Mobile/PDA About Us Advertise here


		User name	Password

		Not registered yet? Register here. Lost your password? Click here.

Browse by topic

News

DVD-CCA files brief in appeal of Kaleidescape decision

18 December 2007 15:50 by Rich "vurbal" Fiscus | 7 comments

The DVD Copy Control Association (DVD-CCA) filed a brief with the California Court of Appeal hoping to overturn a lower court's decision that Kaleidescape isn't violating the CSS license by selling home servers that store DVDs on a hard drive.

Kaleidescape's case is unique because it's the first instance of the DVD-CCA going after one of its licensees' products. At issue is whether the technical specifications delivered to Kaleidescape after they entered into the license agreement and paid the requisite fee are an enforcable part of the licensing contract. The DVD-CCA considers the technical document, which apparently requires the original DVD to be present for playback, is part of the license agreed to and puts Kaleidescape in violation.

Although eventual implementation of managed copy, meaning a DRM controlled system to copy content to a computer or mobile device, is in the works for both HD DVD and Blu-ray, there are no plans to allow basic disc copying for any of the major video formats. In addition to appealing the California court decision in favor of Kaleidescape, DVD-CCA members have drafted two different amendments to the license that would eliminate the question of the technical document by adopting requirements that the original DVD must be present at the time of playback.

In June, and again in November, Kaleidescape CEO Michael Malcolm threatend an anti-trust suit should the new provisions, which would effectively force them to stop selling their flagship product, be adopted. In June the issue was dropped, but no action has been announced on the November proposal. In part Malcolm's objection to the most recent proposal is that while it allows some form of managed copy, it doesn't require content owners (ie studios) from allowing their DVDs to be copied in any form.

You can read the entire brief from the DVD-CCA on their website.

Permalink to this article

Kaleidescape System gets a 1080p upscaling DVD player (19 June 2008)

Sony BMG drops DRM in digital downloads (7 January 2008)

Apple sued for DRM practices (4 January 2008)

Kaleidescape CEO responds to another proposed CSS amendment (3 November 2007)

Sonic has big plans for burning CSS encrypted DVDs (28 September 2007)

DVD licensing body responds to anti-trust threat (18 August 2007)

Legal movie downloading gets a huge boost (4 July 2007)

Kaleidescape ruling may affect 'managed copy' (9 April 2007)

DVD CCA loses case against Kaleidescape (31 March 2007)

Kaleidescape to bring DVD servers to UK (14 February 2006)

ESS DVD Copying chips lawsuit settled (14 April 2005)

Appeals court overturned DeCSS decision (27 February 2004)

« Previous news article
Analysts predict format war to end next year

Next news article »
Update: MPAA CEO talks out about American film ban in China

Post your comment

Discuss this article!
b18bek9 (Member) 18 December 2007 16:31
copy protection and drm is a headache for everyone why not just get rid of the bullshiet and come up with a better solution for all sides. Copy protection will be cracked and be useless. [ + quote]
Bucknekid (Newbie) 18 December 2007 16:37
A Kaleidescape system is by no means cheap, I bet some people are very heated over this. I bet they are getting "updates" to their firmware to take care of it but still. I wonder what the audio side if this deal is seeing as how it can hold something like 300 CD's. [ + quote]
Bucknekid (Newbie) 18 December 2007 18:07
*Originally posted by Bucknekid:* A Kaleidescape system is by no means cheap, I bet some people are very heated over this. I bet they are getting "updates" to their firmware to take care of it but still. I wonder what the audio side if this deal is seeing as how it can hold something like 300 CD's. Oppps 30,000 CD's I meant [ + quote]
tester22 (Inactive) 18 December 2007 18:08
I can understand copy protection in general but in this case it seems that Kaleidescape got the go-ahead and now those who gave them the 'go-ahead' have changed their minds. Tough crap for changing your mind if that is actually the case. [ + quote]
vurbal (Staff Member) 19 December 2007 2:46
*Originally posted by tester22:* I can understand copy protection in general but in this case it seems that Kaleidescape got the go-ahead and now those who gave them the 'go-ahead' have changed their minds. Tough crap for changing your mind if that is actually the case. Actually it's more like Kaleidescape applied for and was granted the license (after the obligatory exchange of obscene amounts of money) without telling the DVD-CCA what they were building. Since nothing in the documents they were shown before signing the deal, including the contract they signed, had any prohibition against their implementation the original ruling was that the documents that do prohibit it aren't part of the agreement. The fact is that if you spend the kind of money required to buy one of their systems you're not pirating your movies. In reality this case isn't about whether they can stop Kaleidescape from selling high end media servers. It's about stopping other CSS licensees from getting funny ideas about using the technology to make something the average Joe can afford. [ + quote] This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 19 December 2007 2:48
navi1199 (Junior Member) 19 December 2007 4:04
*Quote:* copy protection and drm is a headache for everyone why not just get rid of the bullshiet and come up with a better solution for all sides. Copy protection will be cracked and be useless. The truth is companies just like their false sense of security they no matter how many times DRM fails them they just keep jumping back on which makes cds and dvds all that more expensive to produce all for so they can over charge the shit out of people who buys the legit copy... [ + quote]
borhan9 (AfterDawn Addict) 27 December 2007 23:43
I thought this case was done with i guess i was mistaken. [ + quote]