Macrovision gains injunction against DVD X software

[BJ_M]

10 million dvds x $0.05 = $5 million

good point but 10 million dvds x $0.05 = $500,000

[aero]

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

Trade secrets have nothing to do with DMCA or Patents, tha tis a different realm of the law, albiet occassionally complimetary.

[proxyx99]

I think it all boils down to this: if Macrovision can prove that 321 Studios has specifically modified/constructed their software to "take care" of Macrovision nuisance then they have a case as this action would target the flag specifically. This may but doesn't have to screw 321 Studios. If on the other hand 321 Studios can prove that their software was constructed to pass the material (VOB's) of the DVD regardless of content in order to preserve its integrity (no decryption or manipulation to be in compliance with DMCA) then they walk.
Technology makes things happen so fast that politician trying to work hand in hand with Hollywood moguls are trying to use every possible trick and close every loop. 321 Studios promotes a product that enables little guy to use the product as intended by a little guy not the Hollywood moguls. No system has ever liked Robin Hoods. 321 Studios empowers average Joe to go beyond the limitations as envisioned by big guys and big money. And that annoys them big time as 321S puts their products right beside DVD section in stores like Best Buy. That is a challenge Hollywood can't let go unpunished. It's not about 321 Studios but about average Joe to tie his hands and put him back in place.
The only problem for 321 Studios is the political side of this issue that may bend current law to accommodate Macrovision. Let me remind you all that most high profile cases are decided by the majority vote. That is why it is so important who sits in the appellate courts and what their political/social views are. With other words "do we or they have their vote". Even if 321 Studios looses it doesn't mean that they have broken the law but only that in the view of these particular judges they did.
Now, remember OJ?

[adam]

I think it all boils down to this: if Macrovision can prove that 321 Studios has specifically modified/constructed their software to "take care" of Macrovision nuisance then they have a case as this action would target the flag specifically.

That would be a violation of DMCA, not patent law, and yes in the 9th Circuit 321 would lose because they already lost in the identical situation with DSS removal.

If on the other hand 321 Studios can prove that their software was constructed to pass the material (VOB's) of the DVD regardless of content in order to preserve its integrity (no decryption or manipulation to be in compliance with DMCA) then they walk.

Not according to this case. That is exactly what this recent court decision just said. They are making a copy and making use of Macrovision protection on it. They are using Macrovision's technology and it is patented, period. It doesn't matter that they are just passing data from one place to another. When you license Macrovision or DSS for DVDs you have to pay a fee for each disk, even though you could just be passing the data from one disk to another. Licensing is a whole separate issue, but you see my point. Without specifically trying to, their customers are making an entirely separate disk and that disk uses patented techology. At least in the 9th Circuit's view, that is a violation of Macrovision's patent.

The 9th Circuit has essentially already ruled on both possible scenarios, and both times against 321. 321 can appeal, wait for new legislation, or wait for someone else to fight their cause in another trial. But as of right now the 9th Circuit has spoken and yes 321 is definitely screwed under the current rulings.

[bugster]

AFAIK, 321 Studios current product line does not include DECSS type capabilities. Therefore they cannot be accused of breaking the DMCA. In that case they are only working with unencrypted files. So why would it be illegal for them to set the Macrovision flags to the 'OFF' condition on every copy they make. That way the copies are not making unlicensed use of Macrovisions intellectual property.

Surely Macrovision's patent can't include the setting of a particular data bit on a DVD-Video disk?

[Alan69]

...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

May want to check your 'new math' here. Half of 10 million is 5 million. That would be 50 cents per DVD not a nickel.

[indolikaa]

May want to check your 'new math' here.

ROTFLOL!

This is the same math the accountants at 321 Studios probably used when they figured out how much they could sell before they got sued...

[gitreel]

May want to check your 'new math' here.

ROTFLOL!

This is the same math the accountants at 321 Studios probably used when they figured out how much they could sell before they got sued...

Or the same math the Riaa uses in regards to high speed burners.

[Alan69]

So what?

There are other ways to back up movies.

They would be in jeopardy as well if this held up. And you should really keep your more important than everyone else attituce in check Git, you posted a far less significant article and acted like it was something big yourself with that dumb hologram crap.

[Alan69]

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.

Don't drink your profits quite yet. They aren't generating the macrovision data, simply passing it through in the process of backing up. This isn't even as far into the grey area as the HP cartridge suit from the mid 80's, this suit should fail in the long run. Heck MV would say you can't pass their signal through an unofficial video switchbox if they had their way, which is really not that far off what they're trying to say here..


And there could be a huge side benefit if MV wins this. DMCA says it's illegal to make something for the sole purpose of defeating copy protection. A ruling for them here will make removing the MV a patent compliance issue, no longer a sole purpose of defeating their protection but to not infringe their patents on their methods. Enforcing protection on such things often opens a back door to allow removal of them where it wouldn't be allowed otherwise. That's why many things go untested in court, the threat is often lessened if you actually put it to the test and have a solid ruling one way or the other.

Alan

[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.

Don't drink your profits quite yet.

Too late! He already payeth, I already dranketh.

[gitreel]

So what?

There are other ways to back up movies.

They would be in jeopardy as well if this held up. And you should really keep your more important than everyone else attituce in check Git, you posted a far less significant article and acted like it was something big yourself with that dumb hologram crap.

I do not have a more important attitude. I don't know what you are talking about. I am no better than anyone else.

The difference is the other software I was referring to is not sold. It is freeware. There is not a dime of profit made off the other software. The reason they attacked 321 is they were profiting. Why can't we all just get along?

That hologram story, I was just passing it along. If you are looking for a fight, you are going to be disappointed. Please do not try to invoke an argument, as I have better things to do than argue.

[adam]

AFAIK, 321 Studios current product line does not include DECSS type capabilities.

No because they were enjoined from doing that too. That was decided when they pre-emptively sued MPAA for a declatory judgment ruling that using DeCSS routines in their software was not a violation of the DMCA. They lost and had to remove DeCSS from all their software.

Therefore they cannot be accused of breaking the DMCA. In that case they are only working with unencrypted files.

The DMCA covers all forms of copyright protection, not just CSS keys. Macrovision removal is a violation of the DMCA. After the DMCA was passed, orders were sent out to all DVD player manufacturers stating that they had 2 years to comply by removing all DeMacrovision capabilities in their hardware. As far as the DMCA is concerned, Macrovision and CSS are basically synonomous.

Surely Macrovision's patent can't include the setting of a particular data bit on a DVD-Video disk?

It doesn't have to. What other purpose would there be to have the Macrovision flag enabled on the disk, except to have the DVD player use Macrovision when playing it? If that bit is set then Macrovision is going to be used, period. The user is using someone else's patented techology in their own creation. Remember, there is no right to backup a DVD. Despite what so many people like to think, it has yet to be deemed a Fair Use of copyrighted material to backup your own DVDs. DVD-X-Copy was only ever allowed to be released because it purportedly was to be used for recognized Fair Use purposes, such as parody, or for educational purposes. When you copy a DVD for these such purposes you are not making a copy of the original, you making a separate product. If you want to include Macrovision on this product then you need to purchase a license and pay the fee for that disk, just like everyone else does.

Anyway, that's the way the 9th Circuit views this issue. If Macrovision needs to enforce their patent in any subsequent cases its going to end up in the 9th Circuit as well unless the other party has some particular reason to remove to another federal court. So basically, that's the ruling on this issue until something changes.

[proxyx99]

Yes, this is all correct. Now let's look at this from a different angle. Since DMCA prohibits decryption of commercial DVD's and 321S does not have decryption capabilities it does not fall under DMCA. For the purpose of this argument we can assume that this software was designed to duplicate unencrypted discs.

In order to produce a copy it needs to pass all data from the disc. And it does. Intended use is then (as per software maker) to produce a faithful and complete copy of the source disc. Now it happens that it also can pass Macrovision thus producing (as promised) to the software buyer a reliable copy of the DVD.

MV makes an infringement claim as it also passes their bit making the copy MV compliant as described in their patent. Software maker is limited here as they can't make a program that allows users to make duplicates of their DVD's. They say OK we want to be in compliance and our software is not intended to copy MV protected discs but just any other DVD. What do we do? MV says: modify your software so that it does not infringe on our patent. Question how? OK, how about we look at your patent and we avoid restricted use areas? OK they have to say. But then DMCA says: hello, you are not supposed to do that. You say: I can copy my floppy, my CD's why not DVD's? And we have a problem here.

As indicated above this inadvertently leads to Fair Use question as well as personal freedoms. For the purpose of this argument I avoid technological implications of making a copying software.

Paradox here is that MV enjoys patent protection that goes beyond their patent. How? Because technology is not important at all. The fact that it was applied is more important then technology and patent itself.

To illustrate it: You have a patent on a technology that displays ever 15 sec. a frame that says " You are not permitted to make a copy of this disc". By virtue of DMCA you are not allowed to remove it. As per patent law you cannot make a software that copies that image - license issue.
Yet you need a software to copy DVD's. Can't have it. Everything else but DVD. Technology may be crap. The fact that it was applied makes it bombproof as then you get into the loop if impossibilities.

I think that it calls for another lawsuit. By law you are forced to use and infringe the patent that you don't intend to use. You can't copy your DVD's because the software doesn't exist (prohibited by law). MV enjoys protection that goes way beyond a patent law since the is no way you can make a product that would comply and yet serve the purpose. This is a clear abuse of patent laws in order to protect special interests. Something is gotta give. I'm pretty sure that soon we will hear about this case again. This time in another setting (maybe...?).

One more remark: as it is in the case of P2P networks MV and courts assume a criminal intent on the part of software maker as well as the end user that is inherently built into 321S software. This assumption goes too far. That fact that this software is capable of transferring the MV flags and thereby triggering MV protection doesn't mean that it violates their patent. Software on its own is not producing disks, users are. Moreover, flags are passed by DVD writers as part of the copying procedure yet their makers are not sued. This is a selective prosecution. As Supreme Court of Canada has found with regard to P2P networks the fact of enlisting the file (sharing it) on the network doesn't constitute a crime (no crime/offence committed yet). Sole fact of Xcopy's ability to transfer a flag is not equal with the actual transfer. In hands of some users it may actually never occur. Comparing to hand guns no one a priori stipulates criminal intent although common sense says that its purpose is solely criminal (so called "protection" means killing others albeit exculpatory circumstances may but don't have to apply). With regard to the DVDXcopy criminal intent stipulation is unlawfully built into the lawsuit.

This is why I think this decision is political and has nothing to do with patent law. If any possible use of 321S software is intended it is stipulated that it must be criminal with the intention of infringing on MV's patent. If the only option left on the table is an unlawful use and that is the base of the patent suit then we have to talk about constitutionality of such assumption. This suit puts an equation sign between merely a technical possibility and a criminal use or intent. This is a whole bunch of BS that would never hold water under normal circumstances.

[aero]

Moreover, flags are passed by DVD writers as part of the copying procedure yet their makers are not sued. This is a selective prosecution.

Huh? Firstly it is not "selective prosecution, it is a civil case. Secondly it is 321 who pre-emptively sued and attempted to take the isue to court. Eveyone kows this was to get publicity, adn they got it. No one sees selectivity when 321 is the one who created the legal fight.

[rich1111]

looks like the riaa & mpaa are going to fight all the way 2 the bank cool all the CRAP they do is ok cant do anything about it anyway ?

OH but what if we make our 90% money hungery LAWMAKERs pass stuff to replace my CD DVD GameCD VHSTape or anything that has copy protection on it within a day not a week or two BUT a DAY it might be ok thin for me to back up my stuff becouse i dont know how meny times i have saved MY STUFF becouse I DID BACK IT UP! i think 1 yr of them having to replace stuff in that 1day thingy might make them reBANK think the copy protection thing maybe ?

thats just my southern just got indore plumbing & lectrick last year thinking lol

[proxyx99]

Huh? Firstly it is not "selective prosecution, it is a civil case. Secondly it is 321 who pre-emptively sued and attempted to take the isue to court. Eveyone kows this was to get publicity, adn they got it. No one sees selectivity when 321 is the one who created the legal fight.

Of course we all know that this is a civil case but arising from and undoubtedly tied with DMCA. By prosecution I mean a coordinated effort to wipe them out.

I have yet too see a truly preemptive patent infringement suit. This suits are normally initiated by patent holders. If someone believes that 321Studios started the show then he's detached from the reality. It is a common knowledge that cases like this always start with a powerful intimidation campaign, tons of paper being sent out, threats etc etc. This is a common scenario for all patent suits. 321Studios must have been subject to this for quite some time, no doubt about it.

Secondly there must have been a specific reason why they became the target. Never tested that but it is interesting whether the same criteria with regard to Macrovision apply to other software makers line Pinnacle, Intervideo etc. No doubt in my mind that both sides are testing waters before major players (on the offending side) are ever engaged. Small firm like 321 Studion with its limited resources is a perfect adversary to test some legal manouvers.

[aero]

If someone believes that 321Studios started the show then he's detached from the reality.

You are accusing people of being detached from reality when you apparently don't even know about the 321 own preepmtive legal actions?It is 321 who "pre-emptively" sued all the major motion picture studies OVER TWO YEARS AGO. Oh well.

It certainly wasn't buried, as many saw it it as a publicity stunt to give 321 more exposure. After all they did a massive public relations campaign trumpeting their lawsuit.

[adam]

Yes 321 did preemptively sue the MPAA for a declaratory judgment stating that their use of DeCSS routines was legal. Whether or not this latest action by Macrovision was initiated because of that is anyone's guess.

[Nilfennasion]

I think it is pretty easy to conclude that the studios and their ilk just want the courts to declare that we no longer own anything we buy.

[aero]

I think it is pretty easy to conclude that the studios and their ilk just want the courts to declare that we no longer own anything we buy.

You are confusing about "own" with owning limited rights. Even people against the MPAA's methods don't contend you own all rights to a movie by purchasing a dvd. If that was the case someone from a television station could purchase a DVD and broadcast it without paying addtional fees.

You already know you are not purchasing ownership, but limited rights. We all know that. Do you own the patent on something when you buy a product using it?

What we are talking about is the intersection of reasoanble use of limited rights vs. reasonable and needed protections for the owner of the content.

[proxyx99]

Aero, instead talking about ideas and concepts that are still far from beeing defined you are constantly catching single phrases and words without even trying to look at issues behind them. That often brings everyone back to square one since you always need clarification. My kids used to argue topics in a similar way back in elementary school.
Last remark about "ownership" of DVD refers to popular concept of licensing. Do you honestly believe that the previous poster has put an equation sign between a purchase of a DVD disk and ownership of its content? I guess we all were so dumbfounded that it has really called for your clarification.

If you did not notice this discussion is about "how and to what extent a legitimate purchaser of a DVD disk can protect his investment". Technology allows for easy duplication but also puts a very imperfect and fragile product in our hands (remember Kodak's 100 year CDR's lifespan claims?). This lawsuit brings the topic much closer. It's tied directly with civil liberties and constant battle between the state (and other major players) and an individual in order to establish the boundaries and areas of influence. Patent lawsuits like this one are just the pretext The issues at stake are purely and exclusively political.

[Nilfennasion]

I was at the flicks today to see Dawn Of The Dead, and sure enough, it had one of those crass "don't download films" adverts tacked on before the film. I find it insulting that in spite of the fact that they've got my $5 (discount night at the local flicks), they still feel the need to treat me like I am a thief-in-waiting. So off I go to copy more films. :P

Honestly, I can't understand why the MPAA wants us to believe it is everyone's fault but theirs. As a commercial film, DOTD wasn't too bad, but don't get me wrong, it's not that good that I'd ever pay what retailers in this nowhere town expect in order to own it. What are they going to do next? Knock on my door and say "you didn't buy our film, so we're going to nick you because we're losing profits even though you aren't actually stealing from us"?

How about all the times I've had a CD destroyed because the boom-box player I used to play them had an unstable transport mechanism (top-loaders are renowned for this)? What about all the times when I've turned away from a disc for two minutes and come back to find a scratch the size of a penstroke on them? Well, in a nutshell, when Jack Valenti is ready to garantee me in writing that the new DVD-Videos or CDs will survive everything but having a brick thrown down on them, only then will I stop making copies. Until he does that, or reimburses me for every overpriced CD I've had to kiss goodbye due to sloppy player mechanisms, he can kiss my butt. I will copy what I own.

[ViRaL1]

What genius decided that a proprietary copy protection was mandatory in all DVD players sold in the U.S.?

Is it legal to OWN a DVD player without Macrovision?

Since Macrovision has to be licensed to be utilized, why don't more Non-US company (is there a such thing as an American made DVD Player?) sell Non-Macrovision enabled DVD players? It would seem they'd fly off the shelves.

[Nilfennasion]

The DVD Consortium seems to want all players to have Macrovision capabilities, so they are sold with them. Some players are easier to disable Macrovision on than others. I suspect it is because the studios decided they wouldn't back the format without Macrovision.

[adam]

Now, Macrovision is required in all DVD players by law in America, per the DMCA.

Before, it was more of a, I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine type of thing. Alot of hardware manufacturers had close ties to movie studios, some were even one and the same. Obviously they would have similar interests which included copyright protection.

[Nilfennasion]

Now, Macrovision is required in all DVD players by law in America, per the DMCA.

If this doesn't reek of corruption, then I wonder what does.

[adam]

If this doesn't reek of corruption, then I wonder what does.

Well, not really I just simplified the explanation. Macrovision support in hardware players has always been required by the DVD standard. That's just business. Any digital format needs at least one form of copyright protection, and its just a matter of adopting the best one(s) for the format.

But prior to the DMCA, alot of players gave you the option of disabling Macrovision. That's what is now illegal.

[BJ_M]

Any digital format needs at least one form of copyright protection

well - not really ...

d-beta , d5 , hdcam , cd's , pro dat and others come to mind ...

[adam]

Well I meant digital formats intended to be used in the actual production line, ie: DVDs, VHS etc... There's not much reason to protect the stock footage from consumer copying because if the consumers get a hold of it at all then the studio's got bigger problems. You got me on audio cds though. I was thinking video.