Macrovision is on the hunt!

[kabanero]

First, Macrovision shut down DVDDecrypter.

Now:

"Macrovision Files Lawsuit Against Sima and Interburn's DVD Copying Products

Macrovision Corporation announced today that it has filed suit against Sima Products Corporation ("Sima") and Interburn Enterprises Inc. ("Interburn"). The lawsuit charges that Sima's "Video Enhancers," which are principally used to allow consumers to make unauthorized copies of copyrighted DVDs, infringe Macrovision's patented copy protection technology and also violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"). These products include, but are not limited to, products currently marketed under the names CT-1, CT-100, CT-2, CT-200, and SCC-2. The lawsuit further charges that Interburn products infringe Macrovision's intellectual property and the DMCA."

Link: http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/11955

[tdan]

So next is every TBC on the market a violation of the DMCA? That's a stretch. Incidentally, isn't Macrovision on VHS an analogue technology? Is it even covered under the DMCA?

[TVM2K4]

when will these companies learn that they'll never stop these ripping programs from getting into peoples hands? shut one down and another will take its place.

[tdan]

Well, if your business & revenue model is completely f&$'d, I guess you need to sue people to keep that revenue flowing.

Dan

[Noahtuck]

Yep, i saw that on the cd freaks article about dvdfab, but i think they might have alittle bit more of a fight with sima
at least i hope

[CaptainVideo]

Once again, you don't have to be right you just have to have money. I don't know what Interburn is but I do know what Sima is.

Sima does neither violate the copyrights of Macrovision nor does it violate the DMCA.

First in order to violate their copyrights, Sima would have to do the same thing Macrovision does, prevent a user from copying something. Sima does the exact OPPOSITE. Also it would have to be using technology that Macrovision has patented. Pretty sure to block Macrovision from working you don't need to use any technology Macrovision has.

In order for Sima to be violating the DMCA they would have to break encrypted digital technology. Sima does not do this.

So basically Macrovision knows if this goes to trial they lose. Their premise is to outspend them until they go away or they give up fighting. I'm sure neither company has the money to defend this lawsuit.

Since Macrovision is a publicly traded company if you care enough and own stock in the company I would dump it. I'd also contact any other investors who have stock in the company to dump it. The only real way to stop a company from doing something is to hurt their stock price. Also contact state and federal legislatures who represent the city/state the company resides in.

[tdan]

Their premise is to outspend them until they go away or they give up fighting. I'm sure neither company has the money to defend this lawsuit.

In Canada, our courts use a "loser pays" system. In other words, if you sue someone and lose, you get the honour of paying the other guy's cost of fighting the suit. It certainly prevents nuisance lawsuits, as well as cases like this where it is obvious that there is no basis for the suit. The defendant does not have to countersue for the costs.

I remember seeing a 60 Minutes segment about this years ago that this is not the case in the US. Anyone with big pockets can just bankrupt you by dragging you through court. Bummer.

Dan

[CaptainVideo]

But you need the money to get to a court decision. So even if the US had the same rule as Canada it doesn't help the company that doesn't have enough money to get to a final court decision.

[adam]

CaptainVideo I'm not sure what language in the DMCA you are getting that from but its definitely not a correct interpretation. Also this has nothing to do with a copyright that Macrovision has, it has to do with their patent. The DMCA is contained in Title 17 (copyright law) but it also protects patent holders.

The D in DMCA refers to the purpose behind the Act, which is to give copyright holders more protection in a digital age where there are many more ways to infringe on copyrights. But of course the DMCA applies to analogue protection mechanisms like Macrovision, Macrovision was the PRIMARY protection covered by the Act! There is an entire section of the DMCA which specifically talks about Macrovision and the cutoff periods which hardware manufacturers have to meet in removing Macrovision-removal capabilities from their devices. The DMCA clearly does protect Macrovision. Any software that removes Macrovision would violate the DMCA. There is actually no arguing with this as this is the very thing the DMCA is intended to do.

As far as patents go...Macrovision is obviously patented. The argument is that if leave the macrovision signal intact then you have just made a new copy which makes use of that technology and this is therefore a patent infringement. Now this is something that I am not so sure about, I'd think there is a pretty good argument against it but guess what? This exact district court has already ruled on essentially the same case when Macrovision sued 321 Studios.

In that case the judge granted a preliminary injuction (requires showing of a substantial liklihood of success on the merits of the case- in other words that they would almost surely win at trial) against the further sale of their software because a) if you used it to remove Macrovision you violated the DMCA and b) if you used it without removing Macrovision you infringed on their patent.

So this is anything but a groundless suit, they've not only got the law behind them they've got the sitting district court judge behind them too. I don't know anything about what these two pieces of software do, but if they operate in a similar fashion to how 321 Studio's DVDXCopy did, then I'd say they have virtually no chance of winning these suits at the trial level and it has nothing to do with the size of their pocketbooks.

I don't particularly like Macrovision or their pratices, but in this case the law is definitely on their side.

[adam]

In the US, if a suit, or any individual claim for that matter, is found to be groundless or brought for the purpose of delay or harrassment then yes that person does have to pay the court costs and attorney's fees of the other party. There are also sanctions applicable to a lawyer who represents such a client including monetary penalties and in extreme cases disbarrment.

There are also numerous other grounds on which the "loser" may have to pay such costs of the other party.

The bigger pocketbooks do have a substantial advantage in court because they can higher the more experienced lawyers and get the better statistical studies done, which go a long way in infringement actions. But you can't file a baseless suit and rest on your power and money. It costs zero dollars to defend against a truly baseless suit.

[Noahtuck]

I don't know anything about what these two pieces of software do, but if they operate in a similar fashion to how 321 Studio's DVDXCopy did, then I'd say they have virtually no chance of winning these suits and it has nothing to do with the size of their pocketbooks.

Not sure if this makes any diff. but the "SIMA" products listed are hardware not software.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=32864&item=5782323958&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW

SIMA SCC-2 VIDEO PROCESSOR/ENHANCER COLOR CORRECTOR-PRO
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=21166&item=7518778030&rd=1&ssPageName=WD1V

Which is something you have been able to buy for years and years before dvd's even for using between two vcr's.
& is very funnny they would go after items like this now as they have been around for years and years.

[BJ_M]

Noahtuck said what I was going to -- these products have nothing really to do with dvd copying -- but VHS to VHS and DVD to VHS

they do not allow you to make an exact digital copy in any way -- and in fact the main use of these products is to clean up old home videos and the like

[lordsmurf]

Macrovision is noise in a video signal. Nothing more. These devices aim to clean noise from signal, which is not separable from MV because of how chaotical anlog noise signals can be.

MV is just pissed it's technology is a sham and is "beaten" because of what it is: unwanted noise.

[shelbyGT]

What can Macrovision do against software that comes out of countries that doesn't have Macro-friendly laws?

Same with p2p... close one down, 2 pop up.

[adam]

Being hardware makes no difference. The sections of the DMCA requiring manufacturers to remove de-macrovision support actually referred primarily to VHS and DVD player manufacturers.

Also the fact that these devices existed and operated identially prior to the DMCA makes no difference either. Just as with VHS and DVD players, any new models released on the market had to disable any ability to remove Macrovision.

But if Macrovision removal is truly just incidental and inconsequential for Sima's products, like you suggest BJ_M, then they have an argument. The Interburn software sounds more like just a CD/DVD backup program.

Like I said, I don't know much of anything about how these particular devices work.

[pbhalerao]

So decrypters like DVD Decrypter or SmartRipper are immune to these law suits, even when they remove MV from DVD?

[adam]

What can Macrovision do against software that comes out of countries that doesn't have Macro-friendly laws?

Same with p2p... close one down, 2 pop up.

If that country is a Berne signatory or a WTO member then they must enforce the US's DMCA. That and also many more countries have passed their own DMCA-like laws which in most cases are actually more pervasive than the US's.

As for P2P, I don't think any countries have found P2P protocols generally to be illegal, or otherwise a violation or infringement. Napster was in violation but that was because at least some (all?) of the data transferred passed through their servers at one point in time. Websites have certainly been shutdown for hosting torrent links but that is for inducing and contributing to infringement, not for the actual use of the protocol because those protocols have substantially non-infringing purposes as well.

But yeah, close 1 and 2 more pop up. But you can bet that the 1 who got caught won't do it again.

[adam]

So decrypters like DVD Decrypter or DVD Ripper are immune to these law suits, even when they remove MV from DVD?

Not at all. Like I said, under current law they are in clear violation. The Decrypting is a violation of the DMCA, this was the result of the MPAA vs. 321 studio's case. If they disable CSS et al removal they probably still remove Macrovision which is again a DMCA violation as decided in the Macrovision v. 321 Studios case. But if they then disable the ability to remove Macrovision then they violate that patent, again under the ruling of Macrovision v. 321 Studios. Its a big catch-22.

And with all that said, we just saw DVD Decrytor voluntarily cease operations after being threatened by Macrovision.

[trhouse]

Here is Macrovision's original patent. Under either the 17 years since granted or the 20 years since first filed rules, I believe the patent has expired.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netaht...&RS=PN/4631603

Contrary to what is said above about SIMA products doing the opposite of the Macrovision patent, Macrovision also filed patents on some simple techniques for defeating their main patent. SIMA may be in violation of one of those.

[tdan]

Macrovision is noise in a video signal. Nothing more. These devices aim to clean noise from signal, which is not separable from MV because of how chaotical anlog noise signals can be.

This was exactly my point in my first post to this thread. Is MV gonna sue every manufacturer of Time Base Correctors? The purpose of these devices is to clean up an analogue signal by removing timing errors (MV happens to be an intentional timing error). This is a legitimate device used in restoring old video.

Dan

[Noahtuck]

Macrovision is noise in a video signal. Nothing more. These devices aim to clean noise from signal, which is not separable from MV because of how chaotical anlog noise signals can be.

This was exactly my point in my first post to this thread. Is MV gonna sue every manufacturer of Time Base Correctors? The purpose of these devices is to clean up an analogue signal by removing timing errors (MV happens to be an intentional timing error). This is a legitimate device used in restoring old video.

Dan

Yep, my thinking also after your post that's why i posted the one model, SCC-2, it's intended purpose is not to defeat macrovision.

So if macrovision has their way no one will be able to legaly use these devices to clean any video signal just because they happen to clean the macrovision crap also

Or is macrovision going to try and make it so you have to get a permit and register to buy/own/use one

Because there has to be SOOOO many of these types of units around already, i have a few diff. models that have been sitting around on a shelf for years

[BJ_M]

full press release:

Macrovision Files Lawsuit Against Sima and Interburn's DVD Copying Products

SANTA CLARA, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--June 15, 2005--Macrovision Corporation (Nasdaq: MVSN) announced today that it has filed suit against Sima Products Corporation ("Sima") and Interburn Enterprises Inc. ("Interburn"). The lawsuit charges that Sima's "Video Enhancers," which are principally used to allow consumers to make unauthorized copies of copyrighted DVDs, infringe Macrovision's patented copy protection technology and also violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"). These products include, but are not limited to, products currently marketed under the names CT-1, CT-100, CT-2, CT-200, and SCC-2. The lawsuit further charges that Interburn products infringe Macrovision's intellectual property and the DMCA.

"Sima and Interburn infringe Macrovision's intellectual property by offering products that enable users to make unauthorized copies of copyrighted content by illegally removing our copy protection system," said Macrovision CEO Bill Krepick. "The Sima and Interburn products have very limited commercial uses other than to circumvent Macrovision's copy protection technology and are marketed by Sima and Interburn for use in copying DVD's, among other types of media. The Sima/Interburn lawsuit is based on a fundamental cornerstone of the American economic system - protection of intellectual capital." The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York. Macrovision is asking the court to order an immediate halt to sales of Sima's "video enhancer" products and Interburn's CD/DVD copying products.

Sima and Interburn make and sell DVD-copying products capable of circumventing Macrovision's patented Analog Copy Protection ("ACP") process without license or authorization from Macrovision. 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. The DMCA specifically recognizes Macrovision technology as a broadly adopted copy protection system that cannot legally be bypassed.

About Macrovision

Macrovision Corporation develops copy protection, digital rights management and electronic licensing technologies that enable content owners and software publishers to securely and flexibly distribute their products to their customers. Macrovision has its corporate headquarters in Santa Clara, California, with international offices in London, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Tel Aviv, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Taipei and Seoul. For more information about Macrovision Corporation and its products, please visit www.macrovision.com.

[pbhalerao]

It is just in the last year or so that DVD writers and media has become cheap. Hence Macrovision is alarmed that more people can now copy VHS to DVD and affect DVD sales (thus their revenue). Hence they are going after all agents (hw and sw) that eliminate MV.

Once that threat is significantly reduced, they will probably come up with new technology that will make DVD ripping much tougher if not impossible. At that point they will not be bothered much about analog copying because they figure that VHS will have died out by then.

I am afraid that it may not be fruitful in the end. It would be much easier to combat the problem by making DVD's cheaper (reduce the price by half). Are not movies at least 1/3 to 1/2 cheaper when they are two/three years old? If movies became as cheap as books then people will buy more. And we will not be concerned of making backups becuase cost of replacement is not that high.

[Xylob the Destroyer]

isn't reverse engineering something like Macrovision also considered a violation of the copyright?
I'd think you'd have to pretty much reverse engineer it to defeat it...

[CaptainVideo]

Macrovision is most likely doing it because they are losing customers. When asked why they don't want to use Macrovision on their products the customer probably points to devices like Sima and software like DVD Decrypter and thus that has spawned their aggressive lawsuits.

Adam, I'll defer to you on the substance of the DMCA. I never read it but I assumed through what I heard about it was that it was enacted to protect digital products that used encryption and that it was a violation to break the encryption.

But as a counterpoint, doesn't the Lexmark case have weight here? Lexmark sued an ink maker for violating the DMCA by making ink that worked in Lexmark's printers bypassing Lexmark's technology that was to prohibit third party ink from working in their printers. The court ruled in favor of the defendant.

[ungamunga]

Their premise is to outspend them until they go away or they give up fighting. I'm sure neither company has the money to defend this lawsuit.

In Canada, our courts use a "loser pays" system. In other words, if you sue someone and lose, you get the honour of paying the other guy's cost of fighting the suit. It certainly prevents nuisance lawsuits, as well as cases like this where it is obvious that there is no basis for the suit. The defendant does not have to countersue for the costs.

I remember seeing a 60 Minutes segment about this years ago that this is not the case in the US. Anyone with big pockets can just bankrupt you by dragging you through court. Bummer.

Dan

In Canada, judges will usually award costs to the whichever party they rule in favour of... usually. I do not believe they are not obligated to do so. It is simply a common practice.

That being said, if the party being sued can't afford to pay his lawyers until the point where a decision is reached, it's all pretty moot. The plaintiff will do everything they can to force the defendent's expenses to skyrocket until they can no longer afford to defend themselves. Even if our system discourages frivolous lawsuits, there are still plenty of slimy tactical maneuvers open to aggressive parties with deep pockets.

[trhouse]

Xylob,

The answer to your question is also the answer to why Macrovision cannot have equipment such as TBC's banned.

TBC's can defeat Macrovision but TBC's were in existence before Macrovision was invented. So the answer to your question is that you do not need to know anything about Macrovision to defeat it. TBC's are prior art so Macrovision cannot patent the technology behind it and prevent others from using it nor can they claim TBC's are intended solely to defeat Macrovision because they were here before Macrovision.

[spiderman2k1]

Sima is a dirty company. I had one of there boxs nothing but problems. I sent it back two time they could not fix it. Gave me allot of problems. In one way I hope they lose but in another way I hope they win.

[Xylob the Destroyer]

oic
but that only covers the TBC's, not the software like DVDDecrypter etc...

[trhouse]

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.