Administrator
Clint DeBoer should be listened to
Kaleidescape Sued by Hollywood
audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=35201#post35201">
In what has got to be the most ridiculous item of the day, Kaleidescape is being sued by the DVD Copy Control Association (basically a bunch of Hollywood Studios), who alleges that its proprietary copy protection technology of movie DVDs, known as the Content Scramble System, is being misused in the Kaleidescape System that makes permanent copies of movie DVDs onto a hard drive and allows users to access the video library from anywhere in a home. What's even more astounding is that this suit is happening even though Kaleidescape has been paying for a license to use the CSS technology for several years.
Privately held Kaleidescape, based in Mountain View, vowed to fight the charges and countersue. This is a slap in the face as far as I'm concerned. We wish Kaleidescape well and hope the CCA loses this lawsuit quickly and in a big way. This kind of behavior from Hollywood has got to stop, especially when companies do their best to abide by the parameters of licensing and provide unique and effective products to consumers that are also careful maintain copyright protections in the process.
Full Audioholic
hopjohn is gaining some recognition
George Lucas uses one of these in his own HT. Maybe Kaleidascape should bring him in to testify.
Moderator
Rob Babcock should be listened to
The instant I heard about the Kaleidescape movie server, I wondered why they hadn't been sued over it. Don't get me wrong, the suit is absurd and I how they shove it up the studio's arses, but it does decrypt DVDs, which is technically illegal as far as I know. But many elements of current DRM strike me as illegal and unconstitutional, and I hope someone can afford to call them out on this repressive and heavyhanded peice of legislation.
You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions. - Naguib Mahfouz
Full Audioholic
djoxygen is gaining some recognition
Not knowing the terms of Kaleidescape's license, or the complaints laid out in the suit, it's tough to know where to come down on this particular legal action, but the larger question is absurd.
We all grew up making cassette tapes of our LPs to play in our cars and on our Walkmans. Taping our favorite Star Trek episodes to watch later or bring to our friend's house.
How long has "Fair Use" in relation to time and place-shifting content we own been established by the courts? And now that the FCC, congress, and everyone else is in the pockets of the media companies, it's going to be illegal to even fast-forward through TiVo'd commercials.
I think we need some "activist court" to stop this erosion of our rights.
--
>:-)
"Clever things make people feel stupid, and unexpected things make them feel scared."
Audioholic Samurai
WmAx should be listened to
Fair use? LOL. This might be headed for the trash can, to become an obselete term in many uses of the word today. I find it pathetic that the law was specifically written to protect users of software(backup, etc.) and music(copies, etc.) but that it is allowed to be over-ruled by other law(s)(DMCA anyone?) that exist merely because a corporate entity did not like the old one. Why even keep the old laws? What a crock!Originally Posted by djoxygen
The only thing that the media companies have managed to accomplish so far is to reduce the versatality and value of the material(s) they distribute. Did you know that the copyright office wants to reduce your rights as well? Refer to the Induce Act(a recent bill attempt that was horrid enough in it's original form) revisions suggested by the U.S. Copyright Office. The U.S. Copyright Office wanted to null the Universal vs. Sony decision by law revision! The Sony Vs. Universal decision is what allows the existance and use of time-shifting device(s) such as VCRs.
People cry/rant about DVD-A and SACD not appearing to be of sufficient demand, and it may very well fall into the cracks and be relenquished to an audiophile format much like vinyl is today. But you can only blame the idiots pushing this stuff, for they refuse to make it useful such as the *old* format: RBCD. RBCD is versatile-- you can use the data to transfer to portable players, make backups or copy directly to your HD or just send the raw data stream(s) to external DACs of your choice; you are not restrictced by any DRM scheme(s).
Why would I(or anyone) want to give up ALL OF THESE THINGS just to have SACD and/or DVD-A a standard that replaces RBCD?
In 1992 the Home Recording Act was passed in the USA allowing copying of any audio, digitally or analog for personal use(s). This was challenged later by the RIAA(RIAA vs. Rio) and the RIAA lost. I believe that today this act needs to be extended to video material. Why should we be limited to our use(s)? Why can't I use(legally) one of those video playback portable hard drive pylayers to also play movies that I have ripped much like a CD? Why do I have to restrict my use(s) of video material(s) in a way that is different from audio material(s)? But it must be remembered that even this is over-ruled by the DMCA(a bad law for citizens, plain and simple).
The only bills I've seen suggested by heavyweight hitters of late are ones that would remove rights, not restore them -- laws that could even remove the right use MP3 players in a form that did not include DRM. Refer to the recent attempt to get the Induce Act passed.
I've observed the the term 'copyright' being thrown around the media, and from the perspective portrayed it seems that it is intended that one should believe that the holders of this material have some ultimate right to dictate any way it is used. In reality, and based on the historical creation of copyrights: it is supposed to be a balanced issue. The origination of copyright was to meant to stimulate new creativity/work, but it is ultimately meant for public and cultural benefit. The user also has a legtimate right to use this data in any way that they see fit(portable players are just one good example). Users have a right to have working materials(something that many DRM schemes do not insure). Copyright is meant to stimulate production of useful things to culture! When you start to lose benefits, the balance is lost, as it is today. Let's take a look at the potential furture for our consumed media: Itunes -- you can't sell purchased music from the Apple Itunes store for which you paid. F**K, you can't even be assured *your* music will work in the future. It is authenticated by a key, of which will eventually expire after a number of computer transfers or if you move out of the country, if Apple decided to discontinue the Itunes service. etc.Fair? Balanced? Ha! Of what value is a work that you can not openly share or even be sure it will *exist* in the future? I am have little doubt that the big-time media distributors(a.k.a. scum) would love to see all material sold in this format that requires THEM to *allow* you to use your purchased product. Total control over your use(s). Yes, I know that you can remove the encryption or do a simple D-A-D process; but that's not the point. The issue is your rights.
But what about the poor giant media conglomerates? They cry about lost sales or potential lost sales. 1st: you must realize that is not not my(or your) responsibility for the economic situation of a given entity. If their models are not sufficient to make money, they must re-invent them as does every other industry in the world! If they can't, they fail. But something that is of demand such as music or movies will never 'disappear', even if the current companies collapsed. It would simply result in a new set of production companies with revised marketing. But remember, regardless, you can't even take the cries of corporations as legitmate. The media companies fought ferociously the following things in the past and swore they would be the downfall of the industries: player pianos, radio, cassette tape recorders, vcrs and mp3 players. MP3 players are still a pretty recent thing, but all of the others are *played out*. You can sit back and observe the result(s) and validities of the original complaint(s). Their forecasts/claims were all but so much empty hot air and ultimately resulted in additional profits. And what if, in an instance, they had valid claims for lost money or collapse? Well, then you usher in the new/revised marketing system -- you don't have the right to provide life support to your failing(UNWANTED BY YOUR CONSUMERS BECAUSE OF AN AGING ECONOMIC STRUCTURE) industry by way of mandated law.
Okay, enough ranting for the moment. As is probably obvious, the issue of copyrights and their relation to media is something gets me going. :-)
-Chris
Last edited by WmAx; 12-10-2004 at 07:19 PM.
Moderator
Rob Babcock should be listened to
A good example of this mess is the way the RIAA has attacked used CD sales. In their mind, apparently, you only rent the music when you buy the disc! Having failed to get any court to buy into their ludicrous theory, they've responded by pulling coop advertising money from any store that sells used CDs.
A classic case of chasing nickels rolling on the floor while leaving dollars on the table.
You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions. - Naguib Mahfouz
Audioholic Samurai
WmAx should be listened to
Because of their actions, I sincerely hope that the big-five of the RIAA collapse/bankrupt.
Besides, if independant labels starting having to provide much of the music, imagine the new and actual talented artists of which the public would be exposed? I also, somehow, doubt that *artists* such as Britney Spears and the like would be able to rake in anywhere near the amount they currently enjoy if a large sample of talented artists were available. I mean, we would lack the forced choice(s) of the RIAA upon us....
-Chris
Audioholic
Steve1000 is a forum member in good standing
Rant #2:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution: The Congress shall have power...
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited
times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings
and discoveries....
______________________
I personally don't find much entertainment to fall under the rubric of science or useful arts. If Congress was not meant to decide what was and was not useful, the founding fathers would not have put the word "useful" in the Constitution. The founding fathers would have just said arts. The word useful is very conspicuous in there. There should be a burden on each songwriter or musician or recording company or movie company to show usefulness for each work.
A copyright should be the exception rather than the rule. (Of course, this is a far far cry from current law.) Copyrights and patents are narrowly crafted (but now cavernous, gaping) exceptions to the intended innovative scheme of the U.S. Constitution where flow of ideas and information is free from impediment, rooted in the ideals of democracy, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I think the whole recorded copyright performance music and video scenario is a huge mistake and a huge problem in our society. As far as "intellectual property" goes, the nation is well on its way to becoming a police state, at the behest of the very rich.
Notice that making copyright and patent law very narrow would not in any way infringe on free speech or expression... one could still say virtually anything or perform virtually any music or make virtually any movie and still have their expression constitutionally protected.
The problem has come in companies making huge profits in entertainment that is not only not useful but is detrimental to society. The scenario should be sure, go ahead and make your despicable and crass movie or music. Just don't expect to get a copyright for it. It's not a useful art, not even close.
What we now call "intellectual property" was not meant to be property, and it was primarily intended to benefit society (i.e., the average joe), not the individual artists or large commercial interests. This much the Supreme Court got right in the Betamax case. Thank goodness.
I think nearly all people would disagree with me. The whole concept is
completely foreign to our ingrained way of thinking. We've been brainwashed into thinking that if we copy a CD we are somehow being immoral. At most, we're exceeding the speed limit on a barren highway by a few miles per hour. It's malum prohibitum (merely againt the law because that's the rule) rather than malum in se (against the law because it's morally wrong). This would obviously cause a radical restructuring of the music and entertainment industry and intellectual property law. There would be a race to make the music and the movies.... USEFUL. Not pornographic, not violent, not shocking... USEFUL. Otherwise, no copyright! Can you imagine? My way is not gonna happen anyway so it's purely a hypothetical argument. It just shows you where I'm coming from.
In my view Congress has no authority (all of its authority must ultimately derive from the Constitution) to grant copyrights for anything other than the purpose of promoting the sciences and USEFUL arts. NONE. We should be
arguing over what is useful and what is art, that is the relevant argument in my view, that is how you get copyright law to benefit society as much as the corporations and so-called artists. The blanket implied copyright of nearly every useless piece of written or recorded expression in our country is in my view absurd and is a tremendous and unproductive drain on our legal system.
Let these folks compete in the market place with no government sponsored legal copyright protection. That's what it is, it's the goverment using taxpayer money to intervene on behalf of undeserving private parties to inhibit the dissemination of relatively useless information ostensibly at the behest of society.
Last edited by Steve1000; 12-10-2004 at 11:01 PM.
Audioholic Samurai
WmAx should be listened to
When I discussed this issue with you a few months ago, my first reaction was that you were extreme. But as I take the effort to think about the logic of the system and it's intended purpose, I largely agree with you at this point.
If the copyright system persists in the current direction, I am confident that we will be operating within a police state style system -- except that big-brother will be the RIAA and MPAA.
-Chris
Moderator
Rob Babcock should be listened to
I think that goes to far, mostly because that would set up a police state. Who would be the final arbiter of what's "useful" to society? Jerry Fallwell? President Bush? Micheal Moore? I feel a cold chill run up my spine when I think of how "useful", "normal", "healthy", etc would be defined in a legal sense.
That said, I doubt our current system of copyrights was what the founders had in mind. Definately too broad. There was no type of copyright protection whatsoever before the last century and a half or so, yet almost every great work of literature was written then. I guess lack of royalties had littel effect on literary output!
You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions. - Naguib Mahfouz
Posting Permissions
 |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote