30:
251:. In August 2009, the Court of Appeal reversed the lower court decision, ruling that the "CSS General Specifications" were a part of the contract. The Court of Appeal did not decide whether Kaleidescape complied with them and instead ordered the trial court to determine any breach of contract. In March 2012, the trial court ruled that Kaleidescape had violated the terms of the contract, and an injunction was issued prohibiting them from selling or supporting the products in question.
268:
it has that incidental effect, it is no worse in most respects--and better in others--than an ordinary personal computer with freely available DVD-copying software." He further commented that, "The disk-in-machine clause is at most a contract term. It is not a moral imperative," referencing the concern that such a system would enable a user to build an entire DVD library by merely copying rented or borrowed DVDs.
331:
addressed the legality of software used for decrypting CSS-encrypted DVDs, and which resulted in copies of the DVDs stored as unencrypted media files that required no licensing for later playback. These systems differed from the
Kaleidescape system in that the "player" in the Kaleidescape system was
271:
Judge
Rushing also noted that the features provided by the Kaleidescape system has "no more tendency to permit 'casual users' to engage in 'unauthorized copying'" than a (far less expensive) personal computer. Additionally, the Kaleidescape system only makes one copy to be stored within the system,
267:
All three judges concurred, with Judge
Rushing offering a separate opinion that addressed a bit more in the realm of fair use. Judge Rushing stated, "In my view, its product was clearly not designed or intended to facilitate the theft of intellectual property; nobody buys it for that purpose; and if
203:
Under this particular licensing scheme, the licensee must sign a standard agreement to maintain confidentiality of the CSS technology. At the time of signing, the licensee is not aware of the particular specifications to which the licensee must comply (such as the specification that the original DVD
136:
regarding a supplemental document that was not part of the written license agreement between the parties. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's judgment and ruled in favor of the plaintiff (DVD Copy
Control Association), finding that defendant was bound to the entire contract, including the
263:
comments worthy of note in this case. Considered in the case were memos written by
Kaleidescape's founders, including the reflection that enabling consumers to make permanent backups of DVDs would become "a value--loss proposition for content owners and rental businesses because there is no repeat
272:
and does not enable further duplications of that copy. He contrasted this with the capabilities of an equivalent system built on a personal computer, remarking that such a capability for collecting copies of DVDs had been around for years prior to the development of the
Kaleidescape system.
179:
to a single persistent storage device. Once in the
Kaleidescape system, the DVD content could be stored, organized, and played back at any time, without requiring access to the original DVDs. It would also allow users to make permanent copies of borrowed or rented DVDs.
200:. DVD CCA alleged that because the Kaleidescape system allowed its users to play previously-copied content without requiring the DVD to be in the machine at the time of playback, Kaleidescape violated the "CSS General Specifications" section of the license agreement.
219:
ruled in favor of
Kaleidescape, finding that Kaleidescape was in full compliance with the DVD CCA's CSS licensing scheme. In particular, it was found that the "CSS General Specifications" were not technically included as part of the license agreement.
183:
In particular, the
Kaleidescape system would copy the CSS-encrypted files in their entirety from the DVDs using a "reader", which would then save the encrypted files to the "server". Playback would only be allowed via a licensed Kaleidescape "player".
204:
must be inserted into the player at the time of playback). It is only after noting the "membership category", executing the agreement, and paying the required fees, will the licensee receive the "CSS General
Specifications".
264:
business ever if everyone were to own product. Rental business will die, and retail business will suffer because borrowing once to have a permanent copy forever seems too good to forego for the average consumer.”
300:
625:
197:
129:
311:
dealt almost exclusively with California contract law. Both cases, ruled within two days of each other, ruled that companies are bound by the entire CSS license.
235:
precedent, since it circles the question of whether a consumer who has legally purchased a DVD can copy or backup that DVD to whatever end the consumer desires.
207:
Since it was found that the General Specifications were not clearly mentioned in the license, the trial court found that those terms were not properly
610:
620:
635:
361:
615:
393:
316:
304:
149:
529:
582:
351:
172:
110:
630:
248:
40:
484:
416:
289:
208:
133:
121:
164:
96:
168:
29:
321:
175:(DVD CCA) in order to provide a home entertainment server system that would allow a user to copy physical
560:
531:
DVD Copy Control Association v. Kaleidescape, Inc., Case No. 1-04-CV-031829, Permanent Injunction Order
371:
332:
a licensed player that played CSS-encrypted media files---No files were stored in an unencrypted state.
216:
76:
84:
327:
224:
193:
125:
506:
438:
59:
80:
604:
461:
141:
160:
114:
244:
215:, No. 1-04-CV031829, (Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County), Judge
228:
260:
232:
145:
301:
Realnetworks, Inc. et al. v. DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. et al.
211:
into the agreement. Thus, in the March 29, 2007 ruling for the case
231:
case, it was considered by some to be an important recent test of
243:
DVD CCA filed its opening brief in December 2007, appealing the
100:
537:, Superior Court of the State of California, Santa Clara County
176:
439:"Kaleidescape prevails over the DVD Copy Control Association"
563:
DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. v. Kaleidescape, Inc.
309:
DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. v. Kaleidescape, Inc.
213:
DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. v. Kaleidescape, Inc.
22:
DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. v. Kaleidescape, Inc.
163:, Inc., licensed the motion picture industry-supported
462:"Can You Legally Rip a DVD? Trial to Test 'Fair Use'"
120:, 176 Cal. App. 4th 697 is a legal case heard by the
362:
Judge Nichols' Addendum to his Statement of Decision
144:
due to its tangential relationship to the issues of
90:
72:
67:
54:
46:
36:
20:
583:"Another Court Deals Major Blow to DVD Copying"
198:implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
130:implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
140:This case is also of interest in the realm of
8:
394:"Film industry group sues DVD jukebox maker"
294:Shaw v. Regents of University of California
28:
17:
626:Digital Millennium Copyright Act case law
280:A review was denied on October 22, 2009.
555:
553:
551:
485:"Trial Could Test Digital Media Rights"
384:
303:case, which included issues within the
192:In 2004, DVD CCA sued Kaleidescape for
528:Monahan, William J. (March 8, 2012),
7:
417:"Judge Rules Against DVD Consortium"
352:Judge Nichols' Statement of Decision
581:Kravets, David (August 12, 2009).
372:California Court of Appeal opinion
223:Although this case only addressed
14:
358:Santa Clara Superior Court Ruling
348:Santa Clara Superior Court Ruling
483:Merritt, Rick (March 16, 2007).
460:Hachman, Mark (March 25, 2007).
415:Merritt, Rick (March 29, 2007).
305:Digital Millennium Copyright Act
150:Digital Millennium Copyright Act
611:United States contract case law
509:. Economist.com. April 27, 2007
621:2009 in United States case law
392:Wong, May (December 8, 2004).
1:
296:(1997) 58 Cal.App. 4th 44, 54
239:Ruling of the Court of Appeal
636:DVD Copy Control Association
507:"Criminalising the Consumer"
441:. Kaleidescape Press Release
249:6th District Court of Appeal
173:DVD Copy Control Association
111:DVD Copy Control Association
565:CA Court of Appeal opinion"
41:California Courts of Appeal
652:
290:Incorporation by reference
134:incorporation by reference
122:California Court of Appeal
616:California state case law
368:CA Court of Appeal Ruling
209:incorporated by reference
165:digital rights management
97:Digital rights management
95:
27:
464:. The Industry Standard
255:Discussions of Fair Use
188:Trial Court Proceedings
169:Content Scramble System
137:supplemental document.
322:Universal v. Reimerdes
63:, 97 Cal. Rptr. 3d 856
60:176 Cal. App. 4th 697
374:, (PDF file, 279KiB)
364:, (PDF file, 463KiB)
354:, (PDF file, 287KiB)
631:2009 in California
328:MGM v. 321 Studios
276:Subsequent History
225:breach of contract
196:and breach of the
194:breach of contract
128:and breach of the
126:breach of contract
487:. InformationWeek
419:. InformationWeek
217:Leslie C. Nichols
106:
105:
77:Conrad L. Rushing
643:
595:
594:
592:
590:
578:
572:
571:
569:
557:
546:
545:
544:
542:
536:
525:
519:
518:
516:
514:
503:
497:
496:
494:
492:
480:
474:
473:
471:
469:
457:
451:
450:
448:
446:
435:
429:
428:
426:
424:
412:
406:
405:
403:
401:
389:
259:There were some
247:decision to the
171:(CSS), from the
132:. It discusses
85:Franklin D. Elia
68:Court membership
62:
32:
18:
651:
650:
646:
645:
644:
642:
641:
640:
601:
600:
599:
598:
588:
586:
580:
579:
575:
567:
559:
558:
549:
540:
538:
534:
527:
526:
522:
512:
510:
505:
504:
500:
490:
488:
482:
481:
477:
467:
465:
459:
458:
454:
444:
442:
437:
436:
432:
422:
420:
414:
413:
409:
399:
397:
391:
390:
386:
381:
344:
342:Court documents
339:
286:
278:
257:
241:
190:
158:
81:Eugene M. Premo
58:
12:
11:
5:
649:
647:
639:
638:
633:
628:
623:
618:
613:
603:
602:
597:
596:
573:
547:
520:
498:
475:
452:
430:
407:
383:
382:
380:
377:
376:
375:
365:
355:
343:
340:
338:
337:External links
335:
334:
333:
313:
312:
297:
285:
282:
277:
274:
256:
253:
240:
237:
227:and was not a
189:
186:
157:
154:
104:
103:
93:
92:
88:
87:
74:
73:Judges sitting
70:
69:
65:
64:
56:
52:
51:
48:
44:
43:
38:
34:
33:
25:
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
648:
637:
634:
632:
629:
627:
624:
622:
619:
617:
614:
612:
609:
608:
606:
584:
577:
574:
566:
564:
556:
554:
552:
548:
533:
532:
524:
521:
508:
502:
499:
486:
479:
476:
463:
456:
453:
440:
434:
431:
418:
411:
408:
395:
388:
385:
378:
373:
369:
366:
363:
359:
356:
353:
349:
346:
345:
341:
336:
330:
329:
324:
323:
318:
315:
314:
310:
306:
302:
298:
295:
291:
288:
287:
284:Related Cases
283:
281:
275:
273:
269:
265:
262:
254:
252:
250:
246:
238:
236:
234:
230:
226:
221:
218:
214:
210:
205:
201:
199:
195:
187:
185:
181:
178:
174:
170:
166:
162:
155:
153:
151:
147:
143:
142:copyright law
138:
135:
131:
127:
123:
119:
118:
116:
112:
102:
98:
94:
89:
86:
82:
78:
75:
71:
66:
61:
57:
53:
50:Aug. 12, 2009
49:
45:
42:
39:
35:
31:
26:
23:
19:
16:
587:. Retrieved
576:
562:
539:, retrieved
530:
523:
511:. Retrieved
501:
489:. Retrieved
478:
466:. Retrieved
455:
443:. Retrieved
433:
421:. Retrieved
410:
398:. Retrieved
387:
367:
357:
347:
326:
320:
308:
293:
279:
270:
266:
258:
242:
222:
212:
206:
202:
191:
182:
161:Kaleidescape
159:
139:
115:Kaleidescape
109:
108:
107:
21:
15:
396:. USA Today
299:Unlike the
245:lower court
124:concerning
605:Categories
379:References
156:Background
113:, Inc. v.
589:March 10,
541:March 13,
513:March 10,
491:March 10,
468:March 10,
445:March 10,
423:March 10,
400:March 10,
229:copyright
55:Citations
261:fair use
233:fair use
167:system,
148:and the
146:fair use
91:Keywords
585:. Wired
47:Decided
319:cases
117:, Inc.
568:(PDF)
535:(PDF)
37:Court
591:2010
543:2012
515:2010
493:2010
470:2010
447:2010
425:2010
402:2010
325:and
317:DMCA
177:DVDs
101:DMCA
292::
607::
550:^
370::
360::
350::
307:,
152:.
99:,
83:,
79:,
593:.
570:.
561:"
517:.
495:.
472:.
449:.
427:.
404:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
