Macrovision gains injunction against DVD X software

[aero]

http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2004/05/17/daily39.html?jst=b_ln_hl

[gitreel]

So what?

There are other ways to back up movies.

[aero]

"so what?"

the legal fight and precedents go far beyond what one can do at any given moment.

Anyway, more to the point as far as I can tell this is a parralel and different hit on 321 than the with ripper question. this is a macrovision unauthorized use ruling.

[CrustyCurmudgeon]

Let me get this straight here. Macrovision is claiming DVD X Copy is copying DVDs with the encryption intact? I didn't think it did that. Well, if it does that, then it is in violation. But if all it does is copy only unencrypted DVDs, there there's no cause for the injunction.

[indolikaa]

Somebody owes me big bucks on this one, and you know who you are!


Yes, by copying the data that makes Macrovision work onto DVD±R/W discs, DVD X is infringing on Macrovision's property. They're are, quite literally, cloning protected 'speech' AND keeping a copy protection intact.

I figured it was only a matter of time before they figured it out and sued.

I see vodka in my future.

[adam]

CrustyCurmudgeon encryption and Macrovision are two different things. Most commercial DVDs are encrypted with CSS code and thus you can't access the vobs without first bypassing this code. No ripper can retain the CSS keys because unless you remove them, you can't even touch the vobs. Furthermore, writeable media doesn't even support CSS keys (+r is working on that.)

Macrovision is a signal that can be embedded in the stream and any ripper will retain the signal when ripped unless you set it otherwise, and your resulting DVD backup will have the macrovision protection intact. You have to pay licensing fees to use Macrovision, and DVD-X-Copy users are making copies with Macrovision technology without that license. Hence the ruling. It makes sense, and it seems this is finally the nail in DVD-X-Copy's coffin. First they were injoined because their software removed CSS keys, in violation of the DMCA. They removed DeCSS capabilities and now they are injoined for retaining Macrovision without a license. But if they make removal of Macrovision mandatory, then they will be in violation of the DMCA again.

[aero]

Let me get this straight here. Macrovision is claiming DVD X Copy is copying DVDs with the encryption intact? I didn't think it did that. Well, if it does that, then it is in violation. But if all it does is copy only unencrypted DVDs, there there's no cause for the injunction.

you are misunderstanding the violation. this is not a trade secret violation claim like the original css suits arising from the leaking of the code and its publication. Nor are they the same as the dmca violations claims by the film studios

this suit, is for patent infringment. since the patent hasn't been challanged, and since patent law is pretty well understood and enforced these are strong suits.

1) css = the technical protection, still stops 90% or more of copying but not everyone. Encryption is a standard way of protecting data and rights but this one was leaked.
2) dcma = wierd "get the evildoers protection." This is a new and questionable blanket prohibition
3) Patents on css and macrovision = established law on duly filed patents with a good chance of being applied by the courts.

[CrustyCurmudgeon]

Adam: Ok.. I got it. I was confusing the Macrovision anti-tape duping crud with CSS. I never knew that survived the process. Hmm... I wonder what happens when the DVD is compressed by something like DVD-Shrink? This bears more thought.

I was thinking Macrovision just screwed around with the sync pulse parameters to goof up the luminance on VCRs. I wouldn't think that could be recorded into the .vob, so it must be some sort of switch embeded in the .vob that causes the DVD player to turn on and generate the Macrovision crap. Wonderful. Simply effing wonderful. Yep, 123 is toast.

[proxyx99]

Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Go figure. I think that this is much more complicated then that, and it won't be that easy this time for Macrovision. You filter it, you break the DMCA. You leave it intact and you break a patent law. Flags were applied with a specific purpose. The purpose was invalidated by a specific action without touching the flags. Now you have an unlicensed use of the protection technology. I don't think that you can put an equation between conscientiously applying the technology in order to protect the product with replicating the product together with this technology without applying, using or changing it. I doubt if this constitutes an unauthorized use of Macrovision. That kind of protection would in fact go too far. Just think the fact of adding any protection technology becomes more important then technology itself. You tape a TV movie and you can be charged with an unauthorized use of embedded in the picture a TV station logo. Huge BS. US courts have a long history of misreading, misinterpreting and misapplying the law. This battle is not over yet.

[aero]

You tape a TV movie and you can be charged with an unauthorized use of embedded in the picture a TV station logo. Huge BS.

No TV station logo is patented. what does that have to do with patent law? Macrovision is patented, I don't recall anyone ever even trying to claim they can use it without a licence and not be in violation. I don't believe 321 is going to give challanging this ruling much of a try.

[BJ_M]

they might -- if they use the "pass through" defense ..

as in they dont touch the macrovision but just pass it from one medium to another ...

same defense used by ISP's and others ..

[BJ_M]

if thier lawers didnt come up with that defense yet -- i want a "finders" fee of 10grand up front ..

paypal is alright also ..

[gitreel]

Where they went wrong in the first place was selling the program.

[proxyx99]

You tape a TV movie and you can be charged with an unauthorized use of embedded in the picture a TV station logo. Huge BS.

No TV station logo is patented. what does that have to do with patent law? Macrovision is patented, I don't recall anyone ever even trying to claim they can use it without a licence and not be in violation. I don't believe 321 is going to give challanging this ruling much of a try.

Then I suggest you try to use it. It's trademarked. How important trademarks are find out from a long history of trademark suits by Microsoft and not only. Trademark is a patent equivalent among identifiers. You missed the point. Using Macrovision technology means more then transfering flags (that do not work on their own!). Flags are not the essence of Macrovision patent nor mean anything on their own. In other words there is more to their patent then just flags. Good patent lawyer will trample Macrovision in the courtroom without bilnking an eye.

BJ_M: pass-through relates to content distribution not the patent law. Partially valid argument though that is a part of my assertion (321 Studios does not interfere with Macrovision technology and their patent).

As to Macrovision users, all end-users use (or bypass) Macrovision even more extensively then 321 Studios. How about VHS tape copying using Electrohome Macrovision defeaters? They did not sue Electrohome to my knowledge...!?

Court's decision is a political one not meritorious.

[BJ_M]

or the fact that Hi8 also defeats macrovision .. no lawsuits there either ..

[aero]

You tape a TV movie and you can be charged with an unauthorized use of embedded in the picture a TV station logo. Huge BS.

No TV station logo is patented. what does that have to do with patent law? Macrovision is patented, I don't recall anyone ever even trying to claim they can use it without a licence and not be in violation. I don't believe 321 is going to give challanging this ruling much of a try.

Then I suggest you try to use it. It's trademarked.

Lol. Wow a lot of people don't seem to know the differece between patents, copyright and trademarks.

123 isn't and hasn't and can't be accused of "using" a trademark. They are accused and it is a pretty ironclad class of using someone elses patented technology.

there are many cases were you don't need a wit of permission to use a trademark you don't own and have not secured any permission or license.

WE are not talking about 321 using macrovisions logo, were are talking about it transfering univisions logo and that is never never illegal and requires no permission.

I hate to have to expalin this in welementrary terms but apparently it is needed: If a camera can a picture of a television with univisions logo, the manufacturer of the camera does not have to get permission from Univision. If it uses a technology held in patent to create photos it does need to get permssion or license.

[aero]

As to Macrovision users, all end-users use (or bypass) Macrovision even more extensively then 321 Studios. How about VHS tape copying using Electrohome Macrovision defeaters? They did not sue Electrohome to my knowledge...!?

And ask yourself why isnt electrohome encorporated onto VCRS sold in the US.

[proxyx99]

I'm sorry but it seems like a big waste of time to engage in the discussion with you on this level. These are legal issues and they require some proficiency in abstract thinking. This area seems to be quite foreign to some.
Rulings we comment on here are groundbreaking and standard setting.
Just to clarify : patents comprise of claims (usually more then 1) describing protected property. Patents are issued for the totality of all claims. To breach a patent it usually takes more then infringe on 1 claim (for example). 321 Studios invalidated the purpose of this patented technology without any interference with it or making use of it. This is not an unlicenced use of technology (as described in the patent) in my understanding.

[bugster]

The way I understand it is this:

There is no Macrovision on a DVD-video as such. Macrovision on a DVD is simply a flag (or set of flags?) included as part of the DVD-Video data (in the IFO?) that causes the DVD player to screw with the analog output signal of the DVD in ways patented by Macrovision.

DVD-Video proucers pay a license fee to macrovision in order to be allowed to set these flags on their commercially produced disks. This licence is on a per-unit basis.

Macrovision are sueing 321 studios for leaving these flags intact, thus utilising the macrovision circuitry within the DVD player without having paid the appropriate licence fee for the copied units.

So the simple solution is for 321 Studios products to always set the Macrovision flag(s) to the OFF condition.

Whats the problem with that?

[Nilfennasion]

I think Macrovision are starting to panic because programs like DVDShrink are making it piss-easy to simply remove the flags altogether, thus the player never gets that signal to screw with the output. Or at least, that's the impression I get from the articles I have been reading. Exactly how Macrovision expect people to stop is another question.

[satviewer2000]

I agree with bugster.

That is also how I understand Macrovision to work on DVD players. In VHS technology, the macrovision signal is encoded within the tape itself as part of the analog signal. This is not the case with DVD encrypted movies.

As I understand it, the DVD movie sends a signal telling the DVD player to turn on Macrovision. This is why some older DVD players have "secret menus" where you can turn OFF Macrovision (eg. Apex players). You could not do this simply through a menu on DVD players if the macrovision signal was encrypted within the video-audio signal of the movie itself.

All DVD players sold in N. America require macrovision capability built into them. This is likely the case for European and Asian DVD players also as part of the licensing requirements.

[adam]

The way I understand it is this:

There is no Macrovision on a DVD-video as such. Macrovision on a DVD is simply a flag (or set of flags?) included as part of the DVD-Video data (in the IFO?) that causes the DVD player to screw with the analog output signal of the DVD in ways patented by Macrovision.

DVD-Video proucers pay a license fee to macrovision in order to be allowed to set these flags on their commercially produced disks. This licence is on a per-unit basis.

Macrovision are sueing 321 studios for leaving these flags intact, thus utilising the macrovision circuitry within the DVD player without having paid the appropriate licence fee for the copied units.

Yes that is how Macrovision works. I partly oversimplified, partly misspoke in my other post.

So the simple solution is for 321 Studios products to always set the Macrovision flag(s) to the OFF condition.

Whats the problem with that?

The problem is that Macrovision removal is now illegal under the DMCA. As some others have said, you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. There is no doubt that if they just forced macrovision removal in their software, that they would just be enjoined again. They were previously enjoined for using mandatory DeCSS removal in their software, which is no different than Macrovision removal under the DMCA. Unless they get this overturned on appeal I think they are screwed.

[FOO]

I completely fail to understand how setting or clearing a bit in a mpeg2
stream can be patentable. Are binary bits secret ?

[adam]

Because anyone who does it knows full well that they are either setting or disabling Macrovision, a technology which is what is patented. And that bit is reserved for Macrovision setting. It does nothing else so you can't just say you are changing a bit, you are using Macrovision plain and simple. You can break just about any patented technology down into its basic parts and make the infringement look trivial or removed. But when you look at the intent of the party and the whole picture its pretty clear infringement.

I've never used DVD-X-Copy but my guess is that the option to change this bit is labeled "Macrovision removal" or something to that effect, not "flip random bit". Everybody knows what they are doing when they use it.

[Nilfennasion]

Who was it that said the DMCA was a good idea?

[gitreel]

The politicians

[bugster]

Who was it that said the DMCA was a good idea?

and then

The politicians

actually I thought it was the MPAA and the movie studios

[Nilfennasion]

The curse of the DMCA does not limit itself to films and related media, unfortunately. It basically makes criminals out of anyone who doesn't feel like paying for the same album, program, or tape more than once. As I have always said, when Jack Valenti and his counterpart in the RIAA are ready to reimburse me for the times when a CD player has made a disc unplayable through bad design, maybe I would see the wisdom in the DMCA.

[gitreel]

Who was it that said the DMCA was a good idea?

and then

The politicians

actually I thought it was the MPAA and the movie studios

You left out the RIAA and clowns like aero as well.

[mrbass]

Lest (short for let us) not forget Harry Potter #1 dvd (whatever it was called) didn't have macrovision protection. Why? Simple ...saved them over $5 million by not adding it. Each dvd cost $0.05 to add macrovision. 10 million dvds x $0.05 = $5 million . So macrovision is evil....it's only a matter of time before it's extinct and people figure out that people don't copy en masse dvd --> vhs.