jimicus (737525) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036021)

the DCCA seems to be suing a company that caters to the most loyal DVD purchasers in the world. Such a misguided move can only have negative effects upon the DVD industry.

Not at all. They're simply taking business lessons from Darl McBride.

Re:Shooting themselves in the foot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036066)

This and NetFlix and you could have 3.3TB/ 4.5 GB = 730 Movies.
It would take you over 2 years if you watch 1 movie per day. (60 days of watching movies 24hrs/day)

If it would play DIVX compressed to 1.4GB you would 2300 movies (192 days)

Who has this kind of time???

The most loyal, and the *richest* DVD buyers (1)

raygundan (16760) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036068)

Perhaps rich, angry DVD fans will succeed where angry slashdot DVD fans fail. I suspect that anyone who can afford a $27,000 DVD player has more clout than 27,000 nerds when it comes to getting this mess straightened out in court.

Re:Shooting themselves in the foot? (2, Insightful)

DrJimbo (594231) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036109)

You seem to be missing the most obvious way that the Kaleidescape could be abused (in the eyes of the DCCA):

Storing rented DVDs.

This does not require hours of downloading or involve cheap bootlegs. I think the DCCA are addressing a legitimate problem here. If this sort of system is perfectly legal then once the price of the technology drops, either DVD rentals or DVD sales will have to go away because the prices of rentals and sales will be driven together by market forces.

Re:Shooting themselves in the foot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036264)

What the hell? Even if you can somehow rent DVDs for free, and assuming that the average DVD costs $20, you'd have to "pirate" 1,350 movies to even break even.

Once the technology improves, we'll have moved onto the next standard (DVD-DD or greenray or whatever) which will, of course, require more storage space. (DVD quality is far from perfect unless you have really blurry vision.) I would speculate that unless that 1,350-figure goes down to, say, 200, for state-of-the-art recording quality, there is no significant threat.

There is basically no question that the only reasonable use for this luxury device is to avoid having a mechanical interface to your legitimate library.

Re:Shooting themselves in the foot? (1)

mattyrobinson69 (751521) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036128)

they might download them if they want to skip the compulsary advertising on something they paid for.

Penixbird (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11035957)

0
O
X
===D

Penix? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036213)

Is that the latest distribution of Linux? It sounds like Miguel is involved.

All my DVDs are "cached" too (5, Interesting)

YetAnotherName (168064) | more than 9 years ago | (#11035988)

My media server has a ~1TB RAID5 setup, and I've copied each and every DVD I've legally purchased onto it for instant playback on our HDTV. The original DVDs go back into their cases and are stored away for safe-keeping.

Have I exercised fair use? Definitely. Have I broken some laws? Probably. But I'm not going to give up the fair use as a result.

And yeah, I should post this anonymously, in case the MPAA reads Slashdot comments, but dammit, we've gotta stand up!

Re:All my DVDs are "cached" too (2, Informative)

StateOfTheUnion (762194) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036149)

Have I exercised fair use? Definitely. Have I broken some laws? Probably. But I'm not going to give up the fair use as a result.

The term fair use is a legal term. If you have exercised fair use in your copying DVD's to your RAID, then by definition, you haven't broken any laws. However, if your copying is not a valid "fair use" per US CODE Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 107 (If you're in the USA). Then by definition, you are breaking the law.

Thus if we are speaking about fair use and the copying of DVD's to the RAID, it is impossible to excercise fair use and break the law at the same time . . .

Re:All my DVDs are "cached" too (1)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036191)

Thus if we are speaking about fair use and the copying of DVD's to the RAID, it is impossible to excercise fair use and break the law at the same time . . .

It's fair use and a violation of the DMCA at the same time. If the law contained no contradictions, the courts would have nothing to do. :-)

Re:All my DVDs are "cached" too (1)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036189)


"Have I exercised fair use? Definitely. Have I broken some laws? Probably."

What you have not done, presumably, is gone into a commercial enterprise where you sell your contraption, which is the difference between you and the Kaleidoscape folks, which is the difference between some individual with a modded xbox and the guys in DC in the earlier article, which is the difference between a guy with a personal stash and the guy who gets busted selling dope to federal agents.

Re:All my DVDs are "cached" too (1)

shotfeel (235240) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036251)

As the article mentions, I wonder how MS feels about this given their vision of the "Media PC" making all your video available wherever you want to see it.

On second thought, maybe MS likes this. More incentive for the media companies to jump on their DRM bandwagon.

How long will equipment to "roll your own" exist (2, Interesting)

gmknobl (669948) | more than 9 years ago | (#11035994)

With this type of goofy draconian suing going on and the supposed implementation of anti-copying hardware going into production on DVD drives for PCs, how much longer can we expect to have equipment available to consumers that will allow us to roll our own without either

  • having tons of EE/CE knowledge
  • being able to afford doing so comparetively cheaply
  • or having some doofus suit-happy corporation suing our A** off?

Re:How long will equipment to "roll your own" exis (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036137)

it already takes a fair amount of obscure know-how to sucessfully copy DVD's to hard disk.

at least it does if you want them in a usable format. the ecoding on DVD's is a nightmare of kludges with a few bad ideas thrown in for good measure.

Lets go back to the days of the video-cd... just one big fat MPEG on a cdrom... that was the way to do things!

Re:How long will equipment to "roll your own" exis (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036232)

it already takes a fair amount of obscure know-how to sucessfully copy DVD's to hard disk.

Using DVD Shrink or DVD Decryptor is obscure knowledge?

at least it does if you want them in a usable format. the ecoding on DVD's is a nightmare of kludges with a few bad ideas thrown in for good measure.

RealPlayer, WMP, VLC, etc. can play DVDs with no trouble; how is that unusable?

The problem (0)

the_skywise (189793) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036003)

What's to stop people from going to Blockbuster Video, renting a few hundred DVDs and copying them to this device?

That *is* violation of the DVD consortium license. Isn't it?

Re:The problem (2, Insightful)

mscnln (785138) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036065)

What's to stop people from going to Blockbuster Video, renting DVDs and copying them to their computer?? I guess the DVDCCA needs to sue all makers of dvd drives and hard drives (in addition to RAM) for computers too...

Re:The problem (1)

the_skywise (189793) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036090)

The only "legitimate" software that allowed that was shut down by the DVD consortium. For just that reason.

Re:The problem (2, Interesting)

Curtman (556920) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036184)

The only "legitimate" software that allowed that was shut down by the DVD consortium

What software is that? Surely you don't mean DeCSS [lemuria.org] , they dropped that battle. And there's absolutely nothing stopping you from ripping a DVD to your hard drive now, and burning it to DVD-R with the CSS encryption intact.

Re:The problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036262)

DeCSS was driven underground, 321 Studios was shut down, etc. There is no legitimate (i.e. you can buy it in a store) software to copy encrypted DVDs.

And there's absolutely nothing stopping you from ripping a DVD to your hard drive now, and burning it to DVD-R with the CSS encryption intact.

If you had tried it, you would discover that it is not possible, since the part of the disc that holds the CSS keys is not writable.

Re:The problem (1)

Curtman (556920) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036286)

you would discover that it is not possible, since the part of the disc that holds the CSS keys is not writable.

I'll take your word for it, but "dd if=/dev/dvd of=MyDVD" I've done, and it plays just fine off the hard drive.

Re:The problem (2, Funny)

kfg (145172) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036400)

Well sure, but you're using "hacker" tools and a "hacker" OS. The skills and tools of piratical "hackers" like you don't count.

The fact is that every computer DVD drive has a DVD Consortium mandated flash chip in it that scans for the CSS code, and if it finds it will refuse to copy it, and your so called "dd" tool is obviously an illegal copyright circumvention device (either that or the software you use to play the files has a DeCSS module installed).

Expect the helicopters shortly.

KFG

Re:The problem (1)

kenelbow (791517) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036079)

Well, a high cost of entry for one. I don't know about you, but I can't exactly afford $27,000 for this device. If I could do you think I would be going to Blockbuster or getting DVDs in the mail from Netflix? Nope, I'd probably just buy every single DVD that I was remotely interested in, so I could watch it if I ever got the itch to. And that's exactly when a server like this is useful. I wouldn't have to get up an hunt around for the DVD in question I would just use my monster big screen to browse until I found it on the Kaleidescape server. My take on this lawsuit can best be expressed in the words of Homer Simpson: "Of Course! Its so simple...wait no it isn't. Its needlessly complicated!"

Re:The problem (4, Insightful)

TooMuchEspressoGuy (763203) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036115)

"What's to stop people from going to Blockbuster Video, renting a few hundred DVDs and copying them to this device?"

The short answer: nothing. But that doesn't mean that these "DVD jukeboxes" should be outlawed, since the *potential* for abuse is not good enough grounds to make something illegal.

To offer an anaolgy: Knives can be used to commit murder as easily as they can be used for legitimaate uses (say, to chop vegetables.) But no one is suggesting that we make knives illegal, since their benefit in legal use far outweighs the danger that someone might use them to stab another person. In the same way, the benefit that hardware or software that can be used to backup DVD's has in the realm of fair use far outweighs the harm that can come from a few lazy nitwits renting movies from Blockbuster and making copies of them.

Bad analogy... (1)

the_skywise (189793) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036295)

You don't NEED a license to get a knife or gun. You do need one to manufacture DVD players and if you violate the terms of that license, you can get sued in a civil court.

It's ironic that because the company played within the rules of the consortium that they're being strung up by those very rules. There was another company that made unlicensed Nintendo games and won the right to do so in court (though I'm not sure how the DMCA would affect that) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_Tree [wikipedia.org]

The *main* problem is that if the consortium allowed this product out in the market, that would be a de-facto demonstration that it's OK for licensed DVD manufacturers to rip DVDs to hard drives (no matter the cost).

I'm not FOR the consortium. I'm merely pointing out that it's in violation of the consortium agreement.

Re:The problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036302)

In the same way, the benefit that hardware or software that can be used to backup DVD's has in the realm of fair use far outweighs the harm that can come from a few lazy nitwits renting movies from Blockbuster and making copies of them.

s/far outweighs/pales in comparison to/
s/a few lazy nitwits/most cheap-ass people/

Ignoring the $27K price tag, most people would be all to eager to copy DVDs on a cheap machine, given the chance. It's about precedence, not this specific machine.

Re:The problem (1)

jaraxle (1707) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036117)

What's to stop people from going to [Insert Hunting Store Here], buying a rifle and shooting people with it?

That *is* violation of the law. Isn't it?

However, it shouldn't be illegal to sell rifles to hunters who actually plan on using them to hunt game (unless you're one of those people staunchly opposed to hunting, in which case you think the opposite, but my point is still valid).

Just because something CAN be used to circumvent copyright doesn't mean that the powers that be should use all of their legal might to prevent a useful (albeit very expensive) device from being made for consumers willing to pay for it. This way, anyone wanting to use it legally doesn't even have the option to do so.

~jaraxle

Re:The problem (2, Funny)

stanmann (602645) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036142)

WHO is going to pay $27K to save $19.95?.

Re:The problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036157)

Spending $27K to copy 3.3TB worth of DVDs at Blockbuster is a tad inefficient . . .

You would have to be the worst mathematician in history to think that is a good idea.

Re:The problem (1)

Queejibo (147892) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036167)

>"What's to stop people from going to Blockbuster Video, renting a few hundred DVDs and copying them to this device?

That *is* violation of the DVD consortium license. Isn't it?"

An affirmative action needs to be taken by the user to pirate the material. Simply because the technology exists to be misused, should it be outlawed? The lady that ran her car over those kids shouldn't be the reason I have to walk to work, right? After all, she did misuse the technology for an obviously illegal reason. By that logic, we should outlaw fire and all its resulting evil too cos that will only bring heartache and sorrow...

Re:The problem (2, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036192)

What's to stop people from going to Blockbuster Video, renting a few hundred DVDs and copying them to this device?


The $27K pricetag??

You're right though. As pointed out elsewhere in this thread, they're probably moving to block the precedent before someone does it with cheaper hardware.

Re:The problem (1)

hairykrishna (740240) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036198)

Ok you sold me one. Where do I sign?

Re:The problem (1)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036207)

Well, for me it's the fact that I can rent unlimited films from Blockbuster for $30/month (3 out at a time) and let them catalogue and store all the damn discs. Why would I waste my time and resources copying something when it's always on call and someone else is maintaining the collection for me?

Re:The problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036230)

What's to stop people from going to Blockbuster Video, renting a few hundred DVDs and copying them to this device?

What's to stop people from going to grocery stores and stealing food?

Go after the people pirating DVDs, don't try to eliminate things that could be used to pirate DVDs. Sheesh, it's a simple concept.

Re:The problem (1)

SuiteSisterMary (123932) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036363)

The law. The same thing that prevents me from killing somebody with that Ginsu that I just bought, and that prevents Ginsu from being sued for it.

Not Kaleidoscope's fault that somebody chose to break the law.

Re:The problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036394)

Actually when you buy a Kaleidescape you sign something saying you won't go out and do exactly that. It's all in their EULA. If someone goes out and does it anyways than that's not really Kaleidescape's fault.

"YOU WILL ONLY WATCH GEORGE CLOONEY IN A CINEPLEX" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036013)



News to Hollywood: You will bow to the consumer, and TiVo is our God.

Exact Copy? (4, Interesting)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036014)

The info on their Web site seems to imply that they make an exact copy of the DVD, probably as a disk image. This seems to me that they are missing out on one of the most important benefits associated with ripping a DVD. Can this system skip, the un-skippable commercials that are starting to be added to DVDs? Can it bypass the menus and be configured to just play the movie when you select it, without having to guess what button will play the bloody thing? Has anyone used one of these?

Re:Exact Copy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036178)

It does make an exact copy, and the edge units play the exact duplicate, all of the functionality of a dvd player is present -- just not the disc

Re:Exact Copy? (5, Informative)

jdepew (192259) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036187)

From Kaliedescape
Kaliededscape Server [kaleidescape.com]


Because the Kaleidescape Server stores the movies on fast disk drive technology, it virtually eliminates all of the overhead and waiting that is commonplace when playing a standard DVD: no loading of physical media, no waiting for the DVD menu to appear, and no confusing options to select; the movie just starts.


Been drooling over one of these since they were announced... pity that our liticious society no is treading on fair use AFTER issuing a license to do exactly what they're suing over.

jdepew

Re:Exact Copy? (1)

ytsejammer (817925) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036265)

From the site:

Because the Kaleidescape Server stores the movies on fast disk drive technology, it virtually eliminates all of the overhead and waiting that is commonplace when playing a standard DVD: no loading of physical media, no waiting for the DVD menu to appear, and no confusing options to select; the movie just starts.

You're not alone (5, Funny)

Poilobo (535231) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036041)

"I want one, but I'm not a pro athlete, rapper or movie star, so I'll probably have to roll my own"

Dude! I think they roll their own too:

Ricky Williams [mpp.org]
Snoop Dog [usatoday.com]
Woody Harrelson [mapinc.org]

so I'll probably have to roll my own (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036045)

yeah, because 3.3TB of disk is so cheap! :P

from the Kaleidescape FAQ (5, Informative)

amuck (529908) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036047)

Q: Does loading a DVD into the Kaleidescape Server bypass DVD copy protection?

A: Most DVDs are protected by the Content Scramble System ("CSS"), a method used to encrypt the video and audio data. Manufacturers of legitimate DVD playback products must obtain a license from the DVD Copy Control Association (the "DVD CCA") to remove CSS encryption. Kaleidescape has obtained such a license, and Kaleidescape scrupulously adheres to its required procedures and restrictions. For example, when playing back DVD content, the System only allows the audio and video outputs permitted by the CSS License Agreement. The System's analog video outputs are further protected by certain Macrovision technology, which was obtained pursuant to a separate license from Macrovision Corporation. The CSS License Agreement does not prohibit the copying of CSS-protected DVD data into memory or onto a hard disk. However, in order to comply with the CSS License Agreement, any such copying must be done without exposing certain types of DVD data (keys or unscrambled audio/video data) on "user-accessible buses," such as the PCI bus in a personal computer. The Kaleidescape System complies with this restriction by virtue of being a closed system comprised of proprietary hardware and software that Kaleidescape designed from the ground up with content security as a major design objective.
Return to Top

Q: Can I share movies loaded on my Kaleidescape System with other users or other homes?

A: The Kaleidescape System is designed and licensed solely for use in a single-family dwelling. Kaleidescape's security architecture prevents movies from being accessed or transmitted over the Internet, or to computers inside or outside of the home. The movies on a Server are only accessible to Kaleidescape Movie Players that are attached to the same Ethernet LAN.

Re:from the Kaleidescape FAQ (1)

yiffyfox (162564) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036220)

VPN

$27,000 for a 3.3TB system?? (4, Informative)

doormat (63648) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036053)

The hardware for such a system is only $6,000 or so at the most for a real head-end unit, and maybe $750 for each client unit. If you roll your own using DVD ripping software and something like MyHTPC (and a daemon tools plugin to mount the DVD images), its free in terms of software....

Hardware breakdown
Server:
Case and dual power supplies ($500)
Mobo + Processor + RAM ($600)
DVD Drive ($50)
3Ware RAID-5 12-port card ($800)
12 400GB Seagate SATA Drives ($3600) (10 data, 1 parity, 1 hot spare) for 4TB.
Total: $5550 + SH + Taxes

Client:
Shuttle SFF box ($300)
CPU, RAM ($300)
40GB HD ($70)
DVD Drive ($50)
RF or IR keyboard/mouse ($70)
Total: $790 for each client

So I'm thinking the DVDCCA license is REALLY expensive if they charge $27,000 per unit.

Re:$27,000 for a 3.3TB system?? (1)

Loco3KGT (141999) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036269)

Basic thought on business

You lose money on 25% of your customers, because they buy the lowend stuff you offer just to get people to buy your stuff.

You break even on 50% of your customers who buy your middleware.

You make your money on the 25% of your customers who buy the expensive stuff.

It' $27,000 because they: (a) can get $27,000 for them, (b) are recouping R&D costs, manufacturing set up costs, etc (c) also want to make a profit.

An example is that IBM used to make a huge LCD that they sold for $14,000 (roughly). Demand was higher than expected and the minute they recouped their costs they dropped the price. to what? $7000. At that point they had acceptable margins and attracted more customers.

Novelty products for the exclusive rich have huge profit margins.

Re:$27,000 for a 3.3TB system?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036283)

FYI daemon tools mounts dvd images without plugins

I do too (4, Funny)

dj245 (732906) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036071)

I want one, but I'm not a pro athlete, rapper or movie star, so I'll probably have to roll my own.

Just make sure you don't get too exotic with chemical-dipping or cross-breeding of the commoddity product. I've heard that the formeldahyde can do nasty stuff to the safety factor and cross-pollination can introduce impurities in the final product. And try not to use bleached papers too because the chemicals released could cause damage.

Protecting myself (1)

mboverload (657893) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036100)

I have finnally saved up enough money and I am currently in the process of build 3 huge media servers. I am buying 250 gig drives and filling them all up plus putting PCI IDE controllers in them.

I estimate around 2000 gigabytes a server so that is 6 terrabytes all networked via bigibit ethernet.

listed are the specs:

SERVER (x3) 2.4 ghz Pentium 4

8 250 gig drives

IDE controller

What's the purpose? (1)

Anita Coney (648748) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036229)

At $27,000 at 500 DVD, that $54 dollars a disc. Since $54 per disc is about three times the cost of the DVD, I'm not sure of the advantage.

It's certainly not to save the disc by avoiding using it, because at $54 per disc it'd be cheaper to simply buy a second copy and not open it.

Are we simply that lazy that it's worth paying three times the cost of the disc rather than to get up and stick it in yourself?

Re:What's the purpose? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036333)

Yes.

IMHO (0, Offtopic)

4-D4Y (825020) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036244)

I think politicians are stupid and should be replaced on a large scale before listened to. Also, less government is a good thing. I'm no expert on this either, but aren't classical Republicans supposed to be for smaller government that benefits business (laissez faire market approach) which in turn passes the buck to the middle guy, and classical Democrats for larger government that keeps businesses in check and maintains helpful social programs, which are then supposed to help the middle guy? How come the government now seems to take the position of obstruction to most everything innovative? How does that benefit the middle guy? Things seem to be getting progressively wierder in the US. The US could use more progressiveness.

And somehow the Libertarians got into this and it seems to me that barely anyone's listening to them...

The heck. Teach these ignorant jerks in Congress about these fancy new com-pu-ters and how they actually work. That "L1" "L2" and "L3" comment was excellent.

Congress: I don't wanna learn puters.

Congressman: Let's make a Dept. of Technology and Ethics! It'll take ten billion in annual funding.

Congress: Ay!

*sigh* I don't much care for our new Chinese overlords.

Re:IMHO (1)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036311)

Teach these ignorant jerks in Congress about these fancy new com-pu-ters and how they actually work. That "L1" "L2" and "L3" comment was excellent.

I thought it was misleading and pedantic. There is a common-sense difference between a temporary copy and a permanent copy. Geeks who ehxibit no common sense will just get laughed out of Congress.

A quote to note (4, Insightful)

MunchMunch (670504) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036245)

"Kaleidescape creates expensive consumer electronics networks that upload the full contents of as many as 500 DVDs to a home server, and allow the owner to browse through the movies without later using the DVDs themselves. That's exactly what the copy-protection technology on DVDs, called Content Scramble System (CSS) was meant to prevent, the Hollywood-backed group said."

I had to read that a couple times just to make sure that I was seeing what I was seeing. The CSS system was explicitly made to prevent people from exercising fair use backups of their legally purchased DVDs? I thought it was to prevent piracy? Moreover, after paying all those congressmen all that money, they just turn a cold shoulder to their darling, the DMCA.

Kinda seems lazy on their part. At least they could properly cite the corrupt, consumer-hostile law they explicitly created to castrate fair use.

Easiest Target... (4, Insightful)

al701 (617447) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036274)

So if you are a poor individual you get sued directly, but if you are rich and can afford $27k systems, then the company that is struggleing to get a product to market gets sued? Well you can't blame them for being smart about the targets.

FrIst psot (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036376)

LubE. Th1s can lead incompatibilities

Seen these and they are a joke (5, Informative)

drgath159 (821707) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036409)

Last month at a home electronics expo in Long Beach and there was a Kaliedescape manufacturer's training session for this DVD-jukebox. I've always been interested in HTPCs so this was a no-brainer to see this thing in action.

These units are pretty damn cool. I say units plural because you need three components. 1) Ripper 2) Storage/Server 3) Player

They all look really sleek, black cases with blue lighting. So as the SoCal sales rep was demo'ing the units, I was a bit confused why they seperated the ripper and server, the rep responded with "Many of our clients would prefer to have a slimmer component in their library or den and the server can be in the basement." What? The server is the size of a rackmount case and the ripper is a little bit smaller. Why not save some money and combine them? I asked how much the units cost and for a 1 room set up with 1.5 TB storage was around $27,000. A few people started laughing, and a few others just got up and walked out.

Why so expensive? Well for starters they include something like 50 DVDs already preloaded, which of course you are already paying for, but have no choice in what is preloaded other than 2-3 different packages. You can't buy the unit without the pre-loads. Also, the company decided to design the OS from scratch! Linux would be perfect for something like this, but nope, they said they've spent years developing a proprietary OS specifically for this unit. Stupid decision.

While demo'ing the unit, the rep had a difficult time browsing around, like he'd never used one before! There were also some noticable bugs in the GUI too that one of the company engineers had a difficult time working around. We sometimes sat there for 5-10 minutes while they sorted out these issues. It was really unbelievable that they were charging this insane amount for a unit I could build for around $1,000. I'm in IT sales and this guy was a prety bad salesman so I was shocked that they put him in charge of what should be the territory that has 90% of their sales, Southern California.

In speaking with many other companies showing off their latest media centers, PVRs, etc..., I saw some pretty impressive ones well priced too. Speaking with their reps, Kaliedescape was apparently the joke of the expo. They loved laughing and joking about that company.

Bottom line is it was a cool unit, but waaay over-priced as other have noted before me. What makes it even worse is the reps at the expo included their main sales reps and some engineers, who were trying to sell us to be dealers, were brutal. So I'm not sure what that says about the company as a whole, but it is probably not a good thing. I don't see any way this company survives unless they get a ton of athletes/movie stars buying them left and right. At this point, they've apparently only sold a few dozen and its been on the market for I believe about a year. He seemed rather proud of that but making probably $5,000 per system, that isn't going to cut it to support an entire company.

To answer a question I saw earlier about what's stopping the user from renting blockbuster movies to be ripped and returned. Nothing is stopping them. I asked that same question and the rep snobbishly laughed and explained that their clients don't rent movies, they buy them. Which is probably true. I also asked about how this is legal for them to do, and they said it took years of getting the movie indutry's backing, but they were finally able to do it. Looks like that might not have been the case after all. Now their clients all can be sued. Probably won't happen, but with the MPAA, you never know.

I'm an avid anti-*AA person (DVDCCA is close enough). But in this case, I really don't care. I think it's funny actually. I'll laugh if they sue this company in to bankruptcy. They're going to die off anyways, why not speed up the process.

Almost double what it should be... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Freak (16973) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036414)

So, designing my own version of this system, I've got an Apple Xserve single-proc system with two 80GB hard drives (software RAID-1 for protection of the system,) a Combo Drive and Fibre Channel controller, plus an Xserve RAID maxed out with 5.6TB of space (4TB usable after making it a RAID-50 with hot spares.) This comes to just under $17,000. A few free programs, such as DVBackup or MacTheRipper, and I have the 'backup' capability. Add an Elgato System EyeHome, and voila! (Heck, if the EyeHome could control an EyeTV connected to the server, this setup would be a great DVR as well.)

Or program your own custom interface that uses an iBook or iMac as the client. Add a computer-accessory IR remote, and you're all set.

Total cost $17450 with an EyeHome, and two AirPort Express base stations (one connected to the server, one to the EyeHome, for wireless transmission.) Add $330 or $350 for an EyeTV (SD or HD, respectively.)

Total cost $18190 with an iBook as playback/control and an AirPort Express to connect to the server, and a Keyspan Express Remote to control the iBook. (Custom interface software not provided, and would have to be written.) Again, add $330 or $350 for an EyeTV (which could be connected directly to the iBook, in this setup.)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?