Something tells us Kaleidescape has a man (or woman, to be fair)
on the inside, else United States District Court Judge Marilyn Patel is just downright trifilin'. In every visible way, RealNetworks' proposed
RealDVD player was exactly what Kaleidescape was, but for people with annual salaries far less than $9,854,392,220. Regardless of our opinion, a preliminary injunction has just been passed down from The Almighty in the robe, which blocks the sale of the RealDVD software here in the US. The six major movie studies filed the suit last September, alleging that it "illegally violated their right to restrict the use of their movies in digital form." Evidently those that matter agree. A RealNetworks spokesperson took the time to vent their feelings on the
whole ordeal, and since we know you're curious, we've pasted it below for your convenience.
We are disappointed that a preliminary injunction has been placed on the sale of RealDVD. We have just received the Judge's detailed ruling and are reviewing it. After we have done so fully, we'll determine our course of action and will have more to say at that time.
[Via
Electronista]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
nathan @ Aug 12th 2009 2:12AM
Real would be fine, just like Kaleidescape, if they (Real) had gotten a signed document saying (essentially) it was okay to "rip"/store/backup/encrypt soft copies of movies to a hard drive.
You'll recall that when Kaleidescape was taken to court, the court declined to rule on whether "ripping"/storing/backing up/encrypting soft copies to a hard drive in general was okay. Rather, the court ruled narrowly that Kaleidescape and the DVD Forum (or the holders of the cryptographic rules) had indeed both signed a document that said Kaleidescape could do what they were doing.
Real never got such an agreement in writing -- nor could they at this point, since the DVD Forum (or the holders of the cryptographic rules) is unlikely to ever sign such a document again. One gets the impression they didn't mean to sign the agreement with Kaleidescape in the first place.
squiggleslash @ Aug 12th 2009 6:56AM
Not quite the same thing. Real isn't implementing CSS. The case against Kaleidescape hinged upon the fact Kaleidescape was actually decrypting movies and then storing them on a hard disk, something the CSS contract at the time didn't specifically forbid.
After the Kaleidescape case, the DVD-CCA cleaned up the contract, so Real doesn't actually have the option of doing what Kaleidescape did, even if they wanted to. Instead they made the fairly reasonable decision to simply not require any decryption be done.
Rob @ Aug 12th 2009 4:28AM
OK, so here's what I don't understand:
The studios take Real to court over software that would leave the copy protection intact and simply make a completely full copy onto a hard drive so that people could use something like, say, Windows Media Center as basically a big movie jukebox.
I want a legal movie jukebox, so I do not like this ruling. But I understand the legal argument and I can understand the fear of rent/rip/return.
What I do NOT understand is how something like AnyDVD and the rest of the Slysoft software (and other programmes like theirs) are skating along just fine. How is it that Real gets taken to court and loses and yet software that blatantly does only one thing: break copy protection illegally - manages to continue along without any issues.
Can someone explain this to me?
squiggleslash @ Aug 12th 2009 6:53AM
Simple: Real Networks is an American company and therefore within the jurisdiction of US courts. SlySoft, makers of AnyDVD, isn't.
From what I can see the court ruling is wrong, but, well, that's the way it works. Nonetheless, because Real operates within the US, it was possible for the industry to take Real to court over it and worm some kind of case against then. SlySoft is in the considerably more liberal country of Antigua and Barbuda, which doesn't have laws open to interpretation as the US does, especially as AnyDVD doesn't even do the copying thing. There's little or no chance of the movie industry being able to make a case against SlySoft as a result.
Lucas Coberly @ Aug 12th 2009 6:27AM
In the end, the ruling is probably based on the fact it's ripping DVDs into a software form so it is more easily watched on say, some home media center.
thestewman @ Aug 12th 2009 10:38AM
Real - if the income from the process is strong enough buy Kaleidescape and you will own the contract.
EM1 @ Aug 12th 2009 10:30AM
The idea of a legal movie Jukebox with a gracenotes sort of info database would be awesome.
I rip all my CDs to my computer and I do not share them. The same would go for my movies. All these rulings only hurt us who follow the rules.
DrXym @ Aug 12th 2009 2:17PM
Real's solution is pretty stupid anyway. They defeat the DRM in DVD only to replace it by one even more restrictive. I'm not sure why anyone who was aware of the alternatives would ever want to use it.
Still, it would be nice if a tool appeared which ripped the entire menu structure and features off a DVD and recompressed them all, not just the main movie.
nathan @ Aug 13th 2009 11:58AM
A higher court in California just overturned the earlier victory that Kaleidescape had -- yesterday afternoon.
It's a strange decision, in that it says documents other than those that Kaleidescape signed have standing in the case, according to Kaleidescape.