Macrovision gains injunction against DVD X software

[ViRaL1]

I'm sure the DMCA probably makes it illegal to diable Macrovision, but is there anything that keeps a hardware manufacturer from not building it in?

[adam]

I'm sure the DMCA probably makes it illegal to diable Macrovision, but is there anything that keeps a hardware manufacturer from not building it in?

Yes, the DVD specifications themselves. As far as I know, the specs require support for Macrovision. All hardware players must add the Macrovision signal if that flag is enabled on the DVD.

If you think about it, there's no other way. The manufacturer of the DVD chooses whether or not to enable Macrovision, but if they do then they have to pay licensing fees to Macrovision. It wouldn't exactly be fair, or even practical to have players out there that didn't add the Macrovision signal, when instructed to by the DVD, when you have the majority of studios out there paying money to use it.

The argument is that there should be a right to disable the Macrovision signal by the consumer, since there are some limited legal reasons to do so, ie: the signal can interfere with some older tv's. But the DMCA is very specific about this. Part of the legislation specifically placed a 3 year time frame by which all hardware manufacturers had to phase out macrovision removal capabilities in their DVD players.

[proxyx99]

As I indicated earlier it is not the quality of protection (since sooner or later any can be rendered ineffective) but a fact that it was applied to a DVD what makes (completes) the scheme work. Complimented by DMCA Macrovision serves as a simple padlock that must be broken or tinkered with in order to get to the DVD content. It creates DMCA-Patent Law scissors that serves its purpose at least with regard to commercializing DVD copy products. That scheme seems to be very simple but as 321 Studios example shows may be deadly if applied. As much as DMCA aspect of it is clear, whether we agree or not, the Patent Law/licensing issues are a big stretch for me. It assumes criminal intent on part of the software maker that I have a huge trouble with. Nevertheless it seems to do the job within our political reality, at least until something new comes up. Either way, the padlock is rather symbolic but a fact that was broken makes you a criminal. And that is the ultimate goal and reward for the lawmakers and studios.

[Tidy]

Who friggin cares. DVD X Copy sucks anyway!!

[aero]

Proxxy 99,

I can appreciate that you don't seem to have much of a background in either copyright or patent issues, which is why you are getting yourself all tied up and confused. Your assertion that the patent law use "assumes criminal intent" is such an example.

To kind of give you the basic law 101 on this, there is a difference between what is called "civil" and "criminal" issues. I can see you are confusing these two, but the distinction is quite important. The action in question was not brought by the goverment but rather by the patent holder.

[proxyx99]

You are preaching to the preacher. In this context I use it for transparency: criminal intent = preconceived intent to infringe on the patent as explained before (see earlier post). Never mentioned Penal Code and its application here (your notion). I refer you to a good dictionary to discover that there are several meanings of the word "criminal" and as indicated earlier in order to understand the idea you need to look beyond words. I not only stand by my point of view but I'm disgusted to find out that such (suspected) approech was taken by those who propose "Induce" Act as a comprehensive attempt to regulate copyright protection and its violations. This is what I suspected all along in present position by the authorities (only hidden). So much for your Law 101. No regulatory act exists in a vacuum and in order to see the the role of the Patent Law as applied in this particular context I must say you need to look beyond what appears as most obvious. But that is what seems to notoriously escape your attention from the very beginning.