| Author |
Message |
Noahtuck
Subliminal
Joined: 29 Jun 2004
Location: ®Inside My Avatar™© U.S.
|
|
| Xylob the Destroyer wrote: |
holy freakin' pop-ups.....
funny stuff there tho |
Pop up ?? what's that ??
_________________
Originally a member since july of 2001
so i'm not a noob!!!!!!!!!!!
LONG LIVE TARANS!!!!!!!!
& if that don't tell you anything.....
Who's really the noob ??
|
|
BJ_M
Patron
Joined: 30 Jul 2002
Location: Canada
|
|
from watching to much porn at work
_________________
"Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems." - Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
|
|
Xylob the Destroyer
Melkor
Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Location: Earth, for now
|
|
nah, pr0n not accessable from work....
& I use IE at home - pop-ups from hell
_________________
"To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is research." - Steven Wright
"Megalomaniacal, and harder than the rest!"
|
|
Noahtuck
Subliminal
Joined: 29 Jun 2004
Location: ®Inside My Avatar™© U.S.
|
|
adam
Member
Joined: 13 Sep 2000
Location: United States
|
|
| CaptainVideo wrote: |
| But some DVD's do not contain Macrovision or any copy protection at all. So I would argue that if there are DVD's on the market that don't use Macrovision or any copy protection, the Sima device wouldn't be violating the DMCA if they are used with those DVD"s. |
You can have as many valid uses for something as you want, if it violates a law it violates a law. You can find valid uses for anything. That is not the test applied under any law.
|
|
waheed
Unique
Joined: 23 Jul 2003
Location: Manchester, UK
|
|
| Xylob the Destroyer wrote: |
nah, pr0n not accessable from work....
& I use IE at home - pop-ups from hell |
In order to know that, you've been trying to access porn from work 
|
|
thecoalman
Member
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
|
|
| satviewer2000 wrote: |
| The only use for Macrovision is to prevent a video source from being copied by a VCR. Since VCR's are going the way of the dinosaur, Macrovision won't even have a viable product in a couple of years. |
That's not quite right, most capture cards see the MV signal preventing copying as do many DVD recorders. Matter of fact some home made tapes can be seen as MV protected by digital devices, which brings up a very interesting point. What about the consumer with tapes that are not error free? They're going to be stuck.....
Cards such as the ATI AIW can be very sensitive to tapes such as these and will get rejected. Without a device to clean the signal they are uncapturable. http://www.nepadigital.com/mv This is besides the point that I as a consumer should be able fix my video with these devices. As LS stated it's just an error, why should it be my problem that the device I'm using to fix errors just happens to fix there's.
If they win this I think your going to see a huge consumer backlash in the future because they'll be stuck with uncopyable home videos a) because the capture device thinks they are MV protected and b) because there's no device on the market to fix it. I think it's about time that some of these companies that are getting that are getting this capture protection rammed down there throats such as ATI and others stood up and said enough is enough.
_________________
Nepadigital Video Articles
|
|
Nilfennasion
Disinterested
Joined: 06 Apr 2004
Location: The bottom of the planet
|
|
I've bought the same CD three times because it was damaged by CD players that were in some way unfit for their purpose. Both instances had something to do with the lid (a flip-open) not being securely closeable enough to be relied upon to not scratch the disc. When the RIAA reimburses me the $60 plus inflation, I might be inclined to agree with them that I cannot make a copy of my DVDs or CDs, circumventing their stupid and legit-user-punishing (*) copy protection schemes.
* I own one CD that has copy protection on it, put there by an independent label that should know better. It crashes my computer, without fail, whenever I put it in the drive while a certain program is running. I still managed to make a copy that I can play on my computer, but the question of how you'd describe this other than as punishing the legitimate user comes up. Especially considering I'd fight with a spiked club to defend this label from the RIAA's monopolist practices.
_________________
"It's getting to the point now when I'm with you, I no longer want to have something stuck in my eye..."
|
|
thecoalman
Member
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
|
|
| Nilfennasion wrote: |
| how you'd describe this other than as punishing the legitimate user comes up. Especially considering I'd fight with a spiked club to defend this label from the RIAA's monopolist practices. |
In my example above the genaral consumer is being punished and they aren't even doing anything considered illegal in any sense. There should be no reason why a consumer should need one of those devices to copy a home video unless they wanted to improve the signal, instead they need it to copy there "copyrighted" home movies......  This is where I have a major beef with MV, it's affecting people that should have no reason to worry about it.
_________________
Nepadigital Video Articles
|
|
adam
Member
Joined: 13 Sep 2000
Location: United States
|
|
| Nilfennasion wrote: |
I've bought the same CD three times because it was damaged by CD players that were in some way unfit for their purpose. Both instances had something to do with the lid (a flip-open) not being securely closeable enough to be relied upon to not scratch the disc. When the RIAA reimburses me the $60 plus inflation, I might be inclined to agree with them that I cannot make a copy of my DVDs or CDs, circumventing their stupid and legit-user-punishing (*) copy protection schemes.
|
Well since you are in Australia the RIAA has nothing to do with the CDs you purchase. Furthermore, the choice to put protection or not on a CD has nothing to do with the RIAA, its the decision of the music label.
But if you want to speak of the RIAA and american music labels, then you CAN bypass their protection and you CAN backup your music CDs as many times as you want. Section 1008 of our Copyright Law says exactly this. It is only DVDs that you cannot backup.
You'll have to look to your own country's laws to see where you stand, but here in America if you want to backup CDs go right ahead and use whatever means necessary to do so. But this thread is not about the RIAA or CDs, its about DVDs which are treated differently.
|
|
mbellot
Large Member
Joined: 01 Jan 2002
Location: United States
|
|
| adam wrote: |
| CaptainVideo wrote: |
| But some DVD's do not contain Macrovision or any copy protection at all. So I would argue that if there are DVD's on the market that don't use Macrovision or any copy protection, the Sima device wouldn't be violating the DMCA if they are used with those DVD"s. |
You can have as many valid uses for something as you want, if it violates a law it violates a law. You can find valid uses for anything. That is not the test applied under any law. |
By this logic ANYTHING that has an unlawful purpose would be a problem, which seems altogether insane.
Taken to an extreme (which your statement certainly seems to do), we should remove all C compilers from distribution since they can be used to create a binary version of DeCSS. Nevermind that it (the compiler) has millions of legitimate uses... Afterall thats not the test applied. 
|
|
normcar
Member
Joined: 29 Aug 2003
Location: USA - IL
|
|
I believe that the "primary purpose" of the device would have to be to remove the protection, and that the device does not have another "primary purpose". Does not the DMCA have this type of wording?
_________________
Some days it seems as if all I'm doing is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic
Last edited by normcar on Jun 17, 2005 11:15, edited 1 time in total
|
|
thecoalman
Member
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
|
|
| normcar wrote: |
| I believe that the "primary purpose" of the device would have to be to remove the protection, and that the device does not have another "primary purpose". Does not the DCMA have this type of wording? |
They remove errors at least that is the case for TBC's, I don't know about the other devices, MV is an error. Are consumers who want to remove errors from their tapes to improve the capture be denied that right just because MV is an error?
_________________
Nepadigital Video Articles
|
|
normcar
Member
Joined: 29 Aug 2003
Location: USA - IL
|
|
I believe TBC's are "protected" from DMCA because their primary purpose is not the removal of the MV protection. Unless the Manufacture is stupid enough to market as a tool to remove MV protection, which is what SIMA seems to do.
_________________
Some days it seems as if all I'm doing is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic
|
|
thecoalman
Member
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
|
|
For example here's the fetures of the Go DVD CT200 from Sima.
| Quote: |
Features
Easy connection to any DVD recorder.
Stabilizes video signals for crisp copies
Digital technology reduces noise
S-VHS, VHS-C, VHS, 8 mm and DVD compatible
6 output signal enhancement modes - normal, enhanced 1 & 2, darken, black/white and color bars
Supports NTSC and PAL formats
Includes AC adapter
Auto power-off and stand-by modes |
Sounds very similar to what a TBC does, it's just not as powerful. Let's also not forget that false MV detection in devices have created a large part of the market for devices such as this where they otherwise wouldn't be needed. I've reccommened them many times to people simply just trying to copy their home movies. This particular one is being marketed for copying home movies.
_________________
Nepadigital Video Articles
|
|
lordsmurf
Video Restorer
Joined: 10 Jun 2003
Location: Want my advice? PM me.
|
|
Good point. Maybe MV sees they missed the boat on such a product and are now suing SIMA since it probably would be their best competition.
Just a wild theory, but MPAA and RIAA and anti-copy folks (MV, DVDCA) are fucking nuts anyway. Just like tobacco companies. Crazy shit is often how it really goes with these nonsense-loving bastards.
_________________
digitalFAQ.com -- Help with VHS to DVD, DVD recorders, other video/photo issues.
NoMoreCoasters.com -- How to avoid bad burns, how to find the best blank DVDs.
|
|
thecoalman
Member
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
|
|
| lordsmurf wrote: |
| Good point. Maybe MV sees they missed the boat on such a product and are now suing SIMA |
 I think we have a winner.... Here's there's business model. We'll create this protection for VHS. Then we'll ram it down the capture industry throat so people have al kinds of problems with there home tapes. Then we'll sell the devices to fix it. It's almost like extortion.
_________________
Nepadigital Video Articles
|
|
trhouse
Member
Joined: 28 Aug 2003
|
|
Macrovision is a company with many patents. This suit is about their more recent patents which involve ACP described below,
|
|
adam
Member
Joined: 13 Sep 2000
Location: United States
|
|
| mbellot wrote: |
You can have as many valid uses for something as you want, if it violates a law it violates a law. You can find valid uses for anything. That is not the test applied under any law.
By this logic ANYTHING that has an unlawful purpose would be a problem, which seems altogether insane.
|
That is not at all what I said. I said if it violates the law it violates the law, regardless of how many valid additional uses it may have. Whether or not it violates the law will take into account both its lawful as well as its unlawful uses and purposes.
For instance a site that hosts torrent links which has 99% infringing links is not saved by the fact that it also hosts 1% lawful links.
Or here is a more fitting example. There are valid uses for removing macrovision because some older tv's cannot display the macrovision'ed signal whether you are copying or not. But the legislature chose to make the devices unlawful anyway because, on balance, the copyright holder/protection manufacturers had the greater interest.
Last edited by adam on Jun 17, 2005 15:24, edited 1 time in total
|
|
BJ_M
Patron
Joined: 30 Jul 2002
Location: Canada
|
|
what about all Hi8 equipment ? Which is still made..
It ignores macrovision , so is Sony breaking the law?
_________________
"Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems." - Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
|
|
adam
Member
Joined: 13 Sep 2000
Location: United States
|
|
| normcar wrote: |
| I believe that the "primary purpose" of the device would have to be to remove the protection, and that the device does not have another "primary purpose". Does not the DMCA have this type of wording? |
There are 3 ways in which a manufacturer can be held liable under the DMCA.
1) if the device was primarily designed and produced for the purpose circumventing..etc..
2) The device is marketed with knowledge that it will be used for the purpose of ..etc...
3) The device has only a limited commercially significant purpose other than to circumvent..etc...
According to that press release Macrovision is arguing the third one. Maybe I haven't read the blurbs in entirety but I still don't know specifically which device they are referring to. Without knowing this there's really no way to evaluate their claim.
|
|
BJ_M
Patron
Joined: 30 Jul 2002
Location: Canada
|
|
they listed ALL of the video products made by sima ..
and the other company is a dealer only (of somewhat bootleg) of DVD X Copy
_________________
"Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems." - Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
|
|
adam
Member
Joined: 13 Sep 2000
Location: United States
|
|
| BJ_M wrote: |
| they listed ALL of the video products made by sima .. |
Then it sounds like a real stretch to me.
| BJ_M wrote: |
| and the other company is a dealer only (of somewhat bootleg) of DVD X Copy |
Sorry, I was generalizing when I talked about the manufacturer. It basically applies to anyone in the chain. Here is the actual language:
No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that...
Ect... (the 3 things I listed above.)
|
|
AlecWest
Slow but sure...
Joined: 23 Mar 2002
Location: Location: Location: NTSC
|
|
