Kaleidescape vs. DVD CCA: Judge Rules Against Movie Servers - Page 4

Not too likely to happen. The problem is that no one can lock down hardware that they sell to users. If you can't lock down the hardware, no protection mechanism is viable. As soon as any device comes out people start trying to crack it and exchanging information about how to do so.


BTW, here is an interesting article about SOPA. It certainly seems to make a lot of the 'we are going to be in a police state' hyperbole about it really seem massively overblown.

http://www.copyhype.com/2012/01/hey-...intro-to-sopa/

And another:

http://www.copyhype.com/2011/11/disp...e-sopacolypse/

The argument is the same. You just are failing to see the logic tree. You keep equating everything back to 'profits' and somethings entry into the public domain. You equate it to a 'loss'. When Disney remade Snow White there wasn't a loss to the original creator. There was however a new imaging of it using animation, color, and audio. That is considered a net Societal Gain. Walt and Co stood on someone else's shoulders and moved the state of the art FORWARD. EXACTLY as intended by copyright.

You seem to have some issue with public domain works. It is a social agreement between the public and the producer of protected works:

1. You are allowed to troll the Public Domain for thoughts, ideas, ways to action.

2. You are allowed to create works that will receive copyright and ensure your efforts are rewarded

3. In exchange for both the ability to pull from the public domain and receive consideration of protected status of your works (derivative or otherwise) you need to recycle said work back into the public domain after a certain time.

You keep bringing up that our 1.0 code release somehow has no value to other people. You HAVE to have the ability to see beyond the almighty $$. You sound like a type of person that thinks someone has to lose in order for you to win.

BTW, in jscript there are really no tools for absolute positioning and creating HTML/CSS/JScript code for visual design (ala Visual Studio). We are actually making a community tool that will do this. People will be able to benefit from our Widget's and also create and contribute their own. In fact the license will be any widgets you create using our tools are given back to the community license and royalty free.

Excellent point, Soon they will tell us to store the disk in a vaccum sealed container so that it won't be scratcheed!, Once I buy the movie, I should be able to do whatever I want except earn money by showing it or something.

Look, when you have a large company that depends on revenues from intellectual property, and a lot of people whose paycheck you have to sign every week, the profit issue is not a small one. But my point is, it's easy for us in the software industry to say, oh, well we'll give away our 25 year old version of the code, because it costs us littel to nothing to do so. It's so out of date that it'll never affect our current product.

It's not he same for people who write books, make movies, or make music. The song or movie is the same now as it was 25 years ago and making it free means it loses all value.

And yes, it will eventually move into the public domain, but it's a lot different issue for software vs. other IP, and a longer copyright period is reasonable for them. For us in the software world it makes little difference if it's 20 or 100.

This is completely separate from the who will benefit argument. Yes, people benefit from ideas in the public domain. But, as I've argued a number of times in this thread, what we are talking about here with the bulk of music and movies is not the poems of Emily Dickinson or the cure for cancer, but commercial entertainment products created often at quite substantial expense. It's not high art, and no one is going to miss out on enjoying them in the meantime, nor is anyone prevented from creating similar music, movies, or books about similar stituations and characters. It happens all the time.

Ultimately, the ever ongoing arguments about copyright length are not about the public good, but something fueled by a long ongoing propoganda compaign on the internet as to why the people who make intellectual property are evil and greedy, when hardly any of the people making the arguement really have anything to gain (other than maybe free movies, and not many of those since almost all the stolen content is still in copyright even under much shorter terms.)

I have a problem because you keep equating me with issues I never brought up.

BTW do you realize that Cisco router algorithms and the U.S. stealth technologies (the mathematics for redirecting radar waves on something other than the reciprocal) where all gleaned from mathematicians in the 1800's?

Returning this stuff to the public domain has nothing to do with what you have been ranting on and on about.


People are still writing books, making movies and music. This the 'sky is falling' and we need SOPA and PIPA is just absurd. Talent is Talent and talent gets paid off. J.K. Rowling is doing just fine regardless of any piracy.

I've accepted the risk of piracy as a software author. I have taken reasonable measures to protect our product. Failing that we have used the courts a number of times and I am satisfied with the outcomes. We didn't even need the DMCA.


I think the arguments about DMCA, PIPA, SOPA etc... are very much about the public good. Anytime someone can shut off the Component Video on my TV, well they just went too far.

But people/corporations are evil and greedy. They want to use one set of laws to their benefit and after they have made that money they lobby to get those same laws changed to the exclusion of all new comers. It's the very definition.

I like how all this went on with shady lending practices and the bankruptcy laws get changed shortly after.

At least I know who you won't be voting for and simply glad for others and my sake that your opinion is the very minority one.

Exactly, not to mention all the other hardware restraints the studios forced on us and the hardware manufacturers(region codes, HDCP, etc). When you force someone to do something otherwise you will sue them is called blackmail, when multiple companies(ie movie studios) band together to force hardware manufacturers to comply is called collusion. When you force a company to pay a licensing fee in order to remain in business is called racketeering.

All of these hardware restraints went into effect without any consumer and hardware manufacturers input, we are forced to accept it because we have no legal recourse. The public outrage over PIPA and SOPA was warranted because we are tired of these draconian laws that protect big companies and supersede the 4th amendment.

I wonder when the movie, music and video game industry finally listens to their customers...
If you actually buy Blu Rays you have to watch all those stupid copyright spots, which most players can't skip.
People who pirate those movies don't have to bother about that.

If you buy music online (itunes for instance) you can't listen to the music on all your devices without limitations.
People who pirate the music don't have to bother about that.

If you buy on of the new ea pc games you have to be online all the time and they scan your hard drive.
People who pirate the games don't have to bother about that.

So only the honest customers have to suffer and they get punished by the industry.
That's ridiculous!
If I pay for movies, music and games I want to use them the way I want.
I don't want to watch spots that tell me how bad stealing movies is - I bought the flick allready!
And I want to be able to put the movie on a server, if I want!

I want to be able to listen to my music in my whole house, in my car and on the go!

I want to be able to play my game without an internet connection and without beeing spied...

I agree. Please send me a link to where I can get a copy of "Fun With Dick and Jane" on Blu-Ray.

I am willing to bet that if I go through my entire collection, I will several hundred titles that fall into that same category.

There was a woman who was sued for downloading songs she proved she owned before she was downloading them. She simply downloaded them because it was easier than ripping the CDs herself. (This was long ago, mind you). She had the legal right to rip her CDs but not download them and was ordered to pay.

I found it an interesting case to read.

I've never understood Hollywood's thinking. The only thing copy protection and litigation such as this accomplish is that people like me who buy there blu-rays with the ethical intent of simply creating a media server can't (theoretically that is

Those that would pirate this stuff still will as history has shown that any type of software protection can be circumvented.

What's next? PC makers being sued for including blu-ray drives in their computers because it has the potential to enable piracy?

Why would you want to make it more difficult for people to enjoy your product?

If that's the case I'm thinking about, it wasn't really quite that simple. It was portrayed as such in various web commentaries, which almost always portray the circumstances such as to make IP owners look evil. The one I'm thinking about was much talked about and I think that it wasn't just songs she already owned, though maybe you are talking about something else. Either way, I don't think that they are even doing those types of lawsuits anymore, right?

The 4th amendment? You have to be kidding?

I have a feeling that most Kaleidescape users probably own the majority of movies stored on the servers.

On an individual level, I suspect that the Kaleidescape owner probably contributes more to big media's revenue than most other individual consumers. The average Kaleidescape owner likely spends more money on buying movies than the average Netflix user, VOD user, HTPC/homebrew media server user or teenager on a skateboard does.

That leads to another huge misconception the Music/Film/TV industry likes to propagate, that if some 15 year old teenager downloads a movie, that it equates to an absolute loss for the studio. They can't make the false assumption that said teenager would have paid to see the movie if no illegal means existed.

They falsely equate IP piracy with pure theft, which it just isn't.

And the end of the day, it's patently absurd that we are not allowed to treat our own personal property in any manner we see fit as long as it does not cause harm on others.

In some ways, it would be like saying those poor kids who peeked through the knot holes in the fence to watch major league baseball were all lost ticket revenue - every one of them would have bought season tickets if there were not openings in the fences for them to peek through.

Industry lawsuits such as the one against Kaleidescape only serve to further expose the antiquated business models of the major motion picture/television distributors. News flash: suing your customers won't help sales; neither will going after niche service providers like Kaleidescape. What's next – suing ISP's for facilitating copyright infringement? Gimme a break.

I actually started buying more movies once I got my home server set up.

Being able to get rid of all the trailers, warnings, etc... and adding them to an on-screen navigable library made it more enjoyable to access and watch movies.

Thinking that everyone who has the capability to rip the disc will do so for infringing purposes is such backwards thinking.

Why don't we scream as much when we buy a copy (license) of Microsoft Office which contains a KEY which is entered during the installation process which allows that machine to register and use the software. you cannot then go an use the register the same key to a different machine even though I bought the key, or sell it, or loan it to a friend. We have NO problem with that...
If studios did that, we would loose our collective minds!!! why the difference?

The difference, Austin, is that in fact we CAN transfer the copy of Microsoft Office or Windows to a new computer. In my role as the IT Admin at my work, I have done that many times. What they won't let you do is put the same copy on 20 computers.

Sometimes you have to call and speak with their technical support people in New Delhi, which is a pain in da butt, but it does work. What I cannot do though, is get my WM9 copy of T2 to work without an internet connection. Hollywood did not allow a work around for that one.

It is also worth noting that they cannot add something new to DVD at this point. Both DVD and CD are what they are and the only way to change them is to introduce a new format. That has failed miserably a couple times on the attempts to replace CD and only BluRay has succeeded for video. It is also interesting to note that managed copy was a REQUIREMENT for BluRay and yet years later we still don't have it but we do have 3D which wasn't even part of the spec when BluRay first came out. It is quite obvious that Hollywood does not want us to have managed copy in the same capacity that we want it. Rather than give us managed copy, they have given us digital copy and ultraviolet, both of which are vastly inferior to the original content on the disc.

Even retail versions of Windows you can transfer from one computer to the other. It's just the OEM licence that is considered integral to the PC. I think Microsoft is being pretty fair with their licencing.

They've also recognized that home users aren't going to buy software for multiple PCs, so they've got three-packs of Office Home and Student selling for $149.

That is the trouble with movie producers.
They want penetration without being hurt.
Best option is to not make any DVD or blu-ray. Only film prints. You want to watch it , go to a theater. Simple.

People who enjoy watching a movie and pay for a ticket are generally not the ones who watch the "camera print" anyways. These folks would be crying for revenue that was never there to begin with in this scenario.



Quite a few nowadays. The blurays I have do not allow to skip.


Agreed. You spill the drink? Buy another.