Quote:
Originally Posted by sipester 
It isn't, but that's what's crazy and dumb about the DVD CCA, they are suing the one place, K*, that is trying to be above board and compliant, yet they seem to be ignoring the everyone that is using Slysoft! Has there been any case yet where someone has been sued for using Slysoft? Until someone gets sued for using Slysoft, it doesn't seem to be much of a concern to use Vidabox or other similar products.

It isn't, but that's what's crazy and dumb about the DVD CCA, they are suing the one place, K*, that is trying to be above board and compliant, yet they seem to be ignoring the everyone that is using Slysoft! Has there been any case yet where someone has been sued for using Slysoft? Until someone gets sued for using Slysoft, it doesn't seem to be much of a concern to use Vidabox or other similar products.
The issue as I understand it is that suing an end-user for using Slysoft opens up the can of worms that is Fair Use and if individuals have the right to make a copy for their own personal keeping. If they were to sue and lose that battle it would be a disastrous precedent set. It is in their best interest to let individuals worry about that potential of being sued as a deterrence rather than encouraging individuals to make copies now that it has been proven legal through Fair-use.
Instead, sue Kaleidescape under the terms of breach of contract and if they are victorious it keeps up the image that copying DVDs on a movie server is illegal.













.





