Baldrick: Why no news item, re: Macrovision to Videohelp.com--"C&D

[offline]

For the third time... can I get some clarification on this:

If a poster comes in asks I'm trying to copy my home movies but my device is giving me a copy protection error. The general answer is that the device thinks your video has Macrovision on it therefore you need a device like a TBC or need to hack the device to remove the detection...

No ones breaking the law here... But you would be giving tips on macrovision removal. They are the same whether it's a false or real,

Please understand that we are not legal experts. This is why we can't always provide definitive answers to all questions on demand. Having said that, here are the facts at present:

Macrovision only seem interested in three things, at this time -

1) VH's hosting of DVD ripping software on our servers (now deleted)

2) Any posting of direct links to DVD ripping software. (now enforced)

3) VH's DVD Payer list database hosting of Macrovision hacks (now deleted)

With regards to the discussion of any form of macrovision removal in the forums, Adam summed it up better than I could:

So just use your best judgment when referencing macrovision and I'm sure the mods can handle cleaning up posts that go too far.

LordSmurf also made the excellent point:

I have a right to discuss analog video signal purification. It has NOTHING to do with copying their sub-par overrated movies, and EVERYTHING to do with archiving home movies like weddings, your children's school plays, stupid videos with friends, etc.

The DMCA does not override the First Amendment.

As soon as we can clarify the issue, we will. Any decision will cater towards the best interests of protecting VH over and above any issues (legal or otherwise) an individual might have. This is a privately owned forum and by being members, we agree to abide by its rules and conditions.

[thecoalman]

Well I was just curious, somehow managed to stay yellow free and wouldn't want to break the streak.

You are in breach of the forum rules and are being issued with a formal warning. Now you don't have to worry so much
/ Moderator offline

[lumis]

they made you take down the macro hacks for dvd players/recorders? lame..

someone should host a 3rd party site that has a similar database that you can link to.

[dvdguy4]

they made you take down the macro hacks for dvd players/recorders? lame..

someone should host a 3rd party site that has a similar database that you can link to.

Now that makes alot of sense

[offline]

It makes perfect sense dvdguy4. Web owners are not responsible for external content they don't directly link to. If lumis set up such a site we could possibly link to it, and the "powers that be" would ignore us, and go after him I might even put that on my wish list

[dvdguy4]

Are there other sites on the web like VH that have hacks? I was just looking in the best interest of this site. God knows what Id do without this site. Its full of knowledge and humor.

[lumis]

It makes perfect sense dvdguy4. Web owners are not responsible for external content they don't directly link to. If lumis set up such a site we could possibly link to it, and the "powers that be" would ignore us, and go after him I might even put that on my wish list

arent there some countries where the dvd player/recorder hacks (region, macro, etc) could be stored out of the grasp of the MPAA?

i'm all about screwing with the MPAA.. i dont violate their copyright or anything, but they're ********.. so they deserve to be screwed with.

[jimdagys]

I have a question: Since a company like Macrovision has resulted in the censorship of info on this site, I am wondering why Macrovision doesn't contact credit card companies like Visa and disallow software companies (that sell Macrovision elimination DVD copy software) to use Visa for payment of software. That would put a quick end to those companies selling DVD copy software. Also, could Macrovision have Google eliminate Google links to DVD copy software? Maybe Baldrick who has some experience in legal issues could shed some light on this topic.

[thecoalman]

Also, could Macrovision have Google eliminate Google links to DVD copy software?

That differs in that Google has no idea what Macrovision is, it's generated by the spider. It couldn't tell the difference between a site that mentions Macrovision in any form... even if it were the Macrovision site itself.... and a site with macrovision hacks.

To remove and/or monitor all that would be an enormous undertaking by the people at Goole, essentially impossible.

Well I was just curious, somehow managed to stay yellow free and wouldn't want to break the streak.

You are in breach of the forum rules and are being issued with a formal warning. Now you don't have to worry so much
/ Moderator offline

Somebody call the SPCA, there's a mad dog on the loose....

[parallax1]

Wow. When did the Gestapo take over these forums? I noticed a thread by a newbie who was wondering about "the M word" that was locked by BJ_M where he was threatened with being banned as a first warning. No yellow card? Didn't know banning was a first punishment? Now you can't even mention the word

MACROVISION

without being warned. Especially seeing as the post didn't even ask any questions about getting around it. In fact, BJ even thinks the newbie might be thinking about a different type of protection. This is out of hand, hopefully the Allies will rescue us from Stalag 17 soon....

[Baldrick]

We can continue as usual in the forum section, discussing how to remove all type of copy protections. Just don't post any dvd ripper files and it should be fine.

[jimmalenko]

I noticed a thread by a newbie who was wondering about "the M word" that was locked by BJ_M where he was threatened with being banned as a first warning. No yellow card? Didn't know banning was a first punishment? Now you can't even mention the word

MACROVISION

without being warned. Especially seeing as the post didn't even ask any questions about getting around it.

Not to speak for the smoking baby, but you must have missed the same poster's two earlier threads where he was referred to the macrovision sticky:

https://forum.videohelp.com/viewtopic.php?t=295399
https://forum.videohelp.com/viewtopic.php?t=295440

Obviously posting a 3rd thread shows how much regard he had for the sticky, hence the ban threat

[parallax1]

I didn't miss the other posts. I just noticed that there were no "yellow cards" given. I also noticed that it wasn't even an official warning. Why not follow the stated guidelines? If this is his first warning why is it a threat of being banned and not that repeated violations will lead to banishment? There are guidelines for this type of situation and they weren't followed and I wondered if it was due to the MacroCrap threats. I just don't want this place to go downhill because of this and already things are changing for the worse.

I have learned a lot here and respect the owners, I just hope that this isn't the beginning of the end. How long will it be until other companies follow the MacroCrap lead and begin sending legal threats to stifle our freedom of speech?

[jimmalenko]

I just noticed that there were no "yellow cards" given. I also noticed that it wasn't even an official warning. Why not follow the stated guidelines?

The guidelines are not rock-solid .... just guidelines. Don't forget the sentence at the end that basically says that the mods and/or Baldrick have the power to "interpret any grey areas in the AUP as they see fit".

If this is his first warning why is it a threat of being banned and not that repeated violations will lead to banishment?

please drop the macrovision inquires you keep making or you will be banned ...

sounds likes repeated violations ("inquiries you keep making" being the repeated part) will result in a ban, no ?

[Faustus]

I have learned a lot here and respect the owners, I just hope that this isn't the beginning of the end. How long will it be until other companies follow the MacroCrap lead and begin sending legal threats to stifle our freedom of speech?

They started long ago. You are just now noticing.

That being said I it looks like I and others tried to take a very kid gloves approach to his questions. Mainly because enforcing the rule is as new to us as following it is to you. If he can't take several direct explinations of why its not a good topic that were given with kid gloves then I have no problem with being more direct the next time.

That being said as Baldrick said a few post up we are allowed to discuss it, just not link to any tools directly. That is an important clarification for all of us.

Remember when something like this changes it takes everyone time to find their footing again, mods included, and with somethink like this its better safe then sorry.

[parallax1]

The guidelines are not rock-solid .... just guidelines. Don't forget the sentence at the end that basically says that the mods and/or Baldrick have the power to "interpret any grey areas in the AUP as they see fit".

True. However up until this point it's been done a certain way. All my original post was questioning was whether this subject was the cause of the deviation from that way.

sounds likes repeated violations ("inquiries you keep making" being the repeated part) will result in a ban, no ?

Yes. My point is though, that all he had to do was this:

You are in breach of the forum rules and are being issued with a formal warning.


Anyway, I figured that this was the correct forum to discuss this since I DO follow the rules and they aren't new to me. My question has been answered although I feel that while the newbie was wrong in the multiple posts, he is new and may not have known better. BJ_M on the other hand isn't new and should have handled it as if it were any other situation....officially with a "yellow card".

[Guy_Fawkes]

Adam, I only know about conspiracies under the federal guidelines and in my home state. In discussion with AUSA and Prosecuting Attorneys they tell a conversation, discussion basically verbal action does not consist an overt act. I admit I do not know the law in the other 49 states. On a practical note i wish it would easy to make a conspiracy case as you state.

Regard to the forum I believe a direct link to the questionable file may consist and overt act. I beleive discussing it is protected speech. But Baldrick has a vested interest in not confronting the powers that be, that is be respected.

As your example about robbing a bank and bypassing alarm. I participated in an undercover role. The PA said it was not enough. The overt act took place when the equipment discussed was purchased. Result a successful prosecution. (plea agreement).

As to most proscutions of conspiracy taking place at state level I have no first have knowledge of that. We advoided conspiracy cases at state level in our unit, in our state the conspiracy was a class below what the intended offense was.

I also admit complete ignorance of any knowledge of conspiracy and its use in civil litigation.

In my state until Domestic violence became a hot topic around 1995 the lowest form of assault required an physical injury of some type. Everything else was classified as a Peace Disturbance. Time changes, rules change and so do our basic civil rights.

[parallax1]

Regard to the forum I believe a direct link to the questionable file may consist and overt act.

I have to disagree that a link to software is ANY type of crime. In fact, reading the DMCA, it says that it does "NOT prohibit the act of circumventing a technological measure that prevents copying". What is prohibited is "gaining unauthorized access to a copyrighted work".

If I purchase a DVD, I have purchased authorized access to the copyrighted work for my personal, private use. Period.

And, if Crap-O-Vision causes me not to be able to access that work (due to the way I may have to hook up the DVD player) then it is not prohibited for me to get around that technological measure to access the work for my personal, private use. If I have NOT purchased a DVD then I do NOT have authorized access to the copyrighted work since I do NOT own an original copy.

That being said the bigger issue is the will of the Administrators of this web-site. If they don't wish to stir up trouble then so be it.

I beleive discussing it is protected speech.

Glad you feel we still have some liberties left.

[BJ_M]

I noticed a thread by a newbie who was wondering about "the M word" that was locked by BJ_M where he was threatened with being banned as a first warning. No yellow card? Didn't know banning was a first punishment? Now you can't even mention the word

MACROVISION

without being warned. Especially seeing as the post didn't even ask any questions about getting around it.

Not to speak for the smoking baby, but you must have missed the same poster's two earlier threads where he was referred to the macrovision sticky:

https://forum.videohelp.com/viewtopic.php?t=295399
https://forum.videohelp.com/viewtopic.php?t=295440

Obviously posting a 3rd thread shows how much regard he had for the sticky, hence the ban threat

I edited my comments on one of those threads - don't read more into it than what is there .... except I felt we were being baited and felt "threat" .. as was reining in the wagons ..

if you have a problem with that - i'll discuss it with you privately . thanks !

[parallax1]

I don't have a problem, I simply had a question and a comment. I suppose the "newbie" could have been someone trying to stir up trouble....I didn't even consider it though now that you mention it I can see where you were coming from.

[adam]

Guy_Fawkes I responded to you via PM but in short, there are a large number of Federal statutes that do not have an overt act requirement, and the Supreme Court has ruled that one can never be read into a statute...it must be express. Any drug related crime for example has no overt act requirement. All you need is evidence of a verbal agreement to commit a drug related offense.

When it comes to states, they vary by statute. Nearly half have no overt act requirement for 1st or 2nd degree felonies. The model penal code also follows this rule.

Of those states that do require overt acts many take a very liberal interpretation of what qualifies. I gave you a couple of examples in your PM.

As for civil conspiracy, it always requires an overt act and the act itself must actually be tortious whereas the overt act for criminal conspiracy can be completely innocuous (ex: fill gas tank in gettaway car.)

[Seeker47]

they made you take down the macro hacks for dvd players/recorders? lame..

someone should host a 3rd party site that has a similar database that you can link to.

Someone probably has. As Mulder used to say, "The truth is out there." Or, as some of the early contributors to what became the Internet liked to put it, "Information wants to be Free." . . . And you can parse that statement a number of ways..

Even as the After Dawn site was being forced to purge a hefty selection of Guides and hosted software / links, archives of all this stuff began circulating widely. (You just had to be paying attention.) That is why the powers that be can never truly eradicate whatever they are going after this month. They can try to chase it out of town, but it will just pop up elsewhere, more out of reach. It can be as simple as brushing up on your search engine techniques, or just being sufficiently persistent at it.

[Seeker47]

Are there other sites on the web like VH that have hacks? I was just looking in the best interest of this site. God knows what Id do without this site. Its full of knowledge and humor.

There are a number of other sites, and you will see most of them mentioned at some point in the forum archives here. Look around. VH is undoubtedly one of the best around for all sorts of video-related info, but different sites are going to have various things that the others lack.

[Nelson37]

Since Macrovision wants us to play by the rules, I suggest we do exactly that.

We have here a number of people - perhaps the greatest concentration anywhere - who have been prevented from legitimately copying their home movies by false Macrovision detection. This is not the fault of the capture device, but a natural by-product of the way Macrovision works.

Sounds like grounds for a class-action lawsuit. We have the plaintiffs, we have at least a few legal minds here. What would it take to get this ball rolling?

What would be the potential damages for several hundred (or thousand) people who may have permanently lost precious heirloom, irreplacable family videos due to what the Macrovision people should have been able to forsee?

How about evidence of genetic Medical problems which might be found on those old videos? Locations of valuables, existence of items to be inherited, etc. Lots of dollar value here.

How about it, Adam, anyone? Let's perform an Overt Act instead of just complaining!

[thecoalman]

What would be the potential damages for several hundred (or thousand) people who may have permanently lost precious heirloom, irreplacable family videos due to what the Macrovision people should have been able to forsee?

More importantly in my opinion is the time I wasted trying to figure out what was wrong. Is it the cables? The VCR? WTF is wrong... I even disconnected and moved my speakers across the room at one point.... Wonder how many people just gave up and thought it was tem or normal or whatever.

Anyhow frig'em. Payback is a bitch and the knowledge I gained about how to defeat MV is freely passed around.

[ZAPPER]

Class action, I like it! I don't know if I have a leg to stand on, but I figure that I could have started a business converting home movies, but the equpiment just wouldn't work right.

Lets see, 235 million or so people in America. And if I was only to get even a half percent of them as customers at $40. a pop. I figure that I lost about $40 million dollars. And that's not counting the repeat customers or those that wanted multiple movies. (I mean, come on people, who just transfers one movie out of their entire collection?)

I'll tell you what I'll offer. Give me $40 million now. And I will not join the class action suit for one year. If the suit isn't settled in one year I will join back in. But this does not exclude the business that my wife lost or my brother or any other family members.

Or, the product in question can remove any legal actions under way and shut their doors never to show their heads again.

Yeh, right. Things are only going to get worse, and we will be an underground site. Sad