AVS Forum banner

Do you own a HTPC and rip Bluray? The government likely thinks you are a criminal...

10K views 122 replies 47 participants last post by  captain_video 
#1 ·
I find this particularly disturbing and utterly idiotic...


(On the front page of our AVS Forum, btw)

http://www.cepro.com/article/kaleide...sh_innovation/

Quote:
Kaleidescape Ruling on DVD Copying Could Quash Innovation

The DVD CCA wields too much power, and will drive consumers to purchase unlicensed movie service and cheap DVD-ripping software overseas.


By Julie Jacobson, January 27, 2012

The DVD Content Copy Association has won its lawsuit against Kaleidescape, maker of high-end movie servers.


A Santa Clara, Calif., court handed down a temporary judgment on Jan. 9 that Kaleidescape breached its contract with the DVD CCA, which licenses the Content Scramble System (CSS) decryption scheme for DVD players.


Kaleidescape lets users copy their DVDs onto a media server, and play back the movies disc-free. The court ruled that the CSS licensing agreement expressly prohibits this functionality - a disc must be present in the player. Period. It doesn't matter if the consumer owns the disc. It doesn't matter if the server is locked down with no way to share movies across a network.


I can't argue with Judge William J. Monahan's recent ruling in the breach-of-contract case, but I can argue these two things: 1) This is a very sad day for innovation in the digital entertainment realm and 2) there's something fishy with the DVD CCA's power.


I should clarify: It is a sad day for innovation when it comes to American-made consumer electronics manufacturers that try to abide by the intent of the law.


Kaleidescape makes expensive servers that transfer DVDs bit-for-bit with CSS encryption intact. The copied content cannot leave the Kaleidescape ecosystem.


It is true, as Judge Monahan noted, that Kaleidescape could have done more to protect content using a DVD carousel or destroy-after-copying scheme. But, really? Such burdens would surely force consumers to instead turn to illegal (by our standards) DVD-ripping products from offshore providers like Slysoft, which distributes AnyDVD ripping software.


It also encourages otherwise legitimate DVD server manufacturers to simply bypass the DVD CCA rather than be burdened by its licensing agreement. The CSS software is readily available, and many server manufacturers use it without licensing it from the DVD CCA. Other providers simply exclude DVD-copying software in their own products but encourage customers to download it from Slysoft and others.


Is this want Hollywood wants?


How many years has it been since movie makers have known about the potential of DVD-ripping abuse? At least a decade. And still, they have done nothing about it, when so much could be done to encourage the enjoyment of their products.


You'd think in 10 years, the DVD CCA and movie makers could come up with a way to thwart piracy and encourage compensation for their work.


I have argued in the past -- as have many others -- that the DVD CCA is an innovation-stifling cartel.


Judge Monahan debunked many of Kaleidescape's claims about the secrecy of the DVD CCA but other potentially antitrust-violating claims should be addressed.


The organization wields too much power and favors its handful of board members, allowing would-be competitors to quash innovations from innovators.


The DVD CCA must have some checks and balances in place to ensure that its cronies allow -- indeed, encourage -- new developments in digital media.


The End for Movie Servers?


It will be a tough road ahead for many of today's movie-server vendors, some of which have licenses from the DVD CCA and some that don't.


The licensees have plenty to fear from the DVD CCA. The recent ruling, though tentative, probably kills all hope that the Kaleidescape model will survive legal challenges.


But that doesn't mean the end for media servers. First, the DVD CCA does not regulate digital rights management (DRM) for Blu-ray discs, just DVDs. Second, we're sure to see more and more movie servers that bypass the DVD CCA altogether.


They may be subject to copyright-protection claims under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) -- as RealNetworks knows all too well -- but so far movie studios seem to have left the litigation to the DVD CCA, except in the case of Real, which had the potential to be a mass-market product. Will the Motion and Pictures Association (MPAA) and others keep their hands off the little guys such as Kaleidescape? Let's cross our fingers.
 
#77 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammy2 /forum/post/21583398


It is all about the mouse... Micky Mouse to be exact. That little rodent should be in the public domain by now.. 80 years is long enough for Disney to milk that little bugger but they'll lobby congress for another extention of the "limitted time" that patents are supposed to last according to the Constitution.

Mickey Mouse is protected by copyright, not patents. And trademark, too, which won't go away even if the Mouse goes into public domain. The three are all IP, but they have very different implications. Trademark, for instance, doesn't go away, ever, so long as you use and defend it.
 
#78 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericbsmith /forum/post/21584948


Mickey Mouse is protected by copyright, not patents. And trademark, too, which won't go away even if the Mouse goes into public domain. The three are all IP, but they have very different implications. Trademark, for instance, doesn't go away, ever, so long as you use and defend it.

Well, here's where copyrights, patents and trademarks originate in the U.S. Constitution:

Quote:
Article I - The Legislative Branch


...


Section 8 - Powers of Congress


The Congress shall have Power...


To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;


...

So it doesn't matter what you call it, the framers of this country meant for these things to be limited but Congress keeps extending the limits at the whim of the lobbiests writing the laws at the bequest of the Studios.
 
#79 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammy2 /forum/post/21586768


Well, here's where copyrights, patents and trademarks originate in the U.S. Constitution:




So it doesn't matter what you call it, the framers of this country meant for these things to be limited but Congress keeps extending the limits at the whim of the lobbiests writing the laws at the bequest of the Studios.

Those arguments were made to the Supreme Court in Eldred v, Ashcroft and the Court found that the Copyright Term Extension Act which extended it from life of the author plus 50 years to life of the author plus 70 years did not violate the Constitution's limited times prescription. (It extended corporate works from 75 to 95 years).


Again, just like the DMCA, this is a policy and political issue. If consumers don't like it they should elect different representatives who act in their interests rather than in the interests of big campaign spenders. If anything, the current election cycle suggests the big money interests are gaining more control, not less, and no one seems to care.


But as a practical matter, the discussions on this forum are about movies that have been released in the past few months or, at most, last few years. It's pretty irrelevant whether it's life plus 50 or life plus 70 (or 75 vs 95). Except for a few old classics, eveything discussed here would be under copyright even if CETA had never been enacted. This really isn't very relevant.
 
#80 ·
I'm thinking a limited time is a couple years or so.. maybe 7 to 10 at the most.. not what could amount to 150 years or so... That's a couple generations out of the public domain. This is part of why so many crappy movies are released because the studios just think they'll make it up on the media sales and don't have to cover the cost of the movie in the theater.


The point being, and I think you agree, is that Congress works for the 1% or less and not the rest of us.


That said, the studios are going to have to find a better way to get paid for "their" content. I really don't care if some multi-millionaires that have been raking in millions on a lot of crappy movies take it in the shorts.
 
#81 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammy2 /forum/post/21587148


I'm thinking a limited time is a couple years or so.. maybe 7 to 10 at the most.. not what could amount to 150 years or so... That's a couple generations out of the public domain. This is part of why so many crappy movies are released because the studios just think they'll make it up on the media sales and don't have to cover the cost of the movie in the theater.


The point being, and I think you agree, is that Congress works for the 1% or less and not the rest of us.


That said, the studios are going to have to find a better way to get paid for "their" content. I really don't care if some multi-millionaires that have been raking in millions on a lot of crappy movies take it in the shorts.

Well, it's never been anything close to that short, and a couple of years wouldn't be remotely fair to creaters of artistic works. You know, this applies to books, textbooks, works of art, and whole lot of things. It was 28 years way back in the 1780s. And with electronic storage, retrieval, and distribution, written and visual works have a lot longer "useful life" than they used to have.


Should Bob Dylan no longer receive any royalties for all the covers of the songs he wrote in the 60s that people continue to make today? Should a movie theater or HBO or ABC be free to making money by showing Lawrence of Arabia, or the Bridge on the River Kwai, or The Godfather, or Star Wars or even, with your timing, the Lord of the Rings or Saving Private Ryan or Gladiator, without paying a dime to the people who made it?


I think your timing is really not fair nor sufficient to compensate the creators of these works. At the same time, the propriety of 95 years is also doubtful.


That Congress isn't responsive to consumers is our own fault. We're the idiots who routinely return 90% of Congress to Washington every two years. Why would you expect them to be responsive to people who have the power to hold them responsible but simply never bother to do so?
 
#82 ·
Okay... I was playing the devil's advocate (hope that's not a trademark infringement!) but you see my point, I think; two generations is too much and does not further the reason (to promote progress) for having exclusive rights for a limited time but rather just pads people's pockets.
 
#84 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 /forum/post/21587056


Again, just like the DMCA, this is a policy and political issue. If consumers don't like it they should elect different representatives who act in their interests rather than in the interests of big campaign spenders. If anything, the current election cycle suggests the big money interests are gaining more control, not less, and no one seems to care.

This is an idealistic view, but impractical when both candidates are on the take. The only recourse is revolution by means of protest. And what is revolution other than protesting unjust laws?
 
#85 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanPackMan /forum/post/21575551


Exactly how I feel. If I could download high quality movies & store locally, I'd gladly pay a range of up to $8 for most decent movies, but there are ZERO legal options for doing that. Such a service would be a pretty good return to the seller since the cost of disk manufacturing, transport & retailer markup is eliminated.

+1


Even at iTunes prices for 720p movies would be great without DRM. I just want a digital copy that works on my iPad, iPhone and HTPC via something like Media Browser.
 
#86 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKANET /forum/post/21580270


I think whether people who like it or not, we're headed towards on-demand streaming and temporary downloads of all licensed media... music, TV, movies.


Originally, people started collecting media because there wasn't a way to conveniently watch/playback media instantly without having an actual copy of of the media. I don't see how this will be popular in the future; even with cheap local storage for media.


Once we have streaming services that can stream/download full bluray quality movies and full CD quality audio (lossless audio and high-bitrate 1080p video) and the average person has the Internet speed stream/download this, I just don't see this being relevant anymore. I'm guessing in less than 10 years people hoarding media at their home will be gone; except for some hard-core "old-fashioned" extremists.

Streaming services are going to be held back by data providers. All providers want to move towards some form of cap on the volume of data transferred. The consumer will have to have some local content storage or private cloud because of these caps.
 
#87 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Puwaha /forum/post/21589799


This is an idealistic view, but impractical when both candidates are on the take. The only recourse is revolution by means of protest. And what is revolution other than protesting unjust laws?

The only reason those are the "both candidates" is because nobody bothered to vote for decent people (or vote at all) in the primaries.


We get the government we deserve.


And breaking the law ≠ protesting the law.
 
#88 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by shortcut3d /forum/post/21590020


+1


Even at iTunes prices for 720p movies would be great without DRM. I just want a digital copy that works on my iPad, iPhone and HTPC via something like Media Browser.

+1


Exactly my needs. So I end up ripping everything to .m4v just because I can't use the iTunes file on my HTPC. They'd all be making a fortune off of me if they offered DRM free files.
 
#89 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 /forum/post/21591236


The only reason those are the "both candidates" is because nobody bothered to vote for decent people (or vote at all) in the primaries.

We get the government we deserve.

We get the government we deserve? Seriously? You're WAY too trusting of the system as it stands today if you truly believe that.


Your viewpoint is exactly what the MPAA/RIAA and Congress want to see in good American Citizens: people who will always obey the law no matter what it means. If it's the law, it must be the correct thing to do. Guess what kind of change happens when people always follow the rules? No change, you're personally helping to maintain the status quo indefinitely.


The decent people you're referring to could never win an election today. It takes too much money to campaign and become visible in the public eye. You cannot change a corrupt system from within, it needs torn down and rebuilt at some point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 /forum/post/21591236


And breaking the law ≠ protesting the law.

So I'm guessing you're a Rosa Parks and/or Mohandas Ghandi hater right?? How dare those hooligans go out and break the law!! Didn't they know it was...THE LAW?? I would expect words like that to come out of a naive child's mouth, not here on AVS.
 
#90 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by HDvids4all /forum/post/21591960


We get the government we deserve? Seriously? You're WAY too trusting of the system as it stands today if you truly believe that.


Your viewpoint is exactly what the MPAA/RIAA and Congress want to see in good American Citizens: people who will always obey the law no matter what it means. If it's the law, it must be the correct thing to do. Guess what kind of change happens when people always follow the rules? No change, you're personally helping to maintain the status quo indefinitely.


The decent people you're referring to could never win an election today. It takes too much money to campaign and become visible in the public eye. You cannot change a corrupt system from within, it needs torn down and rebuilt at some point.




So I'm guessing you're a Rosa Parks and/or Mohandas Ghandi hater right?? How dare those hooligans go out and break the law!! Didn't they know it was...THE LAW?? I would expect words like that to come out of a naive child's mouth, not here on AVS.

HDvids4all,


Thanks for the response (and well said ) and yes you have exactly said what I have been thinking. Actually I am originally from India and know what exactly you are talking about Ghandi. Actually in one of the many instance where he actually disobeyed the British law(illegal however it was law). He was put in jail, The British Judge who was handling the case wanted him to be released because of the unjust law. He gave Ghandi a way out asking him to pay a modest bail, Ghandi refused and the Judge released him any way without bail. The British judge possibly broke British law at that time(good for him though). Happened in the late 1940's


Part/all of the laws sometimes need to be disobeyed otherwise as you said the system cannot be changed.


Thanks.

Sam.
 
#92 ·
I haven't read all the posts, but you can help make it legal to rip dvds you own to hard drive:


Quoted from Public Knowledge | December 01, 2011.

Quote:
Why is This Exception Necessary?


Most people are fairly comfortable with the idea of copying copyrighted works they own from one medium to another. This is sometimes called space shifting or format shifting. For example, this is what you do when you rip a CD in order to create .mp3 files to transfer to your iPod.


Another example of this is when you transfer a movie from a DVD onto a laptop or a tablet device, like an iPad. However, there is one important difference between a movie on DVD and a song on a CD: unlike the CD, DVDs are encrypted. That means that while copying a song from a CD is a one step process (copy the file), copying a movie from a DVD is a two-step process (decrypt the file, copy the file).


Users are authorized to decrypt the movie in order to watch it, but are not authorized to decrypt the movie in order to copy it. As a result, that extra DVD step (decrypting) is illegal under the DMCA. That makes it impossible to copy DVDs the same way you copy CDs.

Why is PK Asking For This Now?


Fortunately, when it passed the DMCA Congress recognized that the provisions that made it illegal to decrypt a DVD without authorization could inadvertently make legal activities illegal. For example, if it is legal make copies of parts of movies for the purpose of commentary or criticism under fair use, but illegal to access the movie in order to make the copies, there is a conflict that needs to be resolved.


Part of the DMCA instructs the Copyright Office to conduct a review every 3 years to determine if legitimate uses are being adversely affected by the provision that makes it illegal to circumvent access controls like encryption. If the Copyright Office identifies a problem, it can grant a 3-year exemption (which can be renewed in the next proceeding) from the DMCA for that activity.

More Info: Help Make it Legal to Rip Your DVDs | January 26, 2012

Act Now : Tell the Copyright Office to Make it Legal to Rip DVDs
 
#93 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 /forum/post/21587056


Again, just like the DMCA, this is a policy and political issue. If consumers don't like it they should elect different representatives who act in their interests rather than in the interests of big campaign spenders.

what good will that do?

whomever gets elected, it doesn't matter who, or what party, our Benevolent Media Overlords will be right there waiting with their bags of cash for the new guy...

end result = we the people are screwed, and we stay screwed...

(or we stop caring about our Benevolent Media Overlords laws, and just do what we want anyway)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 /forum/post/21587056


If anything, the current election cycle suggests the big money interests are gaining more control, not less, and no one seems to care.

how so?

I don't necessarily disagree...

but what makes you think it is getting disproportionally worse?
 
#94 ·
bluray player (kalaiscape) should be built with a shelf or door to house the disc. the disc is now in the player. don,t need a carusel.
 
#95 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Somewhatlost /forum/post/21593277



how so?

I don't necessarily disagree...

but what makes you think it is getting disproportionally worse?

It absolutely is worse and you can thank the Supreme Court's brutal Citizens United v. FCC ruling for that. Before 2010 there were restrictions on corporations. unions, etc... but now those have been removed. Corporations can not only spend as much as they want but they have another tool at their disposal now, the threat of spending. Super PAC's can not only influence the elections through spending, but can threaten to spend millions against an elected official who does not vote the way that a corporation wants them too.


On topic, that's why electing new officials won't work, because they'll be subject to the same forces that the current officials are subjected too. And unlike some issues, there is no counterbalance to the corporate Super PACs. At least sometimes two corporations (or candidate's) Super PAC's will square off on an issue and flood both sides with money. Here, it's the media companies vs.... us. We loose every time. And that's why Citizens United was such a blow to republican (small "r") principles. The citizens of the Republic have very little chance by themselves against a Super PAC.
 
#96 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammy2 /forum/post/21583398


It is all about the mouse... Micky Mouse to be exact. That little rodent should be in the public domain by now.. 80 years is long enough for Disney to milk that little bugger but they'll lobby congress for another extention of the "limitted time" that patents are supposed to last according to the Constitution.

They could do like Coke and introduce "New Mickey Mouse" next year, and after he fails, bring back the original Mickey Mouse, but relabeled as "Classic Mickey Mouse", hence resetting the clock for another 75 years.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top