If the company that makes Xtream Media Server (XMS) was bound by the same contract into which K entered, then my reading of the appellate decision is that none of the 6 points referenced by audioguy's friend would even remotely make the XMS legal.

Since the company that makes the XMS probably never entered into any contract, then I would second what my friend dizz just posted.

2 companies (to the best of my knowledge) have a license to use the CSS system in their product. K and AMX Max.
Another licensee is Real (aka RealNetworks).

As long as the suppliers of media management systems (software/hardware) are not enabling end users to make copies of copyrighted material, but just giving them a means of managing their digital libraries, I can't see how they are violating any laws. I know this is the approach that Envive is taking, and they are scrupulously avoiding any "wink-wink-nod-nod" with respect to how individuals might come by their libraries.

breaking the copy protection (there is no legal way to do so) is in violation of the DMCA.

there is nothing to stop you from signing up for netflix and ripping every flick you get is the theory.

i did not mention Real due to the fact that their product (as it was only software) is very different. (and i did have a copy! i just did not license it in time)

breaking the copy protection (there is no legal way to do so) is in violation of the DMCA.


That is correct. But there are innumerable ways to obtain or to amass content legally. What are the consumer's rights with respect to storing and backing up legally purchased content?

And what a consumer does with her digital media should not make the manufacture of digital media management systems a co-conspirator if their product is used for a purpose other than for which it was intended.

Again I will ask this again...

What makes the Axonix Media Max Server any different than K?

One person I know raves about his DIY solution.
AnyDVD-HD software & BR drive on PC-1
Home Brew home server on PC - 2
Pop Corn Hour box

$1500 - $2000 max.

Again I will ask this again...

What makes the Axonix Media Max Server any different than K?

One person I know raves about his DIY solution.
AnyDVD-HD software & BR drive on PC-1
Home Brew home server on PC - 2
Pop Corn Hour box

$1500 - $2000 max.
I suggest doing a search. This has been discussed on this forum ad nauseum in the past and there are some posts on the subject that go into some detail. Frankly it's something best experienced. It's like asking what the difference is between an iphone and and windows mobile device. Have them in your hands and touch and use them both. Reading an article is unlikely to communicate the difference. The differences are also most extreme when used with a control system, which again is something that is easier to understand when experienced.

I have no clue about the platform upon which it is based. Why would that make a difference about the legality of the product?

It makes a difference because the only way to crack all blurays right now is through slysoft's anydvdhd. So if xstream is claiming that they have softwarethat does it, their statement is misleading. Unless someone has open- sourced breaking BD+, Which I don't think anyone has.

The legality of their system is no different from the legality of any other pc computer out there.

The problem I have with the verbage on their site it that it is vague and in my opinion, misleading. But that is beacuse I think any company claiming to have original Software that is intact something else installed by them ( anydvdhd) is misleading their customer.

K did it differently for DVD and does not have the same situation for bluray.

barring those who are hollywood producers, there is almost no way to buy a DVD or BD and legally get a digital copy. yes of course there are things like Netflix online, pandora and others, but none of these net you a digital copy that is yours.

Axonix is a box that performs many of the same basic functions of a k. lets not debate HOW it does those things or product/installer/user experience. Axonix does not have a License from the DVD CCA to playback the DVD, so you must load illegal software onto it i order to rip the movie. so the product is a legal product that every single user (except for peters miami hollywood types) is using it in an illegal manner. and the integrators who install it are likely performing an illegal act putting that software on it.

if you choose to make a home brew DIY server and feel that it works for you for serving up movies, all power to you. So like the axonix above, it performs many of the same functions. but lets not get into a debate on the experience for your wife to select a movie, your kids to choose their favourites and the degree in IT support needed to keep it running.


In the end, this will devolve to somebody saying that "it is my disc, i can do what it what i want" and as always, yes the disc is yours, however the content on it has copyright laws attached to it, and you cannot do whatever you want with that content since you need to break the DMCA in order to do so. fair use does not trump the DMCA since there has yet to be a case to challenge it.

So no matter what you think... you do have a right to fair use. however the DMCA prevents you from exercising it. and the more copies of slysoft that are sold, the more the studios et all will dig in their heels.

Well put dizzman. I agree with everything except the part about slysoft causing the studios to dig in their heels. They will always object to us making a copy of existing media we own because it cuts in to a revenue stream thy could theoretically provide. As in, they want to charge us for digital versions of our disk based media. They have realized, especially with DVD vs bluray, that they may be running out of ways to resell the classic films again and again. So the way we watch is the next revenue stream. They do not want us copying DVDs most of all be ause they want to sell us a new, originally digital version of those movies.

my only point is that if (and this is a big if) there was not a HUGE market for slysoft and the like, hollywood would possibly be more conducive to opening up MMC and other options. SInce there is a such a huge market, the studios see piracy around every single corner. that makes them even more nervous about licensing mmc.

in my rather narrow view, i think that this is one of the reasons that MMC is going to be so convoluted and twisted that it may be DOA.

so dizz based on that comment every media server is turd in a spacesuit.

every media server that advertises ripping bluray... yes.

Any media server that advertises all the DVD serving... yes.

i am not against them and may buy one over time since i cannot afford a k.

what i am saying is that if you advertise ripping/serving up DVD/BD content, then you are either explicitly or implicitly doing/something illegal. this is just the nature of the product landscape.

and if you insist on polishing that turd to a high gloss... then there are a few of us here that will give no quarter!

fair use does not trump the DMCA since there has yet to be a case to challenge it

Let's put this another way. DMCA does not trump fair use since there has yet to be a case to challenge it.

Let's put this another way. DMCA does not trump fair use since there has yet to be a case to challenge it.

Unless Washington gets in on the act and sides with the movie industry (not a complete impossibility) I can not imagine that fair use will not win out EVENTUALLY!! Which is exactly why I will buy one of these systems.

Let's put this another way. DMCA does not trump fair use since there has yet to be a case to challenge it.

at this point though, fair use is a concept, DMCA is a law.

Unless Washington gets in on the act and sides with the movie industry (not a complete impossibility) I can not imagine that fair use will not win out EVENTUALLY!!
And the supreme court would never ever decide that the government can force one private property owner to give up their property because another private property owner wants to develop it and the government decides it's for the "greater good" ;). But I do share you hope, and like the way you spelled eventually in caps. That should cover us no matter what :D.

at this point though, fair use is a concept, DMCA is a law.
The concept of Fair Use is expressed in this law.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html

RealNetworks will appeal to sell DVD copying software

http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6700808.html

The concept of Fair Use is expressed in this law.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html

understood. i was kind of speaking metaphorically since we have a case where everyone agrees that fair use applies... but it is trumped by DMCA. at least until such time as the parties associated recognize that K, Real and the like will not hurt sales. they will actually increase sales.

DM,

So "ripping" DVD is OK but not BR.

"DVD serving" is what in your opinion? So its OK to have a DVD on a server but do not distribute it over the network in the entire home?

ripping a DVD or a BD has to crack the copy protection. so that is a no on both counts.

never mind the fact that finding a DVD ripper for under 20$ is easier than finding free porn on the internet.

If you get picky, the playback of DVD and BD also require legal licensed codecs, but that is secondary.

Courts often decide cases based on "intent". If the intent in having a DVD or BR on a server is to distribute purchased content over a home network, I would have a hard time believing that anyone would face significant financial judgment (much less jail time). OTOH, a seller of a turnkey system with ripping software installed is at significant risk.

Real an K are contractual issues - very different from the above. Real and K are at risk, not the users of their products.

the funny thing here is that no matter how many times it is mentioned, people keep trying to turn this into a "fair use", or a "copyright", or a "studios" or any other litany of issues.

As you said, it is a contractual issue. nothing more.

understood. i was kind of speaking metaphorically since we have a case where everyone agrees that fair use applies... but it is trumped by DMCA. at least until such time as the parties associated recognize that K, Real and the like will not hurt sales. they will actually increase sales.

I have a feeling that even if they recognize that these servers increase sales they may still be against them because they lose some of the control they are hoping for.

Look at it like this - I could sell all the D1 master tapes from Hollywood uncommpressed at very high prices and increase their sales, but do you think Hollywood would be all excited about that? They are a paranoid lot who think that every person will steal at every chance. Maybe that is why we have so many Law and Order and CSI types of shows. On top of that, they will then try to assert that every single theft = 1 lost sale almost as though a person who bought 100,00 shares Google stock at $10 per share and sold it at $500 looks at a listing of $502.5 and complains about losing a quarter million dollars.

Really, I don't think you can reason with them and they are largely irrational. Look at the music industry vs Napster when studies showed that Napster may actually have increased music sales.
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-243463.html

I have a feeling that even if they recognize that these servers increase sales they may still be against them because they lose some of the control they are hoping for.

Look at it like this - I could sell all the D1 master tapes from Hollywood uncommpressed at very high prices and increase their sales, but do you think Hollywood would be all excited about that?
Hmmm. What do you think you could sell them for? Imagine there is a service doing exactly as you state. How much would customers pay for each move? How about if it were the Blu-ray image?

As you can imagine the above answer would be is an important consideration in how excited they might be :).

The question is open to everyone btw. What would you pay to have movies that work and act just like a DVD copy does on K?

But this will do NOTHING to the shops that clone and sell counterfeits. This is where the industry should be looking, as this is where they are being truly ripped off. I don't begrudge any originator their fair price.

There actually is a technical solution. It is called digital rights management and done in the computer industry for document control all the time. It does require effort on all parties involved.

The problem as I see it is NOT the bootleg business but this...

Guys that share a common hobby [HT] that subscribe to say NetFlix. They conspire on their movie selections and just turn it into a copy fest.

I don't thing Hollywood gives a rip about you copying the DVD you bought from a legitimate retailer [B&M or Internet based].

As for me I have built my collection for $4 a movie from the local rental stores [regional and national chains] since I'm good for 20-30+ movies a visit.

BTW can I copy those just to back up my collection?

i am quite surprised that nobody brought this up...

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2354821,00.asp

Uhh.... F! This is bad right? Lawyers? Is it really bad??
:eek:

So... not being a lawyer... how do they get out of this one, or is it just a matter of time before they close their doors, rendering yet more insanely expensive hardware completely useless?

Not biased either way, I'm just curious.

So... not being a lawyer... how do they get out of this one, or is it just a matter of time before they close their doors, rendering yet more insanely expensive hardware completely useless?

I also am not a lawyer, but this was predictable. Only one way out as I see it: modify software such that the user has to install anydvd HD from Slysoft. Keep the spiffy user interface, high performance hardware and great tech support. End users will have to load the library of discs. Price will have to continue to come down to compete with other computer devices configured with Windows operating systems.

You can't install anydvdhd on a Kaliedescape. It is not a comprehensible solution.

You can't install anydvdhd on a Kaliedescape. It is not a comprehensible solution.

I understand that different operating systems are used. However K is a PC, the interface can surely be modified to work with windows with enough rewrite of code. If not - game over. IMO K will suffer the same injunction as Real if they continue to view and pursue this as a contractual dispute. I recognize that it is a contractual dispute, but I do not believe that it is K's best interest to continue to fight that battle. They need to use their expertise to fight a different battle.

No- K is not a PC. Its hardware is not built according to PC standards, and its operating system is derived from a very custom flavor of UNIX. To write the K program for windows would be the same as writing a completely new program. Like the MyMovies interface. Also, all the low-level calls Anydvd-hd makes would not be portable to K's hardware.

K is a closed system purposefully developed from the ground up with standards, hardware and programs that are not compatible with PC architecture.

An analogy might be a tank to a boat. They both "go" but the similarity ends there.

I see a possible way for K to survive by building a 400-disc carousel and requiring the disc to stay in the carousel even if all payback is done from the hard drive system after it is copied, and removing the disc instantly deletes the title from the system.

Hmmm. What do you think you could sell them for? Imagine there is a service doing exactly as you state. How much would customers pay for each move? How about if it were the Blu-ray image?

As you can imagine the above answer would be is an important consideration in how excited they might be :).

The question is open to everyone btw. What would you pay to have movies that work and act just like a DVD copy does on K?

To be really honest- if I had a system that provided me with movie sales on cartridges, digitally watermarked to my own playback system, and with the highest possible "Original" digital cinema 4K whatever quality- and I could get these movies day and date with release in the theater- AND I could have 21 of my closest friends over to my dream home theater to watch the movies at my house, I might easily pay $2,000 a movie.

With a pricing structure where those fees dropped dramatically for different tiers, like dvd releases, etc. I could see a system like that working. Most people would never dream of paying 2 grand for a movie- but if I could buy a copy of say, The Dark Knight and premier it at my house- that would be bitchin'!

Heck, I wouldn't care if the cartridge came 3 days early and only unlocked at midnight my time the day of the release- I could throw a killer movie party! and i would have a permanent, high quality copy of the movie.

Of course, I am in law school right now, but I can dream... :)

I see a possible way for K to survive by building a 400-disc carousel and requiring the disc to stay in the carousel even if all payback is done from the hard drive system after it is copied, and removing the disc instantly deletes the title from the system.

I would say it is time to do frontend/streamer. Coupling with their first class meta service, it would sale quite a lot.

Or, they could wait for bluray managed copy license which seems to take forever.

Or, they could wait for bluray managed copy license which seems to take forever.

Seriously! WTF! I think the industry is just trying to sell as many blurry devices this holiday before busting out Managed copy at CES and selling it next year.

Such a load of crap..

I see a possible way for K to survive by building a 400-disc carousel and requiring the disc to stay in the carousel even if all payback is done from the hard drive system after it is copied, and removing the disc instantly deletes the title from the system.

I thought that this would handle the legal problem, but it does not. Copying to hard drive, even with verification of the disc in the system is not allowed. If indeed, the interface cannot be ported to a windows environment - game over.

How do you know this? I thought the additional rem of requiring the disc in the drive during playback was the contractual term they were getting stuck on?

How do you know this? I thought the additional rem of requiring the disc in the drive during playback was the contractual term they were getting stuck on?

See posts 45 and 46 in this thread.

Copying to hard drive, even with verification of the disc in the system is not [currently] allowed.
This is probably correct with the inserted qualification and, as such, the parties remain free to enter into subsequent negotiations to accommodate DVDCCA concerns while still allowing K to sell something that is the functional equivalent of what K now sells, including perhaps the carousel example given above.

Moreover, the case has been remanded back to the trial court for a trial on the merits, i.e., for a determination whether K is in breach of the contract. There are, of course, numerous defenses to a breach of contract action.

Finally, equitable relief, including an injunction, will not be granted unless, at a minimum, the trial court rules K breached the contract. The entirety of the case to date has been focused only upon what terms did or did not make up the contract.

Moreover, the case has been remanded back to the trial court for a trial on the merits, i.e., for a determination whether K is in breach of the contract. There are, of course, numerous defenses to a breach of contract action.

Finally, equitable relief, including an injunction, will not be granted unless, at a minimum, the trial court rules K breached the contract. The entirety of the case to date has been focused only upon what terms did or did not make up the contract.

I agree, but at this point the case is now fundamentally the same as the case brought against RealNetworks. The key issue here is whether Real and K circumvented CSS -- a technology they had been licensed to use -- to make a duplicate hard drive copy.This was decided against Real and injunctive relief was given. Case law is now in favor of DVD CCA. I agree that if I were K, I would desperately be trying to work out a compromise out of court. Whatever, deal they make, however would have to be offered to other current and future license holders. DVD CCA may not see this to be a benefit to them.