Search CE Pro

Print  |  Email  |  Share  |  News  |  Follow on Twitter, Facebook, Google+ or RSS

Kaleidescape vs. DVD CCA: Judge Rules Against Movie Servers

Tentative ruling in landmark DVD-copying case suggests Kaleidescape knew its movie servers might be in violation of DVD CCA licensing agreement. Case has broad implication for media-server market.

Kaleidescape, a prominent manufacturer of high-end movies servers, has lost a major battle in its eight-year war against the DVD Copy Control Association, the organization that licenses the Content Scramble System (CSS) for DVD players.

The DVD CCA sued Kaleidescape in 2004, arguing that its products violate a licensing agreement that expressly prohibits the copying (ripping, archiving) of DVDs.

Judge William J. Monahan of the Santa Clara County Superior Court in California issued a tentative judgment favoring the DVD CCA on Jan. 9, 2012. Discovered by CE Pro after an anonymous tip, the unpublished ruling is subject to revision pending input from the two parties. If it stands as written, the DVD CCA can permanently prohibit Kaleidescape from selling its DVD movie servers, unless the manufacturer adds some kind of authentication mechanism, such a carousel that stores the physical discs. The DVD CCA also can collect court costs.

This landmark case could set a precedent that would make virtually all current DVD movie servers illegal – that is, all servers whose makers have a license with the DVD CCA.

“We are very disappointed by the tentative decision,” Kaleidescape CEO Michael Malcolm tells CE Pro. "The DVD CCA is controlled by the six large movie studios in concert with some of Kaleidescape’s competitors. They object to the innovations of the Kaleidescape System, and want new Kaleidescape Systems to require the presence of the DVD in a disc vault, as with Blu-ray Discs today. Despite the evidence presented at trial, Judge Monahan has tentatively adopted a statement of decision that was drafted by the DVD CCA, which goes far beyond anything in the license."

Malcolm adds that Kaleidescape has filed objections to the order "and if those objections are not successful, we plan to appeal."

Background of DVD CCA v Kaleidescape

CE Pro has been following this lawsuit and related cases since 2004, and a history of DVD-ripping legality can be found here.

Briefly, the DVD CCA licenses the CSS digital rights management (DRM) technology required for all (legal) DVD players to play copy-protected content.

Kaleidescape, a DVD CCA licensee, makes high-end movie servers that are populated with movies copied to the device. The DVD CCA has claimed that its CSS licensing agreement bars such copying.

Kaleidescape has maintained that the contract says no such thing; in any case, archiving DVDs is legal under the “fair use” doctrine and Kaleidescape servers make bit-for-bit copies so that the DRM provisions of CSS are preserved.

RELATED OPINION: What the ruling means for innovation and future of media servers

After several appeals and counterclaims, Judge Monahan ruled that the CSS licensing agreement does in fact require a disc to be present in a DVD player for playback. Kaleidescape servers – and countless similar products from other manufacturers – skirt this requirement, which is the “law of the case and thus is binding on this Court,” Monahan asserts.

At the heart of the matter is Section 1.5 of the General Specifications that states CSS is “intended to prevent casual users from unauthorized copying of copyrighted materials recorded in [DVDs].”

The DVD CCA, as well as content owners represented by the Motion Pictures Association of America (MPAA), have argued that even bit-for-bit DVD transfers don’t prevent users from renting a movie and copying it for their permanent use, the so-called rent-rip-return practice.

To thwart this practice, the CSS agreement requires disc authentication including bus encryption and bus decryption, which does not occur in the case of Kaleidescape servers “because the DVD disc is eliminated from the playback process….” Monahan notes. “Instead, they [discs] are intercepted and diverted to the Kaleidescape System’s server.

From the ruling (citations omitted):

Kaleidescape contends that the Kaleidescape System can detect that an imported DVD is rented when the DVD has been marked as a rental DVD and that some rental DVDs are so marked. The Kaleidescape System cannot detect if an imported DVD is a DVD that the user has borrowed. After the Kaleidescape System copies the DVD content to the server, it displays a message that states that it is illegal for a user to import a DVD that the user does not own and that the user must delete the copy if the DVD is not owned. The message further states that the user must click “Agree” to signify that the user either owns the imported DVD or that the user will delete it. The Kaleidescape System does not, however, provide any mechanism for confirming that a user actually owns an imported DVD. Furthermore the Kaleidescape System itself cannot delete the imported DVD – the user has to delete it using a personal computer.”

Kaleidescape had considered some options for extra protections when it began product development in 2001, according to court documents. The company contemplated a carousel that would hold the discs and a “DVD-destruction” scheme that would kill the DVD once it was copied. Both ideas were rejected (although the carousel method is employed in Kaleidescape’s latest Blu-ray servers).

Monahan says Kaleidescape was aware before entering into the licensing agreement that a physical disc might be required for DVD playback, noting that “Kaleidescape rejected proposed alternative products that would have played back DVDs from the physical DVD disc, not because it concluded that the License Agreement would allow the play back of DVDs from permanent copies stored on a server, but rather, because of marketing considerations.”

In numerous interviews with CE Pro and in court, Kaleidescape has said that the CSS requirement is too vague with regards to DVD copying, but an earlier court ruled that it is “not so vague that the court cannot tell what it requires – it requires that playback of DVD content by a Drive plus Decryption device be performed utilizing the physical DVD.”

It was up to Monahan to determine whether the Kaleidescape system is a Drive plus Decryption Module. He judged that it is such a device.

DVD Ripping: The Whole Picture
Kaleidescape vs. DVD CCA: Judge Rules Against Movie Servers
Tentative ruling in landmark DVD-copying case says Kaleidescape knew its movie servers might be in violation of DVD CCA licensing agreement that prohibits copying of DVDs.
DVD Ripping: The Latest on the Legal Front
This compilation of articles on the legality of DVD ripping, and related fair-use cases, will be updated continuously.
Understanding the Kaleidescape, RealDVD Cases
What have the courts really decided on DVD copying, and what are the implications for the future? We debunk the myths about the the two lawsuits and clarify the current legal state of DVD ripping.
Is DVD 'Ripping' the Same as 'Archiving?'
Is the term "ripping" generally understood as the "illegal" form of copying a disk? Likewise, is "archiving" known as the bit-for-bit "legal" way of doing it?
Can You Be Sued for Helping Clients Rip DVDs?
EFF attorney Fred von Lohmann explains some of the legal issues involved in selling and installing products that enable users to copy DVDs.
Is Your DVD Server Legal? Manufacturers Say Yes!
Developers of movie-ripping products insist their products are legal. Here's how the manufacturers justify their solutions.
Copy Protection Group Sues Kaleidescape (2005)
Kaleidescape has a license from the DVD CCA to employ CSS decoding in its media servers, which it does. Now, DVD CCA is suing Kaleidescape for breach of contract.
Would Studios Rather We Buy DVD Ripping Products Offshore?
As studios work to quash legitimate products like RealDVD, offshore providers of DVD ripping software -- like AnyDVD developer SlySoft -- are reaping the rewards.
Industry Insider: DVD CCA Is an Innovation-Stifling Cartel (2005)
The DVD Copyright Control Association (DVD CCA) is a bunch of bullies. The organization manages to coerce all manufacturers of DVD players to sign away their rights to innovation.

Behind every successful custom installation is a CE Pro

And CEPro magazine is there keeping you up-to-date on the latest products, techniques, designs and business practices. From HDBaseT 2.0 to cat5e wiring, from UHDTV to wireless lighting control, CEPro explains how they work and how best to use them. Each issue delivers constructive, real-time content to help you find innovative ways to successfully build and maintain your business.
Discover how to make smart use of today's current technologies...and those that are emerging...subscribe today!

Subscribe to the CE Pro Newsletter

Article Topics

News · Product News · Video · Media Servers · Kaleidescape · Dvd Cca · Drm · All topics

About the Author

Julie Jacobson, Co-Founder, EH Publishing / Editor-at-large, CE Pro
Julie Jacobson, recipient of the 2014 CEA TechHome Leadership Award, is co-founder of EH Publishing, producer of CE Pro, Electronic House, Commercial Integrator, Security Sales and other leading technology publications. She currently spends most of her time writing for CE Pro in the areas of home automation, security, networked A/V and the business of home systems integration. Julie majored in Economics at the University of Michigan, spent a year abroad at Cambridge University, earned an MBA from the University of Texas at Austin, and has never taken a journalism class in her life. She's a washed-up Ultimate Frisbee player currently residing in Carlsbad, Calif. Follow her on Twitter @juliejacobson. [More by Julie Jacobson]

47 Comments (displayed in order by date/time)

Posted by hometheater  on  02/01  at  01:50 PM

of course they would rather you not own it at all and have everything be pay-per view.

Every time that kid watches Nemo again Disney is losing revenue!

Posted by Kerstin  on  05/15  at  10:13 AM

Open source doesn’t refer to whehter the software itself is free or not.  It just means that the source code for the program has to be made available to the public.  Most open source software is free, but there is nothing stopping them from charging for it if they want.Freeware is, as the name implies, free software.  It could be open source, but doesn’t have to be open source.

Page 4 of 4 comment pages « First  <  2 3 4
Post a comment
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Sponsored Links

  About Us Customer Service Privacy Policy Contact Us Advertise With Us Dealer Services Subscribe Reprints ©2015 CE Pro
  EH Network: Electronic House CE Ideas Store Commercial Integrator ChannelPro ProSoundWeb Church Production Worship Facilities Electronic House Expo Worship Facilities Expo