Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Licenses Analog Anti-rip Technology

photojournaliste writes "CD copy-protection specialist Macrovision is to work with Microsoft to ensure their respective DRM and anti-rip technologies are interoperable, the two companies said this week. Sounds straightforward enough, but the deal runs deeper. Microsoft agreed to license a number of Macrovision's patents, in particular those relating to analogue copy protection technology and more recent extensions to that system that cover video-on-demand, pay-per-view content and support for the US 'broadcast flag', which determines whether consumers will be able to record digital TV broadcasts."

14 of 270 comments (clear)

  1. How long before ... by TheLogster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People hack their Tivo's to go "Broadcast flag - very nice - I'll ignore that and record it anyway"..

    Same for Myth TV etc

    TheLogster

    1. Re:How long before ... by jxyama · · Score: 4, Insightful
      >People hack their Tivo's to go "Broadcast flag - very nice - I'll ignore that and record it anyway"..

      i think the key is, it's not all (or even most), but only some would hack.

    2. Re:How long before ... by Dayflowers · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, its not like that's really a problem. You can easily just publish the software online and claim to be from outside the US. US users will download and use it.

      The fact that it'd be illegal to use the software would not bother anyone...

      --
      I am a speak english. Do you not? - Saroto
    3. Re:How long before ... by Tassach · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The fact that it'd be illegal to use the software would not bother anyone...
      You must not have been paying attention. It'll bother a lot of people; generally the same kind of people who're bothered by "crimes" like visiting a prostitute or smoking a doobie.

      Marijuana possession is illegal in most of the US. While the law is widely ignored, there are still people who are serving time in PMITA prison for violating it. How'd you like to be Tyrone's bitch for 3-5 years because you got busted for "posession of software with intent to distribute"?

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    4. Re:How long before ... by Catbeller · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Are they really idiots? How else do you propose for them to finace their dubious content? If it is worth downloading for so many people it is obviously worth something. If they are dinosaurs, who will replace them and how?"

      Let's go all Young Republican: Who cares if they can't survive? They can get new jobs if they aren't lazy. Who said we owed them an industry? We haven't signed any contracts stating we must watch their commericals. If the Free Market says that we don't have to pay for the content, then they will go out of business. Sometimes a market really can be free. It's not the government's job to force people to watch TV commercials.

      Content will either dry up, or it won't. If it does, the market will have instructed people that downloading stuff for free destroys the golden goose, and they will self-correct. If it doesn't dry up, and the content creators thrive (which seems to be the case so far, manipulated RIAA figures to the contrary), then the dubious content providers were wrong and the downloaders are right: downloads don't hurt the business model.

      Either way, let them eat cake.

    5. Re:How long before ... by Catbeller · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "You have signed a sort of contract."

      No, I haven't; and there is no such thing as a "sort of contract" :)

      "More, you've accepted a license."

      No, I didn't. I didn't sign anything.

      "If they have it so in the license that you agree to by watching their content that you mustn't do the things Tivo does with that content, then you've agreed not to. "Shrink-wrap" licenses are still licenses."

      No, they are not. I always, as a precaution, chant "No, I do not accept your terms" as I open any package with some sort of sticker on it. It's not my fault they provide no means of communications with them on this matter :) The EULA is still not legally tested, and even if a pro-business Supreme Court eventually does uphold it, I will not abide by shrink wrap licenses. If I buy an object, I own it, by common law and hundreds of years of precedent. I'll do what I like with it.

      "It's their content and by watching their content, accepting their content, you must agree to a licence which they distribute it under for you. Enforcing those licences would be something that the government does."

      It's not "their" content. They own the physical media on which they store their masters. They don't own the "content". They possess copy rights, not property rights, on the content. However, I have fair use rights over the content, because I have such under law, and because the media is my property, if property rights are to enter such a discussion. I do not accept any licenses as to how I use a machine I purchase, and the government be damned if they are paid to violate my rights by breaking down my door to stop me using my own property.

      "Opposing libertarianism against this problem of your's doesn't work...because, sometimes, companies can get so rich they can begin to own the rulebook of the market itself, so to speak."

      You're absolutely right, and I don't mean to criticize you, by the way, merely the idea of these new "rights" these rich people have recently purchased. If the U.S. manages to inflict this new idea of property on the world, its all over for freedom as we know it. Copyright and licenses and property rights will be used, ARE being used, to silence dissent in the U.S. and abroad. Petty dictators are a horror, but they eventually die and become dust. This new regime is corporate, immortal, and unkillable.

  2. Broadcast Flag by gowen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I like the broadcast flag. If we couldn't record stuff off the television, perhaps the nation would find better things to do with their time that watching endless television programs. Like extra exercise, or socialising. We'd all be a whole lot better for it...

    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
  3. Interoperable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since when was interoperability a goal for access protection systems? Surely they mean inoperable!

  4. LOL!!! They will price themselves out of the marke by DenDave · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Imagine Provider A sells music and other media content without restrictive technology. Provider B has strong restrictions. Artists who publish with B will not benefit from "bootleg cassettes" to gain popularity (think of Metallica...)... Artists who publish with A become popular, Provider A ends up selling the most popular artists....who makes the money?

    --
    -if at first you don't succeed, stay the heck away from paragliding.
  5. Broadcast flag outside US by Pofy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, how will this work outside US? Or will they just assume the laws are the same in every country? And if it only applies to US, how do one determine properly if the computer in question IS in the US? I guess they simply implement it for everyone and won't care about laws in different countries.

  6. There is always a way... by pdaoust007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I find it amusing to see these companies invest millions in technology and licensing to fight a battle they know they are not going to be able to win.

    All it takes is one person to circumvent the protection (we all know how good macrovision has been in the past...) or to have access to source material to distribute it to millions using P2P.

    They need to change their business model, give us what we want (DRM free mp3 or similar) for a reasonable price or eventually suffer the inevitable... (which could be a good thing too, the music industry reborn)

  7. Re:insightful flamebiat, you pick. by Jane_Dozey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Regular users don't really contribute that much to piracy. Lets ignore the people downloading things for a moment and concentrate on the uploaders (the real problem). The people distributing most of the content are "hard core" pirates. They are the one's who will be paying lots of money for ways to get around copyprotection (or manually doing it themselves). I should imagine that as soon as a method of getting around the broadcast flag is published every single one of the main rippers nd distributers will be using it widely and carrying like they are right now. Sure, home users wont be able to record off of the TV/Radio until startups start offering the hacks for a small fee, which wouldn't take too long.

    "DRM never has been about absolute control. It has, from its inception, been about making piracy enough of an inconvenience that regular user don't bother to do it."
    And they usually don't. They just get the material they want off of somebody else who does bother.
    DRM schemes ONLY stop regular users (and even then, only until someone writes up an easy to use program/utility that the public can use) while they are a mild inconvenience to the professionals.
    It only takes one unscrupulous person to make one DRM-less copy of something (be it actual material or a box that ignores DRM) and distribute it and then everybody can have a copy.

    I'm tired of the industry trying to use technology to solve a social problem.

    --
    Silly rabbit
  8. Same old story by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They're focusing on how to prevent consumers from accessing material when they should be focusing on making it easier for consumers to pay for material. In the days of Napster's popularity, if the record companies decided to integrate a payment subscription system with high-speed downloading servers, then they wouldn't have to worry about piracy. People would pay to be able to download MP3s with no proper tags and no errors at the maximum speed their connections could handle rather than unreliable and unstable P2P sources. They could have worked on producing software for ISPs to use for automating the billing process. They could have bought into Napster during it's popularity and turned it into a subscription service, and even if other P2P applications were around, Napster had brand-name recognition that people would go for. But instead on focusing on how to use the technology's potential, they sent in the lawyers to block it. Brand name has more pull for consumers than cost-effectiveness. Just look at sneakers- people don't try to buy the cheapest ones around but go with expensive brand names instead.

  9. Re:insightful flamebiat, you pick. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think you miss the point as well.

    The point of the broadcast flag is that the user says, "Hey I'll record the Pay per view X on the DVR so I can watch it later or so I can watch it with my wife" The DRM prevents him from doing this.

    He instead just goes out and rents the DVD.

    The DRM and the ways to circumvent it are not convenient enough to get him to commit the act of piracy. (and playing movies from a computer to a TV is not really that common in the mainstream)

    Thus it add a layer of inconvenience to committing the act thus dissuading people from doing it.

    There will always be pirates. That is a given. The inherit law of DRM is that it will be broken, eventually. That is why what I said above is insightful DRM has never been about complete control because even the movie studios know that is impossible. DRM has and will continue to be about making the piracy enough of an inconvenience that the mainstream will not do it.

    As an aside,

    By the way it is the convenience of P2P and bittorrent that bugs them, not the fact they exist. If P2P and BT were tiny do you really think they would be so up in arms. It is the fact that anyone can click next on a windows box to get through a default install and then have access to huge amounts of pirated data.