Forum archive - Another Court Deals Major Blow to DVD Copying

Forum Archive Home -> Latest Video News -> Another Court Deals Major Blow to DVD Copying

Another Court Deals Major Blow to DVD Copying

drjtech posted 2009 Aug 12 17:43

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/08/another-court-deals-majo ... d-copying/ : Another Court Deals Major Blow to DVD Copying A California appeals court on Wednesday overturned a lower court ruling that had paved the way for a $10,000 DVD copying system called Kaleidescape and other products from the company with the same name. The 6th District Court of Appeal in San Jose, California, was the second court in two days to rule that companies are bound by the entire Content Scramble System licensing regime, which prevents duplicating DVDs. A San Francisco federal judge ruled late Tuesday that RealNetworks’ DVD-copying software was a breach of the Content Scramble System license, which is required for DVDs and computers to play DVDs. The license allows DVD players to descramble the encrypted code on a DVD, but the license prohibits the duplication of a DVD. Both RealNetworks and Kaleidescape claimed a loophole in the CSS license allowed the copying of DVDs. In both cases, Kaleidescape of Sunnyvale, California, and RealNetworks, of Seattle, claim that the CSS license issued by a partner of the motion picture studios — the DVD Copy Control Association — did not require, as the studios alleged, that a DVD be in the machine to play back the movie. Hence, a copy could be made, they claimed. Kaleidescape did not immediately return a message seeking comment. The DVD Copy Control Association, which brought the case on behalf of the motion picture studios, said the decision means that Kaleidescape cannot produce DVD-copying machines. “We look forward to returning to the trial court to obtain an injunction requiring Kaleidescape to comply with its contractual obligations under the CSS license agreement and specifications,” the group said in a statement. The cases were being closely followed by the content and electronics industries. If decided differently, they could have opened the door for a host of electronics companies to produce DVD copying machines — which would be a blow to Hollywood’s control of the encrypted DVD. Still, both cases could make their way up the appellate ladder, and the final outcome might not be known for years. The lawsuits represented Hollywood’s worries that RealNetworks’ RealDVD, Kaleidescape and other fledgling DVD-copying services might ruin the market for DVDs. The studios were fighting to keep from going the way of the music industry, which years ago lost much control of the unencrypted CD to peer-to-peer file-sharing services. Consumers may place the content of their CDs into their iPods, but both new decisions remain unsettled whether the same is true for the DVD — although producing DVD-ripping services was found to be illegal in Tuesday’s federal court decision and in previous decisions. Wednesday’s state-appeals-court decision did not immediately block Kaleidescape from marketing its wares. Instead, it ordered a lower court to review the entire CSS contract to determine whether Kaleidescape’s DVD-copying machines are in breach of contract. A lower state court had ruled that, because some of the terms of the contract were forwarded to Kaleidescape after the deal was signed years ago, the company was not obliged to follow them — including specifications that the DVD be in the machine during playback. The state appeals court noted that Kaleidescape knew full well that other terms of the contract were forthcoming. And no other electronics concern had ever made such an argument before, until RealNetworks followed Kaleidescape’s tactics and made similar arguments in a federal court. “We conclude that the mutual intent of the parties at the time the license agreement was signed was that the DVDCCA would grant Kaleidescape permission to use CSS in exchange for the payment of an administrative fee and Kaleidescape’s promise to build its system according to specifications that DVDCCA would later provide,” the appeals court ruled. “This promise is express and complete on the face of the license agreement.” In the RealNetworks case, U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on Tuesday said RealNetworks could not market RealDVD because it was in violation of the CSS license, the same one that Kaleidescape acquired. Patel, however, took an additional step, ruling that the RealNetworks’ software violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. That federal law prohibits the trafficking of devices that circumvent encryption technology designed to prevent duplication — in this instance the DVD. The Kaleidescape case dealt almost exclusively with California contract law. A ruling in favor of Kaleidescape likely would have presented a showdown between prevailing interests — California contract law and the DMCA.

cal_tony posted 2009 Aug 12 19:24

Without a complete reversal of the laws passed in the past 10 years by the US supreme court or Legislators re: copyright infringement , it is my simplistic opinion that nothing is going to even slightly pierce the Status Quo. With the trend moving to more restriction, even a little give in the other direction is just not going to happen. Much like the tobacco lobby that for decades never lost a single case, This group will also fight every challenge to their right to control the industry. When your on a roll, why stop? Tony

deadrats posted 2009 Aug 12 20:17

you beat me to it, i was just about to post about both rulings. as a side note, i wonder who really cares about both of these rulings, dvd is yesterday's news, the future is blu-ray and more importantly there is plenty of software out there that allows you to copy dvd's and remove copy protections, so what effect are these rulings really going to have? on another note, i see this country going down the same path that england went down and i for one am not pleased at all.

mh2360 posted 2009 Aug 12 20:22

deadrats : on another note, i see this country going down the same path that england went down and i for one am not pleased at all. And what "path" would that be?

M Bruner posted 2009 Aug 12 21:34

Well, England was once "Mistress of the Seas" and had an empire that stretched around the world.

mh2360 posted 2009 Aug 12 22:10

M Bruner : Well, England was once "Mistress of the Seas" and had an empire that stretched around the world. So did the Romans, whats that got to do with DVD copying?

redwudz posted 2009 Aug 12 22:14

Please refrain from turning this to a political discussion or it will be locked. Moderator redwudz

Supreme2k posted 2009 Aug 12 22:27

I do have to say that this is not an entirely unfair ruling. There are already many ways to duplicate a DVD, so having a machine that specifically does it is a bit of overkill and leads to accessibility to the masses. As it is, DVD copy is rather iffy. I believe in Fair Use, but I'm also a realist. How many people come here every Tuesday to find out how to copy the latest release? Too many, I'll tell ya. To add to what redwudz said, there's no reason to make this political, since there are far more important matters in the world (country, town, family) than whether or not you can buy a machine to duplicate your DVDs.

handyguy posted 2009 Aug 13 10:56

So, someone posts a complete article, which is probably violating intellectual copyright in the process, about people copying illegally?

mh2360 posted 2009 Aug 13 11:55

handyguy : So, someone posts a complete article, which is probably violating intellectual copyright in the process, about people copying illegally? No harm done as long as you provide a link to the original article, which drjtech did.

jagabo posted 2009 Aug 13 12:50

mh2360 : handyguy : So, someone posts a complete article, which is probably violating intellectual copyright in the process, about people copying illegally? No harm done as long as you provide a link to the original article, which drjtech did. I bet Wired would disagree. If you can post a whole article why can't you post a whole DVD? I'll give you a link to where you can buy it...

TBoneit posted 2009 Aug 13 12:59

Supreme2k : I do have to say that this is not an entirely unfair ruling. There are already many ways to duplicate a DVD, so having a machine that specifically does it is a bit of overkill and leads to accessibility to the masses. As it is, DVD copy is rather iffy. I believe in Fair Use, but I'm also a realist. How many people come here every Tuesday to find out how to copy the latest release? Too many, I'll tell ya. To add to what redwudz said, there's no reason to make this political, since there are far more important matters in the world (country, town, family) than whether or not you can buy a machine to duplicate your DVDs. What pizzles me about their copying new releases is the average new release is not worth buying or copying IMHO. I have no idea what the studios are thinking. :pensativo: The last two releases, screen or DVD, that I had any interest in were the last Indiana Jones & the last Harry Potter. I might actually Netflix "The Proposal" and I saw somewhere that "Rendezvous with Rama" is coming out and since I liked the book..............

jagabo posted 2009 Aug 13 13:10

TBoneit : I saw somewhere that "Rendezvous with Rama" is coming out and since I liked the book.............. I got Arthur Clarke to autograph my first edition copy!

deadrats posted 2009 Aug 13 21:18

mh2360 : deadrats : on another note, i see this country going down the same path that england went down and i for one am not pleased at all. And what "path" would that be? the "path" would be the most restrictive copyright laws in the world, which have resulted in laws that allow copyright holders to direct police investigations into suspected infringements (there was a recent case where someone was arrested and the evidenced siezed from his house, namely his computers, were turned over to the english version of the mpaa, who, as the police explained it, were now in charge of the siezed evidence), the so-called tv tax that requires people to pay a per tv tax for every set in their homes regardless of whether or not they are used to watch television and in fact has led to the formation of a "tv patrol" that drives around looking for people that have tv's but have not declared their ownership and thus paid the "tax". if you do a simple google search on some of the recent rulings as they relate to copyright in england you will be shocked at what that country has become, it's mind boggling that people haven't revolted en masse over there.

jagabo posted 2009 Aug 13 22:06

Soon we'll have "death panels" for P2P'ers.

mh2360 posted 2009 Aug 13 22:45

deadrats : there was a recent case where someone was arrested and the evidenced siezed from his house, namely his computers, were turned over to the english version of the mpaa, who, as the police explained it, were now in charge of the siezed evidence) What you failed to mention was that the court ruled that the action was improper, and the equipment should have been returned as soon as the police decided not to pursue the case. The "TV tax", or TV License fee as it is called, is how the BBC is funded. Every TV carrier in the UK, private or public, is required to carry the BBC, so since every TV in the UK is capable of receiving the BBC, every TV owner is required to help fund it. Most European countries have a TV license fee, so it's not something exclusive to the UK, though the UK does take a tougher stance on non payers. As for DVD copying, the UK government is planning a major overhaul of the UK's copyright laws, and is seriously considering allowing the private copying of DVDs and CDs for the purposes of format shifting as long as the original is retained and not sold on afterwards. Of course the media companies are doing their very best to stop that from ever happening. The private copying of DVDs in the UK, while technically illegal, is not something you are ever likely to get into trouble for, unless you do something stupid, like these guys: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8172694.stm As it stands in the UK now, the unauthorised distribution of copyright material for profit is a criminal offense. The non profit distribution of copyright material is a civil offense (for example uploading to the internet), purchasing or downloading unauthorised copyright material is not an offense of any kind (AFAIK). I'll take our laws over the DMCA any time. :wink:

jagabo posted 2009 Aug 14 06:10

mh2360 : I'll take our laws over the DMCA any time. :wink: That's what we get when we let corporations write the laws.

ZQX posted 2009 Aug 14 08:10

Who really gives a shit about "laws"? "Laws" are for paedophile freemasons.

jagabo posted 2009 Aug 14 08:18

ZQX : Who really gives a shit about "laws"? "Laws" are for paedophile freemasons. I suspect Kaleidescape and RealNetworks care. Jon Lech Johansen, Jammie Thomas and Joel Tenenbaum too.

Login/Register to our forum to be able to post here.