Kaleidescape Trial: The Prosecution Rests
March 26, 2007
Following up on the now two-year old Kaleidescape lawsuit, for those of you unfamiliar with the Kaleidescape system, in a nut-shell it’s a high-end (gross understatement there as they can go for upwards of 30k) movie server system that allows you to archive your entire DVD collection onto one central server, with full-resolution playback anywhere in the house. What really separated Kaleidescape from the DVD changer market is their gorgeous user interface, think AppleTV to the Nth degree.
On Friday, March 23 the DVD-CCA (Copy Control Association) supplied the evidence for their claim that Kaleidescape has violated the DVD copy control license and did it knowingly. The DVD-CCA lawyers supplied emails and meeting notes from Cheena Srinivasan, the chief operating officer and co-founder of Kaleidescape, in which he expressed concerns that their system violated the CSS license. The CSS, Content Scramble System, is a method used to encrypt video and audio data on DVD’s in which the DVD-CCA, a group which is run by a board consisting of undisclosed movie studios, consumer and computer companies, regulates the license of.
Srinivasan was concerned about the possible violation of the CSS license because their Kaleidescape system does not require a physical DVD to play back a movie, which in turn can open the door to letting users make copies of rented or borrowed disks. While on the stand he also suggested that the license agreement is sometimes confusing, complex, and that there is no help from the DVD-CCA or other company in order to verify compliance. The DVD-CCA maintains the stance that licensees are expected to take responsibility for their own compliance to the spec.
What doesn’t make sense to me regarding this lawsuit is, if the DVD-CCA knew anything at all about what the Kaleidescape system is actually used for, then why would the DVD-CCA let Kaleidescape sign an agreement, just so they can turn around and sue them? “The DVD-CCA is not seeking monetary damages, but is asking Superior Court Judge Leslie C. Nichols to force the company to change the design of its system or stop selling it.”
In the end I expect this trial may not garner much attention in the mainstream press but its implications could play a hand in redefining our electronic landscape. What we have here is a convoluted mess of contractual agreements, the perhaps naive assumption that higher courts will view earlier decisions by lower courts in the same way and a thorny cocktail of implied breach of contract with a splash of fair use.
I say a splash of fair use because I could find no evidence of the MPAA taking the DVD-CCA up on their offer to join in the suit. This would appear (admittedly from afar) to really boil down to a hardware manufacturer squabble, with one side insisting the other isn’t playing by the rules; oddly enough, Kaleidescape may prevail with that very rule-set. We’ll have a better idea on that once the prosecution rests (today) and Kaleidescape begins to lay out their defense.
Posted by B.Greenway | | Filed Under Media Servers
Comments
- Jonathan Greene
- Jonathan Greene
- B.Greenway
- B.Greenway
- Ben Drawbaugh
- Ben Drawbaugh
- Carlton Bale
- Carlton Bale
- B.Greenway
- B.Greenway
- Fresh K
- Fresh K