Macrovision is on the hunt!

[Noahtuck]

holy freakin' pop-ups.....
funny stuff there tho

Pop up ?? what's that ??

[BJ_M]

from watching to much porn at work

[Xylob the Destroyer]

nah, pr0n not accessable from work....
& I use IE at home - pop-ups from hell

[Noahtuck]

from watching to much porn at work

nah, pr0n not accessable from work....
& I use IE at home - pop-ups from hell

Been so long since i saw a pop-up i forgot that they existed
And i mean the internet kind BJ_M

You really need something, i always use firefox but i just went there with IE and still no pop-up's...
But i have had the last 2 norton ISP also for the last couple of years and i have not seen a pop up in forever..... i am actually thinking about going back to ISP 2004 because it even blocked all the little banners and flash ad's in pages....

[adam]

But some DVD's do not contain Macrovision or any copy protection at all. So I would argue that if there are DVD's on the market that don't use Macrovision or any copy protection, the Sima device wouldn't be violating the DMCA if they are used with those DVD"s.

You can have as many valid uses for something as you want, if it violates a law it violates a law. You can find valid uses for anything. That is not the test applied under any law.

[waheed]

nah, pr0n not accessable from work....
& I use IE at home - pop-ups from hell

In order to know that, you've been trying to access porn from work

[thecoalman]

The only use for Macrovision is to prevent a video source from being copied by a VCR. Since VCR's are going the way of the dinosaur, Macrovision won't even have a viable product in a couple of years.

That's not quite right, most capture cards see the MV signal preventing copying as do many DVD recorders. Matter of fact some home made tapes can be seen as MV protected by digital devices, which brings up a very interesting point. What about the consumer with tapes that are not error free? They're going to be stuck.....

Cards such as the ATI AIW can be very sensitive to tapes such as these and will get rejected. Without a device to clean the signal they are uncapturable. http://www.nepadigital.com/mv This is besides the point that I as a consumer should be able fix my video with these devices. As LS stated it's just an error, why should it be my problem that the device I'm using to fix errors just happens to fix there's.

If they win this I think your going to see a huge consumer backlash in the future because they'll be stuck with uncopyable home videos a) because the capture device thinks they are MV protected and b) because there's no device on the market to fix it. I think it's about time that some of these companies that are getting that are getting this capture protection rammed down there throats such as ATI and others stood up and said enough is enough.

[Nilfennasion]

I've bought the same CD three times because it was damaged by CD players that were in some way unfit for their purpose. Both instances had something to do with the lid (a flip-open) not being securely closeable enough to be relied upon to not scratch the disc. When the RIAA reimburses me the $60 plus inflation, I might be inclined to agree with them that I cannot make a copy of my DVDs or CDs, circumventing their stupid and legit-user-punishing (*) copy protection schemes.

* I own one CD that has copy protection on it, put there by an independent label that should know better. It crashes my computer, without fail, whenever I put it in the drive while a certain program is running. I still managed to make a copy that I can play on my computer, but the question of how you'd describe this other than as punishing the legitimate user comes up. Especially considering I'd fight with a spiked club to defend this label from the RIAA's monopolist practices.

[thecoalman]

how you'd describe this other than as punishing the legitimate user comes up. Especially considering I'd fight with a spiked club to defend this label from the RIAA's monopolist practices.

In my example above the genaral consumer is being punished and they aren't even doing anything considered illegal in any sense. There should be no reason why a consumer should need one of those devices to copy a home video unless they wanted to improve the signal, instead they need it to copy there "copyrighted" home movies...... This is where I have a major beef with MV, it's affecting people that should have no reason to worry about it.

[adam]

I've bought the same CD three times because it was damaged by CD players that were in some way unfit for their purpose. Both instances had something to do with the lid (a flip-open) not being securely closeable enough to be relied upon to not scratch the disc. When the RIAA reimburses me the $60 plus inflation, I might be inclined to agree with them that I cannot make a copy of my DVDs or CDs, circumventing their stupid and legit-user-punishing (*) copy protection schemes.

Well since you are in Australia the RIAA has nothing to do with the CDs you purchase. Furthermore, the choice to put protection or not on a CD has nothing to do with the RIAA, its the decision of the music label.

But if you want to speak of the RIAA and american music labels, then you CAN bypass their protection and you CAN backup your music CDs as many times as you want. Section 1008 of our Copyright Law says exactly this. It is only DVDs that you cannot backup.

You'll have to look to your own country's laws to see where you stand, but here in America if you want to backup CDs go right ahead and use whatever means necessary to do so. But this thread is not about the RIAA or CDs, its about DVDs which are treated differently.

[mbellot]

But some DVD's do not contain Macrovision or any copy protection at all. So I would argue that if there are DVD's on the market that don't use Macrovision or any copy protection, the Sima device wouldn't be violating the DMCA if they are used with those DVD"s.

You can have as many valid uses for something as you want, if it violates a law it violates a law. You can find valid uses for anything. That is not the test applied under any law.

By this logic ANYTHING that has an unlawful purpose would be a problem, which seems altogether insane.

Taken to an extreme (which your statement certainly seems to do), we should remove all C compilers from distribution since they can be used to create a binary version of DeCSS. Nevermind that it (the compiler) has millions of legitimate uses... Afterall thats not the test applied.

[normcar]

I believe that the "primary purpose" of the device would have to be to remove the protection, and that the device does not have another "primary purpose". Does not the DMCA have this type of wording?

[thecoalman]

I believe that the "primary purpose" of the device would have to be to remove the protection, and that the device does not have another "primary purpose". Does not the DCMA have this type of wording?

They remove errors at least that is the case for TBC's, I don't know about the other devices, MV is an error. Are consumers who want to remove errors from their tapes to improve the capture be denied that right just because MV is an error?

[normcar]

I believe TBC's are "protected" from DMCA because their primary purpose is not the removal of the MV protection. Unless the Manufacture is stupid enough to market as a tool to remove MV protection, which is what SIMA seems to do.

[thecoalman]

For example here's the fetures of the Go DVD CT200 from Sima.

Features
Easy connection to any DVD recorder.
Stabilizes video signals for crisp copies
Digital technology reduces noise
S-VHS, VHS-C, VHS, 8 mm and DVD compatible
6 output signal enhancement modes - normal, enhanced 1 & 2, darken, black/white and color bars
Supports NTSC and PAL formats
Includes AC adapter
Auto power-off and stand-by modes

Sounds very similar to what a TBC does, it's just not as powerful. Let's also not forget that false MV detection in devices have created a large part of the market for devices such as this where they otherwise wouldn't be needed. I've reccommened them many times to people simply just trying to copy their home movies. This particular one is being marketed for copying home movies.

[lordsmurf]

Good point. Maybe MV sees they missed the boat on such a product and are now suing SIMA since it probably would be their best competition.

Just a wild theory, but MPAA and RIAA and anti-copy folks (MV, DVDCA) are ******* nuts anyway. Just like tobacco companies. Crazy shit is often how it really goes with these nonsense-loving bastards.

[thecoalman]

Good point. Maybe MV sees they missed the boat on such a product and are now suing SIMA

I think we have a winner.... Here's there's business model. We'll create this protection for VHS. Then we'll ram it down the capture industry throat so people have al kinds of problems with there home tapes. Then we'll sell the devices to fix it. It's almost like extortion.

[trhouse]

Macrovision is a company with many patents. This suit is about their more recent patents which involve ACP described below,

[adam]

You can have as many valid uses for something as you want, if it violates a law it violates a law. You can find valid uses for anything. That is not the test applied under any law.

By this logic ANYTHING that has an unlawful purpose would be a problem, which seems altogether insane.

That is not at all what I said. I said if it violates the law it violates the law, regardless of how many valid additional uses it may have. Whether or not it violates the law will take into account both its lawful as well as its unlawful uses and purposes.

For instance a site that hosts torrent links which has 99% infringing links is not saved by the fact that it also hosts 1% lawful links.

Or here is a more fitting example. There are valid uses for removing macrovision because some older tv's cannot display the macrovision'ed signal whether you are copying or not. But the legislature chose to make the devices unlawful anyway because, on balance, the copyright holder/protection manufacturers had the greater interest.

[BJ_M]

what about all Hi8 equipment ? Which is still made..

It ignores macrovision , so is Sony breaking the law?

[adam]

I believe that the "primary purpose" of the device would have to be to remove the protection, and that the device does not have another "primary purpose". Does not the DMCA have this type of wording?

There are 3 ways in which a manufacturer can be held liable under the DMCA.

1) if the device was primarily designed and produced for the purpose circumventing..etc..

2) The device is marketed with knowledge that it will be used for the purpose of ..etc...

3) The device has only a limited commercially significant purpose other than to circumvent..etc...

According to that press release Macrovision is arguing the third one. Maybe I haven't read the blurbs in entirety but I still don't know specifically which device they are referring to. Without knowing this there's really no way to evaluate their claim.

[BJ_M]

they listed ALL of the video products made by sima ..

and the other company is a dealer only (of somewhat bootleg) of DVD X Copy

[adam]

they listed ALL of the video products made by sima ..

Then it sounds like a real stretch to me.

and the other company is a dealer only (of somewhat bootleg) of DVD X Copy

Sorry, I was generalizing when I talked about the manufacturer. It basically applies to anyone in the chain. Here is the actual language:

No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that...

Ect... (the 3 things I listed above.)

[AlecWest]

I think what we're seeing from Macrovision now can be summed up in two words -- death throes. Their backs are against the wall. No one wants to buy an encryption method that can be easily thwarted. So, they go after the easy targets (DVDdecrypter, et al) to make it seem to their customer base as if they're really doing something. Meanwhile, the not-so-easy targets (Chinese developers) continue to stick their tongues out at Macrovision and turn out similar products. This fact is not lost to Macrovision's customers. Whether the software comes from Britain, Antigua, or China doesn't matter. What matters to them is (A) "Will Macrovision protect my DVD movie release?" and (B) "Is the protection permanent?" And, that 2nd question is the real bugger.

In shutting down DVDdecrypter, Macrovision impressed no one but themselves. And their current lawsuits probably don't impress the movie industry either. True permanent copy protection remains the unobtainable Holy Grail it has always been. But (grin), I guess Macrovision wants to go out with a bang instead of a whimper.

[BJ_M]

now that the dealers name is splashed all over the internet by every news agency - i bet they never got so much free advertising .. i see they now rank number #1 at google for backup software ...

[trhouse]

Adam,

Having recently worked with a law firm on two patents which are pending, I learned that the law is all shades of gray. Unless stopped by a court from continuing to manufacturer during the suit, this can drag on for ten years like the Sony vs Universal-Disney suit in which Sony eventually prevailed. No manufacturer of vcr's was prevented from making them during the suit to my knowledge. Technology changes fast enough that in ten years, Macrovision's current patents may be worthless. So too the Sima products. It matters as much whether a Sony or Sima is willing to spend the money which in the Sony case was is the millions.

[normcar]

There are 3 ways in which a manufacturer can be held liable under the DMCA.

1) if the device was primarily designed and produced for the purpose circumventing..etc..

2) The device is marketed with knowledge that it will be used for the purpose of ..etc...

3) The device has only a limited commercially significant purpose other than to circumvent..etc...

According to that press release Macrovision is arguing the third one. Maybe I haven't read the blurbs in entirety but I still don't know specifically which device they are referring to. Without knowing this there's really no way to evaluate their claim.

However for TBC's, their primary purpose was not to circumvent MV, therefore the manufactures should be ok.

[adam]

I'm not sure what the Sony case has to do with this. That was in regards to contributory copyright infringement. This case involves patent infringement and DMCA violations. And if Macrovision gets a preliminary injunction granted then these companies will indeed have to cease selling their products.

I agree that the Sima case is anything but black and white. That is my point. That is why A lawful use for a Sima device does not get them off the hook just as their possible De-macrovision ability doesn't fry them.

But we've already got a ruling from this exact same court on a piece of software which looks exactly like Interburn's software. I think its safe to say that Macrovision will get a preliminary injuction against them and that they will eventually win their case if it does not settle. This case actually is pretty darn black and white.

Also, even if the case drags long after Macrovision's patents expire, they still receive any damages caused by infringement at the time. As for the DMCA, it may be amended but I don't see it going away and I don't see it removing liability for manufacturers/distributors.

[adam]

However for TBC's, their primary purpose was not to circumvent MV, therefore the manufactures should be ok.

You are mixing the two prongs of the test, but assuming that their primary purpose is also a commercially significant one, then you reach the same conclusion. And yes I do think Sigma passes both prongs of the test generally, but you still have to apply each one independantly. It is possible for a device to have a primary purpose which is not commercially significant. If such a device can be used to circumvent a copy protection measure, than it violates the DMCA notwithstanding the fact that its primary purpose is a valid one. Fortunately for Sima their commercial worth seems to be pretty self-evident.

[trhouse]

The point about the Sony case is that when the plaintiff and defendant both have millions to spend in litigation, the case will not be over in round 1. Sony won round one, lost round two, and won round three in a split decision ( 5-4 ). It is an example of what can happen. The defendant is not without rights. They can choose to attack the validity of the patents or argue that the DCMA regulations violate fair use doctrine. Enough money can make black and white very gray and prolonged.

[edit]

P.S. Cars have a lawful use but they are used as the getaway vehicle in bank robberies and other crimes. The unlawful use fries the person or persons who used it illegally not the manufacturer. I would agree that the manufacturer is culpable if for example, Ford advertised the Explorer as great for large scale heists due to it cargo capacity.