Baldrick: Why no news item, re: Macrovision to Videohelp.com--"C&D

[Cornucopia]

Title says it all.

[rant] I am so tired of them using their corporate muscle to step on/bully the little guys![/rant]

Scott

[RottenFoxBreath]

maybe doesnt want to give them space..less theyre heard of the better..bunch of tosspots.

[thecoalman]

Just saw the sticky myself, I was AWOL when that happened. How does this apply to when discussing devices where the MV error is false and is caused by the device?

[canadateck]

Please do not post Macrovision removal tips.

This is not going to be easy.

[Bodyslide]

If anyone asks about Macrovivsion, just link them to https://forum.videohelp.com/viewtopic.php?t=293422

[guns1inger]

Discussion or guidence in the use of tools such as DVD Decrypter, DVD Fab Decrypter, DVD Shrink, AnyDVD etc implicity advocates macrovision removal as this is a key function of this software when used with commercial software.

[Noahtuck]

Are were still allowed to talking about ripping a DVD to harddrive using any of these tools?

Yes.

https://forum.videohelp.com/viewtopic.php?p=1466794#1466794

[lumis]

are we still allowed to talk about how lame macrovision protection is? and how they're pretty smart for convincing hollywood studios to use their crappy products?

[Laddydaddy]

Can we talk about how nearly all modern video releases have been copied and bootlegged or uploaded on the internet without the help of this forum? Do they really think that by not posting links to ripping tools that it will stop people from copying DVDs?

[Wile_E]

Dear Macrovision,

Why not play nice? Just face the facts that no one wants your crappy copy protection on their media. It's none of your "business". Pun intended. Your company is going the way of the dodo bird and you don't like it! Face the truth.


UP YOURS MACROVISION!

........................./´¯/)
......................,/¯..//
...................../..../ /
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´(..´......,~/'...')
.........\.................\/..../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\

[Morse2]

Sad to say, this move by the enemy is not unexpected.

Let's face it, with the release of "chained" (we need a good name for DRM crippled media - "slaveware"? "crippleware"? suggestions anyone, please) media that can NOT compete in an open market with non-DRM'd media the Hollywood elites are going to do anything they can do to "re-enable" the broken copy protection on DVD and VHS. Otherwise they face the very real prospect that blu-ray and hd-dvd will both flop in synch with each other.

Thus the illegal cease and desist orders given out to silence anyone who supports Fair Use of purchased media. Expect more of it during the big push to get us to dump our DVD's and go to DRM'd rent-a-content formats.

All the best,
Morse

[thecoalman]

My question is specifically related to this from the sticky:

Please do not post Macrovision removal tips.

If a poster comes in asks I'm trying to copy my home movies but my device is giving me a copy protection error. The general answer is that the device thinks your video has Macrovision on it therefore you need a device like a TBC or need to hack the device to remove the detection...

No ones breaking the law here... But you would be giving tips on macrovision removal. They are the same whether it's a false or real,

[lumis]

no one say "TBC", "pass it through a DV cam", "get one of those crappy video clarifiers", "hack your dvd player/recorder", or "rip it with dvd decrypter"..

it's macrovision big dumbass secret.

[parallax1]

Dear Macrovision,

Why not play nice? Just face the facts that no one wants your crappy copy protection on their media. It's none of your "business". Pun intended. Your company is going the way of the dodo bird and you don't like it! Face the truth.


UP YOURS MACROVISION!

........................./´¯/)
......................,/¯..//
...................../..../ /
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´(..´......,~/'...')
.........\.................\/..../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\

This is my nominee for POST OF THE YEAR!!!!

[Cornucopia]

Well, I for one will refer from now on to "corrupted vertical blanking" or "garbled colorburst", or similar, and refer to TBC needs that way. Nothing wrong with that!

Scott

[thecoalman]

we need a codeword... how about........ pieceofshitscrewingupmycapturesevenwhentheyarehome movies

[Rich86]

I expect most movie studios are realizing that paying Macrovision to pollute their optical media products is a waste of money since it serves no useful purpose and does not increase revenues to the entertainment industry. So, out come the lawyers . . .
Macrovision - a company truly belonging in Chapter 11 . . . .
Is that discussing "Macrovision removal"?

[ROF]

All very interesting. What would happen if someone asked a question related to removal of or bypassing of macrovision protection and another member posted a short missive how to accomplish this task? Would the topic be locked? Would members be banned/yellow carded? Would macrovision seek legal remedies against vh? This is all very interesting. I can understand the reseasoning for macrovision to be taking these actions, but what I can't understand is how they can possibly think that they can stop people from talking.

It's not a crime to discuss plans to rob a bank is it?

[trossin]

I don't know if its a crime to talk about robbing a bank (under our current regime it probably is) but they made it a crime for a kid to talk about doing something to his/her school. They put a kid in jail in my state for doing just that.

[SCDVD]

Depends on whether it's talking or a conspiracy. If a bank robbery was actually done, the "talking" before when it was being planned is a conspiracy.

[Faustus]

Hard as it is to say the reality is legally macrovision could cause a lot of problems. So reguardless of how we feel about it we have to operate under the yoke we are given.

This site contains far to much valuble information to let to go down because of one companies legal battle.

Videohelp has (since I've been here, and assumably before) always done it best to stay on the right side of the law. I don't see that changing. Its not some underground site, its here to provide all sorts of video info to those in need. Afterall its a very confusing subject.

Hopefully the changes in policy are all thats needed and the site can continue as it has before.

It might also be worth pointing out that you shouldn't provide that info over PM either, it may seem ludacris but its simply not something worth jepordising the entire site over considering the wide range of topics that get covered.

Thats not mod talk, just my thoughts on the subject.

[lumis]

I don't know if its a crime to talk about robbing a bank (under our current regime it probably is) but they made it a crime for a kid to talk about doing something to his/her school. They put a kid in jail in my state for doing just that.

i understand what you're saying about the kid talking about doing stuff to his school. but a threat is a threat, if i talk about killing you, even though i didnt kill you, it could be considered a crime.

[adam]

Talking with at least one other person about committing a crime is conspiracy, which is a crime unto itself. You don't have to eventually do the act for it to be conspiracy, and in fact if you do commit that crime than you can no longer be charged with conspiracy. The only way you can be charged with conspiracy to committ ___ is if the crime does not occur or if it does but you aren't a part of it. This really isn't applicable in this case anyway since we are not talking about a crime but rather copyright violations under the DMCA, a statute which applies to the spread of information whether any underlying physical act results or not.

What could happen is that VH is held contributorily liable for its users' postings and shut down. This is a definite possibly. So just use your best judgment when referencing macrovision and I'm sure the mods can handle cleaning up posts that go too far.

It sucks but Macrovision does have some legal authority for this cease and desist order and this site is too big and valuable for Baldrick to risk it (and his money) to fight this.

[Cornucopia]

I'm not suggesting that you do this , but with phpBB, wouldn't it be possible to automatically change posts' text from "Macrovision" to "UpYoursBro", or something?

Scott

[thecoalman]

For the third time... can I get some clarification on this:

If a poster comes in asks I'm trying to copy my home movies but my device is giving me a copy protection error. The general answer is that the device thinks your video has Macrovision on it therefore you need a device like a TBC or need to hack the device to remove the detection...

No ones breaking the law here... But you would be giving tips on macrovision removal. They are the same whether it's a false or real,

[Faustus]

Coalman you've seen this happen? Usually if there is no flag there is no macrovision.


My guess? Since you are suggesting methods that COULD be used to circumvent real macrovision it wouldn't be allowed because then they could do a DMCA filing and shut the site down.

[lordsmurf]

The Macrovision "threat" is probably isolated to bypassing the digital implementations, such as those found on DVDs. They'd be FAR OUT OF LINE if they tried their gestapo measures on analog video.

Most people already know that commercially produced VHS tapes cannot be copied simply by hooking a player to a recorder. Protected tapes have been around for at least 15-20 years now. People long ago tried to rent a movie, copy it, and saw that won't work.

On the other hand, a huge problem we face these days is modern digital equipment are overly anal-retentive about what they THINK is some sort of anti-copy stream. But it's not. Anti-copy is an artificial error, nothing more. It's almost silly that companies like Macrovision are allowed to patent errors. They've intimidated electronics companies to "turn up" the detection methods, so they basically trap any and all signal errors and disallow recording. Until I can copy a wedding video to a DVD, without being told I'm "not allowed - copy protected material", Macrovision can go to hell. I have a right to discuss analog video signal purification. It has NOTHING to do with copying their subpar overrated movies, and EVERYTHING to do with archiving home movies like weddings, your children's school plays, stupid videos with friends, etc.

The DMCA does not override the First Amendment.

[Guy_Fawkes]

Adam I bekeive your wrong about the conspiracy law. It takes more than a discussion with someone to enter into a conspiracy. The law requires an OVERT act to take place before a conspiracy can be completed. The law is very vague as to what an overt act is and is subject to debate.

The actual crime talked about does not have to place. Once the overt act takes place between 2 or more people probable cause exists. If the crime does take place the person will be charged with conspiracy.

see http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C19.txt

the right to talk a leagal or illegal action is not illegal. It doesn't matter what the topic is.

In my state a threat to injure some can be charged as an assault. Kinda like what macrovision is doing

[thecoalman]

Coalman you've seen this happen? Usually if there is no flag there is no macrovision.

I'm not referring to digital but analog home video. Some devices will throw up acopy protection error or whatever... It's a false reading. That is what brought me to this fine website in the first place...

The only way to get around it is to remove the MV or bypass it through a hack or whatever method depending on the device, it's the same method whether it's real protection or not.

[adam]

Guy_Fawkes: first off that is the federal conspirator law. Most people are charged under state statutes and many do not require the overt act, at least not for certain types of conspiracy. Secondly the overt act most often is just talking. All it has to do is be made in furtherance of the conspiracy and be made after the conspiracy is formed. Simply listing ways or methods that the crime can be accomplished qualifies as an overt act.

The distinction is this. Someone says, "Let's rob first National bank." This forms the conspiracy but no overt act has taken place yet. Party 2 says, "we can bypass their security system using such and such hack." That furthered the conspiracy, that's all it takes.

I admit I was generalizing about just talking about a crime constituting a conspiracy but taken in context of forum discussions on this site...well it would constitute a conspiracy. No one muses about how it would be cool to bypass Macrovision. People describe the ways and means of doing so. That most definitely qualifies as an overt act. Anyway the main point I was trying to make was just that the crime does not have to actually be committed for it to be criminal conspiracy.

Threatening to injure someone is an assualt in any state, but it does not apply to legal threats.