Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Media Server Manufacturer Wins in Court

Posted by CowboyNeal on Thu Mar 29, 2007 07:03 PM
from the gentlemen-start-your-rippers dept.
Government The Courts Media Movies News
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."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Media Server Manufacturer Wins in Court 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Typo (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 29 2007, @07:13PM (#18537507)
    Kaleidescape not Kaleidescope (kaleidescape.com [kaleidescape.com])

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Workaphobia (931620)
        Er, guess I shouldn't be a hypocrite. That one and this one are both "related to grammar or spelling mistakes" as well.
      • That one was somewhat significant. If someone wants to find said device, the misspelling would be prohibitive.

  • playback, not payback (Score:3, Funny)

    by whoever57 (658626) on Thursday March 29 2007, @07:14PM (#18537521) Journal
    I guess the editors did not notice my typo, but it should be:

    the DVD need not be physically present for playback

  • Payback's a bitch (Score:4, Funny)

    by scdeimos (632778) on Thursday March 29 2007, @07:21PM (#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 (Score:5, Funny)

      by jpellino (202698) on Thursday March 29 2007, @07:24PM (#18537621)
      that without the DVD present. playback's a bitch.

    • 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 p

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by TheRaven64 (641858)
          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 som
          • 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 t

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

      by Tatisimo (1061320) on Thursday March 29 2007, @08:06PM (#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?

  • "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

  • Odd argument. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by eddy (18759) on Thursday March 29 2007, @07:53PM (#18537819) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • It's fairly simple... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sdo1 (213835) on Thursday March 29 2007, @07:55PM (#18537847) Journal
    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... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by QuantumG (50515) <qg@biodome.org> on Thursday March 29 2007, @08:03PM (#18537899) Homepage Journal
      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: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        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
      • 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.
        • 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.

      • 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 o

        • 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.
      • 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.
      • 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 entirel
      • 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

        • 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.

        • 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.

    • 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
      • 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 pi
      • 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.

        • 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.

          • 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..
      • 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.
         
        • 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'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.

      S

    • 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.

      • "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.
        • 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.

  • Price point (Score:4, Informative)

    by gnetwerker (526997) on Thursday March 29 2007, @08:28PM (#18538093) Journal
    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.
  • 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.
  • 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

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mrchaotica (681592) *

      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 (Score:5, Insightful)

        by AusIV (950840) on Thursday March 29 2007, @08:14PM (#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.

        • 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.

          • 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: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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.
      • 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
        • 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.
      • 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.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.