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.

Comments

Macrovision is easy to defeat

[DickBreath]

I have defeated Macrovision on both VHS and DVD, only for legal purposes, by simply using what amounts to a video amplifier, which I picked up at Worst Buy some years back for about $50.

Re:Macrovision is easy to defeat

[Goldberg's Pants]

If you get certain APEX model DVD players (be sure to check the serial number, some require hardware modding), the A1500, available at most Walmart's, you can download a rom from an A1000, burn it to CD, stick the CD in and voila, your player is now Macrovision free, region free, AND can defeat the RCE protection that is used on some disks.

Add to this the fact that the APEX is one of the few that converts PAL to NTSC on the fly, thus allowing European disks to play, and you've got a great player.

I've flashed mine and tested it with a region 2, PAL disk and it played fine. I wanted to play out of region disks mostly, but I also wanted to defeat Macrovision purely on principle. Fuckers.

Re:Macrovision is easy to defeat

[Lumpy]

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.

Reasons for not cp'ing

[NickRob]

The reason is simple. The first wave of Harry Potter video buyers are going to be parents driven crazy by their children to get the thing. Middle America usually just goes to Wal-Mart or some store and picks it up. For $20 they get the best babysitter in the world. It's cheaper to make non-cp videos so that makes profit margins go even higher up for the video.

No parents is going to let their kid keep screaming while they go call people they know and see if they can't make a copy for it. They'll go to the store and get it and quiet the kid.

Re:Reasons for not cp'ing

[denisbergeron]

An other reason for not cp'ing, it in the article :
Analysts suspect that Warner left the release unprotected, to investigate whether this would have a significant impact on sales.

Go ahead everybody, buy a copy of Harry Potter, and if they find that the "unprotected" video have more sales than expected, this will be the end of protected DVD :-)

Good.

[TheSHAD0W]

Adding Macrovision to video doesn't prevent the pirates from duplicating videos, so the biggest effect of Macrovision is to reduce the quality of the video. I applaud Time Warner for having some sense. (Now if they'd only let people log onto AOL without using their stupid software...)

Re:Good.

[discstickers]

It doesn't count if its at the "You may now turn off your computer" screen. ;)

Blah, which some knowhow you can get rid of it

[Verizon Guy]

On some DVD players, you can disable Macrovision by means of uploading a new ROM into the player by burning it onto an ISO 9660 CD-R, or by hitting a secret key combination on the remote. It's mostly APEXes and Daewoos that let you do this; ironic that they are the cheapest yet most hackable DVD players. I have a cute little APEX I scored for $70 at Circuit City... that sucker plays DVDs, VCDs, SVCDs, CD-Rs, MP3s (!), and they kitchen sink. Most DVD players have a "Factory setting" menu that you can get to, but you need to know the secret code.

Of course you'd never get goodies like this from the big boys (aka Sony, Toshiba, Panasonic).

Re:Blah, which some knowhow you can get rid of it

[LBU.Zorro]

Most DVD players can be chipped.. Both of the players I've had have been chipped (live in the UK, expensive DVDs over here so that I can play any region disks.. Yes even RCE disks)..
Very few DVD players now have menus to change region (at least in the uk) since the movie makers complained a little...

Oddly enough the 'chipping' process generally removes macrovision, isn't that a bonus ;)

But I know of Sony, Panasonic, Pioneer, etc DVD players being chipped, and having macrovision removed its not just the small / cheap players..

Take a look at http://www.dvdlibrary.co.uk/bonus_kit.htm for mods for DVD players. Not sure it it does macrovision disabling, just searched on google.

In the UK I am pretty sure that this is totally legal, after the first sale principle, and that region restrictions (or other unsanctioned trade barriers) are actually illegal under EU law. I've never had a problem buying, selling or speaking to shopkeepers about it.

If you have a DVD player look at the mods, some don't even violate warranty!!!
Of course IANAL

Z.

Macrovision running scared already!?

[FrozenFrog]

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

At a crossroads...

[Hangtime]

We are now getting down to the nuts and bolts i.e. cost-benefit analysis of copy protection. There will always be an element that will not pay for a product and the large studios know that. However, where 10 years ago people would hook up two VCRs and record the movie they rented, your now casual copier goes out to Kaaza before a movie is even released in theaters and downloads a copy. With the ease of use, proliferation of broadband, and movement of copying forces to another medium no wonder Warner decided to put up a test balloon and ship a product without Macrovision. Besides that five cents maybe spent better elsewhere especially if that five cents doesn't buy you anymore protection against copying then you already have. Be afraid Macrovision...its not the fact that you don't do your job because you do for the most part; its the fact that you have become obsolete in a day of P2P and broadband.

HT

DVD value CD

[zzubzzub]

I think the MPAA is (slightly) smarter than the RIAA as the retail/cost ratio of DVDs is not as insane as CDs. Many DVDs can be found for under $10. For most folks, it's just easier to buy a DVD than to deal with copying it.

-- Buzz

After all that work.....

[Nate Enderle]

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.

Brilliant move

[joel8x]

I really don't believe that Macrovision is necessary, and this Harry Potter example is a perfect one. If your a fan of the movie, you want to own the original. That pretty much sums up the whole Video and Music pirating industry. I guarantee there are thousands of Slashdotters out there that own the bootlegged DVD screener rip of Lord of the Rings, and I bet that almost everyone of you will buy at least one if not both of the DVDs when they become available later this year - just to have it. You like to display it in its packaging on a nice shelf next to your home theatre system, you enjoy the special features that one time you look at them (except for the Kevin Smith movies - the extra stuff on those are golden). Its just a strange little need to have the original - you feel like your contributing to something you enjoy. I'll download any movie I'm a fan of, but rest assured that as soon as its available on DVD, I'll pick it up.

What Macrovision? Just hit

[(H)elix1]

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...

FUD!

[Cinematique]

Hey kids, look! FUD!

Re:Violation of DVD Consortium Licensing ?

[timster]

Macrovision is mandatory in the DVD player. The player itself is responsible for creating the signal; you can't encode Macrovision into an MPEG stream. The creators of the disks have to decide whether to use Macrovision on their disk though, which is basically "set the Macrovision bit" or not. If they choose to set the macrovision bit then they're supposed to pay some money per copy to Macrovision.

Re:copy protection technology

[Alien54]

And now I find the link:

http://www.urbanreflex.com/may24_02/record.html

Music Industry Unveils New Piracy-Proof Format: A Black, Plastic Disc With Grooves On It

Music bosses have unveiled a revolutionary new recording format that they hope will help win the war on illegal file sharing which is thought to be costing the industry millions of dollars in lost revenue.

Nicknamed the 'Record', the new format takes the form of a black, vinyl disc measuring 12 inches in diameter, which must be played on a specially designed 'turntable'.

"We can state with absolute certainty that no computer in the world can access the data on this disc," said spokesman Brett Campbell. "We are also confident that no-one is going to be able to produce pirate copies in this format without going to a heck of a lot of trouble. This is without doubt the best anti-piracy invention the music industry has ever seen."

As part of the invention's rigorous testing process, the designers gave some discs to a group of teenage computer experts who regularly use file swapping software such as Limewire and gnutella and who admit to pirating music CDs. Despite several days of trying, none of them were able to hack into the disc's code or access any of the music files contained within it.

"It's like, really big and stuff," said Doug Flamboise, one of the testers. "I couldn't get it into any of my drives. I mean, what format is it? Is it, like, from France or something?"

In the new format, raw audio data in the form of music is encoded by physically etching grooves onto the vinyl disc. The sound is thus translated into variations on the disc's surface in a process that industry insiders are describing as 'completely revolutionary' and 'stunningly clever.'

To decode the data stored on the disc, the listener must use a special player which contains a 'needle' that runs along the grooves on the record surface, reading the indentations and transforming the movements back into audio that can be fed through loudspeakers.

Even Shawn Fanning, the man who invented Napster, admits the new format will make file swapping much more difficult. "I've never seen anything like this," he told reporters. "How does it work?"

As rumours that a Taiwanese company has been secretly developing a 12 inch wide, turntable -driven, needle-based, firewire drive remain unconfirmed, it would appear that the music industry may, at last, have found the pirate-proof format it has long been searching for.

Theares, Home and Otherwise

[xSterbenx]

(I say this in terms of DVD not VHS)

When I want to see a movie, I want to see the whole effect: the sound, the quality, everything. I have never watched a pirated DVD movie before, so I will be the first to admit that I don't know how good of a quality the rip may be. Perhaps very good, I just don't know.

In terms of actually _watching_ the movie it doesn't matter. Anyone can hook up on the web and grab pretty much whatever movie they want to watch. From what I've seen, movies found online are substandard quality. Yes, some are top-notch; however, then you must watch them on you computer system (which for some people a 21 inch monitor suffices).

Personally, I would prefer to watch movies with my wife in my living room on my TV with surround sound and DVD component quality. Perhaps this is old fashioned; yet I believe the atmosphere of a movie is just as important as the movie itself. I know quite a few people who had rips of AToC who refused to watch them until they had seen it in the theatres for the _full_ effect. Those same people will buy the DVD when it comes out regardless of their opinions of the movies itself (after all its Star Wars, though this has been debated already a million times already). This isn't always the case, obviously. However, I think the majority of people (ie computer-illterate) would much rather prefer to shell out a few bucks for the actual DVD than watch some ripped version on a computer screen (or burned to a DVD, which again I have not yet seen and maybe it IS as good as the original). I myself have taken to buying pre-viewed DVDs from blockbuster, they usually cost around $15.00 and in most cases are in perfect condition.

In terms of Harry Potter, Blockbuster actually has a deal where if you rent the movie, you can can come in later and buy a previewed DVD for only $10.00. Not to sound like an ad for BB, but 10.00 for a DVD is not a bad deal (although you have to add in the 4.00 you spent to rent it in the first place).

Re:Theares, Home and Otherwise

[cafeman]

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.

Re:Theares, Home and Otherwise

[evilpenguin]

but if I'm going to spend $4.00 to rent a movie, why not spend $6.00 more to own it?

You have proverbially hit the proverbial nail on the proverbial head. This is what the "entertainment industry" needs to realize. People pirate their stuff because it is too expensive. They are trying to maintain an imblanced market. Instead of spending money to cpoy protect and spending money to buy senators to pass bad social legislation to make petty theft a felony they should simply drop the proce to the point where people will not bother to pirate!

Personally, I've been furious with them since CDs came out costing twice as much as cassette tapes, despite the fact that they are many times cheaper to produce. I understand the theory that says I'm paying for the superior quality of CDs (yes, I agree that "quality" is a factor in price), but when the other major factor in "price" (that is: "cost to produce") is less than a thenth the cost to produce the other product, why am I paying two to three times as much?

I've pretty much stopped the legal practice of recording movies off of cable. I buy the damned things. And I like having them on my shelves. But just as with CDs, DVDs are much cheaper to produce than VHS cassettes. And don't hand me that guff about "special features." Even if we assume a ridiculous price for getting two people to sit in a studio for two hours and chatter inanely about how they rewrote the movie while they were making it (don't get me started!), a ridiculous price like $100,000, divide that over 1 million copies of a movie and that adds 10 cents. 10 godd--ned cents! Take a DVD with fancier special features (like a "MIB" or a "Harry Potter" for instance) and let's assume a million dollar proce tag on the special features. Those movies sell tens of millions of copies, so we are right back at 10 godd--ned cents! This is added on to the price of discs that cost pennies per unit to manufacture!

And then these greedy bastards have the guts to say the pimply-faced teenager who burns a few mp3 CD-Rs is a thief? Who is fleecing whom?

So, while this crusty old curmudgeon has never downloaded a song, or attempted to defeat the copy protection on a VCR, while I actually believe in and support limited IP law (you remember, copyright law before it was made perpetual for corporate owners?), I still say the "entertainment industry" is screaming because they aren't finding as much as they want when they break into our piggy banks. "They took the money before we could steal it! Waaa! Waaa!"

They simply fail to realize that the market has changed and they can't make people want to pay too much anymore. If they don't wake up and simply adjust the price to remove the WILL to pirate, they will find the need for their services disappearing. It will happen with music first, because musicians and bands can afford the means of production. We are still a few decades away from every home being a motion picture studio, but that day is coming too.

If they want their industry, it is time for defensive pricing, not aggressive criminalization of the use of tools that have legitimate creative (and perfectly legal) uses.

Re:Theares, Home and Otherwise

[steveha]

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)?

Sorry, but I'm picking some nits now.

First of all, 720x480 is not a square-pixels resolution; my understanding is that the actual image, visible pixels only, in square pixels is 640x480.

However, "widescreen" movies in anamorphic format cram extra stuff into a line. Maybe those actually put 720 horizonal pixels on a line?

Second of all, 1600x1200 cannot create new detail from nothing, but it might look nice if the upsampling is done cleverly. There are some good filters that can improve a picture compared to simple pixel-stretching. Video stretched like this should look better than video shown at TV resolution on a screen of the same size; the TV image will be only 640x480 and the gaps between pixels will be more noticeable. The bigger the TV screen and the closer you sit, the more you notice the actual pixels of the image.

Third, the TV image will be 60 Hz interlaced; the computer monitor may well be 85 Hz or more, noninterlaced. There isn't any actual extra image data (it will still update only about 30 times per second) but the computer monitor might well be easier on the eyes (some people are more sensitive to interlacing flicker than other people are).

Fourth, some movies (and some video games) contain images that stress the abilities of NTSC to display them. "Chroma crawl" or flickering can result. A nice upsampling algorithm, and display on a nice computer monitor, and the image should look much nicer than on a real TV. (Note that an S-Video cable or even better still real component cables can help, here.)

Enough nits. And I agree with your suggestion: setting your display to something close to 720x480 may be the best bet. Especially if you have a monitor that can drive an 800x600 image at 120 Hz!

steveha

Re:DVD value CD

[big_hairy_mama]

...the retail/cost ratio of DVDs is not as insane as CDs.

Not to mention that it costs a lot more to make a movie (100's of millions of dollars) than to make a CD.

Costs v. Risk analysis.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

The Macrovision corporation.

[Anonymous Coward]

I work in the set-top-box industry, and on several occasions I've worked with folks from Macrovision, Inc. I always found them to be quite intelligent and aware of the limitations and problems concerning their technology. Granted, these were engineers and not marketoids, but they seemed to be a genuinely cool group of people. I certainly didn't get any of the Copying=Communism bullshit we hear from so many in the Hollywood sphere of influence.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that you shouldn't judge a company on their press releases alone. Obviously Macrovision has an interest in seeing their copy protection scheme applied to DVDs, but that's what their company does.
And as far as the question of whether anyone sees Macrovision as an obstacle to copying, the answer is definitely YES. I would liken it to the security on your house - you lock the door, right? Well, will that keep out a determined burglar? No, but it will keep the honest people honest.

Please, feel free to flame away. This is just my opinion, based on the people I've dealt with at Macrovision.

"Mracovision"

[Alex Belits]

In Russian some people call Macrovision "Mracovision", what can be approximately translated as "see the darkness". I find it a very funny and appropriate name for that bullshit.

Re:Sorcerer? Philosopher?

[Nonesuch]

The Philosopher's stone changes lead into gold.

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.

Re:The other effect of macrovision

[newerbob]

This is not how Macrovision works.

What ever happened to the Metamoderator. The /. l337 h4kr faggots who modded this up should be slapped silly.

Anyway, Here's how Macrovision works, and here is a link for a Macrovision remover that will actually work (I built one!).

Logos on the videos

[TheMCP]

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.

Re:DVD value CD - Soundtracks

[frovingslosh]

I particularly enjoy the insanity of this when the soundtrack of a movie costs more than the movie.

VCD Helper...

[chronos2266]

VCD Helper has had a list of DVD Player hacks available for quite a while. From everything to modifying your brightness to reconfiguring country codes through methods put in by the manufacturer for testing. It's really interesting to see the hidden features of your otherwise normal DVD player :)

Best cure for casual piracy.. BE NICE!

[NanoGator]

If the MPAA is worried about me downloading a movie w/o paying for it, the best defense they have is to have a good rapport with me. If I respect you, I'm not going to let harm come to you. Unfortunately, they have treated us all like they need to throw us all in jail. At least that is what I envisioned when I heard about the SSSCA.

Let's face it, the tools are out there. They'll always be out there. Whether we use them in a damaging way or not is dependent on two things: 1.) Incentive not to, i.e. extras on the DVD and so on... 2.) Whether or not we care.

Frankly, when I first heard about the SSSCA and it's over-reaching implications, I was out for blood! I still am, really. If I do something the MPAA wouldn't like, I feel good about it. Film88.com? I probably would have been all over that had it not gone down, half because I knew the MPAA would have a shitfit. This sentiment is far more damaging than DeCSS or any other circumvention tool around.

What the MPAA needs to do, instead of trying to invent new technology to thwart copying they don't want, is to make us friendly towards them. Show that they're out to have fun instead of out to squeeze money out of our wallets. When that happens, I'm happy to give them my money for stuff like DVD's.

Make it socially unacceptable to download copies of movies w/o paying for them and you'll get far more done than using encryption that somebody's going to break.

HP DVD has Macrovision on

[comic-not]

At least the one I bought for the kids had Macrovision enabled. Well, I pressed the magic buttons to conjure Macrovision away and copied the movie on VHS. Mind you, that was completely legal, since the video was for personal use (kids went to see their DVD-less grandparents for a couple of weeks and the only way to prevent the kids from driving poor gramps and granny nuts was to supplement them with the movie). Anyway, I find the whole Macrovision scheme laughable and completely disingenious, other than from the point of Macrovision the Co. who has successfully sold hi-tech snake oil for some time now.

Rough figures on how much that saved - in a week

[SuperKendall]

These are terribly rough numbers as I'm not sure how many copies were really sold, only gross dollars sales figures from here.

The linked article noted that HP sales totaled about $200 million (US) the first week of video release. I took a wild guess at each copy selling for $16 (about what I bought mine for), arriving then at a figure of $625k that they would have had to pay Macrovision at .05c a copy.

And that's just the first week! I had never thought before about how much companies had to pay to have Macrovision - given how much it costs (or that it costs ANYTHING) I can't believe video companies use this technology at all! And I thought the lottery was the biggest stupidity tax going.

What's the big deal?

[haggar]

The great majority of Miramax titles are published without Macrovision protection. I don't see Slashdot clamoring about that fact.

Re:Now to get rid of Macrovision "SafeDisk"

[Slashamatic]

First of all, if you bought SCSI, it was because of the better performance as against IDE, which typically requires much more work from the host. Why buy an inferior product when you already have something else.

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).

Macrovision is a copy protection system?

[serutan]

I always thought it was designed to simulate tape stretch or a dirty playback head.

Phillips

[Jeff DeMaagd]

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.

Re:Violation of DVD Consortium Licensing ?

[karmawarrior]

No, it isn't, and more to the point this isn't unusual. I had a DVD player for six months, hooked up to my TV through the VCR, before I had to get a modulator because I bought something with Macrovision on it. Before then, I'd thought that the consensus that DVDs were unusuable without a direct TV hookup or a modulator meant that my VCR was funky - it never occured to me that Macrovision might not actually cover 90% of discs. This includes blockbusters like The Fifth Element, Reservoir Dogs, Groundhog Day, etc.

If something is protected with Macrovision, it'll generally have the Macrovision logo on the back together with the Dolby Digital and Region stuff. Those who think it's compulsory might want to flick through their DVD collection and look.

Now this article is newsworthy if it's suggesting that Harry Potter is Region Free and CSS Free too. But there's nothing to hint at that in the write up. Harry Potter is macrovision free because it doesn't actually help, it's expensive (DVD content makers have to pay a per-disc * per-crippled-frame royalty for using the system), and it's a load of crap.

About the macrovision comment.......

[Mark19960]

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.