Macrovision is on the hunt!

kabanero · Member Joined: 25 Feb 2001 Location: HockeyTown

First, Macrovision shut down DVDDecrypter.

Now:

"Macrovision Files Lawsuit Against Sima and Interburn's DVD Copying Products

Macrovision Corporation announced today that it has filed suit against Sima Products Corporation ("Sima") and Interburn Enterprises Inc. ("Interburn"). The lawsuit charges that Sima's "Video Enhancers," which are principally used to allow consumers to make unauthorized copies of copyrighted DVDs, infringe Macrovision's patented copy protection technology and also violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"). These products include, but are not limited to, products currently marketed under the names CT-1, CT-100, CT-2, CT-200, and SCC-2. The lawsuit further charges that Interburn products infringe Macrovision's intellectual property and the DMCA."

Link: http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/11955

tdan · Member Joined: 04 Oct 2004 Location: Waterloo, ON, Canada

So next is every TBC on the market a violation of the DMCA? That's a stretch. Incidentally, isn't Macrovision on VHS an analogue technology? Is it even covered under the DMCA?

TVM2K4 · Member Joined: 08 Dec 2004

when will these companies learn that they'll never stop these ripping programs from getting into peoples hands? shut one down and another will take its place.

tdan · Member Joined: 04 Oct 2004 Location: Waterloo, ON, Canada

Well, if your business & revenue model is completely f&$'d, I guess you need to sue people to keep that revenue flowing.

Dan

Noahtuck · Posted: Jun 15, 2005 14:01

Yep, i saw that on the cd freaks article about dvdfab, but i think they might have alittle bit more of a fight with sima

at least i hope

_________________
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 ??

CaptainVideo · Member Joined: 27 Jun 2004 Location: USA

Once again, you don't have to be right you just have to have money. I don't know what Interburn is but I do know what Sima is.

Sima does neither violate the copyrights of Macrovision nor does it violate the DMCA.

First in order to violate their copyrights, Sima would have to do the same thing Macrovision does, prevent a user from copying something. Sima does the exact OPPOSITE. Also it would have to be using technology that Macrovision has patented. Pretty sure to block Macrovision from working you don't need to use any technology Macrovision has.

In order for Sima to be violating the DMCA they would have to break encrypted digital technology. Sima does not do this.

So basically Macrovision knows if this goes to trial they lose. Their premise is to outspend them until they go away or they give up fighting. I'm sure neither company has the money to defend this lawsuit.

Since Macrovision is a publicly traded company if you care enough and own stock in the company I would dump it. I'd also contact any other investors who have stock in the company to dump it. The only real way to stop a company from doing something is to hurt their stock price. Also contact state and federal legislatures who represent the city/state the company resides in.

tdan · Member Joined: 04 Oct 2004 Location: Waterloo, ON, Canada

CaptainVideo · Member Joined: 27 Jun 2004 Location: USA

But you need the money to get to a court decision. So even if the US had the same rule as Canada it doesn't help the company that doesn't have enough money to get to a final court decision.

adam · Member Joined: 13 Sep 2000 Location: United States

CaptainVideo I'm not sure what language in the DMCA you are getting that from but its definitely not a correct interpretation. Also this has nothing to do with a copyright that Macrovision has, it has to do with their patent. The DMCA is contained in Title 17 (copyright law) but it also protects patent holders.

The D in DMCA refers to the purpose behind the Act, which is to give copyright holders more protection in a digital age where there are many more ways to infringe on copyrights. But of course the DMCA applies to analogue protection mechanisms like Macrovision, Macrovision was the PRIMARY protection covered by the Act! There is an entire section of the DMCA which specifically talks about Macrovision and the cutoff periods which hardware manufacturers have to meet in removing Macrovision-removal capabilities from their devices. The DMCA clearly does protect Macrovision. Any software that removes Macrovision would violate the DMCA. There is actually no arguing with this as this is the very thing the DMCA is intended to do.

As far as patents go...Macrovision is obviously patented. The argument is that if leave the macrovision signal intact then you have just made a new copy which makes use of that technology and this is therefore a patent infringement. Now this is something that I am not so sure about, I'd think there is a pretty good argument against it but guess what? This exact district court has already ruled on essentially the same case when Macrovision sued 321 Studios.

In that case the judge granted a preliminary injuction (requires showing of a substantial liklihood of success on the merits of the case- in other words that they would almost surely win at trial) against the further sale of their software because a) if you used it to remove Macrovision you violated the DMCA and b) if you used it without removing Macrovision you infringed on their patent.

So this is anything but a groundless suit, they've not only got the law behind them they've got the sitting district court judge behind them too. I don't know anything about what these two pieces of software do, but if they operate in a similar fashion to how 321 Studio's DVDXCopy did, then I'd say they have virtually no chance of winning these suits at the trial level and it has nothing to do with the size of their pocketbooks.

I don't particularly like Macrovision or their pratices, but in this case the law is definitely on their side.

adam · Member Joined: 13 Sep 2000 Location: United States

In the US, if a suit, or any individual claim for that matter, is found to be groundless or brought for the purpose of delay or harrassment then yes that person does have to pay the court costs and attorney's fees of the other party. There are also sanctions applicable to a lawyer who represents such a client including monetary penalties and in extreme cases disbarrment.

There are also numerous other grounds on which the "loser" may have to pay such costs of the other party.

The bigger pocketbooks do have a substantial advantage in court because they can higher the more experienced lawyers and get the better statistical studies done, which go a long way in infringement actions. But you can't file a baseless suit and rest on your power and money. It costs zero dollars to defend against a truly baseless suit.

Noahtuck · Posted: Jun 15, 2005 14:52

BJ_M · Patron Joined: 30 Jul 2002 Location: Canada

Noahtuck said what I was going to -- these products have nothing really to do with dvd copying -- but VHS to VHS and DVD to VHS

they do not allow you to make an exact digital copy in any way -- and in fact the main use of these products is to clean up old home videos and the like
_________________
"Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems." - Rene Descartes (1596-1650)

lordsmurf · Posted: Jun 15, 2005 15:02

Macrovision is noise in a video signal. Nothing more. These devices aim to clean noise from signal, which is not separable from MV because of how chaotical anlog noise signals can be.

MV is just pissed it's technology is a sham and is "beaten" because of what it is: unwanted noise.
_________________
digitalFAQ.com Guides for video capturing, restoring, authoring, burning. ATI AIW help.
NoMoreCoasters.com How to avoid burning bad discs. Blank media FAQ.

shelbyGT · Fuzzy Nuts Joined: 17 Oct 2003 Location: Kansas City, KS

What can Macrovision do against software that comes out of countries that doesn't have Macro-friendly laws?

Same with p2p... close one down, 2 pop up.
_________________

adam · Member Joined: 13 Sep 2000 Location: United States

Being hardware makes no difference. The sections of the DMCA requiring manufacturers to remove de-macrovision support actually referred primarily to VHS and DVD player manufacturers.

Also the fact that these devices existed and operated identially prior to the DMCA makes no difference either. Just as with VHS and DVD players, any new models released on the market had to disable any ability to remove Macrovision.

But if Macrovision removal is truly just incidental and inconsequential for Sima's products, like you suggest BJ_M, then they have an argument. The Interburn software sounds more like just a CD/DVD backup program.

Like I said, I don't know much of anything about how these particular devices work.

pbhalerao · Member Joined: 22 Aug 2002 Location: India

So decrypters like DVD Decrypter or SmartRipper are immune to these law suits, even when they remove MV from DVD?
_________________
*** My computer can beat me at chess, but is no match when it comes to kick-boxing. ***

adam · Member Joined: 13 Sep 2000 Location: United States

adam · Member Joined: 13 Sep 2000 Location: United States

trhouse · Member Joined: 28 Aug 2003

Here is Macrovision's original patent. Under either the 17 years since granted or the 20 years since first filed rules, I believe the patent has expired.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HI ... PN/4631603

Contrary to what is said above about SIMA products doing the opposite of the Macrovision patent, Macrovision also filed patents on some simple techniques for defeating their main patent. SIMA may be in violation of one of those.

tdan · Member Joined: 04 Oct 2004 Location: Waterloo, ON, Canada

Noahtuck · Posted: Jun 15, 2005 15:40

BJ_M · Patron Joined: 30 Jul 2002 Location: Canada

full press release:

pbhalerao · Member Joined: 22 Aug 2002 Location: India

It is just in the last year or so that DVD writers and media has become cheap. Hence Macrovision is alarmed that more people can now copy VHS to DVD and affect DVD sales (thus their revenue). Hence they are going after all agents (hw and sw) that eliminate MV.

Once that threat is significantly reduced, they will probably come up with new technology that will make DVD ripping much tougher if not impossible. At that point they will not be bothered much about analog copying because they figure that VHS will have died out by then.

I am afraid that it may not be fruitful in the end. It would be much easier to combat the problem by making DVD's cheaper (reduce the price by half). Are not movies at least 1/3 to 1/2 cheaper when they are two/three years old? If movies became as cheap as books then people will buy more. And we will not be concerned of making backups becuase cost of replacement is not that high.
_________________
*** My computer can beat me at chess, but is no match when it comes to kick-boxing. ***

Xylob the Destroyer · Melkor Joined: 18 Sep 2004 Location: Earth, for now

isn't reverse engineering something like Macrovision also considered a violation of the copyright?
I'd think you'd have to pretty much reverse engineer it to defeat it...
_________________
"To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is research." - Steven Wright
"Megalomaniacal, and harder than the rest!"