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."

Comments

P2P Interdiction Patents?

[hostyle]

Say what?

interdiction

noun

1. A refusal to allow: ban, disallowance, forbiddance, inhibition, prohibition, proscription, taboo. See allow/prevent.
2. A coercive measure intended to ensure compliance or conformity: interdict, penalty, sanction. See reward/punish/deserve.

I still don't get it. They have applied for patents to ban filesharing?

Re:P2P Interdiction Patents?

[garcia]

2. A coercive measure intended to ensure compliance or conformity: interdict, penalty, sanction. See reward/punish/deserve.

I don't see what you are confused about. They want to make sure that people aren't trading stuff owned by others so they are "ensuring compliance/conformity".

Re:P2P Interdiction Patents?

[nutrock69]

I call previous art. Kazaa has been useless for several years because half the files out there are hash spoofed - you can't download anything on Kazaa anymore without part of the file being corrupt because of this. When was this patent filed?

Also - most sharing networks have it in their EULA saying that this type of activity will make it ok to ban the server. I say a bunch of them should sue Macrovision under their EULAs and potential DMCA infringement for unlawfully reverse engineering their "encryption" (hash method).

Good.

[CarpetShark]

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.

Re:Isn't there some law against...

[ZephyrXero]

I have no problem with copyrights being protected as long as they're not being abused ;)

Re:Isn't there some law against...

[SilverspurG]

I prefer that the law protect reality. For example, the reality that a customer owns something which they've paid money for and the reality that they can share it with whoever they like.

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.

Yet the USPTO grants them a legal patent on it. Why oh why didn't the Black Panthers think of this one?

Re:Macrovision: An Old Grey Cat That Can't Catch M

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

They're not harming the network

[wiredog]

any more than anti-spamming techniques such as server side filtering are harming the network.

Fear

[Mother Sha Boo Boo]

Well, after that: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/28/12 31257&from=rss , I only use BT for free content.

Bingo.

[patio11]

Its actually been illegal for quite a bit longer than that -- assuming you want criminal prosecution (there are obviously civil torts, but you can't demonstrate you suffered damage if you were only prevented from commiting a crime yourself so that could be a wash), the Computer Abuse and Fraud Act of 1984 (ahh, what a year) provides for federal felony prosecution for anyone who "transmits any code or signal" which could cause "undesired operation" or "degraded [operation]" by any "protected computer" if you do it "without authorization". The law protects all computers involved in interstate commerce. But wait, thats hella-broad, isn't it? Yep, the courts have even recognized it -- as early as 2000, when the Western Washington court noted "[the law was] intended to control interstate computer crime, and since the advent of the Internet, almost all computer use has become interstate in nature." The commerce restriction is really a nullity, too -- its almost laughably easy to find a test under which your computer is engaged in commerce ("I pay for Internet access", "I transmit information from my computer which has material value", etc, etc -- even the fact you're breaking the copyright laws is probably enough to trigger the protection).

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.

this looks fishy

[Brass Cannon]

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.

Re:What about technology

[Cramer]

they now serve [as] nothing more than glorified VCRs Actually, on this point, they don't rank even that high... my VCR has "commercial advance"(TM). So, where were the lawsuits against RCA? They were making these things 10+ years ago. Suing DVR makers for something they let others do is bullshit.

(As far as I know, the patent for the commercial advance technology in my RCA VCR expired long ago.)

Re:Stop Macrovisions funding

[Anonymous Coward]

Macrovision is behind many foul evils of our time... besides the video corruption schemes bearing their namesake. They're also behind SafeDisc, a data CD corruption technique almost universally used by game publishers. They've recently introduced a DVD corruption scheme as well.

Installshield has always been slow, ugly, buggy, bloatware, but I didn't know until now that Macrovision is behind that. I also didn't know that Macrovision has added product activation to InstallShield 11.