Kaleidescape legal update

[iansilv]

Can anyone here confirm the denial of the stay on the injunction?

 

[josh]

Wow... definitely worst-case anyone could have imagined.

Waiting for some of our resident attorneys to weigh in, but CEPro has been pretty reliable in their past coverage of the case. Press article is not "proof" of the decision, but it doesn't seem like just a rumor. Public documents will surely have to emerge soon.

http://www.cepro.com/article/kaleidescape_stay_denied_manufacturer_vows_to_fight/K537

Well, at the very least, this will now likely unfold very fast... we will get on with either buying in to some "new" vision of Kaleidescape, or we'll start some threads discussing the best of the homebrew non-licensed DIY solutions that are out there to replicate some of the lost functions of our beloved "old" Kaleidescape.

sad day...

 

[videofile]

I believe the following link gets you to the case docket on the CA courts website:
[URL="http://www.sccaseinfo.org/pa6.asp?full_case_number=1-04-CV-031829&crumbs=Civil%20Index&crumbs=Party/Case%20Type%20Search&crumbs=Party/Case%20Type%20Results&crumbs=Cases%20Involving%20Kaleidescape%20Inc.#docs"]http://www.sccaseinfo.org/pa6.asp?full_case_number=1-04-CV-031829&crumbs=Civil%20Index&crumbs=Party/Case%20Type%20Search&crumbs=Party/Case%20Type%20Results&crumbs=Cases%20Involving%20Kaleidescape%20Inc.#docs[/URL]
Can't see anything confirming the decision on the stay, but I can see an award of costs of around $120,000 against Kal (I guess these are just the court costs?).

It looked like on the article linked from CEPro that Julie had actually spoken to them since the decision?

 

[videofile]

Actually it looks like back on the 21st March there was some activity on that case docket which relates to the appeal for stay; but I don't speak legalese! Can anyone else work out what it means? Did that decision really get made on the 21st?

 

[Jerry D]

very very sad
The K experience is the best I have ever seen. But if the above is true, I can't see them surviving this.
Surely to remain in business they need to keep selling their kit, not just to existing users but to new customers. No new user is going to buy it if they can't put their DVDs onto their server. I get the point about Blu ray being the future, but the purpose of the K system is to consolidate and order exisiting collections which is likely to be full of DVD's. A download service won't help as it does not provide what a new K buyer wants.
I really hope I am wrong. Can they cut a deal with the CCA?

 

[Jerry D]

Maybe that hitherto redundant USB port at the back of the servers will eventually allow people to re-introduce software that will allow them to load DVDs onto their K servers (illegally). That would create a level playing field with all those other rubbish movie servers out there that rely on illegal software to operate and who the CCA has never bothered to pursue....

 

[Jerry D]

am I bitter, or what?

 

[videofile]

The DVD CCA have the court papers on their website for the denial of the stay. As they are dated 22nd March, isn't it a little surprising this hasn't come out sooner? Kal still have their previous statement live on their website about the injunction, which is obviously now not current.

The one pager with the attached DVD CCA press release can be seen here:

http://www.dvdcca.org/documents/kaleidescape-stay-denied-032612.pdf

 

[Dj-dulux]

A lot of the case appears to focus on the fact that the disk is not present, surely the CCA would accept the vault solution? This would not satisfy every customer, but most of the work I do would be fine (except canal boats).


Dupe...

 

[sshearer]

Wow... definitely worst-case anyone could have imagined.

Waiting for some of our resident attorneys to weigh in, but CEPro has been pretty reliable in their past coverage of the case. Press article is not "proof" of the decision, but it doesn't seem like just a rumor. Public documents will surely have to emerge soon.

http://www.cepro.com/article/kaleidescape_stay_denied_manufacturer_vows_to_fight/K537

Well, at the very least, this will now likely unfold very fast... we will get on with either buying in to some "new" vision of Kaleidescape, or we'll start some threads discussing the best of the homebrew non-licensed DIY solutions that are out there to replicate some of the lost functions of our beloved "old" Kaleidescape.

sad day...

Although I am an attorney, I don't have any expertise in this area of the law nor am I familiar with California law (I am a PA attorney). However, as the CEPro article indicates, the next step is for Kaleidescape to ask the appellate court for a supersedes (meaning for the appellate court to stay the injunction). Often times, the law requires that you initially ask the court that issued an order to reconsider it or amend it before you are permitted to ask the appellate court to reverse or amend the lower court order. I am not surprised the lower court did not grant a stay as they issued to adverse decision to being with and are the ones who worded the injunction order.

I will leave it to others as to what the chances are that the appellate court will grant a stay or supersedes.

I agree that this is a very sad day, but I have not yet given up hope.

Even if the appellate court refuses to grant a supersedes, I would like to think that Kaleidescape and their engineers could quickly come up with a solution as the court decision only seems to prevent Kaleidescape from decrypting a Disc Key, a Title Key or descrambling a Title using CSS and performing Authentication. Thus, as I read the decision, if some other software or hardware performed those functions or those keys and the CSS protection were not on the imported DVD in the first place, the Kaleidescape system would be permitted to store the content of the imported DVD on its system and do everything else it currently does.

The court decision notes "A reading of the DMCA makes it clear that its prohibition applies to the trafficking in and marketing of devices that would circumvent encryption technology, not to the users of such technology. While it may 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. In any event the downstream uses of the Kaleidescape system by its customers, whether legal or illegal, are not relevant to determining whether Kaliedecape itself is violating its License Agreement."

It appears to me that DVD CCA is forcing Kaleidescape to do what all the other media server companies are doing (i.e. have the users acquire their own (readily-available and cheap) software to do the decryption). While I would hate for Kaleidescape to have to go that route, they may have no choice if they want to continue in business. They could still be the best in the industry with all the other features they bring to the table (e.g. user interface; ability to immediately start movie without trailers, warnings, etc.; proactive hardware support; etc.).

Scott

 

[sipester]

It appears to me that DVD CCA is forcing Kaleidescape to do what all the other media server companies are doing (i.e. have the users acquire their own (readily-available and cheap) software to do the decryption). While I would hate for Kaleidescape to have to go that route, they may have no choice if they want to continue in business. They could still be the best in the industry with all the other features they bring to the table (e.g. user interface; ability to immediately start movie without trailers, warnings, etc.; proactive hardware support; etc.).

Scott

It looks like they have 2 main options for plan B:

1. Build a disc vault for DVDs (but lots of issues with that plan)
2. Allow users to use own decrpytion key, such as AnyDVD.

If they go with the second option, then they might as go all the way and eliminate the need for the Blu-Ray Vaults. There are many other companies (such as VidaBox) that have gone this route and I've yet to see any of them be challenged from a legal perspective.

 

[Mr.Poindexter]

sipester, the ruling from the judge forbids a vault solution for DVD. Even if there was a vault, the ruling states that the playback cannot come from the hard drives because they cannot copy have a copy on the hard drive when the film is not playing. That means you cannot load it onto the drives in the first place.

I think another solution would be to have a loader available that auto decrypts the title and feeds it to a Kaleidescape server.

As far as the other companies, the DVD CCA cannot sue them for breach of contract because those other companies don't actually have a contract with them.

 

[sshearer]

I think another solution would be to have a loader available that auto decrypts the title and feeds it to a Kaleidescape server.

The way I read the ruling, if a title is decrypted before it is stored on the Kaleidescape hard drives, that decrypted title can remain on the drives in the server (and be played) without violating the DVD CCA license or any other law that Kaleidescape is subject to as long as it is not Kaleidescape that is decrypting the title. As a matter of fact, in that case, Kaleidescape would have no need to even have a license from the DVD CCA.

Does anyone disagree with my understanding of the ruling?

Scott

 

[JerryL]

Appellate courts exist because there are bad decisions all the time. I have faith that this will be overturned, but thats all it is, my opinion.

In the mean time, at the risk of parsing a news article: as I read the CE Pro article, it says that K will be enjoined from "selling its DVD movie servers as of April 8, 2012.". It doesn't say we can't continue to use them nor does it say K has been compelled to update its software to prevent the use of systems in the field as of that date.

As for a DVD vault, it seems that the DVDCCA has shown its intentions here:

" The DVD CCA has denied Kaleidescape’s offer of a similar solution for DVDs. "

I can only guess at the motivations as being those of other consumer electronics makers who were perhaps too slow or not cleaver enough to interpret the DVDCCA rules the way Kaleidescape did and were probably then told (Im speculating here) by the CCA that though its not the letter of the law they would frown upon their doing something similar. So it would be logical in this setup, if Im correct with my wild guess, that the other electronics companies would not want someone to have what they would consider as an unfair advantage in the market place. Even if its basically a niche product. I just thought of this:

http://www.plexapp.com/

And really all the other streamer devices. If you have media on a NAS or other attached device you can play it. It encourages ripping IMHO. Lets call a spade a spade and this is really just a shame.

So I guess for right now we are still in limbo. Questions I have which I expect Kaleidescape to answer as soon as they can- I think right now they are dealing with a lot of legal issues that probably require their being somewhat restricted on what they say:

1- Will we be able to use our systems as they currently function going forward?

2- Will we be prevented from importing DVDs going forward?

3- What kind of support will there be?

 

[nineball]

sipester, the ruling from the judge forbids a vault solution for DVD. Even if there was a vault, the ruling states that the playback cannot come from the hard drives because they cannot copy have a copy on the hard drive when the film is not playing. That means you cannot load it onto the drives in the first place.

I think another solution would be to have a loader available that auto decrypts the title and feeds it to a Kaleidescape server.

As far as the other companies, the DVD CCA cannot sue them for breach of contract because those other companies don't actually have a contract with them.

I think for the first time I agree with you.......(there's a milestone!!!). If I can buy a movie from apple and play it on any of my devices and store it on any NAS to stream in my own environment then why can't I store it on my Kserver? Quality issues aside (they will fix that I am sure) everything we want to do Apple already does legally so why can't we leverage our investment in K technology for our own benefit????

I know the issues with compression but I sincerely believe there will be an equivalent program to ITunes PLUS that allowed those of us who wished to purchase a higher quality version and pay a premium. Apples service already allows for a better upgrade from standard DVD to HD if you are the legal owner of the original movie DVD. So worst case is a better quality version of standard DVD.

Does any of that make sense?

Peter

 

[nineball]

The way I read the ruling, if a title is decrypted before it is stored on the Kaleidescape hard drives, that decrypted title can remain on the drives in the server (and be played) without violating the DVD CCA license or any other law that Kaleidescape is subject to as long as it is not Kaleidescape that is decrypting the title. As a matter of fact, in that case, Kaleidescape would have no need to even have a license from the DVD CCA.

Does anyone disagree with my understanding of the ruling?

Scott

Nope, I think you are 100% right. The only mistake that Kaleidescape made was to try and be a good corporate citizen and operate within the spirit of the law from the outset. I believe that K can redevelop their approach and drop the license altogether. My hope is that they are ahead of our musings here and already have this figured out. At this point in the process Kaleidescape management no longer has the right to say we don't know what to do. They've had years to figure this one out. Many of us paid a premium in the belief that solutions would have been a part of product strategy that would have avoided a negative impact on their customer base.

I'm not trying to suggest that the legal issues are not onerous, clearly they are but I will be very frustrated to see this company go under because they didn't plan for this a looong time ago.

Peter

 

[nineball]

Appellate courts exist because there are bad decisions all the time. I have faith that this will be overturned, but thats all it is, my opinion.

In the mean time, at the risk of parsing a news article: as I read the CE Pro article, it says that K will be enjoined from "selling its DVD movie servers as of April 8, 2012.". It doesn't say we can't continue to use them nor does it say K has been compelled to update its software to prevent the use of systems in the field as of that date.

As for a DVD vault, it seems that the DVDCCA has shown its intentions here:

" The DVD CCA has denied Kaleidescape?s offer of a similar solution for DVDs. "

I can only guess at the motivations as being those of other consumer electronics makers who were perhaps too slow or not cleaver enough to interpret the DVDCCA rules the way Kaleidescape did and were probably then told (Im speculating here) by the CCA that though its not the letter of the law they would frown upon their doing something similar. So it would be logical in this setup, if Im correct with my wild guess, that the other electronics companies would not want someone to have what they would consider as an unfair advantage in the market place. Even if its basically a niche product. I just thought of this:

http://www.plexapp.com/

And really all the other streamer devices. If you have media on a NAS or other attached device you can play it. It encourages ripping IMHO. Lets call a spade a spade and this is really just a shame.

So I guess for right now we are still in limbo. Questions I have which I expect Kaleidescape to answer as soon as they can- I think right now they are dealing with a lot of legal issues that probably require their being somewhat restricted on what they say:

1- Will we be able to use our systems as they currently function going forward?

2- Will we be prevented from importing DVDs going forward?

3- What kind of support will there be?

Jerry, can we amend question #2 to read.....will we be prevented from importing DVD's or movies going forward? I have bought movies that I legally own and they are stored on a NAS. Perhaps the world and attitudes have changed to the point that Kaleidescape can now open the door to an alternative loading system for files that are already electronic and legal.

Peter

 

[iansilv]

So- AnyDVD HD is used to make a disk image minus the copy protection, that image is burned to a DVD, then THAT DVD is imported... But we still have the hurdle of attaching the K profile to the disk?

If existing servers can import and playback DVDs, then just use existing servers for DVDs and don't buy anymore- just buy BLURAYS from now on...

The injunction does not apply to consumers or existing servers- it simply stops K from selling any systems that can import DVDs.

Does not affect BLURAY, and a lot of people are no longer buying DVDs anyway.

The sky is not falling, it's just that DVDs are not going to be imported in to new servers sold- only BLURAYS- which are better anyway.

Just some thoughts...

 

[TivoSloth]

Importing DVDs is important. Not all content is available on Bluray, and there is an increased storage cost for bluray. Some TV shows and obscure movies barely made it to DVD, and some are now out-of-print.

My hoped for solution is the continued availability of persistent DVD import and storage. With Ultra Violet now made available for DVDs, maybe Kscape and CCA should take a hybrid approach. It might make sense to settle this case in exchange for persistent DVD storage coupled with a $2 fee per DVD imported in the future. If you want to go the bluray route, then no $2 fee. If I want DVD in lieu of bluray, I pay $2 for each import through the Kaleidescape store. This avoids the DVD carousel and maintains the Kscape experience, at a slightly higher cost.

This wouldn't solve the ridiculous position of needing a DVD vault player for playback. If I wanted that solution, I would have stuck with my Sony carousels that I gave away when I purchased a Kscape system.


Jay

 

[Mr.Poindexter]

Jay, I suspect that after 7 years of court and as was stated that the DVD CCA not even agreeing to a vault solution for DVD, it would be overly optimistic to think the DVD CCA would work with Kaleidescape on anything.

It would be interesting to see the resale value of old servers increase because of this and I suspect that very likely could happen if people were convinced of the ongoing viability of Kaleidescape. Of course, the appellate court could always change it up again.