<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories about &quot;kaleidescape&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2012 10:40:10 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Why Anti-Circumvention Laws Are Evil: Hollywood Gets To Veto DVD Jukebox, Despite Complete Lack Of Infringement</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120313/11281118092/why-anti-circumvention-laws-are-evil-hollywood-gets-to-veto-dvd-jukebox-despite-complete-lack-infringement.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120313/11281118092/why-anti-circumvention-laws-are-evil-hollywood-gets-to-veto-dvd-jukebox-despite-complete-lack-infringement.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ As mentioned, it looks like Canada's new copyright law will <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120313/07430918089/review-canadas-copyright-bill-concludes-digital-locks-survive.shtml">include the "digital locks" provision</a>, which is more accurately described as giving Hollywood a veto on any technology it doesn't like.  If you  haven't followed the specifics, the "digital locks" provision is an anti-circumvention rule that makes it against the law merely to break a "digital lock" (i.e., to route around any form of DRM, no matter how weak) even if (and this is the important part) you are breaking the digital lock for perfectly legal reasons.  For reasons that I still cannot comprehend, Hollywood has insisted that anti-circumvention provisions -- even if there's no infringement -- are of utmost importance.  If it was <i>really</i> about protecting against infringement, they would make it clear that the anti-circumvention provisions only apply in cases where copyright law is broken.
<br /><br />
The real reason why they want anti-circumvention even when there's no copyright infringement is <i>because it gives them a veto on any new technology</i>.  All they have to do is put in some sort of weak digital lock and suddenly the company has to "negotiate" a deal or they can be sued out of existence.
<br /><br />
This is not theoretical.  In fact, we now have yet another very real example of Hollywood's ability to kill a technology that only has legal uses thanks to the absolute nature of the DMCA's anti-circumvention clause (on which Canada's law was modeled).  We've written about <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/search.php?cx=partner-pub-4050006937094082%3Acx0qff-dnm1&#038;cof=FORID%3A9&#038;ie=ISO-8859-1&#038;q=kaleidescape">Kaleidescape</a> a few times in the past.  The company makes super high end DVD jukeboxes, that allow people to take the DVDs they own and store digital copies on a home (not internet-connected) server, to make it easier to watch those movies.  The company has gone to amazing lengths to prevent its product from being used for infringement.  Here, I'll <a href="http://kaleidescape.com/news/pr/PR-20120312-Ruling-Against-Consumers.php" target="_blank">let the company explain the details directly</a>:
<blockquote><i>
Kaleidescape has carefully designed its products to protect the rights of content owners. The hard-disk copy of each DVD retains all of the DVD CCA's scrambling and adds more encryption. The Kaleidescape System is a closed system that prevents DVDs from being copied to the Internet, to writable DVDs, or to computers or mobile devices. Furthermore, you cannot download a pirated movie from the Internet to a Kaleidescape System.
<br /><br />
Every Kaleidescape customer must agree to copy only the DVDs that he rightfully owns, and must reaffirm this agreement upon copying each DVD. Kaleidescape Systems identify rental discs and prevent them from being imported. This combination of business practices and technology has been so effective that after years of searching for evidence that Kaleidescape's customers use their systems to steal content, the DVD CCA admitted in writing that Kaleidescape has done no harm to any of the motion picture studios, and was unable at trial to show any harm to the DVD CCA itself.
</i></blockquote>
At one point, the company even went to such ridiculous extremes that it required users to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100511/0657169375.shtml">put the DVD in</a> the jukebox any time it wanted to play a movie from it -- effectively taking away the device's entire purpose, just to appease Hollywood.
<br /><br />
And, none of it mattered.  A court has <a href="http://www.kaleidescape.com/files/legal/DVDCCA-vs-Kaleidescape-Injunction-Order-20120308.pdf" target="_blank">issued an injunction against Kaleidescape selling these devices</a> (pdf and embedded below).  The specifics of the case revolve around questions of whether or not Kaleidescape breached the specific CSS license agreement that covers the DRM found on DVDs (which, again, Kaleidescape not only retains but enhances in its product).  But that license agreement only has force because of the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA.
<br /><br />
In other words this product, which can only be used for legal means -- and for which there has been no proof presented (ever) that it was used to infringe -- has been killed by a court... thanks to Hollywood's veto on this technology.
<br /><br />
And the amazing thing is that all this does is make things worse for Hollywood.  Considering how much Hollywood has been whining about DVD sales falling lately, a device like this only serves to <i>make DVDs more valuable</i>, meaning they would sell more.
<blockquote><i>
Kaleidescape was founded in 2001 to bring consumers a fantastic experience for enjoying their movie collections. The Kaleidescape movie server makes digital copies of DVDs and Blu-ray Discs to hard disk drives so families can play back their movies instantly from any room of their home. A movie starts directly from the beginning, without forcing the family to endure advertisements, trailers, and confusing menus. With the company's wide-ranging innovations, customers can jump directly to the greatest scenes and songs in movies and concerts, and small children can start their movies all by themselves.
<br /><br />
[....]
<br /><br />
Over the years, Americans have amassed over 13 billion DVDs and Blu-ray Discs &#8211; about 110 per household. This means that many American families have a few thousand dollars tied up in a library of movies they hoped to enjoy over and over. However, with collections that size, families soon realize that it takes so long to find what they're looking for that it just isn't worth buying more discs. This frustration has led to a well-publicized 58% decline in revenues from the sale of DVDs since 2006.
<br /><br />
The Kaleidescape System eliminates that frustration. Because it's so easy and fun for Kaleidescape customers to enjoy their movies, they start buying movies again, and with a bigger appetite. The average Kaleidescape family owns 506 movies on Blu-ray and DVD.
</i></blockquote>
But thanks to digital locks and anti-circumvention rules, such a product got voted out of existence by the very industry it would help the most.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120313/11281118092/why-anti-circumvention-laws-are-evil-hollywood-gets-to-veto-dvd-jukebox-despite-complete-lack-infringement.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120313/11281118092/why-anti-circumvention-laws-are-evil-hollywood-gets-to-veto-dvd-jukebox-despite-complete-lack-infringement.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120313/11281118092/why-anti-circumvention-laws-are-evil-hollywood-gets-to-veto-dvd-jukebox-despite-complete-lack-infringement.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>why-do-we-let-this-happen?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120313/11281118092</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 11 May 2010 11:20:29 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Kaleidescape Introduces Expensive And Almost Pointless Blu-ray Jukebox... And Hollywood Still Thinks It's Illegal</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100511/0657169375.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100511/0657169375.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ You may recall the legal fight over Kaleidescape.  The company built a ridiculously expensive (tens of thousands of dollars) DVD jukebox that was clearly designed not for unauthorized file sharing, but for those with a huge disposable income to store their DVDs on the device so it was easier to watch or playback any DVD they owned (you couldn't transfer the movies off the device, so it was useless for further copying).  Of course, as usually happens, Hollywood got upset, saying that this process of backing up your DVDs was illegal, using a twisted argument that the encryption on DVDs was broken by this system, and thus it's a violation of the DMCA.  This is a massive problem with the DMCA's anti-circumvention clause, which says that even if the copy itself is legal, if it involves encryption, the process of making that (legal) copy, becomes illegal.
<br /><br />
While Kaleidescape won in the lower court, the appeals court <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090812/1545285858.shtml">reversed</a>, highlighting again how Hollywood (despite claims it would never use copyright law to block technology) uses the legal system <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070621/180308.shtml">to block technological innovation</a>.
<br /><br />
Kaleidescape has now come out with a new product that actually <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2010/05/kaleidescape-blu-ray-disc-copying-aacs.html" target="_blank">adds the ability to store Blu-ray discs as well</a> -- which might be a surprise given last summer's ruling.  However, in response to the ruling, Kaleidescape added one "feature" which it hopes will satisfy Hollywood lawyers: to play back a movie, you now have to put the original disc into the player.  Yes, you read that right.  This is a device designed to rip and store your DVDs -- and the only way you can play them back is to go ahead and put the actual DVD into the player to prove that you have it.  In other words, it takes away the whole idea of the convenience behind the product.
<br /><br />
And, guess what?  Hollywood still isn't happy.
<blockquote><i>
The AACS technology and licenses do not permit ripping of Blu-ray discs unless the copy has been authorized by the content owner, either by setting the Copy Control Information appropriately (and nearly all BD movies are set for “Copy Never”, just like DVDs), or by individual authorization through the Managed Copy process, which we anticipate rolling out at the end of this year or the beginning of 2011.
</i></blockquote>
This is exactly what the law is not supposed to do.  It's letting Hollywood set the terms of technological innovation, and blocking any concept of fair use or backup copies that are recognized as legal.  It's giving Hollywood a veto on technology, and causing tech companies to jump through ridiculous hoops to disable obvious functionality, just because Hollywood doesn't like what it does.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100511/0657169375.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100511/0657169375.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100511/0657169375.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>controlling-innovation</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100511/0657169375</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 15:53:20 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Hollywood Kills More Innovation; Judge Overturns DVD Jukebox Ruling</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090812/1545285858.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090812/1545285858.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Well, there goes that one.  Just a few hours ago, we were writing about how Judge Patel's district court ruling <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090812/0138215853.shtml">barring</a> Real Networks RealDVD system seemed to conflict with a California state court ruling for Kaleidescape.  It's true that there were some differences in the details behind the ruling, but it might not matter either way, as a state appeals court <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/08/another-court-deals-major-blow-to-dvd-copying/" target="_new">has reversed the lower court ruling</a> and has basically said that Kaleidescape's DVD backup system likely violates the DRM found on DVDs.
<br /><br />
Once again, we're seeing a fearful Hollywood, unwilling to innovate itself, using the courts and the law to stomp out anyone who innovates.  The Kaleidescape product is clearly not for "piracy" purposes.  It's a server that costs around $10,000, and is designed for high-end movie fans, who want to store all of their legally purchased movies on a server so they can watch it.  It didn't serve any sort of "piracy" purpose whatsoever.  But, thanks to Hollywood freaking out over the fact that anyone might make a copy of a movie, even for perfectly legal backup purposes, that device may now be dead.
<br /><br />
Time and time again, we hear folks in the entertainment industry insist that they want to support technological innovation, but their actions show otherwise.  They tried (and failed) to outlaw the VCR.  They tried (and failed) to outlaw the MP3 player.  But lately they've been succeeding in outlawing products just because they don't like them.  Doesn't that seem like a massive problem?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090812/1545285858.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090812/1545285858.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090812/1545285858.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>*sigh*</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090812/1545285858</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>