Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Licenses Analog Anti-rip Technology

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the sharing-is-for-communists dept.

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."

8 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 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
    2. 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.

    3. 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. Interoperable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  3. 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)

  4. 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
  5. 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.