-
Thanks for visiting the Kaleidescape Owners' Forum
This forum is for the community of Kaleidescape owners, and others interested in learning about the system, equipment, services, and the company itself.It is run by a group of enthusiastic Kaleidescape owners and dealers purely as a service to this community.
This board is not affiliated in any way with Kaleidescape, Inc.
For official technical support, product information, or customer service, please visit www.kaleidescape.com -
You are currently in "Guest" mode and not logged in with a registered account.
The forum is free to use and most of the forum can be used by guests who are not registered....
... but we strongly encourage you to register for a full account. There is no cost to register for a full account.
Benefits of registering for a full account:
- Participate in the discussions! You must have a registered account to make posts on the forums. You will be able to start your own thread on a topic or question, or you can reply to other threads/discussions.
- Use the "Conversation" feature (known as "private messaging" on other forums) to communicate directly with any of the other users here.
- Access the Files area. The "resources" area of the forum contains many "Favorite Scene" and Script files that can dramatically increase the enjoyment of your Kaleidescape system. Go directly to great scenes in your favorite movies, created by other owners, and add automation to playback of your system with Scripts.
- You won't see this annoying notice at the top of every screen!😊
Kaleidescape legal update
- Thread starter Mr.Poindexter
- Start date
Understandably Kaleidescape is trying to spin this as positively as possible (moving on to an Appellate Court) but it just seems unlikely to me that this will be overturned or even that the injunction will be stayed. After 7 years of endless back and forth and a now clear and concise decision it will likely be seen as time to move on.
If I am correct (my opinion without any legal background) I can't see how Kaleidescape will continue. They can't realistically sell products to new users as who is going to accept a Blu-ray only solution and have no way of importing DVDs. Can Kaleidescape really continue with just their current customer base? I don't even see them being able to use the loop holes many other server solutions do as I thought I saw somewhere that they can't copy "unencrypted" keys. This must be the DVD-CCA's attempt to block them from doing simply bypassing encryption. Kaleidescape entered into contract with the DVD-CCA and now they will pay the price for going the more honorable route.
By losing this decision Kaleidescape is being slapped with tighter restrictions than anybody else. They of course won't present anything as "the sky is falling" until the final notice comes out that they are closing up shop. That is always the way it works in business, don't acknowledge just how bad things are so you can sell up until the end.
The silver lining as I see it as over the past 5-10 years the alternatives to Kaleidescape have gotten better and better. I use XBMC on a high end HTPC and while admittedly the copying of movies is not as turnkey as Kaleidescape offers the GUI and user experience has in my mind far surpassed what Kaleidescape has.
If I am correct (my opinion without any legal background) I can't see how Kaleidescape will continue. They can't realistically sell products to new users as who is going to accept a Blu-ray only solution and have no way of importing DVDs. Can Kaleidescape really continue with just their current customer base? I don't even see them being able to use the loop holes many other server solutions do as I thought I saw somewhere that they can't copy "unencrypted" keys. This must be the DVD-CCA's attempt to block them from doing simply bypassing encryption. Kaleidescape entered into contract with the DVD-CCA and now they will pay the price for going the more honorable route.
By losing this decision Kaleidescape is being slapped with tighter restrictions than anybody else. They of course won't present anything as "the sky is falling" until the final notice comes out that they are closing up shop. That is always the way it works in business, don't acknowledge just how bad things are so you can sell up until the end.
The silver lining as I see it as over the past 5-10 years the alternatives to Kaleidescape have gotten better and better. I use XBMC on a high end HTPC and while admittedly the copying of movies is not as turnkey as Kaleidescape offers the GUI and user experience has in my mind far surpassed what Kaleidescape has.
Transepoch
Well-known member
They lasted a few years after the format wars ended with a DVD-only solution, so I'm sure they will come up with something. Hopefully a successful appeal.
Until then, I would settle for something more official than Tom's response to the latest CEPro article saying we can leave our systems connected to the internet without being neutered after the 7th.
I think you are missing my point. Any new customer that would consider Kaleidescape will be informed that they can't import their DVDs. They can only import Blu-rays moving forward. So the customer will ask their dealer well what do I do if I want to watch a movie I own on DVD. And to that the dealer would have to respond that they'd have to go find the actual disc and put it in the tray. Ok, so the same thing I have to do with a $39 DVD player?
There is no way a new buyer would be willing to pay the Kaleidescape premium if they can't import their likely very large DVD collection. This means no new Blu-ray systems being sold to new customers and thus Kaleidescape's user base can't expand from where it currently is. Not a good situation for a business to stay viable.
I was just about to post that same thought. If "pre-April-8" systems were still permitted to load DVDs, AND if Kaleidescape can continue in some form to offer the MovieGuide service for DVDs, then the resale value of these Pre-4/8 systems may go through the roof. Buyers would be taking a chance on Kaleidescape shutting the whole thing down, or further legal action, but in the meantime, the value of the worlds' only DVD server might go up.
A gutsy speculator could start buying every server they can get their hands on, just to be able to sell them at 2x or 3x after 4/8.
I'm hoping Kaleidescape would now consider opening up the "hidden" meta-data editing that only they can do right now - things like the start timecode of the actual movie, the spot where the credits start to role, the aspect-ratio, etc.
They don't have much incentive to do it for us, but if the movieguide server shuts down for good, having the ability to maintain our own DVDs (even import new ones to our Pre-4/8 servers) would allow us to continue to use them as today. Without this ability being given to end-users in a UI change, all future DVD imports will just have the generic "play disc" command, won'd to all the fancy junk-skipping, trigger screen masking systems or anamorphic lens switching, etc.
They don't have much incentive to do it for us, but if the movieguide server shuts down for good, having the ability to maintain our own DVDs (even import new ones to our Pre-4/8 servers) would allow us to continue to use them as today. Without this ability being given to end-users in a UI change, all future DVD imports will just have the generic "play disc" command, won'd to all the fancy junk-skipping, trigger screen masking systems or anamorphic lens switching, etc.
Regarding the appeal. The burden is on the party making the appeal and the odds usually are against this party. However, without knowing the actual record of the trial, its really impossible for us to guess that its either going to be just fine or its over. We simply don't know. And into that we each pour our own individual feelings on the matter.
FWIW, my understanding of what happened here is the DVDCCA decided to kill Kaleidescape. It appears this is someone's "holy war" and they simply are committed to achieving the outcome.
Yes it will be difficult for Kaleidescape to go forward without DVD ability. At its price point, its a luxury good, and as a luxury good you cannot succeed if you make your clients jump through hoops. The vault for BRs was a brilliant idea. But clients need to have access to the legacy DVD format.
We simply have to wait and see. In the mean time, I hope Kaleidescape is working on that download store and I would hope that they can offer something that will entice new customers. Thats really the way forward.
FWIW, my understanding of what happened here is the DVDCCA decided to kill Kaleidescape. It appears this is someone's "holy war" and they simply are committed to achieving the outcome.
Yes it will be difficult for Kaleidescape to go forward without DVD ability. At its price point, its a luxury good, and as a luxury good you cannot succeed if you make your clients jump through hoops. The vault for BRs was a brilliant idea. But clients need to have access to the legacy DVD format.
We simply have to wait and see. In the mean time, I hope Kaleidescape is working on that download store and I would hope that they can offer something that will entice new customers. Thats really the way forward.
I can't see many customers being that interested in a system which is a minimum of 6U for 300 movies. Without an option for having movies on hard drive instead of mechanical changer this is dead in the water (sorry) for marine installs. And having to re-buy legacy content on Bluray (where possible) - oh dear.
I hope it doesn't go the way it looks currently, but the brave new world Kal seem to be easing us into of no DVD archiving really doesn't leave a very viable product line for me
I hope it doesn't go the way it looks currently, but the brave new world Kal seem to be easing us into of no DVD archiving really doesn't leave a very viable product line for me
Let's not pretend that Kaleidescape is the world's only DVD server.
Just reading the comments over at CEPro and one of the posts brought up a good point:
"I do wonder if that gives Kaleidescape a basis for appeal. After all, it goes well beyond the scope of the DVD CCA license agreement when they start regulating discs without copy protection to make them uncopyable even by the owners of the copyright.
By what right does the DVD CCA have the ability to limit my use of my own private home movies?"
Could the fact that the judgment is covering grounds outside of the scope of the DVD-CCA agreement with Kaleidescape (unencrypted media) lead towards the entire judgment being thrown away?
"I do wonder if that gives Kaleidescape a basis for appeal. After all, it goes well beyond the scope of the DVD CCA license agreement when they start regulating discs without copy protection to make them uncopyable even by the owners of the copyright.
By what right does the DVD CCA have the ability to limit my use of my own private home movies?"
Could the fact that the judgment is covering grounds outside of the scope of the DVD-CCA agreement with Kaleidescape (unencrypted media) lead towards the entire judgment being thrown away?
It looked like hopefully they may be onto something; however if you dig a bit deeper:
The injunction specifies any Capitalized terms are as defined by CSS Procedural Spec.
Title in "d. Does not make a persistent copy of any Title" is capitalized. Hence defined in CSS Procedural Spec.
You can see that doc in all its boring glory here:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seminar/internet-client/readings/week2/02-08CSS.pdf
Title is defined as:
1.38. "Title" shall mean a work, such as a motion picture, or other audio/video programming, provided by a Content Provider to be incorporated, either scrambled or descrambled, by itself or with other such works, into a DVD Disc.
Content Provider is defined as:
1.6. "Content Provider" shall mean a party providing content for scrambling using CSS and incorporation into a DVD Disc.
As a home movie creator you are not a Content Provider providing content for scrambling using CSS (as home movies are not CSS encrypted), thus it would seem home movies would not be classed as Titles in the scope of this injunction.
But I am not a lawyer. I'm sure they could make a "Title" out of a sow's ear...!
I think it would be nice if the new systems displayed this when you try to load a DVD:
The ability to load DVD titles into the system has been removed due to a court order by Judge William J. Monahan
Court Address
Court phone number
Court email address
You don't want to put his home address and phone number on there, but the court number/address are public and one cannot get in trouble for posting them. It is also easy for somebody to change their phone number, but more of a pain for a government office to do so.
Granted, it wouldn't be like having everybody who owned an iPod calling them, but the people who see that are all going to be in the group known as "people with clout".
The ability to load DVD titles into the system has been removed due to a court order by Judge William J. Monahan
Court Address
Court phone number
Court email address
You don't want to put his home address and phone number on there, but the court number/address are public and one cannot get in trouble for posting them. It is also easy for somebody to change their phone number, but more of a pain for a government office to do so.
Granted, it wouldn't be like having everybody who owned an iPod calling them, but the people who see that are all going to be in the group known as "people with clout".
None of this would be an issue without the DMCA. DMCA prohibits the selling of technology to circumvent copy protection, even if the circumvention would be done by someone making a backup copy at home (fair use rights) - like DVDs on Kaleidescape. So I can make a copy at home, and even circumvent copy protection to achieve that purpose (gray area), but K can't sell me that solution.
So because K doesn't want to deal with the DMCA, they need to get a "license" to decrypt the useless copy protection on a DVD. They don't really need a license for technology's sake, they need it to avoid a DMCA case.
So they get the license, and there's the gotcha. You can't sell someone a system that allows that person to make a legitimate, digital backup copy. Remember, the CCA doesn't want any persistent copy to exist.
That's the irony and is recognized by the district court decision. Congress is to blame here because it did not provide an exemption that allows technology providers to sell a solution to a person that wanted a turnkey solution to make backup copies.
I am a lawyer, a patent lawyer, and I find all of this remarkably silly. The content providers know they can't create a bulletproof content protection scheme, so they prevent companies from selling a content protection bypass solution under the DMCA. The content providers also know how difficult it is to go against individual parties (identifying them, fair use copies, etc.), so they create a circular methodology via licensing to protect their content while depriving individuals of fair use rights.
Then they stuff Ultra Violet down our throats because Apple/iTunes is too far ahead and they want their cut on my probably fifth purchase of Star Wars.
Sorry for the rant,
Jay
So because K doesn't want to deal with the DMCA, they need to get a "license" to decrypt the useless copy protection on a DVD. They don't really need a license for technology's sake, they need it to avoid a DMCA case.
So they get the license, and there's the gotcha. You can't sell someone a system that allows that person to make a legitimate, digital backup copy. Remember, the CCA doesn't want any persistent copy to exist.
That's the irony and is recognized by the district court decision. Congress is to blame here because it did not provide an exemption that allows technology providers to sell a solution to a person that wanted a turnkey solution to make backup copies.
I am a lawyer, a patent lawyer, and I find all of this remarkably silly. The content providers know they can't create a bulletproof content protection scheme, so they prevent companies from selling a content protection bypass solution under the DMCA. The content providers also know how difficult it is to go against individual parties (identifying them, fair use copies, etc.), so they create a circular methodology via licensing to protect their content while depriving individuals of fair use rights.
Then they stuff Ultra Violet down our throats because Apple/iTunes is too far ahead and they want their cut on my probably fifth purchase of Star Wars.
Sorry for the rant,
Jay
I think that's a great idea! Mr. Malcolm doesn't strike me as the type to do something like this, but desperate times call for desparate measures. I would imagine the client list of K* is quite the list of "who's who" and now that they've experienced the K* system, I think they'd be rather upset that this judge with an unevolved brain has decided they can't enjoy their K* system anymore.
Also, wouldn't you think that there are some people with close ties to the DVD CCA (and in positions of authority) that have a K* system personally and enjoy it and would be rather annoyed at this outcome? Is it possible that these individuals are perhaps unaware of the DVD CCA's case and if they catch wind of this, they could just tell the DVD CCA to go bug off?
cinelife
Administrator
Staff member
Forum Administrator
Moderator
⭐️⭐️PATRON⭐️⭐️
Authorized Kaleidescape Dealer
Gee....I spend two days traveling to our FL home (the worst 28 hour traveling experience I've ever had), and log in to find all my forum friends depressed and looking for the cool-aid.
I see there are also posts from non-K owner's, discussing the doom and gloom facing K......., but there are also some logical comments about the very real reprecussions facing K going forward. Will they "throw in the cards?" We'll know soon enough, but I believe I already have the answer...........
I'll wait for the fire sale and then jump in to buy 3U Servers, M-Players, and M700's as they appear in the market. Of course I'll wait until they are 10 cents on the dollar, which based on some posted comments could happen at any time. If you are interested in taking me up on this now, before any official K announcement, I'll make it 12 cents on the dollar. After K's announcement, it's $0.10. I do have a limit, so I'll buy until I hit that number. How's that for faith....
On a serious note, I remember the day many years ago that I first inquired about the Kaleidescape product, I also remember a conversation with K's CEO at CES one year. I came away with a belief that K's vision included a long term approach to business, and a willingness to always seek out new and better technologies to enhance the entertainment value for K's niche market, and consumers in general. One of my most recent conversations with a key person at K reminded me that the vision hasn't really changed. I'm paraphrasing here, but the comment was "I didn't come to K to sell a device that could rip DVD's.....I came because of the Company's much broader vision of improving the user experience for watching movies and listening to music, and that always considered future technologies."
My posts are obvious, I'm a huge fan of K, not only because of their products, but the people behind the product.
In regards to my Servers, in the words of a man that has taken up many megabits of storage in my K system, I say to the DVDCCA "from my cold dead hands...."
Jim
I see there are also posts from non-K owner's, discussing the doom and gloom facing K......., but there are also some logical comments about the very real reprecussions facing K going forward. Will they "throw in the cards?" We'll know soon enough, but I believe I already have the answer...........
I'll wait for the fire sale and then jump in to buy 3U Servers, M-Players, and M700's as they appear in the market. Of course I'll wait until they are 10 cents on the dollar, which based on some posted comments could happen at any time.
If you are interested in taking me up on this now, before any official K announcement, I'll make it 12 cents on the dollar. After K's announcement, it's $0.10. I do have a limit, so I'll buy until I hit that number. How's that for faith....On a serious note, I remember the day many years ago that I first inquired about the Kaleidescape product, I also remember a conversation with K's CEO at CES one year. I came away with a belief that K's vision included a long term approach to business, and a willingness to always seek out new and better technologies to enhance the entertainment value for K's niche market, and consumers in general. One of my most recent conversations with a key person at K reminded me that the vision hasn't really changed. I'm paraphrasing here, but the comment was "I didn't come to K to sell a device that could rip DVD's.....I came because of the Company's much broader vision of improving the user experience for watching movies and listening to music, and that always considered future technologies."
My posts are obvious, I'm a huge fan of K, not only because of their products, but the people behind the product.
In regards to my Servers, in the words of a man that has taken up many megabits of storage in my K system, I say to the DVDCCA "from my cold dead hands...."
Jim
AnOutsider
Well-known member
Yes, making my system self-sufficient would be all I need going forward. I'll add my own movie covers and metadata. I'm also sure we can form a database of content here for everyone to share. My biggest fear with kscape has always been That its such a closed system reliant on them. This would solve that.
Has there been any official response from Kaleidescape on the court decision and how this affects servers purchased prior to the injunction date? I have a spare 5U I might want to setup as a new system, but I need a new hard drive set with a fresh OS install to bring it online.
well all Kscape need to do is open up the hard drive storage architecture so server appears as a user share on the network where you can save files to. Let the owners load the videos/movies from their PC/hard drives to the server and load their own metadata. They can put a discalimer that if the consumer can legally have a copy of the video he owns on a hard drive he is welcome to load it to the server as long as he is responsible for making sure that he has legally copied the video on the hard drive of the content he owns., like the others companies do...
That would kill BluRay licensing, unless you mean just for DVD servers.
Personally, I don't think that would be a realistic option, as quality control is easier done with a system that is not open.
However, the idea of being able to load non-protected DVDs and then input out own metadata would address those users who were so inclined. However, that might piss off the BLURAY people...