Hollywood Kills More Innovation; Judge Overturns DVD Jukebox Ruling
from the *sigh* dept
Well, there goes that one. Just a few hours ago, we were writing about how Judge Patel's district court ruling barring 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 has reversed the lower court ruling and has basically said that Kaleidescape's DVD backup system likely violates the DRM found on DVDs.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.
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?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copying, dvd
Companies: kaleidescape
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Seriously, you take a segment of the market that wants and is WILLING TO PAY for what technical folks have been doing for years underground and you fight to make it illegal?
RIAA, the market is yelling at you, why aren't you listening? Your money well is drying up. Time to use the resources to re-invent while you still have the resources to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interesting...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Interesting...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They tried to outlaw the VCR and...
They just seem incapable of getting their minds around change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fearful?
Mike, come on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think Mike speaks for a lot of us here in the real world. And guess what: there's no room here for those who are
-afraid- (as in afraid that they'll no longer be swimming in cold, hard cash) of changing. No matter how many pointless, unrealistic anti-consumer laws are lobbied into existence in the name of "deserved compensation", no matter how many essentially innocent folks these "content creators" (largely the ones who make the money, not the ones who create the content) unwisely opt to file suit against, the market-- not the courts-- will speak its true mind in the end. People certainly deserve to be compensated for their work, but the consumer of the goods they produce has the right to spend their money in any such manner as they choose. Fair use is not a right, it is a law of physics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Additionally, copyright owners may also restrict your ability to make even an archival backup through other means, I assume through instruments like contracts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You cannot take away fair use via contract.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
DVDs contain scripts (that's how the menus etc. work) so they are arguably software.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
A guy once advertised in the classifieds that he was selling clothes dryers (plural) for $50 each. Several people thought this was absolutely the best thing they'd heard, so they sent him the money. A few days later they received, in the mail, a length of line and some clothes pins.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The rebuttal of the rebuttal
http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountability/history_corporations_us.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The rebuttal of the rebuttal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Expounding on it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If the "current entrenched producers go broke" because piracy reached such a high level that there was no real income remaining, nobody would want to jump into that hole.
That is the hippie commune mentality that says we all sing kumbya or whatever and everything will be great in the morning. Remind me how many hippie communes are left.
If there is no money in making content, nobody will make content professionally. Simple as that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, they would. They would do so with a business model that makes money in the digital world rather than clinging onto an outdated model that doesn't. So long as an audience exists for movies, they will always exist because there's money to be made - just not necessarily from the sale of plastic discs.
Nothing "hippy" about it. Capitalism is possible and successful without needing to overcharge for every single use of media. The problem right now is that Hollywood is attempting to block innovations that would actually encourage people to *spend more money*, in an industry that's 100% dependent on discretionary and unnecessary spending.
"If there is no money in making content, nobody will make content professionally. Simple as that."
Then how do you explain the huge amount of amateur and non-profit (the infamous "free!") material that's available for download without payment with the permission of the creator? There's such a massive amount of content being given away that instantly negates your point (though, admittedly, less movies than other media).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"profesionally"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The 'get it illegally' part is a problem since that just gives them ammunition to get these draconian laws passed in the first place.
Don't use their produce *at all* and they will go away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Whether the public interest would best be served by continuing to enjoin Real from making its products available to consumers, and protect the Studios’ rights at the expense of the consumers’ rights, to engage in legal downstream use of the Studios’ copyrighted material is an excellent question. It is also one the court does not and will not reach, because the statutory structure of the DMCA leaves no room for ambiguity. By making it a DMCA violation to distribute products that enable consumers to override copyright owner preferences against unauthorized copying, Congress determined that the public interest is best served by outlawing such products. ... the reach of the DMCA is vast and it does not allow courts the discretion to ... render a value judgment untethered from the language of the statute. In the words of Justice Cardozo, “[l]aws are not to be sacrificed by courts on the assumption that legislation is the play of whim and fancy.” People ex rel. Alpha Portland Cement Co. v. Knapp, 230 N.Y. 48, 62 (1920). The court is bound by the DMCA provisions at issue, even if it determines the extent to which innovative technologies realize their future potential." (emphasis added)
It might feel good to rage against the movie industry, but it won't get anyone anywhere. The only way to change anything is to make Congress feel the pain.
The really odd thing is that anyone gives a damn about Real and their DRM-encumbered bloatware anyway. For about $200, anyone can get a terabyte (oops, better not name it) media drive and fill it with all the content they like using one of the many free DVD rippers available on the net. This judgment has only succeeded in protecting the studios from people who would have bought their DVDs anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not enough.
After all, if we stop giving money to the MPAA, they stop being able to pay lawyers, and these things start changing. Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not enough.
That's not to say that Big Media lobbyists aren't hounding these Congressmen every time the public can submit DMCA exception requests, but ultimately it is Congress who passes the laws, not lobbyists and corporations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Technically... NO
You are correct in that the menu on a DVD CAN be considered a program, since technically, it is an interactive script.
So part of it is data, part of it is a program. Which, theoretically makes it no different logically than a video game. The game contains a script that runs on your computer, the script displays data read from your hard drive or the DVD depending on your actions.
But the music/movie/government can NEVER, EVER be accused of being logical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Download...don
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Download...don't copy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]