Slashdot Mirror
Harry Potter, Macrovision and Economics
markthebrewer writes "Apparantly Warner Home Video have released Harry Potter and the Philosopher's/Sorcerer's Stone without any of the usual Macrovision copy-protection systems.
Looks like its just a trial, but someone's done the maths and decided it may be cheaper not to copy-protect videos after all.
Find the full article in the
New Scientist." There is certainly something desperate about macrovisions response to this development. Does anyone see macrovision as a real barrier to copying anymore? What a bunch of snake oil salesmen these people are. In related news, I'm marketing my own personal copy protection device.
Macrovision a little scared by this? From the article:
Says CEO Bill Krepick: "Effective immediately, Macrovision's licensing policy (requires that) 100% of the title must be copy protected in a geographic territory or, if less than 100% of the title is copy-protected, then a Macrovision copy protection logo must be included in the exterior packaging of those units that are copy protected."
I say this is excellent news. Now I can make sure I only buy DVDs *without* Macrovision protection. Not because I want to pirate them (I own almost 300 DVDs now), but because Macrovision deteriorates the video signal. Don't "protect" your product by lowering the quality.
Frog
and money to get Macrovision not only supported, but legaly required (DMCA), they finaly figure out that it is simply less expensive to not use it after all.
the secret menu on your 600a Apex player and turn it off. I jumped to circut city when I saw the remote control trick posted on slashdot a while back...
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
Hey kids, look! FUD!
They're just trying to increase profits, that's all.
Which means *somebody* within the organization realizes that copy-protection 1) doesn't prevent piracy, 2) pisses people off, and 3) isn't saving them any money. Let's hope this "radical" idea spreads!
Did anyone besides me get a kick out of the screen shots which accompany these instructions ? The "loophole" menu, which lets you change the region and disable Macrovision, displays a message on the bottom of the screen. It says "You should not be here".
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
5 cents per disk? At $20 a copy you need 1 lost sale for every 400.
And pirate copies aren't always lost sales. They may have copied the disk, but wouldn't have bought it anyway.
I knew a Playstation freak (I expect DVDs will follow a similar gameplan). He had a hundred games copied from rentals. Only played half dozen, or so. Oddly, perhaps, he actually went out and bought all his favorites.
Over all, I'd bet this guy ended up buying more disks. And he was happier for the experience.
First, he rarely felt cheated by the industry. If he was forced to buy 10 disks, and was unlucky, he may have decided all games sucked and walked away from the whole thing. Indeed, he ranted that a number of his copies weren't even worth the rental fee.
Second, his purchases reflect his true market feedback. He likes things he buys and if someone were to make more of that, he'd probably buy them too. Unlike hype driven purchases, of blind media, where any 10 "bets" on 10 games does nothing in the way of market feedback.
He bought a game that detected his mod chip once. Came to find out the game sucked. He was pissed off so badly about that $30 he talked about it for months. Swore to never blindly buy another game again. Avoided that vendor forever more. If they ever do have a good game, he'll probably never know it, and never buy it.
So, I'd bet 1 lost sale in 400 is an gross over assesment of real world losses.
Small point - did you know that running a DVD at 1600x1200 won't show any quality increase, as the video is only encoded at 720x480 in NTSC (720x576 in PAL)? It's like zooming in on a picture - you can try to mitigate the artifacts, but you're not actually getting any improvement in quality. I understand what you mean though (comparing the TV to the computer based on your setup). Anything over aprox 1/2 of the screen at 1600x1200 won't show any increase in quality (and will likely make things blurry in comparison due to the rescaling). If you wanted the best possible quality, drop the resolution to 720x480 (or 800x600 if your card can't do it). Try it and see if there's a difference - things should actually look marginally sharper.
This is your life, and it's ending one minute at a time.
One of my old VCRs used to have problems with anything with macrovision on it.unfortunately I had to get rid of it a few years back as it finally died (was over 20 years old too at the time). All I have to say about macrovision is that it sucks at doing it job. Another of my VCRs (one of the ones that replaced the old zenith VCR when it suddenly quit working) showed how worthless macrovision is, if you tried to record teh signal it would put out from a macrovision tape you would not be able to tell that it ever had it on there the first time (it never did get used for this purpose, and I don't remember how I found out it did this). It died quickly as did several GE VCRs, though my old Beta machine still plays perfectly, how is that for survivability (it is as old or older than my zenith was), wish they could make them like that beast.
The first book in the series was Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone , published in the UK in 1997. When the book was released in the US, the title was changed to Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone .
There were other changes as well.
The movie release had the same title change.
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
I noticed that Macrovision will require that for videos in which less than 100% of the production run uses Macrovision technology, those that do will have to be labeled with the Macrovision logo.
I wonder if this is something Macrovision has been waiting for an excuse to do. I notice they have actually been advertising themselves on videos, and they phrase their description so that it sounds like some sort of "protection" technology, so an uninformed consumer might think that it's a good thing that somehow prevents their video from wearing out rather than a nasty thing that restricts their fair use ability.
I'm basically wondering if Macrovision is trying to confuse, obscure, and obfuscate what they really are in a weird attempt to try to get consumers to actually look for or ask for their logo on stuff. If that's the case, I wonder why they're so desperate since they seem to have basically 100% market share already.
The great majority of Miramax titles are published without Macrovision protection. I don't see Slashdot clamoring about that fact.
Sigged!
Second thing is whether puting just one IDE on is useful? On my systems IDE has priority over almost anything else and it doesn't like it if you don't then have an IDE system disk (you only need one, but it seems to need it).
Missed some, just about all Phillips DVD players can be hacked by using a universal remote.
Most DVD player brands have hacks available for their more common players, and even some of the less common, higher end players.
You can get playback from the off-brand DVD players, but my experience is that it's better to get a bigger name-brand player than to cheap out. I'd rather go for quality, so I went for a Panasonic RP-56 and chipped it. Its hack consists of a simple chip and a firmware upgrade.
Macrovision is just a really lame hack... here's an excerpt on how it works...
The way the copy protection signal works is interesting. It's not that the second VCR "knows" that the video signal is coming from a video tape. It's that the signal coming from the original video tape contains a special type of noise that the TV set does not notice, but that a VCR cannot handle. This noise signal confuses a component, known as an automatic gain control (AGC) circuit, in the VCR, and the confused AGC records the signal incorrectly.
Macrovision copy protection was defeated minutes after it's release back in the 80's. it was very common to buy "video scrubbers" or "video stabalizers" to fix macrovision. today, anyone with a DVD player and a TBC (time Base Correcter) can make perfect VHS or SVHS copies without a hint of that macrovision was ever there. and the TBC gives the side effect of makking the video signal perfect. TBC's can be purchased surplus for as little as $50.00 and everyone that is very interested in video should own one.
Everything I have ever seen come out of the Macrovision company has been a lame attempt, i expect the same level of incompetence from them in the future.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
regarding the copy-protected cds...
As an Electronics technician, I can assure you that the felt-tip marker approach will NOT damage your hardware.
the statement they make is grossly inaccurate.
here is what they say:
"It should be noted that using ink of any sort on the playing surface of the CD can cause loss of the entire contents of the CD. Introducing ink or foreign materials on the playing surface of a CD can also damage the CD player reading device. Consumers should be aware that any damaged media or corrupted media files caused by this hack may void any warranties for such media, the content contained thereon, or the playback or recording device. "
this is wrong, since the CD surface never comes in contact with the optical pick-up assembly.
What bold-faced liars!
I felt this needed to be addressed.
I'm not surprised that the studio is trying a DVD release without MacroVision. Before DVD's came out, I owned a number of laserdiscs. I also rented a bunch when they started to become rare. I would video tape the ones I rented, even though they had MacroVision protection. My stereo head unit has an option to "enhance video" that basically eliminates MacroVision. I never had a problem taping these discs.
Now I've been bitten by the DVD bug- my wife and I have over 200 DVD's, and there's no end in sight. While I haven't tried copying any of them yet, I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't have any problem doing so. As for DVD piracy, what's the point? On average, we've paid something like $12.00 per movie (including tax & shipping). Where's the cost savings in piracy? With the original, I have the original case, all the special features, etc., at a price I'm willing to pay. In fact, we hardly go out to theaters anymore, since it's much cheaper to just buy the movie on DVD a few months later.
The dry fish swims alone.
WB may be finally twigging to the fact that the majority of "pirates" fall into two categories... people who are not going to be stopped by consumer level protection schemes (i.e. pros and those for whom copying is a matter of principle and/or pride), and people like me who engage in light and essentially convenience driven copying, but would not copy something they would otherwise buy. If I want it in my permanent collection I want a new, commercial copy with all the goodies, packaging etc. intact. On more than one one occasion I've taken a bootleg of something that I knew I'd buy later but hadn't found or gotten around to... But I can't say I've ever been in the position of saying, ooh, I can't copy this (I ain't got none of yer fancy intervention tools in my home), I guess I'll have to go buy it. At 5 cents a disk I bet the number of sales lost starts to look very very puny. The rather specious math of the recording industry to equate every copy made with a lost sale is fine when lobbying for a blank media tax or whining at an awards show, but lets face it - it would be very bad business indeed to take that math seriously when considering the relative value versus production cost increases of installing protection.
My very favorite part is Macrovision's response, tho... Who the hell do they think they are? We shall dictate how you choose to produce your product... They could have quietly made it madatory to put the Macrovision logo on any product with Macrovision on it, which was essentially the only refinement of their locensing scheme... "You must apply our product to 100% of your product OR ELSE!" "Or else what?" Or else... errr... you have to LABEL them!" I think Macrovision may find that 100% mentality goes both ways. Easier all around to go with 100%... 100% Macrovision free, that is.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries