Motion Picture Studios File Lawsuit Against Realnetworks

Yep, I came over just to post this. I'm not surprised.

Since RealNetworks is a CSS licensee, wouldn't this just be a license violation, not a DMCA violation?

How is this different from what Kaleidescape has been doing?

Alan,

Sounds like a rehash ot the 2005 US Supreme Court lawsuit MGM v. Grokster:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-480.ZS.html

The MPAA also has an additional arrow in its quiver that MGM didn't have in the
DMCA - Digital Millenium Copyright Act. The DMCA as your post correctly points
out; does make breaking the encryption on a DVD a crime.

MGM didn't have that provision when it prevailed over Grokster. It had only the
copyright laws without a provision that explicitly makes cracking the encryption
code illegal.

I guess we'll just have to see how the Courts resolve this.

Erik,

If RealNetworks is a CSS licensee - then it's BOTH a license violation AND a
DMCA violation. RealNetworks is liable in a civil tort on a license violation. They
are also liable criminally on violating the DMCA.

The DMCA applies to everyone - whether they are a CSS licensee or not. If you break
the encryption without permission - then you are in violation of the DMCA whether you
are a CSS licensee or not.

Kaleidescape got permission. Of course, the MPAA evidently didn't understand that
it had given permission, or they changed their mind or whatever... and that led to the
lawsuit which was ultimately resolved in Kaleidescape's favor.

RealNetworks is a CSS licensee, which is clearly stated in the article. Therefore, RealNetworks was given permission to decrypt DVDs. That is what a CSS license is for.

So, the question remains: How is this different from what Kaleidescape has been doing?

Erik,

NO - being a CSS licensee DOES NOT give you permission to sell and / or distribute

software that allows people to decrypt the CSS coding.

In fact, quite the OPPOSITE - which is why RealNetworks would be in VIOLATION
of their CSS license - which you correctly pointed out in your previous post.

You have a "Catch-22" here. Either you can claim that RealNetworks is in violation
of their CSS license as you did previously. Or, you can now claim [ falsely ] that the
CSS license gives them permission to decrypt CSS - but you can't have it both ways.

In any case, RealNetworks can NOT distribute software that allows the average
person to decrypt CSS. MPAA didn't give permission for that.

Erik, I imagine that it's probably both, as Morbius has said. But I'll bet the DMCA shakedown can achieve a faster result. License revocation is probably forthcoming but would take longer.

I disagree. As I understand it, RealNetworks was given permission to distribute software that decrypts CSS. Otherwise, if their software did not decrypt CSS, then users would not even be able to watch the disc at all.

The point of contention is that their software makes copies of the disc.

Decrypting and making copies are two different actions.

Erik,

Yes - and the CSS licensee does NOT give RealNetworks the license to save
the decrypted data to disk.

That's why it is a VIOLATION of their license as you correctly pointed out in
your response in Post #3.

As a CSS licensee, they can produce software that decrypts the data, and presents
it for display. That license doesn't give them the right to store an unencrypted version
on disk. Kaleidescape got permission to do that - and MPAA is now more careful
about what they agree to.

I think RealNetworks is probably going to be a clear loser here.

However, I'd don't like second-guessing Courts - they sometimes seem to have
a will of their own.

In the case of RealNetworks, the copy on the hard drive is still encrypted.

In the case of Kaleidescape, the copy on the hard drive is still encrypted. The court ruled that the license does not prohibit Kaleidescape from making such a copy, but the ruling is being appealed.

The products (K and RN) are also functionally different. RN's product DOES "break" copy protection allowing multiple copies to be made. K copies bit-for-bit, including the active protection scheme, to the server. Multiple copies are not possible with K's system.

The license issue is really a contracts issue, which as already pointed out is civil, versus the DMCA which allows for both civil and criminal penalties.

Jim

According the articles I have read, RealDVD copies bit-for-bit, including CSS, and adds an another DRM layer on top of that.

If you have multiple K systems, you can make multiple copies from one disc. Similarly, if you have multiple PCs with RealDVD software, you can make multiple copies from one disc.

RN copies bit for bit, drops it on the drive and adds additional layers of protection. So the CSS system is present. and Real has a CSS license in order to facilitate playback.

neither K nor this nor any system prevent you from physically copying the physical disc onto multiple physical systems. you CANNOT however copy the raw files and make use of them. (with K you cannot even access them in any way)

On the surface, it is similar to K in that respect. additionally, what the DVDCCA went after and then subsequently tried to modify was that the physical disc must be present for playback. this is not in the general aggreement but in a supplemental one that you only get after signing the agreement. so the judge ruled that it was not valid since it is not in the general agreement.

Where they differ, is that K has you SIGN a contract saying that you own the disc, and every time you add a disc you have to click through an agreement that says you do. so these multiple extra layers are percieved to add enough steps to get rid of the casual rent'n'ripper.

In addition, one starts at like 15K, the other is 30$.

this will be a sticky case. it looks from the surface like Real is doing it the right way.

in the end though, the MPAA will likely have to prove intent of the software. since the contract point is not valid (unless the DVDCCA trys again to retroactively change the contract, and K's CEO promised fire and brimstone if they try it) then the MPAA does not have really firm ground to stand on (that i can see and i am MOST CLEARLY NOT a lawyer)


The other interesting part of this is that K was sued by the DVDCCA and NOT by the MPAA. the MPAA stayed right out of it and the DVD CCA treated it as strictly a contract dispute. this meant that it stayed out of federal court.

i already downloaded the software and started looking at what i need to "replace" the DVD player with a PC. of course there are some important video playback things that seem to be missing for optimal quality. and i was crossing my fingers for a feature to "check out" a movie to a laptop or something that either makes the content unavailable in the main app, or just time bombs it in the checked out player.

It looks pretty simple right now, but when i showed it to my wife... it is fine for her. perhaps this release is meant to test the waters, then they can release a whole suite of add ons.

We shalll see.


***AGAIN- I am not a lawyer, anything in this post that is in the least bit legalish is purely my recollection of older stories i read

You have some bad information. Copied from Kaledescape's FAQ:

"Q: Did you get a license from the MPAA to make copies of DVDs on hard disks?

A:
A Kaleidescape customer has a fair-use right to make copies of DVDs and CDs that he or she owns onto the Kaleidescape System's hard disks. No license is required provided the copies will only be used for that customer's personal home video entertainment.

The Motion Picture Association of America ("MPAA") does not issue licenses of any kind. The MPAA is a domestic trade association of the American film industry that serves as "the voice and advocate of the American motion picture, home video and television industries."

The Kaleidescape System is manufactured and sold pursuant to licenses from a number of technology licensing bodies, including the DVD Copy Control Association, Inc., the DVD Format/Logo Licensing Corporation, Dolby, Macrovision, DVI Promoters, HDMI Licensing LLC, Digital Content Protection, LLC (HDCP), MPEG LA, LLC, Nissim Corporation, Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. (acting for three different patent pools), Toshiba Corporation (on behalf of the DVD Patent Licensing Group), and many others."

AND

"Q: Does loading a DVD into the Kaleidescape Server bypass DVD copy protection?

A:
No. Most commercial DVDs are protected by the Content Scramble System ("CSS"), a method used to encrypt the video and audio data. Manufacturers of legitimate DVD playback products must obtain a license from the DVD Copy Control Association (the "DVD CCA") to remove CSS encryption. Kaleidescape has obtained such a license, and Kaleidescape scrupulously adheres to its required procedures and restrictions. For example, when playing back DVD content, the System only allows the audio and video outputs permitted by the CSS License Agreement. The System's analog video outputs are further protected by certain Macrovision technology, which was obtained pursuant to a separate license from Macrovision Corporation. The CSS License Agreement does not prohibit the copying of CSS-protected DVD data into memory or onto a hard disk. However, in order to comply with the CSS License Agreement, any such copying must be done without exposing certain types of DVD data (keys or unscrambled audio/video data) on "user-accessible buses," such as the PCI bus in a personal computer. The Kaleidescape System complies with this restriction by virtue of being a closed system comprised of proprietary hardware and software that Kaleidescape designed from the ground up with content security as a major design objective."

The DVDCCA also has an FAQ specifically about the Kaleidescape case:

Note their answer regarding the court ruling:

"Q. What did the Court decide in the Kaleidescape case?

A. As to DVD CCA's claim against Kaleidescape, the court found
against DVD CCA based on its conclusion that the CSS General
Specifications were not a part of the CSS License. (The CSS
General Specifications is the CSS document that requires the
physical DVD disc to be present in the device during playback.)
The court also determined that DVD CCA did not satisfy certain legal
requirements for obtaining a remedy requiring Kaleidescape
to change its product design. As to Kaleidescape's claim against
DVD CCA, the court rejected this claim, finding that Kaleidescape
could not present any admissible evidence to support it. "

Of course, the DVDCCA has appealed. Also, the DVDCCA as stated in their FAQ, has a proposed an ammendment to change the CSS License Agreement to specify that a physical disc be present for playback. AFAIK, this ammendment HAS NOT PASSED. As a result, other CSS licensees have used the K ruling to introduce their own LEGAL DVD movie servers (Escient, etc) via the same loophole.

There have actually been proposals within the DVDCCA's members to offer a managed copy solution for DVDs. There was one as recent as their board meeting last week, but it got shot down. You can see a story on that here:

http://www.contentagenda.com/blog/15...ml?q=dvd%2Dcca

The same folks have a host of stories on the DVDCCA, CSS and associated managed copy rumors, which you can see here:

http://www.contentagenda.com/search/...Dcca&s=date&t=

There is and has been tons of misinformation about the DMCA, the DVDCCA and CSS for years. The issues go deeper than most folks realize and as the K ruling proved. Personally, I doubt that the studios want to shove the DMCA down the throats of consumers.

The industry is perfectly happy to just go after companies who make the tools and conspicuously sidestep end-users, even though the law would allow them to (the DMCA states that even the USE of access control circumvention technologies is illegal). Why? Because that's heat they can't defend in a public forum. The RIAA goes after music file trading and labels it stealing - something that many folks agree with. Going after consumers for making backup copies of legally purchased material, OTOH, is a whole different ball of wax. You'd have a citizen's revolt and the DMCA would either be repealed or significantly amended. Once the tools go mainstream though, the genie is out of the bottle and can't be put back in.

While I think Real has a good case, I can see why the studios decided to sue them. Having expensive hardware media server solutions available via the loophole is one thing, but a cheap software solution is something altogether different. That gets into regular consumer territory and once that happens, it becomes politically dangerous to even try and close the loophole via a CSS license amendment.

It's too bad though, because I feel that this ongoing issue is single handedly responsible for managed copy not yet being made available for BR discs, like we were promised.

Jeff

RealDVD supposedly lets you transfer copies from one PC to five other PCs (which also have RealDVD).

$30 plus a PC.

Jeff,

Thanks for the clarification. I echo your final statement.

Because of all the "larceny" by those that want something for free; those who are
willing to give the artists and content owners a fair price are precluded from benefits
that should really be available

i went looking for the feature, but did not see it. it would be great

Great minds eh Jeff?

Supposedly you would first have to buy extra installations of RealDVD for $20 per PC.

ah. well, if it is still alive in 30 days... i will have to do so. Need to also buy another PC to use as the media player.

I know some here are HTPC folks... but i dare not step into that forum. Would one need MCE in order to use this real thing and media player for music and say picasa for pics on a TV? or i assume i could just get one of those USB IR remotes and use it.