# Video Servers? Where are we?



## azuaro (Oct 14, 2009)

Dear Members, 

Does anyone know what ever happened to upcoming legal video servers?

I was about to buy the Kaleidescape system but then I backed off because they got into a lawsuit that I believe Kaleidescape finally won against ******** Greedy Hollywood...

Given the fact that today's attorneys and many institutions (Again, Greedy Hollywood) will sue you for anything related to legally copying DVD's (Including Kaleidescape system) I wonder if we are still in Limbo or if there is light at the end on the tunnel with maybe new legislation coming up...

Is Kaleidescape still legal to own and use?

One thing for sure is that very unfortunately Hollywood has been a deterrent for many advances in technology... :boxer:

Anybody out there has more information?

Best regards, 

AZUARO
Flathead Lake, MT


----------



## the_diyr (Sep 16, 2009)

http://www.kaleidescape.com/products/

Nice I have never heard of this before .. Seems pretty sharp


----------



## azuaro (Oct 14, 2009)

It is pretty sharp and a very nice desirable system for any HT...

Very unfortunately Kaleidescape has been fighting Hollywood like crazy...Please Google "Kaleidescape lawsuit" and you will read what they have had to deal with...Kaleidescape was ahead of the game until August of 2009 when they received a major set back from a California Court....I wonder if these courts are in the payrol of the MPAA because they seem to agree 100% with anything the CSS or the MPAA say...

I wonder if we are ever going to be able to have our legal DVDs digitized in a video server for faster and easier access...

Regards,

AZUARO
Flathead Lake, MT


----------



## the_diyr (Sep 16, 2009)

You are probably right , someone is paying someone under the table .. half the Judge's probably don't have the slightest idea what the the CSS or MPAA are even complaining about .. Wow don't the California courts have better things to do..


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

I would be hesitant to call any video server that simply allows you to watch videos that you have purchased in your own home illegal. At this point, as I understand it, the courts decision is not a blanket condemnation of all DVD ripping software, and last time I checked, computers were still legal.

Save the money, and the heartache, and roll your own server and use it with a media streamer such as the popcorn hour or WD Live.


----------



## azuaro (Oct 14, 2009)

The problem with making your own video server is that at some point in time you will have to use ripping software for breaking the DVD copy protection which is illegal. The current legislation DOES NOT ALLOW consumers to make a copy of a DVD unless the DVD is physically present in the machine at the time of playing back the movie; this is contradictory and non sense but it's the law....

The "Fair" DVD copy issue has been taboo and practically is not contemplated by law, just take a look at the most recent ruling (August 2009) from a California judge against Kaleidescape. I met and chatted with Michael Malcolm (Kaleidescape's owner) at a CES in Vegas in 2003 and I really admire him for his persistence, honesty and good faith in fighting for the rights of consumers.

I suppose that the only way of legally making a copy of a DVD will be to record the movie thru the S-Video or RCA outputs which will dramatically deteriorate quality and will not allow you to use menus and other extras; this will be the same as to what people do when recording material using a VHS or to what consumers do for transferring music to their iPods.

The CD industry is another story because a CD is not copy protected and if you own and have the CD you have no problem in copying it to your iPod or computer FOR YOUR PERSONAL USE. 

I read somewhere that future generations of Blue Ray DVDs would have to include a "Fair Copy" section imbedded in the same DVD by 2012; this would allow the consumer to make a single copy of the material, but (A BIG BUT) it would not carry the HD quality and other features (movie chapters and other)... Nevertheless, this new requirement for the movie industry has been DELAYED time and again and I wonder if the MPAA and CSS collusion with some judges is never going to end.

It is very strange that the CSS is extremely powerful in the shades, they make tons of billions of dollars by charging fees for each and every DVD player produced WORLDWIDE...They charge big for the "Right" of being able to use the chip that will allow the player to reproduce copy protected material and the same applies for any product carrying an HDMI output capable of allowing copy protected material to pass or to be played thru this output...The CSS calls it "Licensing Fees" and they hound and collect these fees WORLDWIDE...Kind of legal worldwide racketeering.

The strange part is that NOBODY knows who (Person or institution) is behind the CSS, there is no physical address and no names of persons or institutions appear in the lawsuits other that the same CSS and the attorneys representing them....

Who is making all this billions of dollars and why is it that they don't want us to know how they got so powerful? Is the CSS actually paying taxes? I wish that the IRS could answer this. 

I wonder is the CSS are the same thieves as our Federal Reserve who is owned and governed by PRIVATE international bankers (Not owned or regulated by our federal government as 99% of the people think) making trillions while manipulating our US economy for their own benefit, BUT nobody knows who they are and every politician wants to be very close to them for getting a piece of the action...Is this why the courts are ruling in favor of the CSS and against the American people?


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

I would like to see the law where it is clearly stated that I cannot make a copy for my own personal use, not to be distributed. Now maybe one exists, but I haven't seen it. Instead, I hear a lot of conjecture from both sides.

Now, the production and distribution of the software the I may have to use to make that copy could be illegal, but is my use of it illegal? I don't think that's been made clear.


----------



## azuaro (Oct 14, 2009)

You can make a copy for your own personal use as long as you don't break the law in the process of doing so...

The use of illegal software breaks the law by definition...There is no way that you could use something illegal or banned for producing something legal. 

No back up DVD copies of any kind are currently allowed or contemplated other than the FAIR COPY requirement for Blue Ray DVDS mentioned in my previous post. The only current possibility of making a DVD's movie copy is thru the S-Video because you will not be using illegal software and a degraded copy does not represent a TRUE COPY.

A copy by definition should be identical in material and contents to the original. Having said this, the copy issue was argued in court while some attorneys tried to say that a copy to a computer's Hard Drive was not a TRUE COPY because it was electronic, and an electronic file in your computer is not the same as a plastic DVD so it could not be considered a copy...

Well, the courts ruled against this argument because the end material (movie) is what is identical and this was considered the matter of the litigation and not the plastic DVD itself which was considered as media...

So no DVD copies are allowed or legal to any kind of media including Hard Drives (as we speak)...And remember that ignorance or misinterpretation of the laws are not an excuse for breaking the law...


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

Well, I'll have to chalk it up to civil disobedience then.


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

Here's the direct quote from the judge in the RealDVD case, from wired:

_However, she stopped short of sanctioning personal use copies, and gave a conflicting message on whether it was legal. “So while it may well be fair use for an individual consumer to store a backup copy of a personally owned DVD on that individual’s computer, a federal law has nonetheless made it illegal to manufacture or traffic in a device or tool that permits a consumer to make such copies,” Patel said. She added, “fair use can never be an affirmative defense to the act of gaining unauthorized access” — a simple way of saying it was illegal to hack into the encryption to make a copy._

So it's probably legal to have a copy, just not to make one. How absurd. If an individual take one of my DVDs, makes a copy, and then give me back the original and copy, have I done anything illegal? I'm in possession of nothing illegal? Is the trafficking of my legal possessions illegal?

If not, someone should setup a network in a country where creating fair use backups is legal to distribute copies of DVDs which you own...oh wait, they already have.

I put the DMCA right up there with outdated laws against chewing gum and drinking on Sundays. Absurd.


----------



## azuaro (Oct 14, 2009)

There are some people out there with illegal copies and servers but it is like having a time bomb in your hands, you will never know when it will go off.

I personally wouldn't want to deal in court with these CSS and DMCA hounds...They have so much power and money and are willing to use it in order to send a message and make a point...

I have been monitoring the legal use of Video Servers for over 6 years and it has gone from bad to worse...Kaleidescape has been the only one company to legally semi-win the battle but it seems that their days are counted...Hopefully Malcolm's attorneys can sharpen up their skills and can win this non-sense controversy.


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

Well, I think the time-bomb analogy is a little FUD. You're telling me that the gov't is going to start kicking in the doors of everyone using a Kaleidescape and charge them with possession of copyright infringing software? Or, without trading in hyperbole, that anyone with a server full of their backed up movies for their own personal use is somehow at risk of legal action?

I don't think I'm going to start hording water and ammo, or deleting my backups quite yet.


----------



## azuaro (Oct 14, 2009)

Marshall,

You say: 
"You are telling me...."Well, I am not telling you anything first because I don't have the slightest idea who you are and second because I don't know how much do you know about these issues...Don't take it so personal...

I am presenting current facts and trends in the industry, read well: FACTS and TRENDS, it is not my personal opinion but what is happening around you and all of us who are enthusiasts of Video and Audio....

This thread is intended to inform the HT community of what is happening in an effort to create a consensus among society so our rights are not infringed by greedy studios and corrupted lawmakers using the excuse of anti-piracy as their flag...

If you ever have studied history and know about the origins of the law in the US, you will know that this country was founded copying books, laws, technologies and even religions from other countries in Europe including England, Spain and France...Times change and nowadays this country wants to shut down the back door to any kind of copying for the benefit of a selected group of ambitious and greedy people.

Going back to your post: If someone wants to make illegal copies or wants to have a homemade video server full of illegal DVD copies, it is their own business and this thread is not about who wants to do it or who should't do it...Keep in mind that a home made videoserver full of DVD's sure is enough cause for prosecution and each and every illegal DVD copy is a separate count and prosecutors will accumulate them. 

I have tried to buy a 100% LEGAL and licensed Video Server not because I don't have the capability of configuring one myself but because with current legislation there is no way of doing it without breaking the law, and it is not getting any better!

I like many other law abiding citizens in this country are not willing to break the law by principle no matter how dumb or how stupid the law may be...By the same token, I and many other people will like to participate in getting organized for making conscience among the community and for changing the laws that are threating to infringe our rights and freedom. 

Kaleidescape is so far the only "Legal" means of copying a DVD to a video server...This is because they are licensed but the problem arose when they were sued for BREACH OF CONTRACT by the very same people who licensed them; the studios and some colluded judges are by all means trying to outlaw this company. No copying software company nor any other video server company has ever been licensed, they all have entered the market unlawfully and this situation makes previous use of their software or servers illegal..

To answer your question: NO, the government is not going to knock on the doors of people who have acquired Kaleidescape systems because laws are not applied in a retroactive manner...The system was legal and it still is, but If Kaleidescape is outlawed then people will break the law if they add new DVDS after the date when it was outlawed (It was a legal and licensed up to that date).

Are the studios and the government going to pursue private citizens who have homemade video servers? Well, I don't know, but there is enough evidence about numerous attacks on particulars for downloading illegal copies of CD's and I wouldn't be surprised if the studios started to enforce the law and to persecute particulars in order to make a point and send a very strong message: 
*WE WILL NOT ALLOW ANYONE TO MAKE COPIES WITHOUT US REALLY PROFITING FROM IT*

This is a matter of greed and we all need to get organized and change the laws, we need to get rid of corrupted lawmakers and colluded and corrupted judges and politicians, all without having to stock water guns and ammo.


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

I agree totally, and I think it's going to take legions of home theater and technology lovers to stand up and say "we're not going to take it anymore". But most folks won't stick up for the technology because they have no idea what they're missing, or they don't want to fight. Most folks just hear "illegal" and don't think twice.

People should certainly be informed of the consequences, but they shouldn't be afraid. If the gov't prosecutes you for your files stored on your computer that you aren't sharing with anyone else, there is a bigger problem than copyright infringement (namely, how did they kick in your door and start going through your computer).

In my opinion, when it comes to making copies for your own use, there is nothing to fear. Once again, my opinion, but one shared by many.

I am well aware of the consequences and will personally make fair use copies of anything I see fit. making fair use commonplace is the only way this war is going to be won...informing judges and politicians isn't working, this is a war of public opinion.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

azuaro said:


> ...nowadays this country wants to shut down the back door to any kind of copying for the benefit of a selected group of ambitious and greedy people.


What do you mean by "this country wants to?" I don't think that the country wants to at all. I think "this country" wants reasonable protection of intelectual property, which is reasonable. "this country" was not founded on any idea that anyone should be able to copy anyone else's work. That is a matter of technology and availablility of media which has changed dramatically over the years. I was not among the founding principles of our nation.


----------



## azuaro (Oct 14, 2009)

Hello,

Somebody said: 
"This country was not founded on any idea that anyone should be able to copy anyone else's work...."

Whether we like it or not, our country's core laws were 100% copied from the English and the French, our text books were all 100% copied from English books and plagiarism and/or intellectual property damage has never been on the negotiations table...


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

You seem to be confusing different issues to justify something that you claim you don't even support.

It was not one of the founding principles that we be able to freely copy another's work. It was common practice at the time because the technology of media and its distribution were so difficult. Over two centuries that has changed and the value of intelectual property has become more significant relative to the cost of printing and distribution. This country would not have a problem with another "stealing" its founding documents and using them to write their own. This is very different than someone pirating a DVD. 

You said yourself that there should be protections as long as they do not become unreasonable. The real question is where that line is drawn and suggesting that 

"We as a country have done it but now we look the other way and don't want anybody else to even think about doing it for a fair or any other cause (Shutting the door) and for making sure this happens we lead and promote International laws for protecting intellectual material."

is simply an incorrect argument applied out of context.

I think that we nearly all agree that copyright protection is a reasonable thing and also that some degree of fair use should exist. Please do not make an argument where there is none. Your argument is with a few ridiculous lawsuits and judicial rulings and a few ambigous laws, not with anyone here, the way our country was founded, nor with "this country" in general.

Yes, you have presented the facts, but you used them to justify a rant with extreme statements that don't connect very well and to preach to the choir with respect to your real point. It is not necessary to attribute intent to the whole country incorrectly nor to suggest that the country was formed based upon the legitimacy of piracy to argue that fair use is a sensible concept.


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

I'm a little lost at what the point is or where everyone stands. I think we should all wrap up our arguments into three sentences or less. Here's mine (though somehow still long winded).


Copyright protection is as necessary as fair-use, but the MPAA will tell you (and the politicians and judges whose campaigns they contribute to) that copyright is the only one at risk, when in reality, fair-use is the most under-fire. If the vast public wants copyright reform and fair-use provisions, it will happen, but the fear-mongering and extortionist tactics of the MPAA, RIAA, and sycophant courts and halls has made most people afraid to even try the various technologies that stand to advance the ways in which we consume media (to the eventual benefit of those who produce and sell media). Feel free to copy your own movies for your own use all day long (but do not distribute), and do not fear that the FBI will NOT kick in your door, because if they do, it won't be for your movies.


----------



## the_diyr (Sep 16, 2009)

Illegal or Legal... Lets see I downloaded music on to cassette of the radio in the 80's I copied movies with my vcr.. I burn movies on DVD.. Why not just Quit making all recording devices LOL.. The music industry and movie industry are a bunch of crybaby's


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

diyr: that was more than 3 sentences.


----------



## azuaro (Oct 14, 2009)

Quality of video disqualifies VCR as a copy rights infringement...

DVD recording without menus (Thru S-Video or RCA) will record with less quality and will not be considered a violation...

Any of the above are OK as long as you don't pass them on (gift) or sell them...

DVD copy via ISO (electronic or hard copy) will retain identical quality, menus and features and is considered illegal


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

azuaro said:


> Quality of video disqualifies VCR as a copy rights infringement...
> 
> DVD recording without menus (Thru S-Video or RCA) will record with less quality and will not be considered a violation...
> 
> ...


Whoa, hold on. Are you saying this is what you believe the laws say or what they should say?

Quality has nothing to do with whether something is considered copyright infringement. Case in point Sony/betamax vs. universal, youtube pull downs, video taping first run movies, distributing mp3s. All lesser quality, all considered illegal (currently or at one point) by the many courts.

To add to the debate, these folks are pretty much the best defense for sensible copyright law: http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/betamax/


----------



## azuaro (Oct 14, 2009)

No...These are pretty much a summary of outputs from allegations in courts during the last two decades.


----------



## azuaro (Oct 14, 2009)

Copyrights violations are not only the copies themselves, the use or intended use of the material can also be a violation and there may be more; I am referring exclusively to what is "Technically" a copy in the eyes of the courts/laws according to court rulings in several lawsuits...I may be missing some other rulings that have been changing according to technology...

You mention "videotaping first run movies"....Absolutely. While these actions were not (at one time) considered "Technically" a copy because of quality of the copy, it becomes a violation because of the intent (distributing or selling it) and carries very high punitive damages and/or time. The fact that these kinds of taping are not common practice and are not at the reach of the market added to the intent of later distribution is what makes it illegal...

In general terms, a recent ruling about this issue states that any kind of taping, filming or recording of movies in theaters, screening rooms, etc. is illegal. Someone inside a theater was filming with a video camera for later making DVD copies and selling them in 3rd world countries, the DVDS were out there before the movie was inaugurated; the person who was doing the filming successfully won the "Not a copy" argument because of a technicality (Degraded quality) but he was nailed bad because of the intent and damages; after the courts revised the case it was later ruled that filming, taping, recording or any other means of capturing the video or audio in a theater is considered a violation. I believe that there is jurisprudence regarding this matter... 

In another case a movie screener who was making copies of the material was caught because of a number imbedded in the film itself, this number showed up in the copies that reached the market; each screener has a different number. His copies were made in commercial grade tape that is used as a master for producing DVD's.


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

Really, that's wrong. Look, I think we're both out of our element here as the laws and judgments are contradictory many times (fair-use is legal but the means by which to create a fair-use copy are not?), and this will be the last I say on the matter (as once again, I'm admitting that I'm quickly getting out of my depth), but an argument based on copy-quality is just wrong.

What it all boils down to is the breaking of copy protection as described in the DMCA. VCR is legal because of fair use statues described in the link I provided in post 22. Those statutes were effectively thrown out the door with the introduction of the DMCA and digital encryption. As I understand, it was still illegal to create devices to macrovision copy protection in VHS, despite the quality degradation.

DVD recording through the analog hole is legal not because of quality, but because it does not break any copy protection. And even then, "legal" is fuzzy depending upon who you ask, where you got the original source material, and what you do with it.

Not distributing is a primary tenant of not getting caught, but not of legality. The RIAA had been hard at work as early as last year trying to make it illegal to copy a CD/DVD you own for your own personal use (Atlantic vs. Howell) irregardless of distribution. Fortunately, though the case was found in favor of the plaintiffs, it was on the basis of default judgment for Howells destruction of evidence as opposed to affirmation of Atlantic's claims. Moral of the story, though Howell got caught because he copied and distributed, those copies were not at the core of the charges, the making available/distributing was. (Edited for clarity)



You can make ISO copies of non CSS dvds for your own use, not post or distribute, and they will be legal. Cracking CSS is what get's you into trouble, and everything I've read makes it unclear of the use of tools to crack CSS is illegal, or simply the creation of those tools. I would love to see a court case that shows a judgment against the simple use of CSS cracking tools.

Would following all 3 of your tenant constitute creating a legal copy: Recording a DVD via s-video to a VHS recorder and not distributing it to anyone? I'd have to read the DMCA more closely but yes, I think it would. However, that has everything to do with digital copy-protection and nothing to do with the quality of the copy. I could capture video via component, reauthor that video into a DVD menu structure, and have a copy with negligible quality loss that would be no more legal/illegal than the s-video VHS example.

The moral of the story is that, depending on who you ask and what the courts do in the coming years, any copy of any copyrighted work for any use could potentially be illegal under the current laws. *Informing yourself in the hopes of finding "legal" ways to create copies is an exercise in futility.*

Once again, IMHO, if you really want copyright reform, educate everyone around you at the benefits of fair use copies, show them the application in media servers and portable entertainment, show them the cost savings of not having to replace damaged discs, and get the majority of people on board. Then, when a fair-use throttling case make illegal what a vast majority of the poeple are doing, you will see a ground swell that creates meaningful change, copyright reform, and the demise of the DMCA.

BTW, for any RIAA/MPAA snoops, feel free to email me. I will *literally* have you over for a beer, you can look through my collection, and we can talk about this like civil adults.


----------



## azuaro (Oct 14, 2009)

I agree with your statements...

You say: "DVD recording through the analog hole is legal not because of quality, but because it does not break any copy protection"...

Yes, absolutely...The term "Lesser or lower quality" has been used in court to simplify the language because one of the main arguments of the industry for not allowing full resolution "fair copies" has been that high quality copies (where the copy protection is) can and are used as master sources for making further copies.

The quality issue has been latent since the Betamax years; the way VCR's, DVR's, etc. were excluded from the violations table was by quality/resolution differentiation. But of course, the intent of use of these copies remained alive. 

About the ISO's...You are correct, I meant to say an ISO protected with Macrovision or other (most commercial DVD's).

I must clarify that a fair copy (whatever that means and assuming no violations) may be legal but can also become illegal depending on the use of the copy. 

Court files regarding any of these copy violation issues are 1000's of pages long and are hard to explain in a few paragraphs...

I agree with you, we need to educate courts, consumers and movie industry about the benefits and convenience of video servers/fair copies, etc. I just don't know how to educate people who are stubborn-greedy with enough power to impose their agenda. 

Fair copies are OK?
Maybe, but then why is it that there are no commercial servers (other than Kaleidescape) for making and storing fair copies of copy protected DVD's?

This thread was not intended to create controversy...It meant to discover where the industry is regarding video servers capable of making "fair copies" of protected DVD's, to discover where our legal system is regarding this matter, to discover where technology is and where is heading; and in a way, to do some brain storming for generating ideas that can help and be implemented...

Note: Other that a DirecTV HD DVR-receiver, I don't make fair copies of anything and I do not tolerate piracy of any kind from anyone, including from a government...Overtime I have purchased a couple of hundred DVD'S that are a problem to handle, I have been looking for a legal video server for convenience and maybe somebody in this forum has resolved a similar issue.

I have asked the movie industry to push for available technology that contemplates a 1 time use DVD, the copy protection is transferred to the HD and this DVD is exclusively used in HD servers (protected digital copy is inside the server), network players with ISO playing capability will be used for reproducing material. A downloading site will simplify things and will reduce costs. End result will be a high quality copy protected movie in our video servers equivalent to having an original plastic DVD on hand. The movie industry will be happy, we will be happy...


----------



## azuaro (Oct 14, 2009)

Some links that support all said in this thread about making fair copies, these links demonstrate that legal actions and lawsuits taken by the movie industry and AACS are very serious and not "Stupid lawsuits" as someone stated in this thread: 

"MPAA Says Making Even “One Copy” of a DVD is Illegal"
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86356/mpaa-says-making-even-one-copy-of-a-dvd-is-illegal/


"DVD Copying Case Focuses on ‘Fair Use’"
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/dvd-copying-cas/


"US NEWS Is It Legal to Copy a DVD?"
http://www.usnews.com/money/business-economy/technology/articles/2009/09/30/is-it-legal-to-copy-a-dvd.html#read_more


"RealNetworks court loss a reminder about limits of "fair use""
http://www.arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/08/realdvd-barred-from-market-while-judge-opines-about-fair-use.ars


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

azuaro said:


> Some links that support all said in this thread about making fair copies, these links demonstrate that legal actions and lawsuits taken by the movie industry and AACS are very serious and not "Stupid lawsuits" as someone stated in this thread:
> 
> "MPAA Says Making Even “One Copy” of a DVD is Illegal"
> http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86356/mpaa-says-making-even-one-copy-of-a-dvd-is-illegal/
> ...


Could only find one usage of the term "stupid" in this thread (besides yours) and it came from me. Here's the actual quote:

_I like many other law abiding citizens in this country are not willing to break the law by principle no matter how dumb or how stupid the law may be...By the same token, I and many other people will like to participate in getting organized for making conscience among the community and for changing the laws that are threating [sic] to infringe [sic again] our rights and freedom._

Though I did unnecessarily use two adjectives with virtually the same meaning.

*EDIT (attribution): Whoops, that was your quote, not mine. Sorry.*

But, I'll say it here: Just because the lawsuits are real, it doesn't mean that they are not stupid lawsuits.

Here's the problem I'm having with your argument: while you claim to be simply motivated to educate, your posts have a tone of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt...the same currency that the MPAA trades in to enforce the unenforceable: an overreaching interpretation of the DMCA.

Case in point: The first link you provided is in regards to the MPAA vs. Real. While the judgment affirmed that RealDVD software broke it's license agreement with CSS and violated the DMCA by circumventing technological measures used to limit access to copyrighted content, the judge did not affirm the MPAA's assertion that making one copy of a DVD was illegal (similar to the claim that making one copy of a CD is illegal as I previously noted when I brought up Atlantic vs Howell). In fact, U.S. District Court Judge Marilyn Hall Patel acknowledged that consumers have a right to make "Fair Use" copies, but not at the expense of breaking CSS in violation of the current interpretation of the DMCA.

Here is the actual judgement if you would like to read all 58 pages (I have): http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2009/08/patel.pdf

Section 115 onward should be quite interesting, and prove the inherent contradiction of content protection and fair use that is the DMCA.

Also note the 2nd paragraph of section 116 that stops far short of your previous assertion that: _The use of illegal software breaks the law by definition...There is no way that you could use something illegal or banned for producing something legal. _

In fact, section 117 seems to instead support my supposition that: _Now, the production and distribution of the software the I may have to use to make that copy could be illegal, but is my use of it illegal? I don't think that's been made clear._

The other 3 links you provide are all similar articles dealing with the same case, so we're talking a single lawsuit, not multiple lawsuits (not that there won't be more, perhaps with a different outcome).

Maybe I am also guilty of seeing only what I would like to see, because what I see is *ZERO* lawsuits brought against individuals using software to backup DVDs and CDs that they own and do not distribute. Additionally, legality and morality are not as closely intertwined as many believe. There are many actions taken around the world that are/were legal that were not moral. Conversely, many actions taken that are/were moral are not legal. It is fallacious to use the terms interchangeably or synonymously, and a discussion into the relationship of the two has not adequately occurred in this thread, nor are either of us equipped to have that discussion in general terms, only on the terms related to copying DVDs and CDs for Fair Use.

Promoting fear, not understanding, is exactly the intent of these lawsuits and the MPAA/RIAA's long-term plan for preserving an antiquated business model in a digital age, while stifling innovation and fair use. I would encourage everyone to look beyond that fear in protection of Fair Use, and to understand their real rights. *As of now, I haven't found any judgments against individuals using any software to crack copyright protections for the purpose of fair use.* If one exists, please inform me.

NOTE: The legality/morality section was not directed at anyone in particular, just an illumination on many RIAA/MPAA "wrong to copy" statements.


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

I think I'm coming off harsh here. I apologize. I'm not trying to attack you, I just don't like fear over understanding. You seem like someone who's really interested in taking this video server thing to the next level, so if you read up on some of these judgments, I think you'll find that as long as you're copying your own DVDs, not distributing the copies or selling the originals, you'll be within the law, within your rights according to fair use, and won't have to lose any sleep at night about wronging the copyright holders.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

I think you are right on target, Marshall. We don't need to make more of the issue than there is, and I believe that the posts that you were responding to very much created a sense of fear and suggested a much more dire future than is justified by a reading of the judgements to date.

The fact is that people will continue to make copies for their own purposes and there will never be anything that will be done about it in a practical way. It will never be cost effective to pursue those who are distributing copies, and publishers really don't want to go down that public relations road. KScape was a target because they are successful and making a profit, even though they did not violate the terms of the contracts and have been completely cooperative and supportive of copyright holders and their right to control distribution. If there is unreasonable success in the courts rejecting fair use, you can be sure that there will be legislation to reel it back in. For now, the courts have mainly concerned themselves with technical matters of specific cases and not done anything to restrict fair use.


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

lcaillo said:


> If there is unreasonable success in the courts rejecting fair use, you can be sure that there will be legislation to reel it back in.


That's the part I'm actually NOT sure about because so much fear mongering has been going on that the vast public hasn't dared to explore how fair use copies can enrich their experience (much less consider the ability to make a copy the "right" that it is). I think our crowd gets it, but we're far from the majority of the public, and that public interest is the only thing that will make me sure (nothing like good ol' public outcry to provide checks and balances).


----------



## azuaro (Oct 14, 2009)

I agree, we are not a big percentage of the consumers and overall we have very little representation...

Our company is in the technology/software business, our intents of "Amicus curiae" for supporting defendants in courts were unsuccessful. The movie industry is a very powerful "Demolishing Machine" that will wipe out anything and anybody who gets in their way. 

The answer is not fighting the movie industry, the answer relies is in finding a way of making them happy while we can make and operate our servers 100% legally and without skyrocketing inherent costs. 

The technology industry (us included) have been holding on major leaps because of this very single issue about copying protected material. The volumes of non commercial unprotected DVDS and other material are not attractive and do not justify researching or developing any kind of high volume copy/storage units (servers) and software. 

Generating positive inertia and ideas for resolving these problems is what I am pursuing, I am not an attorney I am an Engineer with over 35 years of experience looking for the right idea that will serve as a spear point.


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

A quick solution would be to move your operations out of the country. I think that one's been done a few times.


----------



## azuaro (Oct 14, 2009)

The company is pretty big and dedicated to digital projection technologies (hardware and software) among other technologies. 

Mass storage of video-audio material is a very attractive and viable idea for further R&D because we already have technology used for the Cinema industry (Commercial Theaters) that could be downsized and applied for home use, but again, the limitation is the main issue discussed in this thread.

Going outside of the country for manufacturing/selling a product that is going to be in the gray area of the law in the US is not contemplated within the company's objectives. We serve the movie industry among others and while we don't have to agree with them, we just can't be against this industry...
Note This statement expresses my personal opinion and not necessarily the opinion of the company. 

True, some software companies have relocated abroad after being sued, threatened or banned from operating in the US; we don't anticipate relocation of any of the areas of our corporation.

Regards,

AZUARO


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

Why not do what other media servers such as the popcorn hour have done: focus on serving files irrespective of their type and not worry about ripping DVDs. Consumers will find a way to rip their own DVDs without you doing it for them.

Really, if you make a popcorn hour with a better indexing service and more attractive GUI, you'll have a winner.


----------



## TomBarnett (Oct 20, 2009)

From the legal update page on the Kaleidescape website:

In the 2007 trial, the DVD CCA claimed that Kaleidescape breached the CSS License Agreement and in particular, that Kaleidescape did not comply with a document called the "General Specifications." Kaleidescape successfully argued at trial that the General Specifications document was not a part of the original contract since it was never referenced in the CSS License and was not provided to Kaleidescape until after the contract had been entered into. In addition, Kaleidescape presented evidence at trial that its products fully comply with the General Specifications anyway. In 2007, the trial court agreed with Kaleidescape that the General Specifications are not a part of the original contract. Because of this, the trial court did not clearly rule on whether Kaleidescape complies with the General Specifications. The Court of Appeal has now ruled that the General Specifications are a part of the contract, but did not decide whether or not Kaleidescape complies with them. The Court of Appeal has sent this back to the trial court to decide.

The new proceedings by the trial court will likely take place in a year or two, unless the California Supreme Court agrees to review the Court of Appeal's decision. Kaleidescape will continue to fight, and we expect to prevail. However, it may take many years for this issue to be fully and finally resolved.

In the meantime, Kaleidescape Systems remain 100% licensed and legal. We will continue selling Kaleidescape Systems, developing innovative products and technologies, and providing excellent service to our customers, including the Movie Guide, the Music Guide, automatic software updates, and automatic service alerts.


----------



## azuaro (Oct 14, 2009)

Yes, Kaleidescape are the only ones alive and are fighting alone, their system is going to be legal until the courts decide the contrary if this ever happens (most likely it will but hopefully not).

If Kaleidescape loses the battle, it will affect us consumers to a great extent and it will be somewhat difficult to reverse the damage...Technology will suffer a major set-back because a lot of the products and technologies that we have read about it and seen at the CES, CEDIA, etc. will not reach the market.

I don't waste my time nor want to waste anybody else's in fruitless controversies, I am interested as a citizen in getting ideas and support from this Forum, this is why I keep on insisting in creating conscience about what is going on; somehow I feel that someone out there might have a great idea that can be implemented as mentioned before...


----------



## azuaro (Oct 14, 2009)

Marshal,

We all will be seeing some amazing products in the next few months and coming years, there are many software companies actually working in your suggestion (indexing improvement for video-audio servers) but the R&D goes way beyond this...

Pretty soon we will be using technologies that would allow us to watch full 1080 P movies directly from a rental place (like a blockbuster at home) in each HD TV set with the convenience of not having to have a player...

You would be able to stop the movie that you are watching in your bedroom and finish it a week later in your living room or in your office or from pretty much anywhere where there is Internet and you will be able to watch it in anything from a TV to a lap top.... 

We are going to be able to watch Premiere movies one week after their release to theaters and later down the road at par with movie theaters (the timing is being negotiated as we speak)... 

We are currently monitoring how the market responds to a new line of network players released a few weeks ago that will be able to read and play ISO files without having to mount a DVD player via software, these network players will be compatible with Video on demand from Netflix and others and will play pretty much any other audio, picture or movie format. The bandwidth was somewhat improved and can handle Blue Ray material over a network easily...

These players have been on stand by for a little over 2 years because of pending legal technicalities that were finally resolved.

To make the story short, the future for video-audio looks very promising but it could advance faster and be a lot better if we consumers, software developers and hardware manufacturers could work hand by hand with the movie industry.


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

I hope it's more like netflix at home than blockbuster at home, the last place I would want Blockbuster is in my home.

As for netflix, "HD" is already in home with Xbox. As for 1080p, I don't image it's too far behind once the DVD model starts to dry up (Reed Hastings is predicting a peak in 5 years).

As for convenience of having a "smart tv", I personally don't want it. Sure it's an extra box, but I would rather have ultimate choice in the display that I choose without having to based on what media connection functionality is built in. Especially for Front Projection systems, which are quite unlikely to get Netflix built in (nor would you want it).

If both built-in and boxes were options, no skin off my nose.

The ISO player you mention is the popcorn hour and has been on the market for over a year (no legal difficulties that I heard of). It's the current horse to beat, though the new WDs will be giving it a run for the money given their lower price point.


----------



## azuaro (Oct 14, 2009)

You seem to be one of those "know it all" HT gurus...You argue everything and seem to be unsatisfied and hard to please no matter what but that is OK as long as you are comfortable and as long as other people's ideas and criteria are respected...

You and I know that any high school kid can make a server for streaming video, audio, pictures, etc. over a network; the same applies to setting up the most complicated of home theaters. Front projectors nowadays are as cheap as TV's and are so easy to adjust and calibrate that anyone can do it...Knowledge about certain technology or issues is a matter of information, the one who knows the most is the one who has more information. You seem to be well informed; I only wish that you could process all that you know in order to generate ideas, solutions and to add some value to this thread. 

People like I and many other technology researchers and developers have made easy for consumers like you and others (I am also a consumer) to understand, learn and know what you all know, we don't brag about it. We try to be humble of our knowledge and we don't ever underestimate who is on the other side...I am a Engineer with an MBA, an MS in engineering and a PHD and I am still learning, and I am close to 60... 

My focus in this thread has been to generating ideas for consolidating efforts from consumers, manufacturers, developers and the movie industry so technology can advance without delays. Keeping the costs down while assuring consumers that they are not breaking the law or standing over a gray area while at the same time making the movie industry happy is what all is about... Any kind of questions or ideas is always welcome, negative statements are not because are destructive and a waste of time for everyone...

The concept of having a very high quality movie service at home with similar or lower prices than current rentals is the target and what matters; who runs the service or its name is unimportant...I don't care much for Blockbuster either but we have to concede that at one time Blockbuster was a leading service oriented company.

I mentioned that there are new technologies available that have not been considered, fully adopted or developed because of gray areas and innumerable disparities and disputes in between the software/hardware and the movie industries...We are looking for a common denominator and we need solutions...

I also mentioned an integral network system available for HD TV sets...Nevertheless, be assured that if you ever want it, our company and others have the same technology available for projection systems. You may not find it useful as you said but we think that many consumers will like having access for browsing the internet and other neat options like access to movie services, HVAC, lighting, home audio, home wireless security cameras, etc. all coming from a special component integrated to their HD TVs...This technology can be controlled with a blue tooth wireless keyboard, with your remote control or with other... 

Finally, I was referring to the Dune BD prime series of network players that were released a few weeks ago, Popcorn components and players were indeed introduced to the market some time ago. Dune players are a close relative to the Popcorn system that you mention and both use some similar components. Both systems also use similar technology in part developed by the company where I work...I am the VP of R&D currently on vacations and this is why I have time for following this thread.

These mentioned Dune players reached the market at a fractional cost of their competition, and yes, they needed to resolve non technology issues for 2+ years; the wait was so long that they needed to be technology updated before going out. 

I wish that we all can engage in generating positive and fruitful ideas, I will not be responding to negative replies...I thank all of you for your participation...

Best regards for all members, 

AZUARO


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

Wow, okay. I'm sorry that my input isn't the one that you're looking for. However, I won't refrain from correcting misinformation by citing specific examples, or offering my opinion as a user (this forum would be pretty worthless if I and others did). Rather, I supported my understanding of the law with specific case examples, my input on technology with specific rationale, and my input on product development with specific products to model. 

I'd say I'm pretty easy to please. I'm pleased that fair use is still protected even if the means by which to practice that fair use are not. I'm please with connected media options in separate boxes so that I don't have to recycle my TV to get new features or services (which pop up every couple months, and often aren't supported by firmware updates because firmware updates don't sell new TVs and AVRs), and I'm mostly please by the Popcorn Hour which has been on the market for over a year with nary a legal problem, and includes blu-ray file playback, though with a sub-par interface.

I'm sorry if these facts don't bode well for your business proposition, but I find that, if you're looking for input, it's important to listen more than you talk, and don't get upset when the input offered isn't what you want to hear.


----------

