Last line on msnbc.com's article:

[Link: msnbc.msn.com]

"In fact, we have quite a few studio executives and movie directors who have the system in their homes," Malcolm said.

Oh the irony! Isn't that like the telemarketing company executives being on the no call list while suing to be able to call?

Big K will come out ahead on this one...

K did EVERYTHING right, they crossed every T and dotted every i in making sure this was legal, and they garnered some BIG TIME Hollywood support. I know this because I've had SEVERAL extensive talks with them, and because I know TWO BIG TIME Hollywood Producers with vacation homes in SW Colorado HAVE Kaleidascapes in ther homes, and I know the technician who put them there!

I can, in some sick and feeble way, see the point though...

People who spend 30-60 THOUSAND dollars on a video server, have the capability to copy a $14.00 movied rented from BlockBuster, then return it....and if each one of them did that enough....hell, Hollywood WOULD go flat broke! After all, I sell a Kaleidascape to every customer I can now, cause they are just pocket change!

What a rediculous thing to say.... Of course not... Where did that come from???? Its just that Media Access/AMX Maxx has been out longer than all the others and they didnt go after them first..... I find that odd..... I find a lot of things odd about this lawsuit....

If there is a law that says it's illegal to circumvent the copy protection, and the law is enforceable, why do we need the copy protection technology? Why not just have an enforceable law?

well, it is a bit harder to sue everyone :-) prevention is always the best medicine

Take it easy Impact. I am just saying that if you are selling these units beware. They are going to go after dealers and end users next.

They cannot go after dealers and end-users who are using a legally purchased product in a legal way. Neither the dealers nor the end-users have developed technology which is illegal. A perfect example is 3-2-1 Studios and DVD X-Copy - it is not illegal to own or use the product (as it was intended - for backup) - they just went out of business as there was an injunction against them selling it and they could no longer afford the legal fees to fight it. Best Buy was never sued for stocking the product and selling it. Now, if Best Buy were to sell the product after it was pulled from shelves, then yes, they could be vulnerable - but still, most likely, they could claim ignorance/miscommunication, pull it when confronted, and most likely still avoid a lawsuit.

How do you explain all those end-users who were sued (and still being sued) by the RIAA? They didn't develop Napster software. They just used it. :)


Hollywood has proved they will do anything to protect IP. Don't think they will not come after you. Or at least scare the crap out of you by sending you a legal letterhead.

Some years ago I did my first big installation. 27,000 sq ft in Alpine, NJ. A New Dheli Indian--need I say more. The electrician stops me one day to brag that he has renegotiated his contract with the owner. He now has a guarantee on his final 100k for the job. His next breath he tells me that the owner is putting 28 14k toilet bowls in the home. When I break out laughing he says, yea, really funny, no? It is not funny that the owner is putting in 14k toilet bowls, I tell him, it is funny that you think you have an iron clad contract! He is going to the bath room on more money than your contract is worth so what is your contract worth if you have to enforce it by taking him to court?

Moral: if the big, bad movie monguls come after you and bring you to court, how much will it cost you to defend the law suit, even if you win? Think you can counter sue for legal fees? Ever speak to lawyers about these sorts of suits. You pay up front or at least pay all fees and material costs and recoup IF you win court costs and legal fees. Somehow you pay for not only cost of paper and printer cartridges but scretarial time to make copies and faxes. In life he who has the deeper pockets wins in court. Justice my *ss. Money = justice in this country and Corporate Capitalism has way deeper pockets then we small installation firms; better hope you are incoporated or you may well donate your home to the Hollywood boogieman.

Alan

I would argue that if a defendant can prove he was using it for backup purposes and had already legally licensed the digital media, the suit would be dropped. However, if he's pirating music, well then... that's illegal and he should be sued. However, this lawsuit is much more like the audio industry suing Apple for the iPOD - same principal. (Oh no - I didn't just give them another idea, did I?)

This message was edited by RC Geek on 12/10/04 12:58 ET.

"Kaleidescape creates expensive consumer electronics networks that upload the full contents of as many as 500 DVDs to a home server, and allow the owner to browse through the movies without later using the DVDs themselves. That's exactly what the copy-protection technology on DVDs, called Content Scramble System (CSS) was meant to prevent, the Hollywood-backed group said" By John Borland
Staff Writer, CNET News.com

As I understand the English language "without later using the DVDs themselves" means they could care less why you achieved the material but the fact that you have means you are at risk. This does not mean that a court will agree with their position but it does mean that they have fired a shot across the bow of anyone who intends to market, sell or install a system or deivce that does not rely on the original DVD.
Perhaps Request was smart in devising the Video Rrequst interface.

Alan

In that case, they should improve the copy-protection technology.

It's like making door locks, and then making it illegal to circumvent them. If the law works, why not just make it illegal to open a closed door and skip the ineffective hardware?

The anti-gun lobbyists want to eradicate guns, rather than enforce existing laws. If the existing laws can't be enforced, what's the point of adding on newer non-enforceable laws?

I have a copy of the complaint and have spoken with a DVD CCA spokesperson. It boils down to this:

"Kaleidescape is required to implement architectures in which the user must have the physical DVD disc in the drive during authentication and playback."

Otherwise, said the spokesman, you can load a DVD into the system, then give the DVD to a friend, who can load it into their Kaleidescape system, etc. Before you know it, you and all your friends have copied a single DVD for viewing in your Kaleidescape system.

More to come...

Laughable..... I know all kinds of extremely rich people who's sole purpose in life is to share their $15-$20 DVD's with their Extremely rich neighbors.....


they could buy 3 copies of all 500 movies for what a Kalidascape costs!

After reading all of these posts, I went back but could not find the quote I would otherwise put here:

"bsbsbsbsbsbsbsbsbsbsbsbsbsbs"

That quote says that Kaleidescape makes copy-protected copies of the DVDs. In other words, they have not violated anything by going around the copy protection; they have made copy-protected copies! What the heck is wrong with that?

This is identical to the VCR to VCR copying machines made in the nineties by Go Video...they made copy-protected copies of videotapes. They did not circumvent the copy protection system. It was intact on the copy.