Slashdot Mirror

I would bet that Macrovision's 98+ patents preclude anyone from coming up with a similar scheme of copy protection. Lovely how that works out where your monopoly is codified in federal law.

You'd need a timebase controller(TBC) that takes out the 21st(i think) line of an NTSC video signal - Kind of expensive though. I believe the most widely used DRM "technology" is called Macrovision. (Random fact: This is why its recommended you dont hook a DVD player to a VCR, it should be directly hoooked up to a TV)

Next was the movie companies with trying to copy protect video tapes. Very quickly there were companies making devices to circumvent that as well. Even magazines like Radio Electronics were publishing articles on how to build them. Then most gave up as well. Again too costly to keep trying.

I would be very interested in finding a way to get around this annoying feature, but unfortunately it's illegal to do so now due to the DMCA.

Of course, they can go the DMCA route, that would be a natural. But there's another route.

It turns out Macrovision has been patenting not only the techniques that they use, but techniques for defeating them! By patenting ways around their copy protection before its even released, they can legally prevent circumvention devices through civil patent infringement lawsuits.

Here are some of their patents on circumvention of their earlier video stuff:

• Method and apparatus for removing or defeating effects of copy protection signals from a video signal
• Method and apparatus for removing or defeating effects of copy protection signals from a video signal

See here (sorry, couldn't find an actual pricing scheme): Rights owners are licensed by Macrovision to utilize Macrovision's DVD copy protection on their program material. These companies pay Macrovision on a per-disc basis according to a set price sheet, based on volumes reported by their replicator(s).. That means when you buy the DVD you allready have payed the license fees. Since Macrovision also demands license fees from the manufacturers of ICs capable of Macrovision encoding, you also payed the license fees when you bought a DVD player.

It seems from their description, this is intended for CD-ROM interactive programs, not for audio compact discs.

This makes much more sense because of the requirements this would impose on equipment manufacturers, and how it would deprecate any previous equipment purchased by consumers.

"The digital signature is added to the Glass mastering using a Laser Beam Recorder (LBR)." This smacks of the old-fashioned burn-a-laser-hole-in-the-floppy-disk routine of the 1980s...

The article here may be slightly more informative in regards to the actual details of the workings of SafeAudio. Also, there were originally four different test versions of SafeAudio, as mentioned briefly in the transcript of a conference Macrovision had at Q3 2000.
Interestingly, a Greek company, MLS LaserLock, is also developing a copy-protection scheme called "AudioLock" according to this document. The possible infringement of LaserLock's trademark that may have occured here may explain the name change of Macrovision's product from AudioLock to SafeAudio.

--

http://www.macrovision.com

Vermifax

While your quote is indeed from the home page of Macrovision and certainly was written by some PR flunky, if you actually browse their site you will find no mention of a single product that serves the purpose of preventing audio duplication or piracy.

You will find this product, which prevents the illicit reception of CCTV including two channels of audio.

I fail to see how this has any bearing on my assertion that the music industry really doesn't give a damn about analog piracy.

While your quote is indeed from the home page of Macrovision and certainly was written by some PR flunky, if you actually browse their site you will find no mention of a single product that serves the purpose of preventing audio duplication or piracy.

You will find this product, which prevents the illicit reception of CCTV including two channels of audio.

I fail to see how this has any bearing on my assertion that the music industry really doesn't give a damn about analog piracy.

Probably about the time macrovision came into widespread use and VCR manufacturers adjusted the time constants in their VCR's AGC circuits to avoid recording signals with the macrovision pulses in them. Ok, that's hardly the exact time that technology came into use that presumed the user to be a pirate... I remember all sort of very interesting floppy-based copy protection on the Apple ][ software. FWIW, strong floppy-based copy protection did ultimately turn out to be a pointless war, but macrovision is here to stay.

The thing I can't figure out about SDMI is what happens if rouge hardware manufacturers make players that don't check for the watermarks. For example, I'll never put any code in my little MP3 player to check for watermarks. I guess my little project doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things... but if there's a market for non-SDMI players, I'm sure there are lots of folks who will provide them in the interest of making a buck. There just isn't any security in CDDA format, other than watermarks, and watermarks will only work if other devices check for them.

Also in our industry is the concept of the "trusted agent". Usually a tamper-proof smart card. This can decrypt programs and can be invidually instructed to do so by remote (encrypted) commands.

Now, combine the two concepts and you have an audio player than can be instructed to decode a certain digital track, when the owner of the smart card pays up. Make the decryption and D/A conversion occur inside the tamper proof hardware. Now the tricky part: in the hardware introduce an impairment to the audio signal.

The trick would be to design this impairment such that when driving an analogue amplification/speaker system, it is pretty much inaudable. But designed such that when the waveform is A/D converted and applied to the MP3 (say) algorithm, the results are bad.

As new bit-rate-reduction algorithms come to the fore, analyse them and update your impairment to take them into account. Do this to the smart-card whenever it's presented to buy music.

Obviously you need to take a big step and stop releasing the tracks in any other format. So you need to make this new format seem really attractive by bundling a whole lot of other whizzy consumer friendly technology in it. CDs took over because the consumer felt they offered a genuine quality improvement. You'll need to get this new format introduced in the same way.

Where's the holes in my grand plan?? :-)

Valenti suggests that if a student wants to cite from a movie, that they use the analog version.

Here is the excerpt:

Q. If a student wants to do a term paper, let's say do a video presentation on the holocaust -- do 20 minutes on the holocaust, and wants to take two or three minutes from a DVD from Schindler's List to put into that holocaust presentation and she has to de-encrypt the DVD to do that, is that illegal?

(lawyer interference deleted)

A. The student could do that by getting an analog version of Schindler's List, because that's not encrypted.

Though Valenti and his lawyer clearly did not want him to express any legal conclusions, this clearly shows that he thinks that the DMCA overides fair use protection. He is clearly indicated that fair use applies to analog works but not to digital works. So the wuestion would be, if a work is never released in analog, is therefore never to be given fair use protection?

Since fair use is a constitutional right, upheld by the Supreme Court, and DMCA is merely a statute, I think we Mr. Valenti's legal conclusion that DMCA is unconstitutional, and should therefore be struck down by the Supreme Court!

Another lesser point is that Valenti is wrong when if he is trying to imply because the analog copy isn't encrypted, that the DMCA doesn't apply to it. Though not encrypted, and not digital, analog video tapes are encoded with MacroVision copy protection. Which I think the DMCA would still apply to, since it is likely added digitally to the tape. But IANAL either.

Here's another way to dub Macrovision encoded content easily: use your ReplayTV to do it.

Over in the CmdrTaco's Week with Tivo thread, I posted this message about Macrovision and Replay. It turns out that Replay can record Macrovision content quite easily, and the early units (the 2000 series) do not reproduce the Macrovision encoding when outputting. I cannot speak for Tivo's capability in this area.

This might be short-lived, however, because both products have licensed Macrovision's technology for incorporation into future units.

Here's another way to dub Macrovision encoded content easily: use your ReplayTV to do it.

Over in the CmdrTaco's Week with Tivo thread, I posted this message about Macrovision and Replay. It turns out that Replay can record Macrovision content quite easily, and the early units (the 2000 series) do not reproduce the Macrovision encoding when outputting. I cannot speak for Tivo's capability in this area.

This might be short-lived, however, because both products have licensed Macrovision's technology for incorporation into future units.

If I want to keep something in my Replay, I dub it off to my VHS VCR. The new software has a feature that steps you through the process. I usually cut the commercials out in the process (see next paragraph). I understand that Tivo provides some convenience features to do the same thing.

Replay does have commercial skip, though it is not automatic. There's a button that skips forward exactly 30 seconds. With some practice you can bop through commercial breaks with a few button presses.

I seriously doubt you are going to see these vendors add features that let you copy off programs in digital format. The same IP nazi's that are leading the DMCA and RIAA stuff that is going on now will never let this happen. But I have a couple of data points that point toward this.

First of all, remember that both Replay and Tivo are making deals with program producers to guarantee themselves alternate revenue streams. These program producers are not going to want to encourage a vendor producing a product that will allow easy digital copying of their precious programs. The broadcast networks are already paranoid about devices like this allowing users to more easily skip commercials, so the hardware vendors have to get in bed with the networks to make sure everyone stays cooperative.

Second of all, I can point to a press release at the Macrovision web site that says that both Replay and Tivo have licensed technology from that company to support their copy-protection scheme in future versions of their hardware. Basically, you will still be allowed to time-shift Macrovision encoded programs using the units, but if you try to dub them off to another device, they will be re-encoded with Macrovision to prevent that. Judging from the timing of the press release (last April) I don't think the original units made by either manufacturer had this capability.

In fact, I discovered that my ReplayTV 2004 unit, which I bought in October, does NOT have this capability in it. I can record Macrovision encoded stuff into my Replay, and then dub it off onto VHS tape just fine. That recently came in handy. (No, I was not pirating something, it was completely a fair use situation).

If I want to keep something in my Replay, I dub it off to my VHS VCR. The new software has a feature that steps you through the process. I usually cut the commercials out in the process (see next paragraph). I understand that Tivo provides some convenience features to do the same thing.

Replay does have commercial skip, though it is not automatic. There's a button that skips forward exactly 30 seconds. With some practice you can bop through commercial breaks with a few button presses.

I seriously doubt you are going to see these vendors add features that let you copy off programs in digital format. The same IP nazi's that are leading the DMCA and RIAA stuff that is going on now will never let this happen. But I have a couple of data points that point toward this.

First of all, remember that both Replay and Tivo are making deals with program producers to guarantee themselves alternate revenue streams. These program producers are not going to want to encourage a vendor producing a product that will allow easy digital copying of their precious programs. The broadcast networks are already paranoid about devices like this allowing users to more easily skip commercials, so the hardware vendors have to get in bed with the networks to make sure everyone stays cooperative.

Second of all, I can point to a press release at the Macrovision web site that says that both Replay and Tivo have licensed technology from that company to support their copy-protection scheme in future versions of their hardware. Basically, you will still be allowed to time-shift Macrovision encoded programs using the units, but if you try to dub them off to another device, they will be re-encoded with Macrovision to prevent that. Judging from the timing of the press release (last April) I don't think the original units made by either manufacturer had this capability.

In fact, I discovered that my ReplayTV 2004 unit, which I bought in October, does NOT have this capability in it. I can record Macrovision encoded stuff into my Replay, and then dub it off onto VHS tape just fine. That recently came in handy. (No, I was not pirating something, it was completely a fair use situation).

There's some technical documentation at macrovision.com, although some basic info is at howstuffworks.com.

Am I the only one who finds it strange that "Macrovision" is listed on some DVDs (eg., Australian/Region 4 "Dark City") as a feature alongside widescreen and digital sound?

Replying to my own post - duh. Here's the official Macrovision site, wherein they make no secret of the fact that their technology is for copy-protection:

Macrovision Corporation

Further, download and read the "Macrovision Analysis of the Recent DVD ``DeCSS'' Hack", where the company writes:

" Macrovision and most content owners do not anticipate any serious market effect from the most recent ``DeCSS'' hack [really? my emphasis - ac] because of the fact that most consumers can do little more than store one movie title at a time on their PC, unless they want to make degraded MPEG-1 video CDs from the hacked DVD video. Consumers are further thwarted from utilizing the DeCSS hack on a widespread basis because of the bandwidth limitations to be able to distribute the hacked video over the Internet, the absence of cost-effective DVD recordable devices and discs, the absence of a soft DVD player which will playback the DVD .VOB files, and the absence of truly consumer- friendly software programs to remove all forms of copy protection already deployed."

Macrovision Analysis of the Recent DVD ``DeCSS'' Hack

Rather interesting, no?

Am I the only one who finds it strange that "Macrovision" is listed on some DVDs (eg., Australian/Region 4 "Dark City") as a feature alongside widescreen and digital sound?

Replying to my own post - duh. Here's the official Macrovision site, wherein they make no secret of the fact that their technology is for copy-protection:

Macrovision Corporation

Further, download and read the "Macrovision Analysis of the Recent DVD ``DeCSS'' Hack", where the company writes:

" Macrovision and most content owners do not anticipate any serious market effect from the most recent ``DeCSS'' hack [really? my emphasis - ac] because of the fact that most consumers can do little more than store one movie title at a time on their PC, unless they want to make degraded MPEG-1 video CDs from the hacked DVD video. Consumers are further thwarted from utilizing the DeCSS hack on a widespread basis because of the bandwidth limitations to be able to distribute the hacked video over the Internet, the absence of cost-effective DVD recordable devices and discs, the absence of a soft DVD player which will playback the DVD .VOB files, and the absence of truly consumer- friendly software programs to remove all forms of copy protection already deployed."

Macrovision Analysis of the Recent DVD ``DeCSS'' Hack

Rather interesting, no?

What does freedom have to do with anything?

It has everything to do with it.

It's about the freedom to use the material that I purchased myself in any way I see fit, according to the "fair use" principles of copyright law.

It's about allowing third parties the freedom to create superior-yet-compatible products. (Since this code is freely available, and hopefully will remain so, what is to stop someone from creating a quality DVD player that doesn't implement Macrovision or region codes or any other unreasonable nonsense?)

The DVD consortium, at the behest of the movie companies whose bottom lines are hardly suffering because of rampant piracy, is attempting to deprive me of freedoms that I would have with any other media.

To be honest, until the original Slashdot article announcing that DVD encryption had been broken, I didn't even know they'd bothered to encrypt it! I figured that people would eventually be able to rip the DVD bit-for-bit anyways, so it was an exercise in futility.

The reason it never occured to me was because I am an honest person; I tend to buy commercial copies because I like the better quality. I mean, I have every episode of Babylon 5 on tape (taped off of TNT; we're talking about almost 60 videotapes) yet I'm buying them again on VHS, and I'll probably buy them yet again when/if they release them on DVD!

The real criminals are the ones who want to be able to charge extortionate prices for their "intellectual property" -- an ironic name, when you consider it being applied to such things as BASEketball and The "Da Da Da Da" song featured in Volkswagen commercials -- and continually lobby the government to keep their so-called "property" from its rightful place in the public domain.

Jay (=

Ah yes... Retardovision. THIS IS RETARDED! I have to now go blow $30 to $60 to make this DVD player work with my older -- but otherwise perfectly ok --television!

They should provide a Macrovision neutralizer, or RF converter, with every box, on request. Of course, the RF conversion reduces the quality of the video signal. And people buy DVD for the... better video and sound quality (among other things).

On another note... Best Buy really, actually sells a Macrovision defeater?