Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Media Server Manufacturer Wins in Court

CowboyNeal posted more than 7 years ago | from the gentlemen-start-your-rippers dept.

The Courts 98

whoever57 writes "The DVD Copy Control Association (DVD CCA) has lost its bid to shut down Kaleidescope, which manufactures media servers that can copy DVDs (along with decryption keys) to built in hard drives. The DVD CCA claimed that this violated the terms of the contracts that control DVD-related equipment because the DVD need not be physically present for payback. However, the judge ruled against the DVD CCA on the narrow grounds that part of the specification of the Content Scrambling System was not part of the overall license agreement. This may open up the market for similar devices."

cancel ×

98 comments

iTunes (-1, Offtopic)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 7 years ago | (#18537453)

Hello DVD-ripping in iTunes! And not a moment too soon as they just started shipping the Apple TV.

Not that it matters to us nerds since we've been ripping DVDs with Handbrake/MediaFork for a while, but still.

Re:iTunes (2, Insightful)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 7 years ago | (#18537815)

I wouldn't be so sure about that... unlike CD ripping, which existed in iTunes long before the music store was opened, Apple is already pushing paid, DRM'd, movie downloads. From Apple's perspective, adding DVD ripping is not just unnecessary (because people accept iTunes as-is), but counterproductive (because it would cut into the iTunes store movie revenue).

Re:iTunes (4, Insightful)

AusIV (950840) | more than 7 years ago | (#18537977)

The primary purpose of the iTunes music store is to generate content to help sell iPods. If it becomes legal to copy DVDs to computers (and iPods), I wouldn't be surprised to see iTunes allow the ripping of DVDs to an iPod compatible for mat.

Re:iTunes (2, Insightful)

shmlco (594907) | more than 7 years ago | (#18540449)

And sell more AppleTVs to play them back with...

Re:iTunes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18538067)

Bah! The money ain't in the store, it is in the licensing for peripheral for the iPod. I would imagine that all the "official" and "Made for iPod" gear makes Apple a pretty sum of money. In fact, if they believed allowing DVD ripping in iTunes would increase iPod Video sales, they would jump on it in a heartbeat. On a side note, does anyone know a good individual tool, or maybe two tools (one for DVD-ripping the other for transcoding) for iPod video? I mean if I get one I want to be able to get as much stuff onto it as possible.

Re:iTunes (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 7 years ago | (#18538323)

1) Look at GP podt (GGP to me)
2) link to directions [justfuckinggoogleit.com] (second link on page)

Re:iTunes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18538991)

Two Words: FUCK YOU
Not all of us have time or want to spend all day going through Google and weeding through the bullshit.

Re:iTunes (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 7 years ago | (#18541735)

If you have time to ask on slashdot and check for a reply, you have time to use google.

I am not an expert at search but it took me less than 1 minute to find the step by step directions.

Re:iTunes (1)

battery111 (620778) | more than 7 years ago | (#18538543)

for mac, try handbrake/mediafork [m0k.org] . As previously mentioned, they are made for this purpose. Mediafork is essentially the newer version of handbrake, but because of a long sordid affair (which you can read about on their website if you really want to know) they had to change the name, although it may be changing back to handbrake now . . .

Re:iTunes (1)

ZzzzSleep (606571) | more than 7 years ago | (#18540029)

Handbrake works for Windows too! I've been using it to rip my Dilbert DVDs, so I can watch them on the train to work.

Re:iTunes (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 7 years ago | (#18539969)

On a side note, does anyone know a good individual tool, or maybe two tools (one for DVD-ripping the other for transcoding) for iPod video?

Just for ripping DVDs to the iPod, Handbrake (as another poster mentioned) is good, but Instant Handbrake (which is the same program, but with appropriate settings for the iPod hard-coded.

Re:iTunes (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18537895)

Hello DVD-ripping in iTunes! And not a moment too soon as they just started shipping the Apple TV.

Am I the only one who doesn't react to every story by thinking "But how does this relate to Apple?" It's lame and I'm sick of it, frankly.

Re:iTunes (1)

mabhatter654 (561290) | more than 7 years ago | (#18538559)

this is exactly what Apple is waiting for!!!! If it got legal to rip DVDs iTunes and iTV would wipe the floor overnight. After all, like these guys, apple can add the standard MPAA-approved "protection" measures to the rips and most people would still love it. like other posters said, if you could load up your DVD to your PC, view it on the Apple TV it would sell gagillions. Most people would live with Apple's 5 PC + all the ipods and appleTVs you can buy limits. Like other posters said, having the DVD would be a feature, sure the rental market would boom, but even then, those stores are BUYING DVDs in order to meet demand for renting so you can't loose...they could even bump the price of DVDs up a little to compensate. That said, there's a new DVD copy protection that's nasty...the discs actually crash my dvd recorder due to the PC-type drive, so it may be getting harder anyway.

Re:iTunes (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#18542157)

Couldn't they get around the whole rental issue by requiring that you insert the DVD for every tenth time you play it? Or second or third? But I think that 10 would make it not a big inconvenience, and still make people not have a permanent copy of something they didn't actually pay for. Personally I'd just buy a PC with a big hard drive and rip the movies myself, but a solution like this would be great for those who aren't as tech savvy.

Re:iTunes (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 7 years ago | (#18539001)

Sorry but I just bought an Apple TV and have been ripping my DVDs since they announced it last year. It also started shipping last week, so the timing is part of why I mentioned it.

Re:iTunes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18541269)

"Am I the only one who doesn't react to every story by thinking "But how does this relate to Apple?" It's lame and I'm sick of it, frankly."

Hello DVD ripping in Windows Media Player! And not a moment too soon as they just started shipping the Zune.

Re:iTunes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18542757)

You must be old here.

Re:iTunes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18543227)

Am I the only one who doesn't react to every story by thinking "But how does this relate to Apple?" It's lame and I'm sick of it, frankly.
Ok then, is "But how does this relate to me, as an iPod/Macintosh owner?" acceptable?

Re:iTunes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18537969)

Actually "Hello even more crappy copy-protection 'schemes', plagued with incompatibilities on these and future generatin DVD players."

I already have season 7 and 8 od Simpsons acting up badly.

Expect more to come.

And if they play on your current DVD player, expect they wont on the next one

Have a nice DRM filled day ;)

MediaFork? I think transcode is good enough! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18538131)

I've known about transcode/dvdrip for about five years. Why would I bother with MediaFork? I think transcode is good enough. True, you have to install all the required libraries but it is worth the effort!

Typo (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18537507)

Kaleidescape not Kaleidescope (kaleidescape.com [kaleidescape.com] )

Re:Typo (0, Offtopic)

Workaphobia (931620) | more than 7 years ago | (#18537629)

I am now officially disgusted at this thread because every single post in it except for this one and the first one are, at the time of my posting, related to grammar or spelling mistakes in the summary.

Re:Typo (2, Insightful)

Workaphobia (931620) | more than 7 years ago | (#18537649)

Er, guess I shouldn't be a hypocrite. That one and this one are both "related to grammar or spelling mistakes" as well.

Re:Typo (1)

AusIV (950840) | more than 7 years ago | (#18537997)

That one was somewhat significant. If someone wants to find said device, the misspelling would be prohibitive.

Re:Typo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18538485)

I was searching for the site and couldn't find it untill the correct spelling was posted.

playback, not payback (2, Funny)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 7 years ago | (#18537521)

I guess the editors did not notice my typo, but it should be:

the DVD need not be physically present for playback

Re:playback, not payback (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18537557)

Mm, if the MPAA is involved, I think it is payback. :-)

Re:playback, not payback (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18537583)

I quite like the use of payback better.

in other news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18537707)

DVD throws chair at "F*ing" Kaleidoscope only to miss and hit its own reflection

Re:playback, not payback (3, Funny)

Scooter's_dad (833628) | more than 7 years ago | (#18537987)

I guess the editors did not notice my typo

...or they would have tried to pass it off as one of their own.

Payback's a bitch (3, Funny)

scdeimos (632778) | more than 7 years ago | (#18537593)

I think

... because the DVD need not be physically present for payback.
should read

... because the DVD need not be physically present for playback.

i thing their point is (4, Funny)

jpellino (202698) | more than 7 years ago | (#18537621)

that without the DVD present. playback's a bitch.

Re:i thing their point is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18544971)

< movie_announcerguy >

        Playback.... This time.. IT'S FOR REEAAL!!

  </ movie_announcerguy >

Re:Payback's a bitch (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18537897)

Am I hallucinating, or are we really arguing and quibbling about nonstories like "Media Server Manufacturer Wins in Court"?

Here we are, on the eve of Yet Another War in the Middle East, this one apparently planned to be triggered by the '15 British agressors'. [breitbart.com] Hundreds of thousands will die.

But you'd never know this from Slashdot.

No, in this amazing world of Slashdot, what we really need know about is every piddling detail in the life of a Media Server Manufacturer. Well, I'll tell you what. Ask 10 people on the street what a Media Server even is, and not a single one will be able to tell you.

But who am I to disillusion you all. Go on, get back to your bubble, suckle on that techno-teat, and spend your days concerned about the 'war' between Debian and Ubuntu (or whatever) rather than the real problems facing billions of real people in this world.

Re:Payback's a bitch (2, Insightful)

BootNinja (743040) | more than 7 years ago | (#18537965)

If you want real news, perhaps you should try frequenting a real news site.

Re:Payback's a bitch (1)

loganrapp (975327) | more than 7 years ago | (#18538061)

But who am I to disillusion you all


You're an anonymous coward. Bitch.

Re:Payback's a bitch (1)

hayden_l (703045) | more than 7 years ago | (#18538119)

Ask 10 people on the street what a Media Server even is, and not a single one will be able to tell you.
Personally, the fact that those 10 people allegedly have no idea what a media server is less concerning than why you would come to a known tech site that contains "News for Nerds" in the motto and expect to find a discussion on the politics and posturing taking place in the Middle-East. But here I am feeding the trolls, when will I learn. Maybe we should put up some signs or something.

Re:Payback's a bitch (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | more than 7 years ago | (#18538363)

tell a parent that they can buy a "magic box" that will play every single kids movie they have (oh and btw you get to upload the dvd one time and you can lock up the disc)
and the kids can do all the "work" after the dvd is "uploaded".

Heck John Q Public will want one for Johnny junior (and sally).
never underestimate the power of 4 solid hours of "the Song that never ends" or Barney or blues clues or or ...

or for the folks without "dependent clauses" think of it TeraBytes of PRON or being able to do StarWars Saga and Lord of the rings and Back to the future and Terminator and... back to back to back to back to back to back to back to back to back to back to back to back to back to back to back !

Re:Payback's a bitch (1)

RicktheBrick (588466) | more than 7 years ago | (#18537913)

I think that this ruling will result in the sale of more dvd disks. I think someone will soon bring out a dvd player with a terabyte hard drive. That will mean between 100 and 200 movies can be stored in the device. It will start with a menu so that one can find one of their movies without having to look through a shelf full of them. It will also mean that they will be accessed by category, director, producer, stars, year made, length. People will buy more movies when they can store the disk in a safe place and never have to touch them again. I know I hate it when I play a disk and in the middle it freezes and than I have to remove it and clean it to get it to play. I think the laser will last longer since it will not be needed as much.

Re:Payback's a bitch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18537995)

Maybe, but the prices will have to come down alot. The kalediscape in the article can hold a hundred DVD's and costs $30,000 (At least that's how much it costed a couple of years ago when I first heard of them, and it is expandable). I have a sony 500CD/DVD changer that cost $399. The interface isn't as slick as my DVR that can hold 100 (yea right) hours of video, but reasonably priced. Until hard drive system can hold as much as about the same as the DVD changer, this will remain a very niche market, better served with a homebrew MythTV system.

Re:Payback's a bitch (2, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 7 years ago | (#18540947)

The component cost is not high. A 750GB hard disk costs about £150 retail, but 500GB disks can be as little as £70. Pop three of them in the machine, and you've got 1TB of RAID-5 storage (marketed as 'ultra reliable') for £210. DVD drives cost almost nothing now, and MPEG-2 decoder chips are under £1. You could probably build the entire device for about £300, if you paid retail for everything. In bulk, you could easily make the RRP £300. Since the average DVD is somewhere between 4GB and 9GB (a few are smaller, but most are in this ballpark), it would store 100-200 DVDs, which is significantly more than I own. If you didn't care about redundancy (after all, the DVDs themselves are a Backup), you could cut the price by just doing JBOD over two disks.

The $30,000 unit, as I recall, also includes in the price having a person insert all of your DVDs into the machine and rip them for you. It caters for the very top end of the market. The commodity marked hasn't seen this kind of device, because no one wanted to challenge the DVD CA. Now someone has done, I wouldn't be surprised if they start popping up. Tesco were selling a DVD player for £9 last time I looked, so there can't be much margin left on pure players. If you build a product that you can charge a slight premium for, then this is generally a good thing for a manufacturer.

Re:Payback's a bitch (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#18541835)

If you can legally do this, what's to legally stop you from changing the format and just saving it in MPEG4 to save on space? It might be a couple more years till someone gets around to doing it, but I think it's quite likely to happen. 200 DVDs isn't that much, especially if you buy a lot of TV seasons. There's no reason why you shouldn't be able to store well over 1000 hours on a terabyte disc, provided encode it to MPEG4. I don't really care about quality that much that all the TV shows I watch have to be in stunning quality.

Re:Payback's a bitch (1)

Dare nMc (468959) | more than 7 years ago | (#18544051)

what's to legally stop you from changing the format and just saving it in MPEG4

DMCA appears this manufacture has a legit license for the css key, and uses to decrypt from the hard drive. Granted the functionality would be identical if they ripped (except the device could then be cheaper per stored MB.)

It might be a couple more years till someone gets around to doing it

or maybe it was done a couple years ago http://www.mythtv.org/ [mythtv.org]

or a quick search found http://mythic.tv/product_info.php?products_id=44 [mythic.tv] that does this already for you.

if your unfamiliar with mythTV it's default configuration (if their is such a thing) is to rip a dvd to the hard disk when inserted, not sure if it's mpeg4 (mine was until I started rebuilding it and haven't finished)

Re:Payback's a bitch (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 7 years ago | (#18545553)

I have a sony 500CD/DVD changer that cost $399.
They make a 500 carousel player now? I paid $349 for my 400 and found it doesn't like to play DVD-R media that plays fine in other players. It also doesn't flip disks. I back-fill the player as I watch disks, so it's always full.

I'm approaching 800 titles in my library. Disk count is much higher, considering how many of those titles are complete seasons and many are complete series runs. Television accounts for more than 50% of my rack.

I'd love to rip the whole library to hard drives, but I'd have to sell off a large part of my collection just to afford the drives big enough to hold what would remain. I'm more likely to remaster entire TV seasons to a Blu-Ray disk in SD.

Perhaps they should consider making players with one small hard drive in them, say only able to hold about half a dozen rips (60 GB), and play them from the drive instead of the tray. I'd be willing to pay a bit more for a player like that that would be free of glitches at the layer change. Maybe devote the extra space to a robust playlist manager that I can program to play specific chapters and tracks regardless of how the disc has been scripted to present them. Not only would this allow bypassing unskippable ads on Disney DVDs, it would also be useful to insert the trailer for the next episode of The X-Files before the credits of the preceding episode.

Some disks even have tracks that aren't accessible from their menus, such as the dedication card remembering Jon Pertwee on the Region 2 release of Fox's Doctor Who TV-movie.

Re:Payback's a bitch (4, Funny)

Tatisimo (1061320) | more than 7 years ago | (#18537923)

Give him a break, he's a cowboy, maybe he's thinking of duels and revenge (a.k.a. payback). Don't we all wanna unload some payback on them evil companies?

Priceless quote from the judge (1, Funny)

kindbud (90044) | more than 7 years ago | (#18537663)

"This [CSS spec] is a product of a committee of lawyers," said Nichols in his ruling. ... "It is almost self evident that there is potential for confusion there," said Nichols.


LOLpwnz0r!!one!eleven

Finaly! (-1, Redundant)

eriklou (1027240) | more than 7 years ago | (#18537699)

Netflix

Odd argument. (5, Insightful)

eddy (18759) | more than 7 years ago | (#18537819)

Assuming this is correct, the argument seems very weak, almost completely counter-intuitive:

"In closing arguments Coats warned that a ruling in favor of Kaleidescape "could open the flood gates to copycats. Prices could come down to that of a laptop for products that are not as elegant as Kaleidescape's but have the same basic functionality," Coats said."

So by ruling for the defendant, the judge would open the floodgates to innovation, increased competition and more jobs in the market?

Yeah, I can see how one must warn against a ruling with evil results such as those.

Re:Odd argument. (1)

norminator (784674) | more than 7 years ago | (#18542769)

a ruling in favor of Kaleidescape "could open the flood gates to copycats. Prices could come down to that of a laptop for products that are not as elegant as Kaleidescape's but have the same basic functionality...

The funny thing is, those products already exist, exactly as he described them: lower cost, not as elegant, but with the same basic functionality. Axonix [axonix.com] , Xperinet [xperinet.com] , and others have been doing the same thing as Kaleidescape, but not as expensively, not as slick, not as secure, and do you know how they get around the CSS problem? They point the users to where they can find DeCSS on the web. Their software on the media server is preconfigured to work with DeCSS, they just have to get you to install it.

Good job, DVDCCA. You were trying to make the inferior products, which are dependant on unlicensed CSS decryption into the only legal alternatives. You're probably lucky you lost. Especially considering the fact that Kaleidescape optionally sells large collections of movies with the servers.

It's fairly simple... (5, Insightful)

sdo1 (213835) | more than 7 years ago | (#18537847)

Anything I BUY should be MINE to do with what I please within the privacy of my own home or in/on my own property (with obvious exceptions such as causing physical harm to others, etc.). And I should NOT be illegal in any way to provide the tools to allow me to exercise that right.

I'm thrilled that the courts are slowly, every so slowly, starting to realize this. They need to look past the fact that it's a DVD and realize that its a collection of bits on a piece of plastic. I understand copyright and why it's not legal for me to distribute it to millions or to re-sell copies of it, but copyright is limited not absolute. Having a copyright on something does not mean that you get to dictate how and where it is used in perpetuity.

If I buy a piece of furniture and I want another one like it for another room, should it be illegal for me to pull out my tape measure, buy some wood, and build myself another one just like it?

If I buy a small print from a local artist to hang in my bedroom, should it be illegal for me to scan it, manipulate the colors, and print another copy that matches the decor in the guest room?

If I have a VHS tape that I'd like to preserve, should it be illegal for me to capture it, do a little noise reduction and clean-up on the video, and burn it to DVD?

And if I have a shelf of DVDs, should it be illegal to rip them and stick them on a server in my own home. Should it be illegal to provide the tools that allow me to do that? Of course not. It's no more illegal than to make the hammer I use to put together the copy of the chair.

-S

Re:It's fairly simple... (5, Interesting)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#18537899)

If you're going to compare your right to copy physical items to your right to copy works, why not go the whole hog?

If you like my chair and ask me if you can make a copy, should I refuse?

Should it be illegal for me to allow you to make the copy?

Does the existance of an autocarpenter make a difference?

We have a right to copy. The law of copyright is ment to be a deal.. we give up our right to copy and the creators get a short incentive to make productive works. I don't like this deal anymore.. I want out. Who's with me?

Re:It's fairly simple... (2, Insightful)

313373_bot (766001) | more than 7 years ago | (#18538085)

I believe that the discussion has been misguided for a long time. "Making a copy" shouldn't be a "right" that can be bought or sold, taken, managed or enforced by law. The problem ethical in the first place, and economical in second. For instance: if I buy a movie on tape, and later want to digitize and burn it on disc, no harm is done to anyone - so, no ethical problem. But if, say, the MPAA wanted to force me buying the movie again on dvd, based solely on the idea of copyright, this is immoral gouging. On the other hand, if the version on dvd is much better (clean sound, image, extras), I might want to buy it again, *if* the price is reasonable. This is just a silly example, but it's all a give and take in the end. What is wrong is trying to radicalize things, calling copyright infringement theft and suing people. Both sides lose, you get the idea.

Silly example? (2)

lilomar (1072448) | more than 7 years ago | (#18538213)

For instance: if I buy a movie on tape, and later want to digitize and burn it on disc, no harm is done to anyone - so, no ethical problem.
This should be legal.

But if, say, the MPAA wanted to force me buying the movie again on dvd, based solely on the idea of copyright, this is immoral gouging.
They do this.

On the other hand, if the version on dvd is much better (clean sound, image, extras), I might want to buy it again, *if* the price is reasonable.
And this is a valid concept as well. This isn't a "silly example" it's common sense and exactly the kind of thing that the MPAA is trying to inhibit.

Re:It's fairly simple... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18538129)

Well, in support of these arguments, I suppose if you could reproduce the movie by means of recasting and stuff you might have an argument, or you might not, since you didn't get permission to reproduce the script. It's too touchy of a subject, but I'm agreeable to copy protection toning down.

Sure, when I was 15-16, I pirated tons of songs on napster. Then napster died, and I didn't pirate as much anymore. One day, I got sick of all the miscellaneous songs on my drive, and simply deleted them all. Over the course of the last few years, I've bought over 100 cds. I could have pirated the whole albums easily, but I enjoy lossless quality, the art, booklet, etc. I buy the CD when I know the artist deserves my money. most of the CD's I bought I already had on my computer, but I looked at it as "try before you buy" type deal. I knew what I liked, and went out and bought it.

Even more recently, when I got the iPod, I ripped all the CDs to itunes and put them on there. now, I won't rip to WMP, because it puts in non-removable 2 second gaps (which microsoft refused to respond to when I inquired), nor will I use any format with restrictions on how I burn a mix, or modifies my files in any way. They're my files, and I want them how I want them. I still buy CD's though, as I don't want any DRM from itunes. however, perhaps it's time I download hymn, to that end.

My point being: I, a consumer, will not buy anything, or use any product, that will restrict the use of my music after I purchased it. I'm not giving it out for free. I use it on my ipod, computer, and if I need to, CD form, and I like to be able to reburn it without gaps or limit should my cd become scratched. I didn't buy a circular piece of plastic with a mirror on the bottom. I bought music.

Re:It's fairly simple... (1)

kalislashdot (229144) | more than 7 years ago | (#18538973)

Sure it's easy to "get out" Don't buy the content, I don't. I rent from Netflix and for the price of 1 DVD I get like 20 per month. If I want to watch it again I just rent it again and wait 1 day. I see almost NO point in buying DVDs. The same goes for music. People buy on iTunes. Ok that is lame, you do not own it. I would rather do a subscription model. I don't buy music either, the radio is good enough for me and when a commercial comes on I switch channels.

Re:It's fairly simple... (1)

Illserve (56215) | more than 7 years ago | (#18541693)

Sure it's easy to "get out" Don't buy the content, I don't. I rent from Netflix and ...

You have not gotten out as you are still part of the MPAA's profit system. Netflix buys DVD's from them, and they use your money to do it.

What you say is true, and reasonable, and I'm not suggesting it's worth NOT renting movies. Just that you are still part of their machine, and don't think otherwise.

Re:It's fairly simple... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18643803)

* sigh *

You are such a moron. Get a life, quit posting here. Nobody likes you and you obviously have nothing meaningful to say.

Re:It's fairly simple... (1)

hankwang (413283) | more than 7 years ago | (#18540459)

If you like my chair and ask me if you can make a copy, should I refuse?

I'm not sure whether you are being sarcastic here. You as the owner wouldn't care maybe, but copying an object is covered by other intellectual-property laws besides copyright. Part of the construction of the chair could be patented, or the design of the chair could have a patent. I'm think patents don't apply for private not-for-profit, but you are certainly not allowed to sell the copy of the chair.

We have a right to copy. The law of copyright is ment to be a deal.. we give up our right to copy and the creators get a short incentive to make productive works. I don't like this deal anymore.. I want out.

I'm not with you. Copyright serves a good purpose. What is wrong with the current system is that the term of the copyright is ridiculous (I think 90 years after publication by companies or life + 70 years for persons). Moreover, DRM takes away the possibility of making a copy after the copyright expires.

Re:It's fairly simple... (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#18540509)

Any good that copyright serves is negated by the insanity of current terms and the restrictions on everyday practices. If we were to scale back the terms and remove the restrictions, the result would be so different from copyright as it exists today as to be copyright in name only.

Re:It's fairly simple... (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 7 years ago | (#18540817)

Then I hope you like my new invention. It's a 3-dimensional photocopier. Place any object in there, turn it on and out pops an identical copy.

I am sure the manufacturing industry will be ecstatic to learn of this new invention.

Re:It's fairly simple... (1)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 7 years ago | (#18540993)

I think I can see the other point of view on this one, though.

Look at the value part of the product.

With a chair, the value part of the product is mainly in the physical materials used to make it, and the labour used to manufacture it. If one is having to reproduce a chair, they're basically having to pay (in money and also perhaps significant time) for the large majority of the value part of the product.

In digital/computerized products (a musical recording), the value part of the product is almost entirely in the semantic 'design' of the product; the wave samples, or whatever. If you copy this, you're not having to pay for the large majority of the value part of the product.

Whilst I detest the overzealousness of the enforcement of IP laws (and the laws themselves to some extent, eg. copyright expiration being way too long), I think you surely have to realise the difference between where the value of the product lies in these different cases.

Re:It's fairly simple... (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 7 years ago | (#18541171)

Well, we have a right to copy. However, what about the creators' rights?

Let's take it to a subject that people on /. generally know about: Some of us liked Firefly and would pay for another season to be made. What do you think the odds are that we could afford the millions to hire the writers/producers/actors/special effects that a TV serial cost? TV is not just a dozen guys that hold cameras or act. Sometimes it really does take a hundred people or more to put together a production.

Creators of content need to have the incentive to create. If you get rid of the monetary gain, what is their incentive? Yes, you will still get a few true artists that will do it because of inner drive. That doesn't mean that they are the good ones. (Think about all those American Idol losers who actually think they are good.)

As for musicians, many here are advocating they tour for the rest of their natural lives in order to egg out a meager living. Who the hell actually wants to be touring when they are in their 50s?

And how do writers make money when everyone downloads their books a day after they are published?

There are no easy answers. A slow increase in free content (stuff that people actually put under a free license) over time will at least show us what effect it will have on society. Let the copyright laws stay as they are, and allow some of the early stuff to enter the public domain. But still let copyright law protect creators so that they can afford to spend the time to create new works.

Re:It's fairly simple... (1)

CmdrGravy (645153) | more than 7 years ago | (#18541393)

Who the hell actually wants to be touring when they are in their 50s?
I don't especially want to be working in my 50s either but the chances are that I will be so I don't see why artists should have any special exemption and in any case lots of them seem quite happy to tour long into their 50s, 60s and 70s.

I don't have much time for artists who don't do much touring since they tend to be the kind of morons you see on Pop Idol or McFly and other assorted crap. Most of my favourite bands seem to be playing somewhere or other every day for months at a time.

Re:It's fairly simple... (1)

CowTipperGore (1081903) | more than 7 years ago | (#18543419)

As for musicians, many here are advocating they tour for the rest of their natural lives in order to egg out a meager living. Who the hell actually wants to be touring when they are in their 50s?
Why do you believe that musicians should be exempted from life? I doubt that I'll still want to be an IT manager in my 50s, but I may be because of the same reason I am now - my family and I need money that is provided by my job. Being a touring musician is a job, and one that many people would love to do into their 50s. Musicians are somehow special and should be able to retire at 22 from one over-produced CD of teeny-pop trash?

Copyright isn't going away and most here do not call for a complete dismantling. However, corporate control of the current system has poisoned it so that it no longer serves its initial purpose nor does it serve the public.

Re:It's fairly simple... (1)

Dun Malg (230075) | more than 7 years ago | (#18544565)

Well, we have a right to copy. However, what about the creators' rights?
If you actually look at the long history of artistry and creativity, and the comparatively short history of copyrights, you'd understand that creators basically have no rights to claim any sort of "ownership" of their creations. Copyright was a bargain we'd struck, granting them a limited monopoly on copying for a short time, to give them an incentive to create more. Point is, as soon as these works are shared, we all own them. They are artifacts of our common culture. Who owns the fairy tales recorded by the brothers Grimm? Well, nowadays Disney will claim ownership of many of them, but only because they and the publishing industry have made a concerted effort to bastardize the limited incentive that copyright was meant to be into some sort of ownership. Personally, I find their unspoken assertion of ownership of huge swathes of our common culture to be nearly as reprehensible as claiming ownership of human beings. Creators rights? We're way beyond that discussion now. Right now it is more important to smash the infernal machine of perpetual copyright. The original deal with "creators" has long since been broken. We can worry about re-establishing the deal later.

Re:It's fairly simple... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18551855)

Who the hell actually wants to be touring when they are in their 50s?


Madonna?

Ok, she makes pots and pots of money on tour. How about Charlie Harper (UK SUBS)? He still tours, and is in his 60s. He's often seen with pretty hot young groupies hovering around him, too.

I'd do it too, until I'm in my 80s, except I'm lazy and untalented. Damn. And no recording studio or set of engineers or marketrs can make up for that either...

Re:It's fairly simple... (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 7 years ago | (#18543609)

In the US, abolishing copyright would probably mean amending the constitution.

I make a distinction between personal use and redistribution. Copying what you bought, for personal use, is fine with me, but I don't think redistribution is acceptable. I think that used to be well within line of what was granted through copyright, before it was turned into a monster.

This ease of copying thing is one reason I really don't bother making software. I can't afford to fund myself, I don't think anyone else will, and how I make it worth my time is with the users paying for the software. If a person that would otherwise pay for the software can just download the software, then that doesn't support my work. The type of software I would make is specialized enough that tip-ware won't work, but then, I'm not convinced that tip-ware funding would make it worth my time developing software, there's quite a bit of risk there.

That's why I just make my money with physical objects. My products are hard to duplicate without expensive equipment or a lot of time, and I try to price it such that it's not worth trying to copy it. I suppose that might go away if FAB quality goes up and it's affordable to buy for home use, but that is a long ways away, all forms of rapid prototyping produce crude objects, especially the stuff made with the FAB project.

Re:It's fairly simple... (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#18551903)

In the US, abolishing copyright would probably mean amending the constitution.
I stopped reading your comment there. The consistution of the US clearly makes copyright optional.

Re:It's fairly simple... (1)

AusIV (950840) | more than 7 years ago | (#18538167)

Just to play devil's advocate, how many people actually buy DVDs? I watch probably 50-75 movies a year, most of which come from a subscription to Blockbuster Online. How is this machine supposed to distinguish between movies that I own and movies that I rent? If I could get a device like this, I could get my three DVDs a week, copy them to my device, take them to blockbuster, get three more movies, copy those to the device, return them to the store. A few days later, I get three more movies, and the process repeats. I build up my movie collection incredibly quickly at a cost close to buying one movie per month.

Personally, I think such a device would be great. I have a media center PC, and I would love to be able to load every movie I own onto it and access them all by remote. But this is one case where I think DRM would be appropriate: have a flag that identifies disks as rentals, and refuse to copy them. I'm all for being able to do whatever you want with media that you own, but I love the rental industry, and I suspect they'd be in trouble if people could copy their DVDs freely.

I wouldn't be too concerned about people copying movies from friends - there may wind up being three or four copies for every one sold, but one if rentals could be copied, there would likely be dozens of copies for every one sold. This is where there is a distinction between being able to rip CDs and being able to rip DVDs: there is a huge rental industry for DVDs, the same can't be said for CDs.

Re:It's fairly simple... (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | more than 7 years ago | (#18538471)

a few things to consider

1 rental movies should be watermarked or otherwise indentifiable
2 a good number of the rental version are butchered and or are the basic version (you get the movie you might get all of the "extras" but..)
3 if you have a warrant served on your Media Server you should be able BY DEFINITION be able to match a physical disc with each virtual Disc or be able to prove that the vDisc was purchased as a download so if you have 2000 VDiscs you should be able to point to ~83 shelf feet of actual media (minus vDisc only images)

truthfully if we want the *iaa to play according to Gentlemens Rules then we should also

Re:It's fairly simple... (1)

Sancho (17056) | more than 7 years ago | (#18539721)

I've always liked the idea of watermarks over DRM because it allows me to do what I want with content I've purchased. I don't think it's feasible for the current disc-based mediums that are out there. Video downloads would be the way to go here, I think.

If nothing else, when do you serve that warrant you mentioned? When 2 discs show up on the Internet that were rented by the same person? Three? Five? Ten? At what point does it become statistically significant enough to burden someone with a warrant? I know that I wouldn't want to take the chance of renting from a place that did this simply because of the (slim) chance that my computers would be seized.

With downloaded video, the watermarks would be customized to the user. A single leak is enough to know who did it, though certainly isn't enough to prove intent (what if my computer was stolen or compromised? You can bet that viruses would pop up to share watermarked videos).

Re:It's fairly simple... (1)

mabhatter654 (561290) | more than 7 years ago | (#18538695)

but the copies would still have to be rented. That means rental stores would buy more DVDs to keep up demand. If a company like Apple was smart they'd add the feature to rip DVDs but add the standard DRM and 90% of people wouldn't care.. or share them online!!! That's the key. It would put a serious damper on the social implications of downloading stuff online. Right now, copying DVDs is forbidden.. even downloading DeCSS is illegal.. what's the point in buying the DVD if they've already called you a pirate if you wanted to stream to Apple TV. Heck, even if they hack AppleTV you still can't LEGALLY plug in DVD drive and play the actual disc. A person won't give away something they've paid for... even if they rented it.

on top of that there was a suit quite a while ago that put the rental money into pockets of the MPAA anyway as payment for the "extra" viewings...

Re:It's fairly simple... (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#18539827)

If you rent a movie, are you allowed to watch it twice?

I say, of course you are.

If those two times you want to watch the movie are 6 months apart, should you have to rent the movie for 6 months?

Of course not.

So why do you have to pay to watch the movie twice if you want to watch it 6 months after the first time you watched it when you don't have to pay twice if you want to watch it twice on the same day.

Re:It's fairly simple... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18539963)

If you rent an apartment (or hotel room), are you allowed to sleep in it twice?

I say, of course you are.

If those two times you want to sleep in the apartment (or hotel room) are 6 months apart, should you have to rent the appartment (or hotel room) for 6 months?

Of course not.

There is no-one preventing you from returning the apartment (or hotel room) and coming back in 6 months and renting it again. Okay, you're right, the analogy breaks down because there might not be an apartment or hotel room available. Less of an issue with a movie, I think... You can always go down the street to the other rental place.

Sir, you are 'renting'. Renting is an agreement to a time-limited use, that you _signed_up_for_ I might add. While copyright has its issues, this is not one of them. You don't have a right to rent a movie only once and keep a copy forever.

Note, when I say you signed up for it, I mean your rental agreement with the store (the equivalent in apartments is your lease). They usually make you sign those. They're all legal and stuff.

Re:It's fairly simple... (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#18540301)

Well yes, obviously if the contract says you will not copy the discs then you can be sued for breach of contract if you do.. but how could they ever find out? It's just like those hotels that say you can't have guests staying in the room with you, or a lease on an apartment which says you can't sublease or have pets..

Re:It's fairly simple... (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 7 years ago | (#18541217)

So why do you have to pay to watch the movie twice if you want to watch it 6 months after the first time you watched it when you don't have to pay twice if you want to watch it twice on the same day.


Quite simply because you are (deliberately?) confusing the issue - you arent renting the movie for a set number of viewings, you are renting the movie for a set maximum period of time. You want to delay your viewing for 6 months, then you either rent it twice or rent it for a very long time.

Re:It's fairly simple... (1)

freedom_india (780002) | more than 7 years ago | (#18540325)

HEY ! I still buy a lot of DVDs.
Movies i like, for instance Cars, Earth vs Flying Saucers, Enron, Used Cars, DS-9, 1st season of LOST (not the current crap after they killed off michelle) etc., these are movies you want to watch.
 

Re:It's fairly simple... (1)

honkycat (249849) | more than 7 years ago | (#18538415)

I'm not sure this ruling was a great example of what you're happy that the courts are "starting to realize." The judge ruled that the license agreement didn't say what the DVD producers thought it said and that since their lawyers wrote it, it was to be construed in favor of the other party when it was unclear. I'm glad he didn't go the other way -- I'm sure there were ways to construe things the other way around, but still, this wasn't really a big DMCA slap-down so much as a license agreement slapdown.

Still, mark one up for the good guys. We'll take what they can get!

Re:It's fairly simple... (1)

Magada (741361) | more than 7 years ago | (#18540917)

"If I buy a piece of furniture and I want another one like it for another room, should it be illegal for me to pull out my tape measure, buy some wood, and build myself another one just like it?"
No. You wouldn't be infringing any copyrights either. The fact that it's a DIY will make it sufficiently different from the original in any case.

"If I buy a small print from a local artist to hang in my bedroom, should it be illegal for me to scan it, manipulate the colors, and print another copy that matches the decor in the guest room?"
Yes, definitely, if you do it without permission. While making a print of a print should be ok as long as you don't distribute it, modifying stuff in random ways can really hurt the artist's reputation so big no-no there.

If I have a VHS tape that I'd like to preserve, should it be illegal for me to capture it, do a little noise reduction and clean-up on the video, and burn it to DVD?
No.

"And if I have a shelf of DVDs, should it be illegal to rip them and stick them on a server in my own home. Should it be illegal to provide the tools that allow me to do that?"
No and no. Fair use and all that. As long as the copied bits don't leave the confines of your home (or car, or whatever private property you may own) AND as long as you don't start charging admission to your friends when they come watch a movie.

Re:It's fairly simple... (1)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 7 years ago | (#18541579)

"Yes, definitely, if you do it without permission. While making a print of a print should be ok as long as you don't distribute it, modifying stuff in random ways can really hurt the artist's reputation so big no-no there."

It's perfectly legal, moral and ethical to draw funny mustaches and horns and a goatee on the original, so long as you own it. Doing whatever mutilations you want to a copy would be even more so.

Is there a stupidity test required for posting on /.? I don't think I'd pass.

Re:It's fairly simple... (1)

jackbird (721605) | more than 7 years ago | (#18542073)

Yes, the right to create a derivative parody is firmly established under fair use. The right to create other kinds of derivative works is not.

A physical work of art and its copyright are two separate entities that are routinely sold/licensed separately, and making a color-corrected copy would indeed be infringement.

Re:It's fairly simple... (1)

hazzey (679052) | more than 7 years ago | (#18541319)

If I buy a small print from a local artist to hang in my bedroom, should it be illegal for me to scan it, manipulate the colors, and print another copy that matches the decor in the guest room?

Yes. This is exactly what copyright is about. You aren't limited to only hanging it on the wall that the artist approves of, but you are limited to not duplicating it. There is nothing evil about this and no one is trying to squeeze more money out of you, but you can't just go around coping anything that you want. You obviously aren't "making a backup" of the print, you are in fact duplicating it for your own benefit.

Re:It's fairly simple... (1)

rdeadman (675487) | more than 7 years ago | (#18542771)

The media companies are playing a fine line between licencing and buying. When they want to restrict how we use it, they tell us we have only licenced the content. When our physical media is damaged, they tell us that we bought it and don't have any more rights to the content.

If we really have just licenced the content, that's fine. But were can I take my old audio tapes and have them replaced with CDs for only the cost of the media? After all, I have a licence for the content and should only have to pay for the replacement of the media (say $2).

Re:It's fairly simple... (1)

oliphaunt (124016) | more than 7 years ago | (#18545999)

I think you may be conflating to distinct concepts: copyright applies to information or data, like the bits on your DVD. trademarks and patents can apply to physical representations or implementations of ideas.

If I buy a piece of furniture and I want another one like it for another room, should it be illegal for me to pull out my tape measure, buy some wood, and build myself another one just like it?

Depends. Has the chair design been trademarked? Is the design "in the public domain?" Is the design obvious? If the answer to these questions is "no," then the answer to your question might be "no" as well. I bet everyone has seen one of the classic Eames lounge chairs [wikipedia.org] , but just because you've seen one doesn't give you the automatic right to copy their design. And if you start making Noguchi table [dwr.com] knockoffs, Herman Miller will probably ask the courts to make you stop.

If I buy a small print from a local artist to hang in my bedroom, should it be illegal for me to scan it, manipulate the colors, and print another copy that matches the decor in the guest room?

This is more of a borderline case. The act you've described is a clear violation of the artist's copyright. But it's not "illegal," in the sense that the cops will show up and arrest you or confiscate the copy if they find out about it. The proper method to enforce a copyright is for the rightsholder to sue the infringer in federal court. So the local artist would have to sue you and claim that she suffered damages becuase if you hadn't made your copy, she could have sold you one that matched your guest room.

You'd be in more trouble if you copied her print, and then started selling different colors on the internet, but since that's not part of your hypo, we don't need to go into that.

If I have a VHS tape that I'd like to preserve, should it be illegal for me to capture it [...] and burn it to DVD? And if I have a shelf of DVDs, should it be illegal to rip them and stick them on a server in my own home?

These are both examples of format-shifting, and I agree that they should absolutely be 100% legal. So far courts have mostly agreed with you also. The outcome in this case affirms that idea. It would be nice to have this method of use explicitly permitted by US law, so that people wouldn't have to keep fighting about it in court.

Price point (3, Informative)

gnetwerker (526997) | more than 7 years ago | (#18538093)

These devices cost $27k for a "base" system, and $4k per player. On the one hand, I suppose this means they had enough money to litigate the issue. On the other hand, one can only hope that some competition brings the price point down.

Re:Price point (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18539167)

Why bother? Yes, the system seems nice overall, but for a fraction of the price you can get so much more...

Their 3U server maxed out is 9TB (the extra HDs are 700$ each!) That works out to 1344 movies by their numbers.

You could easily fit 1344 movies in 4GB of space in H.264 with basically the same quality. And with the upcoming 1TB drives going for 400$, you could store all this for 1600$ total expense (or just a little more if you need a box to throw the disks into). From there it can be played on any network-enabled player or computer. Want a nicer system? Throw in more disks in a nicer case, and opt for RAID5. 12 of those 1TB HDs in RAID5 in a big case. That's still 11TB total space (more than their biggest server can hold with all the optional disks), and you only spent 4800$ in disks (very far from 27k$, even with a very nice case, a 12 port PCI-e SATA RAID card and all). And 11TB at still excellent video quality (2GB H.264 rips) means 5500 DVDs worth of space -- more movies that I'll ever watch. Hell, that's big enough to throw straight HD DVD backups onto, even at 25GB/movie (still 440 movies).

Their 10k$ 1U server can only hold 37 DVDs (by their math that means a 250GB drive)! That's 270$ per movie it can hold! That's about 40$/GB -- I usually pay around 0.3$/GB. Not only it's 133 times more expensive per GB (without RAID or redundancy or anything either), but they're also wasting it by not using modern MPEG4 encoding, so it's easily 250 times more expensive! This makes buying a new car at twice the price seem like someone's doing you a favor for only charging you double... If someone wanted to sell me a 20k$ car at 250x the price (5M$) it better be more than "just a little nicer"!

For still a LOT less money, one could have a NAS (based on a X-Serve or something) feeing into MythTV and all that. The players could be anything from a mini-ITX system, a game console, tablet PCs or whatever you want (won't cost anywhere near 4k$). There's lots of very good home automation/theater systems going for a LOT less $!

You're missing the point... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18540397)

As an owner of this system, I think you're grossly missing the point. The first issue is price. The reason for the price being so high is:

1) Esoteric and unique system when it first came out.
2) Purchasers pay a "tax" for every DVD the machine could store. In essence, if the device can store 10 DVDs then you pay for the hardware + 10 DVD licenses worth even though you have to purchase the DVDs yourself. Yes, you pay double.
3) The system just works. No fuffing about. Support calls are handled quickly and owners can go on doing what they do.

Re:Price point (1)

Cygfrydd (957180) | more than 7 years ago | (#18541603)

You could easily fit 1344 movies in 4GB of space in H.264 with basically the same quality.
That works out to ~3MiB each. That's a helluva codec.

Re:Price point (1)

hobbesx (259250) | more than 7 years ago | (#18546859)

> You could easily fit 1344 movies in 4GB of space in H.264 with basically the same quality.
That works out to ~3MiB each. That's a helluva codec.


It's 16x16 pixel four color animated GIFs at one frame every five seconds. There's no audio, but you can read the subtitles if you want.

Re:Price point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18539253)

Incorrect. The base system is $10K for a single server & player.

Re:Price point (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 7 years ago | (#18539437)

I guess they are mainly used in Hotels as part of video on demand systems. Not exactly a consumer item.

Re:Price point (1)

norminator (784674) | more than 7 years ago | (#18542897)

A) As I understand it, they've come out with a "basic" system for under $10,000 that will handle either music, or movies. (Their higher-end systems will do both now).

B) The product line that used to start at $27k is now, I believe, around $23k, or it was a few months ago.

C) This isn't for Slashdot geeks who understand computers and codecs and TB hard drives and MythTV. This is for wealthy people who don't know how to edit a config file, who would pay $100,000 to have someone come into their home and install a high-end theater for them. So no, this isn't for you to watch movies on from the futon in your mom's basement.

D) This is a very, very nice system. It's easy and quick to set up, and simple and smooth to use.

Now that this legal mess is cleared up, maybe prices will start to come down even more. I'm not sure about competition, because Kaleidescape is the only DVD-ripping music server that actually licensed CSS... Several other similar products exist, but because those other companies didn't license CSS, they have to send you to the Internet to get DeCSS yourself. Technically, this probably paves the way for those other companies to obtain licenses to use CSS themselves, but I don't know if the DVDCCA will want to grant those licenses. They only granted Kaleidescapes because they didn't realize what the product in question was.

Re:Price point (1)

caramelcarrot (778148) | more than 7 years ago | (#18544881)

As well as new products, this means that some combined DVD/PVR devices could now potentially be patched in new firmware releases to allow ripping of CSS'd DVDs. I know my PVR can rip DVDs so long as they aren't encrypted, it'd just be a small thing to turn that check off.

The tide is turning (2, Interesting)

pwizard2 (920421) | more than 7 years ago | (#18538219)

It seems that the pendulum is reversing direction; now it is swinging back against the media companies. (the RIAA is having to work harder in court, and now this) Hopefully this will be a long-term trend and not just a series of flukes.

Effectual copy protection? (2, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 7 years ago | (#18539493)

I think that this is good. I don't think that it will last, but I think that this is good. The copy protection on DVDs has always been weak. One could as soon as DVD burners came out to the masses copy single layer DVDs without any sort of cracks, a bit later came the DL DVD burners allowing all of the rest to be copied.

All that the content management stuff ever did was prevent playing the movies in a non approved player. Really insignificant, except to Linux users, because any DVD player at all would play the copies just fine.

Bah. (1)

fabu10u$ (839423) | more than 7 years ago | (#18539601)

They'll just change the terms of the contract going forward, so don't expect any new entrants in the field to be able to play ball.

This should have been obvious. (2, Interesting)

mmell (832646) | more than 7 years ago | (#18543749)

Kaleidascope's device doesn't actively decrypt the content (or specifically enable decryption for other hardware/software) - it merely makes a faithful copy of the original content, as licensed to the end-user at time of purchase. Sounds like 'fair use' to me!

Without some external form of CSS decryption software (such as libdvdcss in the Linux world), the data are no more accessible from a hard disk than they were from the original DVD. If the capacity for decrypting CSS-scrambled exists, than the medium from which the content originates is inconsequential - viewing, copying, etc. will all work identically regardless of the source medium.

Fortunately, a judge or jury somewhere got the point.

My own knowledge of The Kal (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18546451)

Kaleidescape is very nice and far from a massive copy device, it's a storage device. It help save time by centralizing all movies and thus money.

Multimedia tools such as the Kaleidescape have a market niche and should be permitted to exist. It is not a 'pirate tool' just a very convenient way to help handle huge collections, usually by professionals (or rich people).

The business I know using Kaleidescape have around 30 employees that need to watch specific scenes from a bank of 600 movies (and growing). Not to pinpoint them, but it is similar to searching small details in a scene for marketing purposes. They rarely watch more than 5 or 10 minutes after the initial review of a full movie; full reviews are often split between several employees, like 15 minutes each, but never the same scenes.

What the "bad guys" wants is for the business to buy 10, 20 or 30 copies of each movie.

What this business do is buy one copy, put it in the 'Kal and it is available anywhere in the building thru the network. (I think only one access of a single movie at the same time).
Before the 'Kal they had to search everyone's office for an available copy "Do you have movie X? Do you know who has one?" At some point someone started to manage a check-out system (time lost), system never used by high managers bringing movies in vacation and so on.

Worst case, it could be used by some Hotel owner to give free access to every room to the same bank of movies, but as stated, each player is an additional 4K, and once a player starts a movie, another cannot access the same movie. Not a great service for the price.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...