Kaleidescape Triumphant in Court Case, DVD Ripping Ruled Legal

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."

Not contractually forbidden...

[fatduck]

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

Re:Not contractually forbidden...

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

[Andy_R]

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:iTunes ripping?

[r3m0t]

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?

[Wesley Felter]

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

Re:Reasonable but...

[gilroy]

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:Forget it unless you live in Santa Clara, CA

[Anonymous Coward]

"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:Not contractually forbidden...

[packeteer]

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:Forget it unless you live in Santa Clara, CA

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Not contractually forbidden...

[Ucklak]

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...

[Grave]

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:iTunes ripping?

[aaarrrgggh]

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:Reasonable but...

[DamnStupidElf]

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:iTunes ripping?

[NotmyNick]

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:Not contractually forbidden...

[rm69990]

*cough* *clears throat* *cough*

If you don't know what you're talking about...at least try to RTFA.

This contract doesn't cover DVDs, this is the contract between the DVDCCA and Device Manufacturers.

Re:DVD Shrink is legal to use, fwiw

[rm69990]

Ummm, as far as I'm aware you're completely and utterly wrong. Could you please point out the section in the DMCA you speak of.

Oh, and DVD Shrink is perfectly capable of decrypting CSS on its own. Have you ever actually used DVD Shrink?

Re:Not contractually forbidden...

[PetoskeyGuy]

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.

I'm sure Kaleidoscope hopes they do change the license to prevent storage in the future. They already have the machines developed and their agreement is already in place. It sounds like they may be one of the only licensee to not agree to the DVD backup clause. If the DVDCCA decides to prevent this type of thing from happening in the future they would just be placing a barrier to entry to future Kaleidoscope competitors.

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

[rm69990]

The problem is when you get the majority spouting nonsense while acting like they know what they are talking about. I've seen that happen numerous times, and I don't even bother correcting at that point because it seems like a lost cause. One culprit is people who post on SCO articles. I still see Slashdot posters who think it's a patent case, or who don't know the difference between Caldera and SCO.

That's the example that came to mind right away. I could name some more if I thought about it for a minute.

Oh the Irony!!!

[popo]

This actually makes me want to go and buy DVD's ... and the industry is opposed to it.

Re:Not contractually forbidden...

[thelastquestion]

yes, there are breeds of dogs that would not survive, and you pointed out the reason: MEN did this to dogs, just like they did to pidgeons, etc. which is not natural at all. what you don't seem to get is that the rules of 'what is fittest' have not changed at all. what HAS changed is mankind's ability to alter their environment, which makes the rules no longer apply to humans. there is no longer any significant amount of evolution because we can keep those with normally fatal diseases alive, and stupid fat people aren't eaten by lions and tigers, et cetera. my point is that technology has made it so that anyone can survive, however unfit they are.