Macrovision is on the hunt!

[BJ_M]

maybe this is a hint on the new Macrovision copy protection they are rolling out ...


or maybe Macrovision has a backer in this and is dangled a carrot - get rid of A B C and your scheme of copy protection will be approved for the next gen dvd or even current dvd by some XYZ company --

who can sit back and not get the fallout ...

[Bullworth]

Your theory does carry weight BJ_M. With MV losing customers left and right because they realize they're just throwing their money away for a sham copy protection scheme they probably decided it would be better to snuf out TBC/MV removal manufacturers and then release another sham copy protection scheme that will probably be defeated just as quickly.
It's a shame that so many new laws are enacted whose terms are dictated by greedy corporations instead of a sense of fair play by lawmakers. In any case alot of these lawmakers are probably on the corporate payroll.
If DVD prices came down to half of what they are now I won't say that I wouldn't make any backups, I would only buy the ones I really like and leave that for B-movie types. Than again I could always pick those up in Walmart's bargain bin at $3 each.

[adam]

trhouse, TBCs are clearly not prior art as to Macrovision's technology as evidenced by the fact that Macrovision was granted their patent. They also do completely different things. But anyway the aren't alleging patent infringement as to Sigma, only Interburn.

Also, Macrovision does not need to prove, nor are they even alleging, that TBCs are intended soley to defeat Macrovision.

I do think a TBC is perfectly legal under the DMCA, but the analysis you used is not what the courts will use.

[BJ_M]

one of the products macrovision lists in thier press release is only a TBC though -- so go figure ..

[trhouse]

adam,

You are correct, TBC's and Macrovison's main patent are different things which is why it was granted. I was not referring to the main Macrovision patent listed above which I believe is expired. I was referring to patents Macrovision has on defeating Macrovision. These patents cannot contain technology which was prior art in TBC's. TBC's also contain patents which Macrovision cannot use.

Macrovision says Sigma infringes their patent but that is not the case if it is expired, unless they are referring to infringement prior to expiration.

Just curious but which product listed in their complaint is a TBC?

[BJ_M]

DVD X Copy bootleg is InterBurn btw -- clearly the crosshairs are on them .. they are just a dealer only 1 year old , but selling DVD X Copy with thier own reg info ..

[BJ_M]

adam,

............

Just curious but which product listed in their complaint is a TBC?

SCC-2 is a Color Corrector 2 Pro Series Model SCC-2 Professional Video Processor and Enhancer

(thier "pro" series )

Sima's Color Corrector 2 Pro Series video processor and enhancer allows you to copy anything to DVD and all other formats. You can adjust the video signal by controlling brightness, color, tint and sharpness while copying. The SCC-2 is the only unit needed to copy S-VHS, VHS-C, VHS, 8mm and DVD formats. It also fine tunes red, green and blue (RGB) video colors to achieve a correct white balance. The sync and color burst are also restored for solid copies.
Features

* Enhanced digital circuitry
* Supports PAL and NTSC
* Regenerates video signals
* Adjustments for brightness, contrast, tint, color and sharpness
* Individual RGB adjustments
* Equipped with 2 Composite and 2 S-Video inputs and outputs
* On-screen menus
* Easy connection to any DVD recorder
* Includes IR remote
* Enhance and adjust your videos for perfect copies.

Notice: Use of this product for unauthorized duplication of copyrighted material from DVD, VHS or other media is prohibited under federal copyright laws unless the copy qualifies as a fair use under the Copyright Laws.




Model CT-2 is a pal <--> ntsc convertor with noise reduction and TBC




Model CT-200 is a do everything
http://www.simacorp.com/products/item.ep.html?id=491

[trhouse]

I reread the article about the nature of the legal action,

"As such, these infringing products allow users to make new unlicensed DVD disc copies by stripping Macrovision's patented ACP technology. The suit charges that Sima and Interburn therefore violate both Macrovision's patents and the DMCA, which prohibits circumvention of copy protection mechanisms."

This is not about the original Macrovision patent which was used primarily on VHS tape nor the patents they hold regarding disabling the original Macrovision protection. The new suite is about their ACP technology which to my knowledge is used only to copy protect dvd's.

[Headbanger's Ball]

Adam,
Please put your knowledge to good use & start a Class Action lawsuit against these nonsense laws that violate comsumer rights.

[BJ_M]

well interburn doesnt make anything ... in reality ..


crips - under macrovisons definition, 100's of products ignore the copyright flag on products

[BJ_M]

Adam,
Please put your knowledge to good use & start a Class Action lawsuit against these nonsense laws that violate comsumer rights.

what rights are they violating ? they are not violating any rights ..

[Headbanger's Ball]

That's just the kind of thinking I'm talking about.

Consumer right #1: I bought it, I own it, I can do what I want with it or to it.

[painkiller]

I would like to also point out (for anyone who doesn't yet know, or never did) that Macrovision was the company that also provided the "protection" software for last year's TurboTax software from Intuit.

There was such a backblast from consumers over purchased Turbotax cd's that failed to install the software, or adversely affected their computers - that Intuit reversed course and took off said software from that and this past product.

Largely, if memory serves - it was due to the non-disclosure of this extra software that you'd never know was there - even if you closely read the package box. Well, that and the fact it fouled up a good percentage of people's computers.

So much for Macrovision's track record.

[NightWing]

Macrovision has been pushing protection concept in just about every market. Even the game market! Saw them at a few E3. No one was near there little booth.

Looks like instead of doing what I did years ago when I wrote copy protection for software. And beat the crackers. They are taking the FUD concept.

The best and only way that works is to keep generating new concepts and pop one out as soon as the previous is cracked. Its a wear down tech and it does work.

But looks like Hollywood is using the "Who want this junk?" concept of protection.

The odds are they are just about been shown the door and are fighting in despriations to show they are still vaiable.

[kabanero]

I would like to also point out (for anyone who doesn't yet know, or never did) that Macrovision was the company that also provided the "protection" software for last year's TurboTax software from Intuit.

There was such a backblast from consumers over purchased Turbotax cd's that failed to install the software, or adversely affected their computers - that Intuit reversed course and took off said software from that and this past product.

Largely, if memory serves - it was due to the non-disclosure of this extra software that you'd never know was there - even if you closely read the package box. Well, that and the fact it fouled up a good percentage of people's computers.

So much for Macrovision's track record.

You can read it here:
http://www.spywareinfo.com/newsletter/archives/march-2003/10.php#tt

Now Macromedia plays the same dirty game:
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/flash1.html

[satviewer2000]

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. Sure, maybe at the beginning, people found that if they copied DVD's to their VCRs (when DVD burners & disks were expensive) they could have a decent copy of a DVD. But with the release of CSS decryption and the drastic drop in price of DVD burners and DVD media, who wastes their time copying DVDs to VHS tape anyways?

I suppose for the non-technical types, they may try to record DVD movies by using the analog inputs of a standalone DVD recorder. I'm not sure if Macrovision can do anything about this type of coping.

[guns1inger]

satviewer2000 - macrovision is designed to stop analogue copying. It is not specific to VCRs, but will also prevent analogue copying between a DVD player and DVD Recorder. Not eveyone wants to learn how to use a PC to copy disks.

The other thrust in Macrovision's full statement is the purpose that Sima advertised their product for - "Sima’s GoDVD! (Model CT-200) makes it easy to convert your private collection of VHS and DVD originals to DVD"

Sima have put themselve front and centre as a target. The statement is deliberately vague enough to allow the implication that private DVD originals are any studio disk you own. Legit TBCs etc are not marketed in this manner.

If you are going to put your head above the trenches, and paint a big bullseye on your hat, expect to get shot at.

[adam]

But as a counterpoint, doesn't the Lexmark case have weight here?

I don't believe so. Even though the suit was brought under the DMCA the ruling wasn't based on it. They did not rule that the defendant's were or were not violating the DMCA by bypassing Lexmark's protection chips, they rather ruled that Lexmark was engaging in an illegal tie-in by using the chips in the first place. Essentially they had no right to limit the use of 3rd party ink in their printers.

In this case no one is going to argue that Macrovision doesn't have the right to use its protection to prevent analogue copying. The defense will be that these companies don't violate the DMCA. I don't see how this will work for Interburn but Sigma has a chance, except that I'm not clear which of their products is the exact target in the suit. If they have marketed and developed a device which is primarily for backing up DVDs, then I think they are screwed too.

[adam]

That's just the kind of thinking I'm talking about.

Consumer right #1: I bought it, I own it, I can do what I want with it or to it.

I know that Copyright law is something that is hard for the average consumer to reconcile, but the fact is that you did NOT buy it. You bought the plastic and other materials and a license to watch the content. You did not buy any rights to the movie. So your rights to do what you want with it or to it, which are provided under the first sale doctrine, only apply to the physical disc itself. Once you start copying or altering the content of the disc you have violated the copyright.

Now again, I understand many consumers think this is unfair and ridiculous and the result of consumer unfriendly laws, but realize that this is the way it has always been and, I know it sounds silly but its one of the things our current economy is based on...and by that I mean the global economy. I mean Copyrights are provided for in the US Constitution. For as long as this country has been in existence you have never owned any rights to the content of a book, movie, or song that you purchase. All intellectual property rights are based on this concept of licenses and there would be virtually no monetary incentive to create anything without it.

[Headbanger's Ball]

you have never owned any rights to the content of a book, movie, or song that you purchase

It sure felt like I owned it once my money disappeared.
Since when are book publishers putting technology into books to prevent me from reading in my car? Or making it difficult for me to loan it to a friend to read.

They can make all the laws they want. But once I've purchased something, I have the right (whether written into law or not) to protect my investment. If that means putting comic books into plastic sleeves or backing up digital mediums to cd/dvd. Making technologies to prevent this should be illegal.

The bank owns my car but they aren't locking the hood to stop me from altering the engine. (Yes, I know cars aren't copyrighted! but the idea is the same.)

The copyright law wasn't intended to prevent comsumers from copying what they bought. It was intended to insure the owners were the only ones to profit from the sales...example: I can't record
Dark Side of the Moon and sell it (even if it was me playing every instrument & singing) because it belongs to Pink Floyd. But I should be able to rip the CD & sync it with The Wizard of Oz providng I have bought both mediums & do not sell it as my creation.

Besides, copyright laws are always being changed. I remember learning copyright was life+50 but now it's different (and confusing.) As long as record/movie companies are allowed to change laws to fit their whims, the consumers will have fewer rights. And a lot fewer sales (at least from my house (which I own & can do what I want with it.))

[bugster]

Decrypter is for dvd's. I am not sure Macrovision is the big player in the dvd copy protection business. They have ACP ( analog copy protection ) for dvd's but I seem to see much more CSS ( content scrambling system ) which is not a Macrovision product.

DVD's include Macrovision for Analog copy protection. The Disk manfacturer/producer has to pay a MV license fee to simply set a flag bit on the DVD to tell the player to enable a MV signal on the analog outputs. The signal is generated by the player, the disk simply includes the instruction to switch it on or off.

MV are obviously very worried about lost sales due to their technology being easily defeated and intend to use the courts to defend their market. Why would a DVD producer use an MV protection method that they have to license if huge numbers of people can by pass it easily. I expect they are doing this as a prelude to pushing their new 'ripguard' technology on to the market. By showing they are willing to prosecute those that circumvent their products they hope to make it more attractive to their potential customers.

[miksu]

Macrovision = Rambus of video technology

[Cornucopia]

The copyright law wasn't intended to prevent comsumers from copying what they bought. It was intended to insure the owners were the only ones to profit from the sales...example: I can't record
Dark Side of the Moon and sell it (even if it was me playing every instrument & singing) because it belongs to Pink Floyd. But I should be able to rip the CD & sync it with The Wizard of Oz providng I have bought both mediums & do not sell it as my creation.

Can't do that--You need a sync license. I'm not kidding.

Scott

[CaptainVideo]

In this case no one is going to argue that Macrovision doesn't have the right to use its protection to prevent analogue copying. The defense will be that these companies don't violate the DMCA. I don't see how this will work for Interburn but Sigma has a chance, except that I'm not clear which of their products is the exact target in the suit. If they have marketed and developed a device which is primarily for backing up DVDs, then I think they are screwed too.

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. Thus there is a non-infringing use for said device. I own the GoDVD CT-2 device. Nowhere on the packaging did it say it bypasses Macrovision. It only states that it will improve the picture quality.

If they want to prosecute DMCA violations they should sue individual users who attempt to make copies of DVD's that have Macrovision on them.

[BJ_M]

i'm sure that is next

[normcar]

By the way, even if you own your own house, you cann't do anything you want with it. I.E. you cann't add 50 floors on to it, or any major change without a permit. In some places you cann't even paint it unless the you use approved colors.

The government is taking away rights with just about every law they pass. If the police or inspectors want, they can probably arrest, or fine just about anyone in a particular day for something you have done wrong. Most people have no idea how may laws they break every day, because there are so many laws that no one can possibly keep up with them. Some laws are so old that they are silly, but can be used if the police want to pile on if they arrest you for something. For example, up until a few years ago, there was a law somewhere that if you were going to pass a horse on the street with your car, you had to pull over and take your car apart so you would not spook the horse. This was a law that may have been overturned, but only after you had spent big $$$ and lots of time defending it. This is only one of many stupid laws on the books, that no one knows about except people who want to write a book about stupid laws.

Just about every Supreme Court decision for or against a law is taking away your rights in some way.

[Poppa_Meth]

In Virginia, it's illegal to have sex out of wedlock and oral sex is illegal period. Are laws just wonderful?

[Cornucopia]

So, to paraphrase an old quote, "if all oral sex is outlawed, only outlaws will have oral sex!"



Scott

(wants to remain an outlaw)

[hudsonf]

If you want to see some dumb laws check out dumblaws.com

[Xylob the Destroyer]

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