Slashdot Mirror
Macrovision Applies for P2P Interdiction Patents
schmecky05 writes "From Macrovision, the folks whom recently mandated "Thou shalt delete content promptly from thy Tivo" come the following 2 USPTO patent applications for Peer to Peer interdiction methods: "Interdiction of unauthorized copying in a decentralized network" and "System and methods for communicating over the internet with geographically distributed devices of a decentralized network using transparent asymetric return paths."
These patent applications describe (in pain staking detail) how Macrovision interdicts on Peer to Peer networks to prevent illegal copyrighted file sharing from many locations across the globe and avoid ban lists as well."
Abstract An interdiction system includes software agents masquerading as nodes in a decentralized network, a query matcher that receives search results captured by the software agents and reports matches with protected files back to the software agents, and a central coordinating authority that coordinates activities of the software agents by sending instructions to the software agents specifying actions to be taken. Possible activities and related interdicting methods include manipulating search results before forwarding them on in the network, quarantining selected nodes in the network, performing file impersonations such as transferring synthesized decoys, performing file transfer attenuation, and hash spoofing.
Hash spoofing? We've had this discussion before. I call shenanigans on this.
I don't see how the recording of an audio/video signal can execute "stool pigeon" code, but the patent looks scary enough.
Say what?
I still don't get it. They have applied for patents to ban filesharing?
Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
Here's an idea:
Macrovision owns Installshield. Stop using Installshield for Windows apps and cut off a good amount of Macrovision's funding.
...deliberately harming a network? seems like there should be. or does that only apply if you're DOSing a company who can afford to buy laws?
(in pain staking detail)
painstaking?
pains taking?
pane steaking?
Fradulent nodes posing in a network. This doesn't seem so new to me.
This shows a big weakness with patent-oriented companies. Their greedy ideas combined with the need to file a patent on those ideas mean that we'll be TOLD how they're doing it, and can then work out how to get around it. Score one for openness and co-operation vs. secrecy and underhandness.
Why don't patent officers just do a simple check like "Is it full of mumbo jumbo which makes little to no sense?" if yes then instantly dismiss it. If no then judge it fairly.
It's plain as day these companies are playing the field.
I like muppets.
For grilling IP violation suspects: "Pain Staking"
Hello mam, it's Major Paine speaking.
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
The patents were filed March 18, 2004 and June 16, 2004. Obviously tons of prior art exists. Oh wait! It is the US we are talking about, the country where tons of obvious prior art does not matter, the US patent office has time and time again demonstrated that it only cares who gives them the biggest pile of money.
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
I wonder if this can be considered illegal because it causes destruction and harm to a computer network. I mean tall those 9/11 related computer laws have to be good for something.
If they are serious about that this would be intend to a crime since interdiction of someone's personal information is illegal.
This is not exactly new technology, it's just that Macrovision is trying to monetize it. Of course, who's going to protest the patent?
But then again, it is Macrovision, and Macrovision has a long and sordid history of injecting 'security' technologies that do much more harm than good, and at the end of the day are bypassable except by the painfully incompetent. Even the painfully incompetent were able to find the filter for the original Macrovision videotape "protection" -- and this before the internet had been commercialized. At the end of the day, it just annoyed more than hurt folks who were pursuing "novel" uses of content.
Look at this way: Adobe uses Macrovision's SafeCast to protect Photoshop CS and now CS2. It does not take too much looking around to find 1) the applications and 2) numerous ways to get around it.
At the end of the day, Macrovision is a slow, old cat, and the mice they chase are not only faster, they are smarter too.
What, exactly, does that mean? The total number of words published each day on the front page of Slashdot is relatively low. It really wouldn't take much work to have someone who knows English to check the posts for errors (and dups?) prior to publication.
Frankly, the amusing and sometimes insightful posts by Slashdot readers are the only real draw to this site at this point. The news is usually late and laden with grammatical and content errors, not to mention the frequent dups.
I don't get music or movies from p2p (now). But what I don't approve is this attempt by the big corps to stymie the technology. What essentially Macrovision is saying that it would sabotage a p2p network, thus rendering the network unusable for legal use.
,my cable provider Insight is artifically capping BT downloads for me. People should realize what dirty tricks RIAA & MPAA are upto.
Now, almost 80% of p2p traffic is of wrong nature, you might say, so whats the issue if it is stopped. Fair queston. Now, if you put a cap on innovation, then the common people suffer. let me give you an example. When Replay TV announced that their DVRs had the capability of auto-advancing commercials. Thsi was was far superior to Tivo's 30 second manual skip. Older ReplayTVs would AUTOMATICALLY detect a commercial break & advance the program.
What happened then? MPAA sued & forced Replay TV to disable this feature. Now, what there's virtually no advancement in DVRs, they now serve nothing more than glorified VCRs. The auto commercial advance in older Replay TVs would allow you to move from one program segmnent to the next, similar to the chapter system in DVDs.
Why do I quote this example? It is because MPAA/RIAA in trying to stomp out p2p are stymieing technology & innovation. On my dual boot machine I try a new linux distro almost every other week. If these people succeed in poisoning the networks, I would definitely be not happy.
And
Groklaw has an listing of a HOW-TO on prior art. You need to scroll down to the third article.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
Oh wait! It is the US we are talking about, the country where tons of obvious prior art does not matter
That may be true, but the US is also one of many countries where entrapment is illegal and often the basis on which cases are dismissed.
This patent looks to me like a wide-ranging cookbook of entrapment techniques for P2P.
Cheers guys - now we know how you go about prevent people from sharing files - we can go about preventing your prevention methods.
As you so ably demostrate, they don't need to pull off what they claim. They just need people to buy into their bullshit.
I fail to see this as anything but an all-around win for the forces of good. The most evil enemies are diminished by Macrovision which has no incentive to invest in working products as the ones that don't work can be expected to sell well. Buy macrovision stock, and use the existance of their "effective software" backed up by US patents, as proof that futher legislation is a burden on the market, and threatens to stall further innovation.
Maybe indirectly, through the IRS. But I don't think USPTO gets paid more to issue a patent to Microsoft or IBM than they do to issue one to your or me.
There is name recognition, though. If a high-profile company applies for a patent, maybe the system gives it a little easier ride, examines it a little less closely, than if "Joe Crackpot, ace inventor" is on the application.
The real problem is having business process patents and software patents in the first place. These things should not be patentable.
Restraint of trade by a monopoly is illegal, but if they get a business practice patent the government restrains trade for them. I don't get it.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
"At the end of the day, Macrovision is a slow, old cat, and the mice they chase are not only faster, they are smarter too"
Off topic, but your analogy put me in mind of Disney's version of Cinderella, the evil cat Lucifer and the mice Gus and his friends. You can see why I'm posting this anon.
They might be opening themselves up to large lawsuits caused by reletively minor mistakes. Interdict the wrong file and suddenly thousands of ISP's have a legitimate cause of action. The DOS provision seems dangerous too. And really, why would they want to patent it? What do they gain by preventing others from using the same tecniques to combat piracy? Leave it open and they'll never be involved in legal action 'cause some licensee blew his cork and misused it.
loyalty above all, save honor
Could these patents actually be good? The patents can stop others from using simillar techniques and this should reduce the overall amount of these attacks on P2P networks. They also provide information about the attacks, and that information can be used to help defend against them.
Call me on this, but I think it's illegal to abuse a network like this. Patenting something does not make it legal. These applications had better not be accepted.
Besides that whole issue, is a patent even appropriate here? It is not being sold to other entities; patents are designed to keep products from being copied by others. I should think Macrovision would hardly mind if other companies copy them and start similarly interdicting P2P users.
Psi Xi
That's "pains-taking", not "pain staking". One takes pains; one does not stake pain.
Yes, yes, yes -- I understood it anyway. But such errors slow me down, because I have to engage a part of my brain that isn't needed to understand proper spelling, punctuation, grammar, and usage. It's like stepping in a patch of quicksand on a running track.
any more than anti-spamming techniques such as server side filtering are harming the network.
Best Slashdot Co
Well, after that: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/28/12 31257&from=rss , I only use BT for free content.
it tolls for the grammar nazi.
Should be "the folks who recently mandated".
Like the email app whose name escapes me right now...
embed computer-generated, copyrighted haiku in the torrents and packets. License it such that interdiction is a violation of copyright. Then sue the britches off any **AA agent that intercepts the torrents or packets for DMCA and other copyright violations.
At the very least, illegally obtained evidence is inadmissable in court.
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
They've basically invented a new use for the word, based on the negative elements in the dictionary definition.
The patent does not actually involves any of those elements. Instead, it lists methods of detection and entrapment, which can be used to implement interdiction in the original coercive sense of the word.
WinMX uses a very weak hash, based on a very small subset of the bytes of the file.
The hash algorithm is semi-public, but there are implementations of it out there.
Using this knowledge, it is very easy to make files that match a particular size/hash combination yet are nothing like what was intended.
Other p2p networks do the same "stupid" thing because hashing an entire file is *SLOW* (especially for very large files), and its impossible with conventional hashes to verify that you are downloading the right file without having downloaded the full file. Custom hashes allow selection of the hashed areas first to verify the file in question.
Tiger hashing and similar are beyond the implementation capability of many p2p authors.
The wheel is too original: somebody please patent the goat. License the usage of goats. Demand royalties for your intellectual property. Expand our ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of revenue.
Ahh, the wild, wild west of cybercrime law.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, I just write analyses for people who are. If you would consider relying on information which was posted on Slashdot, you are too stupid to be allowed access to your own shoelaces much less an Internet account. Don't rely on the federal government to start prosecutions to save your sorry butt if your Kazaa craps out because content providers hire Macromedia.
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
I remember thinking that the P2P software ELUA's have some language in them that says that you may not alter the code, use it for purposes that may be harmful to other users, spy on other users, or collect data on them.
Now someone is filing a patent for something that does just that? Is it me, or do the ELUA's only work for companies with big wallets?
Maybe I just don't understand the technology. How can somebody apply for a patent that breaks into other people's software and uses it in a way expressly forbidden by the owner?
I also wonder how any future anti spyware laws might interact with this patent
IANAL or a programmer but this looks fishy. Set me straight.
Well, nothing in that sounds like true interdiction. Interdiction would seem to suggest to me that once identified, a P2P client or host would be removed from routing information. This is simply an auto-poisoner... The hash spoofing is problematic. if they are able to do this effectively, this could cause trouble. Any efforts made by Bram to counteract this, could nudge bittorrent away from lawful use. Up to now, all features of bittorrent have been in support of lawful use (just not precluding unlawful use) One could argue that working to counteract hash spoofing makes bittorrent more secure (would not like to see someone hosting a torrent for a linux distro that could distribute malware).
so... i could patent logging on to a p2p network, getting the ip's of peers and resolving them into an identity from their isps... then sue them if they tried to do the same?
i like this idea, lemme get a pen!
The first rule of USENET is you do not talk about USENET.
From the submission:
These patent applications describe (in pain staking detail) how...
It should be:
These patent applications describe (in pains taking detail) how
In other words one 'takes pain' in creating the detail
wake up and smell the horseshit!
it's not about controlling copyright infringing P2P as it exists today.
it's about controlling the right to control distributed distribution of your own damn stuff!
eventually, the broadcast to consumer model of media distribution is going by the wayside. it will be replaced by artist to audience distribution over a distributed network of nodes whuch is run by the audience.
If an artist chooses to limit the distribution of his work to a 'paying' audience, he's gonna need some tool or other. if the tool is patented, then he's back in the 'pay some asshole' mode he's stuck with now.
Imagine that. A patent to make it more difficult for someone to profit from his copyright!
... to generate public domain content with metadata such that it appears to be content that Macrovision is looking to disrupt. Then, when they do disrupt that content, sue them.
Alternatively, have computers on the network keep hashed lists of failed downloads (filename, IP address) and the precise reason they failed (corrupt data, etc.). Transfer these lists whenever a file transfer is started.
It's up to the client what to do with this information if it matches their own ("182.165.3.43 keeps terminating downloads at 95%!"), but there are all sorts of nasty possibilities that take advantage of the fact that the legit part of the network has more bandwidth (data flood) and more CPU power than the poison nodes.
This might not be relevant, but why doesn't EFF or some other group begin submitting broad-idea intellectual property patents on things that we want to protect (and/or keep free) so that companies can't later try and patent the same things? I guess even a patent is no good if you don't have the pockets and lawyers to defend it. Has anything like this been tried by advocacy groups, etc.?
emerge. Also, the P2P protocols would be modified so Macrovision could not detect them. Maybe it is time to encrypt all P2P servers and clients. The hardest quest would be limiting the client/server code to only subscribers. (free of course). We would have to make sure the subscriber base doesn't have members belonging to the likes of any DRM company.
Who knows, maybe an underground internet is going to emerge due to all these controls. Or perhaps we can "virtualize" an underground internet with VPN technology.
The inetrnet is all about freely trading ideas and information. When big buisness jumped on the bandwagon they polluted our email servers with SPAM and filled our search engines with useless information. There was a time that only Colleges, Universities, and governements were on the net. Gopher was a valuable tool when it came to data minining. Now big buisness wants to stop the kids from trading songs on the net? gee... whatabout the old days when we taped tunes off the radio.
The quality of most mp3s isn't CD quality. The selection of 320k sampled mp3 files is pretty slim. 256k is pretty slim too. most are 192k, that's just about fm radio quality. If radio stations got their act together then maybe they
won't be so worried about XM, Sirius, or iPod. All they do is talk , talk , talk.
Joe: Hey Bob! Did you pick up the new one from Metallica?
Bob: I sure did, buddy! Got it on CD. I ripped it and put it my iPod. Wanna borrow it?
Joe: Sure! I've got my iBook right here, this will just take a second. CDs rock! They're CD quality and no DRM!
Bob: (hands CD to Joe)
(Just at the moment, a masked man in tights with the log "MV" runs out from behind a bush, nearly tripping over his cape)
Joe: Egads!
Bob: Yowza!
Man: Wait kids! Don't copy that floppy!
Joe: Uhm, I'm 35? What floppy?
Man: I mean, I'm here to INTER-DICT in your PEER to PEER music swapping! (grabs the CD from Bob and quickly replaces it with a roughly-cut cardboard disk). You've been INTER-DICTED!
Bob: Wha?
Joe: Say, wouldn't it be easier to jump out from behind bushes if you weren't wearing that weird cape? I'm just sayin'.
Man: Don't laugh, Metallica's label paid me $10 Million to do this!
Bob: Wait a minute.. you work for Macrovision?
Man: (puffs up chest) The #1 Leader in Content Protection(tm)!
Bob: (Kicks "macrovision man" in the testicles, grabs metallica CD)
(Joe and Bob run away)
Joe: Whew, thank goodness it was Macrovision, I thought for a second I might not be able to copy your CD!
"From Macrovision, the folks whom recently mandated..."
Whom? Don't try to sound intelligent when you aren't.
And don't even get me started on "pain staking."
Yeah, yeah. Troll -1.
It's up to us to write tools to prevent this from
happenening. Once the IP addresses of macrovisions
tools are found then a DOS should be performed against them, that's all.
Now the guys fighting P2P filesharing are fighting each other!!! If Macrovision decides not to go after a file, they might go after the company that is going after the file. They might even stop the actual publisher from protecting their own content.
In the end this will simply make it more expensive and difficult to police P2P networks. Think of this like someone patenting the idea of a police force and how it would impact crime.
A system for interdicting unauthorized copying in a decentralized network comprising: a plurality of software agents masquerading as nodes in a decentralized network; and a query matcher that receives search results from the plurality of software agents, and reports matches of the search results with protected files back to the plurality of software agents so that the software agents can interdict unauthorized copying of the protected files in the decentralized network.
Read the above. They need to masquerade as a node in the network. Fix is simple. We now have to be
be more carefully in the way we accept server nodes. If their servers are not accepted into a network, then they can answer queries. This will not be difficult to break. Also if these servers do logged in as a server in gnutella, Limewire, or wherever, then we would have to perform a DOS and keep the server busy with the DOS so it couldn't answer the query.
This technology isn't new. There were many garbage mp3 files on napster at one time.
basically if you were unforunate enough to get a reply from one of these servers you would end up
with a mp3 of pink/white noise.
HA HA HA taht anti m$ joke is teh funnaay. Not
http://www.macrovision.com/company/directions/newo ffice.html
:)
There's the address (info right from their public website)
They're INTENTIONALLY distrupting LEGAL use of a communications medium.
There's gotta be a law against that..
I am the maverick of Slashdot
Let them try and shut down SSH tunnels using CIFS running on TCP port 80... If that gets "dumbed down" to the point where people can just double-click an installer for a "client" and there are still ISPs that allow you to run your own web server, they won't be able to stop a thing.
Quit bitching and do something about it. Send $1 every time you post on slashdot to the EFF and other organizations are start patenting EVERYTHING you can think of from breathing to wetting yourself. Innindate (sp) the patent office with millions, perhaps billions of patents a year. Fight fire with fire people, it's not hard. It's so easy, go to your own profile here on /. and each month count up the number of posts you've done. Send it in to the EFF. In the US it's a charitable donation! DO IT! DO IT! I owe the EFF $13 as of this post.
Better yet, Slashdot should hook up with several charities and give "donating posters" a little avatar or something to compliment the subscribers system. So via a paypal system or some system you can pledge a given amount per post to your charity of choice. Get a nice end of year statement. It would be great!
http://www.eff.org/support/
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
I watch DVDs on my PS2. Some of the Macrovision "protected" ones (all legal, prepackaged commercial copies) swing through dark/light cycles while playing. That's not in the DVD specs! Has someone sued these Macrovisioned version vendors for violating the DVD trademark, with its quality assurances?
--
make install -not war
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Photoshop has protection? I honestly did not know that.
Encryption and closed communities ("subscribers") won't help at all. What you're dancing around is the concept of "trust". The way it works today, you implicitly trust all other p2p users to be honest and above board. This is not true, and never has been.
Encrypting the traffic will only make it more expensive to participate in any p2p system. (and prevent any sort of centralized ISP cache, which is very rare to begin with.) It won't stop peers from sending you garbage or otherwise lying. Just because the traffic is encrypted does not make it trustworthy. At best, all encryption will do it make subverting the network computationally very expensive at the cost of making normal traffic increasingly expensive.
Closed communities won't work either, unless you personally know every single member and can be assured they haven't been "hacked" or otherwise cooped. The Bad People(tm) find their way into closed communities all the time. They find ways into even the most secretive groups (e.g. criminal organizations, warez groups, etc.), so thinking you're going to keep your p2p community "clean" is a pipe-dream.
Catch them preventing you from downloading a legal file through a P2P network.
But wait you say, with the **AA is only paying them to block files of **AA members who claim copyright over this material. They wouldn't be blocking legal downloads.
Remember a couple years ago a university got a takedown notice over an "Usher" (IIRC) file. Except that it was a recording of a lecture there by Professor Usher! All you have to do is name a legal download file to a name they will pounce on, and then claim that your band is being prevented from distributing its legal material by Macrovision and you want the same $58 Billion that the RIAA claims they are damaged by in each individual filesharing case. But don't settle for only $300 afterwards.
In short, you spoof them. And if you don't have your own band, get a microphone and record your own anti-**AA rant for distribution. Then they're destroying your Free Speech rights as well.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
TriangleBoy is prior art for the 2nd patent
You should complain to them since you are paying for bandwidth to use as you wish. And complain to your regional public attorney for false advertising unless they have specifically indicated in their ToS that they can limit your BT traffic.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I'm surprised they are patenting this - after all, a publically available patent tells the P2P software writers how to defeat the patented methods by revealing them all!
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
They need to spend time on their products, not this nonsense.
Time to boycott Macrovision.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
This is what Macrovision wants to do:
* Set up a bunch of fake P2P clients that look just like real clients (down to a faked version number, presumably). Give them a variety of IPs to appear as though the clients are widely distributed all over the globe.
* Give these clients enough resources so that at least some of them become supernodes.
And this is what the fake clients will be doing:
* Intercept search requests, and consult with their own private server before sending a reply.
* If the search includes a result for one of the copyrighted files on their blacklist, interfere with the results as follows:
o By removing the file from the list of search results
o By returning a fake search result that points to a nonexistent node as the source for the file
o Same as the above, but return a link to a functioning node that serves white noise
* If needed, the fake search results will include fake file hashes, or even true file hashes gleaned from the rest of the network. Any attempt to actually download the files pointed to by the search results will still fail, but it will consume valuable resources of legitimate P2P users.
In addition, Macrovision is thinking of somehow isolating certain legitimate nodes from the network -- by surrounding them with fake nodes "on all sides", as it were.
Essentially, Macrovision's plan is a DDoS on the network; or, rather, a way for the network to DDoS itself (by flooding it with fake search results and fake nodes). I don't know much about how BitTorrent or ED2K are actually implemented, but it seems like this attack would work, especially if Macrovision's fake clients manage to become supernodes.
>|<*:=
Comment removed based on user account deletion
They are doing something much simpler -- returning fake files, complete with fake hashes, as search results. They are also thinking of returning real hashes in the search results, and making the results point to fake files.
When a legitimate client tries to download such a file, it will report it as corrupt, because its actual hash will differ from what Macrovision reports. However, the legitimate client would have already wasted some of its resources to download this fake file.
With enough fake clients returning fake files, Macrovision is hoping to essentially DDoS the network -- especially if some of their fake clients gain supernode status.
>|<*:=
I thought the Catholic church tried this shortly after the printing press was invented. Are we to suffer another inquisition? A separation of the techno-elite from the techno-ostrich? It has all the social markings of a state sponsored holy war, except it's the pure sharing of ALL information instead of a religious text that is at stake.
To me, it sounds like they are doing everything possible to scare people into quitting file sharing. This is unlikely to be processed anytime soon, and if it indeed is, it will just be coded around. Unless the government mandates this technology be used to mine the personal data of all file sharers, in which case it's probably already being used by P2P hubs and ISPs. I expect a crackdown with thousands of arrests to be upcoming once a few new laws are passed.
My pardons for going OT, but who's actually seen this anti-currency copying code in action? I picked up my HP PSC all-in-one from Costco a year ago. After reading about anti-counterfeiting firmware, I tested my scanner to watch what happened. It sucked a new bill into (Mac) Photoshop 7 at 1200dpi w/o a problem. Is 1200dpi too coarse to bother with, or is this whole thing becoming an urban myth?
Luke, help me take this mask off
How can someone patent some method of preventing or monitoring something illegal from occuring? I mean, really big picture here, what if X10 patent the idea of using video cameras in remote locations connected to your computer for monitoring security? Would that be possible? What if someone other then Macrovision, a cracker or someone that plans to violate copyright laws for instance, patented a working method of finding illegal files on P2P and then refused to license the technology to people that owned the copyrights? Would those companies have the right to use the technology anyway or something very similar? IANAL but these would be stange legal grounds here.
Can anyone think of a product or scheme Macrovision has marketed in the last 5-10 years that has worked to block coping for more than a month or so? I see an increasing number of DVDs that are macrovision free. Are the publishers finally realizing that Macrovision is a scam and the only real accountable losses the studios can actually point to are the checks they write to Macrovision?
Actual crytographic hash spoofing is unneccesary. All they need is to build a custom client that reports the expected hash. By the time the client downloads the file and verifies the hash is spoofed, the damage has been done. The technique doesn't work on all P2P networks, but it is effective for some.
I'm no RIAA fan but part of the reason we have laws at all is to protect us FROM "reality". Reality is that a strong man can force his will upon a weaker one, a clever man can embezzle just about anything, and a smooth talking man can walk away with your life savings. Laws prevent or at least punish these activities.
I guess my point is that proper, productive copyright law would protect us FROM "reality" by ensuring that artistic expression was not instantly pillaged and that artists could make a living from their works, for a temporary period, after which the work became freely available to all. I.E., the bare minimum required to allow the artists who enrich our lives to pay the rent through their art instead of giving up to work in a factory.
Freedom: "I won't!"
Macromedia just patented Boydian netwar! I'm sure the US military in Iraq is going to be surprised!
There were many garbage mp3 files on napster at one time.
And now there are many garbage wma files.
I don't have that problem on my PS2 unless the video signal is being routed through my VCR instead of direct to the composite monitor I use.
Older TVs don't have a composite video input, and most DVD players and game consoles do not include RF outputs anymore. (I think the Jaguar was the last to include a built-in RF modulator). Some external RF modulators introduce distortion in response to Macrovision fucking with the gain control. So now we have to buy a new TV just to watch movies. <sarcasm>Thanks Macrovision.</sarcasm>
The point, dipshit, is that it's "taking pains", not "staking pain".
If Macrovision feels they're not profitting richly enough, they're free to screen their customers more carefully or raise the price of their product. Deliberately flooding networks with extraneous junk is no better than flaming tires thrown on the freeway.
Here is the irony: Macrovision's customers are those who would like their copyrights/material strongly protected. Macrovision exists to prevent software "piracy", VHS & DVD bootlegging and generally makes a profit from selling peace of mind. Macrovision has failed over and over on all of these fronts.
The simple fact that they are moving into P2P "Interdiction" means that they should just stop now. I would hope their customers (Sony, Disney, Paramount, software developers...) see that their tactics aren't working and cut Macrovision out of the picture. Less money spent towards Macrovision's IP folder would mean a lower cost to manufacturers and maybe the consumer could benefit. An overall drop in movie or software prices would help spur sales. At least that is what Econ 101 tells me.
Macrovision, using patents to protect their failed business.
Get your Unix fortune now!
1) Writing to your senator and congress-critter.
2) Civil and public protest.
3) Public education and discourse.
4) Voting with your dollars and boycotting companies and products.
5) Voting with your dollars and supporting alternatives.
Unfortunately, "standing up for our rights" all too often means none of those things, and simply translates to copying/stealing whatever one thinks they're entitled to, and can get away with.
And in doing so, also ignores the "rights" of those who create the work to start with.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
For those of you who are interested in what the patent applications are about but do not feel like sifting through them in search of actual information, I posted an analysis of the "Interdiction..." patent on the "Challenge of P2P" blog.
As an aside, and as discussed in the blog post to which I refer, what they characterize as hash spoofing does not require to break any cryptographic primitives. It merely refers to a form of false advertising.