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!

Kaleidescape Triumphant in Court Case, DVD Ripping Ruled Legal

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the only-when-you-own-it-netflixers dept.

Movies 213

Jim Buzbee writes "Ever wanted to rip all your DVDs to a big network server so that you could select and play them back to your TV? Up until now, manufacturers have been wary of building a device to allow this type of usage because they've been afraid a lawsuit. The DVD Copy Control Association had claimed this was contractually forbidden, but now a judge says otherwise stating, 'nothing in the agreement prevents you from making copies of DVDs. Nothing requires that a DVD be present during playback.' Kaleidescape has finally won their long-standing lawsuit, a case we first talked about early in 2005."

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

first post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18920759)

cue the mpaa lawyers.....

now

Not contractually forbidden... (4, Insightful)

fatduck (961824) | more than 7 years ago | (#18920763)

Doesn't this mean they'll just change the contract on new DVDs?

Re:Not contractually forbidden... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18920805)

Doesn't this mean they'll just change the contract on new DVDs?

Contract? What contract? I don't remember signing a contract. I put my $20 on the counter, the cashier put the DVD in a bag and said, "Have a nice day."

Re:Not contractually forbidden... (2, Funny)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 7 years ago | (#18920839)

Oh, I'm sure they can make the clerk say: "By agreeing this sale, you may not space-shift this DVD to other media. Have a nice day." ;-)

Re:Not contractually forbidden... (0, Flamebait)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 7 years ago | (#18921109)

Yep, the clerks will say that every time. Sure. I've seen retail clerks; mostly they barely have the mental wherewithal to manage just "Have a nice day." I would estimate they'd even attempt the "agreeing to this sale" spiel less then 10% of the time. Getting it right? Less then 5%. Maybe less than 2%.

Chris matttern

Re:Not contractually forbidden... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18921169)

Definitely need a -1 Whoosh mod

Re:Not contractually forbidden... (4, Insightful)

packeteer (566398) | more than 7 years ago | (#18921241)

It's ignorant pricks like you that make my life miserable. I used to work in retail when i was going to college. It was hell. So many people assume that clerks are either stupid or just plain lesser people. I'm sorry if you run into some boneheads but that is inevitable. In the office i work in now i work with plenty of morons, retail doesn't have a monopoly on stupid people.

Re:Not contractually forbidden... (4, Insightful)

Ucklak (755284) | more than 7 years ago | (#18921473)

The other side of the coin in that is that if you work in retail or even better, food service, you come across plenty of people that shouldn't be part of human society.
People ARE stupid.

There are stories a plenty of food service or retail employees that come across gems of humans that lack common sense. Those stories are much more interesting than the 'holier than thou' patron that comes across a dweeb employee that is having a bad day.

Re:Not contractually forbidden... (4, Insightful)

Grave (8234) | more than 7 years ago | (#18921547)

Shopping and dealing with retail employees never made me lose faith in humanity. Working in retail and dealing with so many horrible excuses for human beings has made me question whether we as a race really deserve to exist. But I have faith that Darwin will take care of things.

Re:Not contractually forbidden... (1)

tubapro12 (896596) | more than 7 years ago | (#18922599)

Ah... the sweet smell of evolution and social Darwinism meeting nuclear weapons.

Re:Not contractually forbidden... (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 7 years ago | (#18921683)

Re:Not contractually forbidden... (1)

ananamouse (943446) | more than 7 years ago | (#18921945)

Are you still in the hoosgaw?

Re:Not contractually forbidden... (1)

Real_Reddox (1010195) | more than 7 years ago | (#18921795)

Stupid is the only constant.

Re:Not contractually forbidden... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18922671)

I bet they can all spell their last name consistently, unlike you.

Re:Not contractually forbidden... (5, Informative)

LarsG (31008) | more than 7 years ago | (#18920879)

Contract? What contract?

The contract that DVD player manufacturers enter with the DVDCCA. RTFA?

Re:Not contractually forbidden... (1)

cadeon (977561) | more than 7 years ago | (#18922449)

Your cashiers say "Have a nice day?"

You must have bought your DVD somewhere other than Wal*Mart.

Re:Not contractually forbidden... (5, Insightful)

Andy_R (114137) | more than 7 years ago | (#18920859)

It's not the contract on DVDs that's being discussed, it's the contract between the owners of CSS and manufacturers who buy into CSS. Kaleidescape signed the contract that gives them the right to make legitimate machines that unscramble CSS, the CSS cartel claim that contract includes a 'thou shalt not make dvd servers' clause, the judge agreed with Kaleidescape that the contract does not say that, since Kaleidescape didn't get to see that particular rule until after they joined the cartel.

Re:Not contractually forbidden... (5, Informative)

crt (44106) | more than 7 years ago | (#18920945)

Right - this was just a contract dispute between Kaleidoscope and the DVDCCA. Other DVD player manufacturers may have similar contracts, and could now build in DVD-ripping/storage, but you can be sure that the DVDCCA will be changing their contracts moving forward to eliminate this behavior in the future.

Re:Not contractually forbidden... (1, Offtopic)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 7 years ago | (#18920869)

I hope they do and require a signature at the sale. that will kill them instantly.

Here's your new DVD sir, please sign here, here, and here. A copy will be sent to your lawyer.

Oh yeah that will make DVD sales go up.

Re:Not contractually forbidden... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18922727)

by breaking this seal, you agree to only view movies using the original media, on media players that respect region encoding rules and include no capability of transmitting the signal to more than one device. You also agree to employ no device, software, or other means to transfer the content on this media to another device, media, or any other platform,

Re:Not contractually forbidden... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18920893)

Doesn't this mean you should RTFA?
 

Re:Not contractually forbidden... (1)

garbletext (669861) | more than 7 years ago | (#18922117)

The article summary is BS. DVD ripping has not been legalized, this only applies to manufacturers of these kinds of devices.

Because of this ruling, the Judge did not have to get into copyright issues, so the Kaleidescape ruling has no copyright implications. It is not a statement on the legality of ripping DVDs.

Re:Not contractually forbidden... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18922125)

Whew. All this time I was hoping I wasn't a felon - and now I'm exonerated!

On the contrary... (5, Funny)

jafo (11982) | more than 7 years ago | (#18920765)

"Ever wanted to rip all your DVDs to a big network server [...]"

No, I want a butt-load of DVD jewel boxes occupying cabinet after cabinet in my living-room so they'll be convenient in the event I might want to watch one. This is much better than being stored in boxes in the basement, and streaming the content off a sever, also in the basement.

I have literally avoided buying DVDs in the past because I didn't want to increase the clutter of storage.

Sean

Re:On the contrary... (4, Funny)

enharmonix (988983) | more than 7 years ago | (#18920991)

"Ever wanted to rip all your DVDs to a big network server [...]"
No, I want a butt-load of DVD jewel boxes occupying cabinet after cabinet in my living-room so they'll be convenient in the event I might want to watch one. This is much better than being stored in boxes in the basement, and streaming the content off a sever, also in the basement.

Well, this is slashdot. You would think accessing boxes or a server in the basement was as simple as rolling out of bed... <rimshot />

Re:On the contrary... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18921019)

“Freedom is untidy.”
            —Donald Rumsfeld

Remember, kids: Violence and mayhem [cnn.com] is a symptom of our nation's greatness. May the gun-control terrorists never rob us of our untidy freedoms, nor our foreign colonials of theirs.

Re:On the contrary... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18921607)

No, I want a butt-load of DVD jewel boxes
And no one responded to this with a link to goatse.cx?

Sigh

Slashdot must be getting dumber or something...

iTunes ripping? (4, Interesting)

mh101 (620659) | more than 7 years ago | (#18920795)

Does this mean Apple will be able to legally add DVD ripping to iTunes? If so, that could help sell more AppleTV units, especially in all the countries that can't buy movies from iTS.

Re:iTunes ripping? (5, Insightful)

r3m0t (626466) | more than 7 years ago | (#18920941)

No. Firstly, the lawsuit was not about "legally writing ripping software" - it was specifically about whether the companies who had gained a license for Content Scrambling System can write those programs. It doesn't mean anybody can use DVD Shrink to break "protection".

There are a few problems that would face Apple if they wanted to add that functionality:
1) DVD CCA is appealing the decision.
2) Apple would need to get a license for CSS, and DVD CCA will probably change the terms of the license to disallow such programs.
3) Apple risks pissing off the movie studios that offer video on iTunes stores. (AFAIK, only Disney so far.) People expect to be able to rip CDs, so that's OK. But if people aren't expecting to rip DVDs, why let them? It would cannibalise sales from iTunes Video Store.
4) The Kaleidoscope system maintained the copy protection, whereas iTunes would need to downscale and crop/letterbox the video in order to make the feature useful to smaller iPods - and in the process, re-protect it somehow.

Re:iTunes ripping? (4, Insightful)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 7 years ago | (#18921003)

Apple already has a CSS license for their "DVD Player" app, but your other points stand.

Re:iTunes ripping? (1)

r3m0t (626466) | more than 7 years ago | (#18921479)

Actually, they would probably need a license for the iPod if they wanted that functionality.

Re:iTunes ripping? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18921223)

Apple risks pissing off the movie studios that offer video on iTunes stores. (AFAIK, only Disney so far.)

Disney is the one they launched with. Many others have signed on since then, without fanfare. They aren't having much trouble getting studios to join.

Re:iTunes ripping? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18922593)

Disney is the one they launched with. Many others have signed on since then, without fanfare. They aren't having much trouble getting studios to join.
"Many others" and "without fanfare" is a gross exaggeration and/or just plain false.

Since launching the "movie" section of iTunes Store with Disney, only two others out of the "Big Seven" movie studios have signed on: (1) Paramount, with big fanfare at this year's MacWorld SF, and (2) MGM, which is only making "select titles" availabe (thus little fanfare). That leaves 20th Century Fox, Sony Pictures (Colombia/Tri-Star), NBC Universal, and Time Warner (Warner Bros./New Line) as the big studios that haven't joined the iTunes bandwagon.

Out of the 50+ "mini-majors", only Lionsgate has signed on. Among the holdouts are DreamWorks and the Weinstein Company.

Apple looks like they're having lots of trouble getting studios to join, especially when you compare them to other online movie services like CinemaNow, Amazon Unbox, and Movielink. Both CinemaNow and Amazon Unbox have support from all of the "Big Seven" studios. Movielink has six of the seven (only MGM is a holdout).

Plastic Disks Belong in the 1900s (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18921257)

Plastic Discs belong in the 1900s - content should be digital,
CD ripping / DVD Ripping - who cares, as long as you buy 1 original disk,
your rights to make a backup are protected under fair use.

And can you show me how to load a DVD into my iPod?
I didn't find a slot to side load a Disc - so Apple has to do something
to help iTunes users get the content where they will watch it - into their iPods.

The DVD companies should put a statement into their packaging:
"By Purchasing this DVD - you are entitled to make 1 digital copy of said content for viewing on electronic devices
such as iPods, ARCHOS media players, and Creative Multimedia players."

Apple is big enough that Steve & Crew should be able to cut a deal with DVD makers
so ripping DVDs can be supported directly in iTunes.

DVD disks are 8-track trash, wax cylinders of yesteryear.

Re:iTunes ripping? (3, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 7 years ago | (#18921387)

Which is why we only sell mpeg/Divx content playback servers. Sorry sir this will NOT rip DVD's.

WE then leave a unlabeled CD with them with copies of DVD shrink and DVD decryptor and the web address to buy anyDVD and Fair Use Wizard.

What the customer does on their own is not or problem, we simply sold them a video playback server.

They want to make it easy for joe-blow to rip his own dvd's into the system. it aint gonna happen. Sony already screws with everything and the best kaladiescope server made cant cope with it, you still haveto rip to a PC with special software to get past some of the protections.

Re:iTunes ripping? (2, Insightful)

aaarrrgggh (9205) | more than 7 years ago | (#18921623)

3) Apple risks pissing off the movie studios that offer video on iTunes stores. (AFAIK, only Disney so far.) People expect to be able to rip CDs, so that's OK. But if people aren't expecting to rip DVDs, why let them? It would cannibalise sales from iTunes Video Store.


Actually, the key for Apple is to create a market where people have an incentive to put movies into iTunes in the first place. Once people put in movies they already own, they have a library and future purchases are more likely to be made online. Same held true for music.

The real challenge will be the DVD rental business. It becomes much harder to tell if people own a DVD or are just renting it. I'm not sure the studios would be ok with people ripping rented movies. This might be the pill they have to swallow though to allow penetration of downloads.

Personally, I can't see there being a big market for purchasing movies online for download at current DVD price points. Most people only watch most of their movies once or twice-- the big exceptions are kid's movies and cult classics. The studios would need to swallow the idea that people pay a slight premium over "renting" to "own" the content... but it has to be a very small premium.

I really hope Apple can take advantage of the situation. The appleTV is kind of an odd ball without that type of functionality.

Re:iTunes ripping? (2, Insightful)

NotmyNick (1089709) | more than 7 years ago | (#18921977)

1) The decision was handed down today. How did they manage to file an appeal so quickly. /snark TFA has a discussion about this very subject. I suggest you read it or invest in some reading comprehension lessons.
2)I don't have any knowledge on the former, but the latter is also addressed in TFA
3)Jobs will piss himself off. Uhuh. Guess who is on Disney's board as largest individual stockholder. I'll give you two guesses. People expect to be able to use things that they purchase in a way that is most convenient for them. If that involves copying to a server so that they can fire up a movie at will with the remote and without having to buy an expensive mechanical disk caddy system, that is what they will expect. Those who sell a turnkey product should expect to make a profit if it works as intended. If iTS is more convenient, there should be no expectation of cannibalization.
4)You answered your own concern here.

Lets also note that DVD uploaders on PirateBay and the like are essentially altruists. Once they have ripped the video for themselves, they only expose themselves to risk by uploading. There is no profit model. If the convenience were upped for the now-downloader to rip his own disks or buy video from iTS and competitors, PirateBay would be a shadow of itself competing with Archive.org and hosting the odd out-of-print but not out-of-copyright stuff.

Re:iTunes ripping? (1)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 7 years ago | (#18922093)

It doesn't matter if iTunes itself can do this, there are plenty of easy to use systems for OS X, all of them can encode h264 compliant video usable in anything Apple makes.

All it takes to put that video into the iTunes library is making iTunes scan the disk. That video can then be streamed to an AppleTV or put on an iPod easily.

It no longer matters if its legal, no one cares anymore.

DVD Shrink is legal to use, fwiw (5, Informative)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 7 years ago | (#18922183)

Anybody can use DVD shrink to rip (okay, you can't - you need a deccrypter like dvd decrypter, but play along) discs you own for personal use. It's right in the DMCA - your fair use rights have never technically been diminished.

What you can't do is rip for someone else, or help anyone to rip. The distribution of DVDdecrypter is illegal (per the DMCA), but it's okay to write the software, posess the software, and use the software to decrypt for personal reasons. That's the fucked-up catch - you can do anything you want, but you can't help anybody else do it.

I know that this is hard to understand, but I figured I'd post it anyway.

Re:iTunes ripping? (1)

frdmfghtr (603968) | more than 7 years ago | (#18922653)

3) Apple risks pissing off the movie studios that offer video on iTunes stores. (AFAIK, only Disney so far.) People expect to be able to rip CDs, so that's OK. But if people aren't expecting to rip DVDs, why let them? It would cannibalise sales from iTunes Video Store.
How would this hurt iTunes sales? If I already own a movie on DVD, I'm not about to buy it again so I can stream it from my server to my living room. I'll bet there are more than a few others who share that sentiment. If they can't rip the DVD, then they'll simply watch the DVD itself.

If iTunes won't rip it, then I'll use MacTheRipper.

DVD Decrypter (1)

CranberryKing (776846) | more than 7 years ago | (#18920829)

Does this mean DVD Jon can go back to work on the 2nd most useful piece of software ever written?

Re:DVD Decrypter (1)

absoluteflatness (913952) | more than 7 years ago | (#18921087)

Even if you meant Lightning UK, the answer is still no.

No it's about licensing terms (5, Interesting)

DrYak (748999) | more than 7 years ago | (#18921151)

It not the actual action of ripping the software that is disputed (which theoretically would fall in the "personal backup" category).

It's the fact that they are running officially licensed code from the CSS cartel to uncrypt the DVD prior of putting them on the server, and the CSS cartel sued them pretending that their license should be interpreted as "using the code to make DVD server isn't allowed". The whole suit was whether or not Kaleidoscope could be forbidden to do this based on the licensing term.
Result : No, they can't be stopped, because at the time of signing the licensing terme weren't clear enough to forbid the server.

This has nothing to do with DVD John's work. His work is his own code made to circumvent the CSS encryption (using the fact that the algorithm itself is piss-poor and only marginally better than a rot13). He is not using code from the CSS cartel and thus the interpretation of that code's license doesn't apply.
- Because it's a code done to grant users' access to content that they have legally bought, because it provides a solution in situation which lacks a viable option (like enables DVD playing on Linux and other systems, even if software is only produced for Windows & Mac) and because it's doesn't contain original code from the CSS cartel (no way. It doesn't to the same thing as the official code. DVD Jon's code brute-forces the decryption key using flaws in the CSS implementation), it is legal in most juridiction.
- In the USA, because of the DMCA and the fact that DVD Jon's code is used to circumvent the CSS encryption it is illegal, even if it the only solution for legally owned material on Linux and even if the CSS encryption is to flawed to be considered as an efficient encryption. Only some exception to the DMCA may be invoked (using DVD Jon's code to decrypt DVDs for school or using it once DVDs are deprecated)

The situation is different for HD-DVD and BlueRay Discs with the recent work of Muslix64. On that case, there's no problem with the code it self, its just a re-implementation of a publicly described algorithme (AACS decryption). The whole trick is to provide the actual keys needed to decrypt the data on websites or P2P networks. The code itself isn't illegal. The key sharing is what can be contested by the AACS makers.

Doesnt mean a thing thanks to the DMCA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18920855)

That's all good and well, but according to the DMCA, it's still illegal to bypass the copy protection. So this really doesn't mean anything.

Re:Doesnt mean a thing thanks to the DMCA (1)

mabhatter654 (561290) | more than 7 years ago | (#18922007)

actually it does because these guys have a legit license to use CSS.. they're not hacking it. They're just selling a "Tivo" for DVDs. Put the DVD in and it STAYS encrypted on their hardware. Their device keeps the discs internally under CSS so they can't be actually copied.

in short they're not breaking ANY rules!!! Like everybody says, this could be a huge win for companies like Apple... if they allowed you to backup your DVDs into iTunes with CSS + your iTunes account they shouldn't have any problem. Video Ipods would take off!!!

Misleading Title (5, Informative)

sangreal66 (740295) | more than 7 years ago | (#18920865)

As usual, the title Zonk has chosen for this post ("Kaleidescape Triumphant in Court Case, DVD Ripping Ruled Legal") directly contradicts the actual article:

Because of this ruling, the Judge did not have to get into copyright issues, so the Kaleidescape ruling has no copyright implications. It is not a statement on the legality of ripping DVDs.

Re:Misleading Title (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18921065)

Whoah, what's amazing is I submitted this story many weeks ago. It was rejected and now it showed up after the story is old news. What's the criteria for acceptance?

Re:Misleading Title (3, Funny)

Kalriath (849904) | more than 7 years ago | (#18921277)

Needs to be old news to qualify for posting here on Slashdot. It can also be one or more of the following: Microsoft bashing, Apple touting, RIAA smashing, or just wrong.

Re:Misleading Title (1)

frdmfghtr (603968) | more than 7 years ago | (#18922673)

Or a dupe.

Re:Misleading Title (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18921079)

If you ever submitted a story you'd know its the submitter who chooses the title.

Re:Misleading Title (1, Redundant)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 7 years ago | (#18921303)

If you ever submitted a story you'd know its the submitter who chooses the title.

And if you've ever had a story accepted, you know that the 'editors' frequently change titles and summaries...

Re:Misleading Title (1)

cybereal (621599) | more than 7 years ago | (#18921111)

If only Google Reader would add filtering so I don't have to accidentally click on Zonked Slashdot posts!

Re:Misleading Title (1)

moogs (1003361) | more than 7 years ago | (#18921431)

Dude, it's Zonk. Come on...

Re:Misleading Title (4, Informative)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 7 years ago | (#18921563)

As usual, the title Zonk has chosen for this post ("Kaleidescape Triumphant in Court Case, DVD Ripping Ruled Legal") directly contradicts the actual article:
All Zonk had to do was read the article that CowboyNeal posted some 31 days ago. [slashdot.org]

Yup, it's a dupe, but my/CowboyNeal's version had a non-misleading summary.

Re:Misleading Title (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18922103)

The firehose should have the ability for readers to edit the title or summaries... Although we would effectively be doing the editor's job, at least we'd get proper community-based editting.

Forget it unless you live in Santa Clara, CA (5, Informative)

unassimilatible (225662) | more than 7 years ago | (#18920873)

This case has exactly *zero* precedential value, unless you live in Santa Clara, CA, and then only if your case comes in front of the same judge. And you can bet this case will be appealed to a court that actually can create binding authority.

For a group of people so obsessed with IP law, most of you /.-ers have no idea how the American legal system works: Trial court cases are not precedent for future cases. Only published appellate cases constitute precedent, and then only in their own jurisdiction.

IAALBNYL (I Am A Lawyer But Not Your Lawyer). This is not legal advice. Do not rely on it as such. This is merely a layman's discussion of general issues. YMMV.

IAALBNYL (1)

luge (4808) | more than 7 years ago | (#18921059)

I need to steal that acronym.

Re:Forget it unless you live in Santa Clara, CA (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 7 years ago | (#18921209)

This case has exactly *zero* precedential value, unless you live in Santa Clara, CA

I guess that's me, then.

and knowing that its the silicon valley, probably a quarter of slash is also here, too.

Re:Forget it unless you live in Santa Clara, CA (1)

mabhatter654 (561290) | more than 7 years ago | (#18922035)

considering 75% of the tech headquarters are in southern California it has precedent for a good chunk of the tech industry!

Re:Forget it unless you live in Santa Clara, CA (1)

mr_matticus (928346) | more than 7 years ago | (#18922679)

Santa Clara isn't in southern California...

This is also a trial court case. It sets no precedent, period.

Re:Forget it unless you live in Santa Clara, CA (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18921225)

"This case has exactly *zero* precedential value, unless you live in Santa Clara, CA, and then only if your case comes in front of the same judge. And you can bet this case will be appealed to a court that actually can create binding authority."

And in other news, most /.'ers will continue to quietly do whatever the hell they want with their own property, regardless of what some lawyer says.

*Posted anonymously for obvious reasons.

Re:Forget it unless you live in Santa Clara, CA (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 7 years ago | (#18921243)

*Posted anonymously for obvious reasons.

Can I borrow some tinfoil?

Like they don't put RFID in tinfoil (1)

unassimilatible (225662) | more than 7 years ago | (#18921271)

Keep up with spy tech, man. The CIA & NSA have been putting RFID in tinfoil foe years now. Better to go with lead.

Re:Like they don't put RFID in tinfoil (1)

The_Wilschon (782534) | more than 7 years ago | (#18921493)

Better yet, just eat the lead. Then you don't have to wear a ridiculous hat because the protection is inside of you! You'll be completely protected for the rest of your (mercifully (for us) short) life.

Re:Forget it unless you live in Santa Clara, CA (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18921273)

For a group of people so obsessed with IP law, most of you /.-ers have no idea how the American legal system works:

That is why you who are lawyers need to speak up and explain it to us. /. is full of people from all type of backgrounds. Most of these people have a great insight into their speciality. They need to speak up when something is wrong, so that the rest of us can be educated.

Like many /. readers, I come here to be educated as well as entertained. This is due to the quality of people that /. attracts. (Granted some /.'ers have no clue about anything)

Re:Forget it unless you live in Santa Clara, CA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18922079)

(Granted some /.'ers have no clue about anything)

That's when I resort to wiseass quips that flaunt my lack of knowledge about the subject at hand in a desperate, arm-flailing grab for attention and +5 Funny mod!

Re:Forget it unless you live in Santa Clara, CA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18922733)

Uh, the attorneys here DO speak up and I for one know that sensible explanations are produced by a number of us familiar with the practice. Those explanations get modded into oblivion for contradicting the "information wants to be free" groupthink, and they get challenged by Wikipedia-armed laypeople with no appreciation for the subtleties that make the legal profession far more than a 30-second article on the basics and a Ouija board.

But, yes, all hail the barely-passable English skills of the Slashdotter in his efforts to proclaim that lawyers are evil and pointless! *rolleyes*

Re:Forget it unless you live in Santa Clara, CA (1)

burris (122191) | more than 7 years ago | (#18921401)

Uh, even if this was a supreme court decision, the precedent wouldn't be useful for slashdotters because slashdotters aren't CSS licensees. This was a breach of contract case and only "legit" companies with deep pockets get to make a deal with the DVD-CCA. About the only impact this may have on slashdot readers is existing CSS licensees might start making devices like Kaleidascape. If the DVD-CCA doesn't like this behavior, expect the language of the CSS license to change.

For your client's sake, I hope you don't normally rush in and make comments without knowing what you're talking about.

you're the first lawyer i've ever seen here! n/t (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18921523)

you're the first lawyer i've ever seen here! n/t

globalwarming awareness2007 [theycann.com]

Little bit confused (1)

Hennell (1005107) | more than 7 years ago | (#18920875)

Does this mean that Kaleidescape can rip dvds to a server, sell us products that do the same or that we ourselves can? This paragraph:

Because of this ruling, the Judge did not have to get into copyright issues, so the Kaleidescape ruling has no copyright implications. It is not a statement on the legality of ripping DVDs.
suggests that it applies only to them. Or have I missed (or missread) something?
---
How exactly did the butcher baker and the candlestick maker end up in a tub together?
---

Re:Little bit confused (2, Informative)

ardyer (816606) | more than 7 years ago | (#18920921)

No, you understand it right. The ruling only applies to the Contract signed between the two parties. Other contracts may be different, or heck, the appeals court may overrule anyways. However, Kaleidescape could still be liable for copyright violations. That will have to go to a federal court to be determined.

Re:Little bit confused (1)

c_forq (924234) | more than 7 years ago | (#18921045)

As I understand it the case means Kaleidescape can sell machines that store and re-transmit DVD data you give it. As I understand it the thought isn't you are ripping the DVD, the thought is you are using the Kaleidescape server (which happens to rip the DVD, which Kaleidescape's contract allows it to do).

RTFA... (4, Informative)

igotmybfg (525391) | more than 7 years ago | (#18920903)

From the article:

Because of this ruling, the Judge did not have to get into copyright issues, so the Kaleidescape ruling has no copyright implications. It is not a statement on the legality of ripping DVDs.


In other words, the case was about whether or not a single, specific contract was breached (which is fairly common type of case in civil courts) - it is not some sweeping endorsement of DVD ripping, as the headline would have you believe. The ruling merely states that the contract Kaleidescape signed with the DVD CCA doesn't preclude ripping DVDs, aka a question of contract law, not copyright law.

Re:RTFA... (2, Interesting)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 7 years ago | (#18921037)

Yes, but all the other vendors signed the same contract, so presumably they can all rip DVDs now. Also, the CSS contract was the only thing preventing legal personal DVD ripping tools, so it is important to have the last roadblock taken down.

Re:RTFA... (1)

igotmybfg (525391) | more than 7 years ago | (#18921117)

My guess would be that the MPAA will still put up a fight based on copyright/fair use (or lack thereof).

Stevens, cause and effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18920985)

Perhaps the judge realized what a futile endeavour this is, after hearing what our friend Ted had to say:

"Ten movies streaming across that, that Internet, and what happens to your own personal Internet?"

-Ted Stevens, security through obscurity in action.

Reasonable but... (0, Flamebait)

zakezuke (229119) | more than 7 years ago | (#18921043)

Understand I'm rather a moderate as far as fair use rights go. I don't feel legaly the user should be given carteblanche to copy everything they own an unlimited number of times. However, if you have teething children and disney flicks, you know for a fact that backups are useful.

I don't feel that DVD-video should be treated much differently than software, where the law permits one backup of a given disk. Unless the license says otherwise, you may install the media on one device.

As far as enforcement... the consumer is not a criminal.

Re:Reasonable but... (3, Insightful)

gilroy (155262) | more than 7 years ago | (#18921115)

Blockquoth the poster:

Understand I'm rather a moderate as far as fair use rights go. I don't feel legally the user should be given carte blanche to copy everything they own an unlimited number of times.


Why not? I'm not trying to troll -- I honestly would like to know what your philosophy is. Why would a limited number of copies be OK but an unlimited not?

Re:Reasonable but... (1)

Hektor_Troy (262592) | more than 7 years ago | (#18922551)

I fully agree with the GP post. An unlimited number of copies is unacceptable. I think we should be limited to a number of copies equaling our age in days - plus 70.

After all - that's not an unlimited copyright. I mean ...

Re:Reasonable but... (4, Informative)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 7 years ago | (#18921605)

Understand I'm rather a moderate as far as fair use rights go. I don't feel legaly the user should be given carteblanche to copy everything they own an unlimited number of times.
What a perfect example of how successful the MAFIAA's publicity campaign has been when people who think they should be able to do whatever they want with whatever they've purchased are considered the "extremists" and the ones who favor the reach of corporate control into their own living room consider themselves "moderate."

I don't feel that DVD-video should be treated much differently than software, where the law permits one backup of a given disk.
No, the US law does not restrict the number of backups - see Title 17, Section 117 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs [copyright.gov] where it says:
  • 2 that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful
thus indicating that multiple archival copies are allowed.

Re:Reasonable but... (2, Insightful)

DamnStupidElf (649844) | more than 7 years ago | (#18921971)

I don't feel that DVD-video should be treated much differently than software, where the law permits one backup of a given disk. Unless the license says otherwise, you may install the media on one device.

So does RAID5 count as 1 backup or 1 and 1/n backups? Copyright law is silly because it's still concerned with physical copies 50 years after digital computers effectively made copies free.

Re:Reasonable but... (2, Interesting)

mabhatter654 (561290) | more than 7 years ago | (#18922149)

but these guys weren't breaking the CSS encryption on their product. They kept the data encrypted on their server... the user can't access it to make a copy elsewhere, it's just stored. By being official licensees there are no copyright issues because the USER isn't making any copies. In short they've implemented the kind of system the MPAA people keep saying would be "legal" with all the appropriate protections. I'd like to see Apple jump on board with one of these as and iTV attachment with one of those new 1TB drives for storing movies!! I don't think Apple would do it because they don't want to upset people trying to sell movies over iTunes, but on the other hand allowing people to rip CDs to iTunes hasn't slowed down iTunes music sales... I could see this doing good for the movie biz. The MPAA need to get over themselves. Users than know anything can download all day.. but HONEST people can't put their movies on ipods or itvs to make things easier. Apple already has approved methods in place... why stop it now.

Good news... (1)

djupedal (584558) | more than 7 years ago | (#18921163)

Just the thing to start the week off right. With 40 DVDs already ripped and sitting on a 320 gb HD, I can get to work on the next few dozen, dozen and work in peace for a change :)

Re:Good news... (1)

ASBands (1087159) | more than 7 years ago | (#18921395)

Yes, since I only read the title (who has time to read TFS, much less TFA?), I'm going to go on a DVD-ripping spree that I wouldn't have been able to do an hour ago.

Re: Good news... (1)

djupedal (584558) | more than 7 years ago | (#18921531)

Whoa, that little "I could care less either way..." J O K E flew right over your pointy little head, now, didn't it..?

Shooting fish in a barrel was never that easy. Must be the seven digit UID.

Try again, boy - your Dad paid for three shots, so ask him to please re-cock that shiny air-rifle for ya' and this time remember to close only one eye.

Re: Good news... (1)

ASBands (1087159) | more than 7 years ago | (#18921689)

I guess the bit of playing-along sarcasm flew right over your head. Nah, somebody whose new here couldn't make a joke...

Re: Good news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18922109)

who's
welcome to slashdot

Re: Good news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18922483)

asb dude! the op is playing you like a two-dollar banjo. Don't you know enuf to never reply to those? He has you doing exactly what he wants. Are you really that dumb or what

Old news... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18921275)

Seriously, the date on the linked story is March 29th, a full month ago. Slashdot's "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters." logo apparently doesn't mean anything about the timeliness of the news.

Our other top story today, Alexander Graham Bell thinks he's got most of the bugs out of his magic talking box. The "telephone" is expected to be released some time next spring, and an IPO is likely to follow shortly thereafter.

In other news... (1)

Windcatcher (566458) | more than 7 years ago | (#18921637)

The FEC reports receiving massive numbers of declarations of campaign contributions. They all suspiciously appear to have come from MPAA members...

This is why I predict the format wars moot (1)

xtal (49134) | more than 7 years ago | (#18921803)

Everyone is just going to playback HD content from a fixed server .. just like mp3s rendered the physical storage medium obsolete. Only a matter of time.. sooner, now, with the AppleTV box.

Puts On The Jagger-Bowie Version... (1)

LEX LETHAL (859141) | more than 7 years ago | (#18921817)

"We'll be dancin'... dancin' in the streeeeeets!!"

Answer to your question ... (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 7 years ago | (#18921841)

Ever wanted to rip all your DVDs to a big network server so that you could select and play them back to your TV?

Uh, yes, actually. Not that it's particularly difficult to do anymore.

The only hurdle left now is the legacy of Jack Valenti.

Sanity? This unpossible! ALERT! ALERT! (1)

Chas (5144) | more than 7 years ago | (#18921913)

I stand in awe of the judge's intellect and testicular fortitude for actually laying this down on the DVDCCA.

But let's see how long it lasts before the DVDCCA chucks a shitload (more than a load, less than an assload) of money at someone and this decision is reversed.

Another detailed article (1)

McGregorMortis (536146) | more than 7 years ago | (#18921969)

I stumbled over this in-depth article [darkreading.com] , based on interviews with Kaleidescape people. Describes the whole story of the Kaleidescape product from the beginning right through to the end of this court case.

Seems like DVD-CCA's original legal strategy was not really well thought-out. They tried to patch it up with a bunch of bluster and an "I AM ABOVE ZE LAW!" attitude, but the judge would have none of it.

What about DVD X Copy (1)

tehwebguy (860335) | more than 7 years ago | (#18922015)

I don't remember the details about this particular case, but could DVD X Copy be legal now?

Re:What about DVD X Copy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18922185)

wow, you are amazingly stupid! RTFA, or RTFS, or at least read one of the dozens of previous posts. (Answer = NO)

Re:What about DVD X Copy (1)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 7 years ago | (#18922365)

A DVD-ripping utility would be legal if it preserves CSS on any rips that it makes and the vendor signed the CSS license. Most rippers do neither, so they're still illegal.

Won't stand long (1)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 7 years ago | (#18922263)

Anything that says I can copy a DVD and play it without the original DVD being involved means I can distribute. I copy it to my server and then pass the physical DVD to a friend, who then copies it to some other hard drive. And so on and so forth. This is distribution, period.

However, this is probably just a small step along the way. Where we are going is clearly if it digitial it is going to be redistributed across the planet. This means that for someone to go to the expense of making a DVD and putting it into stores there has to be some other form of compensation involved - because sales will be a small percentage of the people that have the content. Pay-per-view locking of some sort isn't going to work because it will be cracked and distributed.

I would guess the sorts of DVDs that get made are the ones going around the last election - very one-sided political statements that are distributed for free. What else? Maybe nothing.

Re:Won't stand long (1)

chasisaac (893152) | more than 7 years ago | (#18922393)

except that you are making an assumption. You cannot assume that I will rip my DVD and pass it.

The last I checked the Slippery Slope is still a logical fallacy and cannot be supported.

For all the DVD maker/seller/ripoff artist knows I will make one copy of the disk and place it in the basement.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?