Macrovision Wants Old DRM to Work Forever

Grv writes "Macrovision's best-known form of copy protection inserts noise into analog video signals to make it difficult to get a good copy of the DVD or VHS recording. A company named Sima has products that eliminate this noise when digitizing such video, as any good digitizer would do. Macrovision argues that this is a violation of the DMCA, and a court sided with them in June. Now the injunction is being reviewed, and several organizations are siding with Sima and Fair Use, including the American Library Association, the Consumer Electronics Association, the Home Recording Rights Coalition, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. If it isn't overturned, this decision could make it illegal to develop products for making copies of commercial analog recordings." This story selected and edited by LinuxWorld editor for the day Saied Pinto.

Comments

Digital, eh?

[The Dalex]

If these are analog signals, does the DMCA apply here? Is cleaning noise out of a signal considered "hacking" now?

Re:Digital, eh?

[vancondo]

Everything is hacking now.. It's much easier to make everything against the law than to fiddle with technicalities. Altering, modifying or improving old technology is a threat to the economy. You should be out buying new stuff not using or enjoying the stuff you've already bought. Anything else is communist intellectual elitism!

Re:Digital, eh?

[DittoBox]

Yes. "Digital" and "Millennium" were just buzzwords at the time. Using the two together was simply a crafty ruse to make copyright law stricter in light of new digital technologies. They never use the word "digital" as in binary systems but instead the word "technology".

This Macrovision noise crap is "technology" too, which means it's quite possibly protected. Or at least they say it is. That's the entire problem with the DMCA right there. It's too vague, which means this kind of the opportunistic crap will happen more and more as time goes on and innovation occurs. This is yet another example of how innovation dies at the hands of the DMCA. Again government has failed us in their understanding (or lack thereof) of technical concepts by creating legislation that is incredibly vague. I think they're smoking DOPA.

Thanks for nothing Congress. Vaguely written, hastily thrown together, anti-everyone-but-the-guys-who-paid-you-off legislation is bad m'kay?

Re:Digital, eh?

[DragonWriter]

There was no failure to understand here. The bill wasn't hastily thrown together in ignorance. The industry lobbyists who wrote the law spent a lot of time working on the details, and knew exactly what they were doing. Congress failure was in not caring much beyond what the lobbyists could do for them, not in not understanding the subject matter. (I'm not saying they actually understood, just that for their understanding to have any relevance they'd have to first care about the substance.)

One Fine Day In The Not So Distant Future

[ackthpt]

"Wanna watch Erik The Viking?"

"Can't. It would be a violation of the law."

"What Law?"

"The one that prevents us from taking the old video tape I bought of it, which I can no longer watch on newer video devices due to built in DRM and I am prevented from recording onto a computer and removing the old DRM and writing to digital storage which the new digital video devices read."

"Man, obeying the law sucks!"

"No, creating laws which paint people into a corner and then hand them the brush suck."

Ultimately, the way DRM and DMCA is going, you will not have owned DVDs, CDs, LPs, 45s, etc. You will merely have rented them until the march of technology locks you out of enjoying the content any further.

Re:One Fine Day In The Not So Distant Future

[mvdw]

As far as I can see, the **AA needs to make the decision of what they are selling.

If they're selling me a licence to the song(s)/movie, then it should be reasonable for me to buy a replacement for my existing media at less than the cost of someone without an existing licence. For example, should my CD/DVD wear out (and, believe me, they do), I should be able to take the worn-out medium somewhere, and get a new one for approximately cost price. I can't do this at the moment; the business model simply doesn't allow it.

However, if the **AA is in the business of selling shiny discs, then I should be able to damn well do what I want with my shiny disc. Including, but not limited to, making copies of it (but probably not selling them, due to trademark reasons rather than copyright reasons).

The **AA wants to have its cake and eat it, too. They want to be able to sell shiny discs, and at the same time rent you the content encoded on the media.

Re:One Fine Day In The Not So Distant Future

[TheSpoom]

When your car wears out, you don't complain that you should have had the right to a backup copy, you go out an buy a new car. Why is music (or movies, or even books for that matter) any different?

Because music, movies, books, and data are all information, not physical, tangible objects. As such, the cost of copying that information is zero, or at least negligible.

The cost of producing a car has a solid per-item price: Parts plus labour plus whatever other expenses are involved in production. This price will always exist with every copy of a car's design produced because we can't magick up a car out of thin air.

Information may have an initial cost in its research / discovery / creation. But it doesn't have any per-item cost. Effectively, we can magick up as many copies of information as we want with impunity; nobody will be hurt by our copying of it, short of the original producers losing potential profits.

What sort of profit margins do you think a company should be able to make on a product that costs them nothing to produce?

Now, consider that if the customer already effectively owns the information, but is locked out of accessing it via a practical means like not being able to move it to a new format. You're arguing that they should have to pay the company that originally produced the information for a license to access it on a new format, even though it gives them absolutely no benefit that they wouldn't already have had they not been locked out of it artificially by the original producer?

This is why a lot of people argue over the use of the word theft in place of copyright infringement. One deprives the owner of their own property, the other does not.

PS: If you believe that allowing unlimited copying of information would destroy many businesses, you're probably right, but I argue it would be better for humanity as a whole. I also think the market needs to evolve with the times, and there are plenty of suggested ways to do that out there. I suggest reading The Digital Art Auction for one of those methods: It allows unlimited copying but also recoups production costs and profits for artists, keeping them in business.

Its about who owns what.

[gillbates]

I have nothing against the content producers making financial gain from their efforts. In fact, I work for a company that makes a considerable amount of money licensing code to third parties. I'm well aware of the situation that copyright creates, and I'm all for ownership of intellectual property.

That said, ownership is a two way street. I exchange my ownership of the code I produce for the salary my company pays me. I consider it a fair deal - I work a given number of hours in exchange for a one time payment. Once I've cashed the check (before, actually), I no longer own the code that I write. I have no problem with this arrangement. Whether my company sells one copy or a million makes no difference to me, because I've already been paid for the work I did. If the company can't sell my code, well, that's their loss, not mine. Or, if they are obscenely profitable, that's their gain. After all, they bought my code, and they own it. For them to make obscene profits does not impose any additional work burden on me.

However, the movie industry is actively opposed to intellectual property. When you buy a movie from them, they take your money, yet behave as if both the money and the movie are still theirs. You see, they don't believe in property. When you sell a piece of property, you give up any and all claim to the property. The movie industry's idea of a sale is more like an indefinite lease - you get to have a copy of the content for as long as it suits the studio. They feel that if they are not making enough money, they have the right to charge you time and again for the same material. (i.e. new movie on DVD instead of VHS, the "director's cut" version, etc...)

And you are supposed to like it. You pay for the DVD, but you don't own it:

• You can't make a backup copy and aren't supposed to try.
• You aren't allowed to post clips from the movie for critical review.
• You can't make backgrounds from screenshots of good scenes.
• You have to buy the soundtrack separately rather than recording it from the DVD.

Granted, I know there are ways around all of these, but they are not easy to come by, and require a technical aptitude beyond what the average user will possess. In effect, the studios are "Indian givers" - they aren't satisfied with either your money or the movie - they want them both.

Which, I think is one of the key reasons why I seldom buy movies anymore. It just doesn't seem right to give money to someone whose stated purpose is to explicitly rip off their customers, and goes to great length to defend the practice .

Re:shocked

[cyberworm]

I agree with the spirit of your post, but the one thing that people overlook in their "government+companies vs. the people" argument, is that companies are made up of people. I think the spirit of what companies do to protect their investments, is to help protect their money. Money which they use to pay their employees, who in turn, contribute to society.

I do, however, agree that these kinds of things suck, and feel that if I own a VHS tape or LP, I should be able to transfer them to whatever media I choose.... But by admitting that I have the ability to do so, also is an admission that I have the ability to still play the original media and am not locked out of it. Granted, I own an mp3 player, and think it would be cool to listen to those old unpublished B sides I have stored away on vinyl when I take the dog for a walk, or any media I own, that for whatever reason isn't considered profitable to some guy sitting in a tower. Artistry in any form needs to be preserved, regardless of popularity or profit. Admirers of "unprofitable" or "unpopular" art, in my opinion have a duty and right to preserve and protect art for future generations, when others won't do it.
To me, copy restrictions amount to nothing more than the censorship of art, and a slippery slope of allowing only a select few to choose what parts of our past carry on into the present. Remember this one thing: "History is written by the winners."

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Flawed analogy

[OhBoy!]

Your company isn't paying you for just a single copy of your code - they are paying you to assign them the copyright, so they can make as many copies as they like.
It would certainly be possible for you to pay to media companies to assign the copyright to you, but it would cost a lot more then $15.
The fact that you got modded +5 insightful only illustrates how difficult it is to sort out intelectual property owernship issues. Almost all analogies made with cars or computers or whatever people tend to come up with don't work - this is a different beast and as a society we haven't figured out yet how to deal with the problem of something as essential as culture being a commercial product at the same time. Perhaps our culture isn't all it is drummed up to be?

Re:What about market regulation?

[dangitman]

I don't think the MPAA has weighed in on the net neutrality debate yet. I fail to see your point. You seem to have lumped all the companies that you don't like into one big pile.

Have you completely ignored the astroturfing campaign, including TV ads, that attacked Net Neutrality in specious ways? Do you really believe the MPAA did not have anything to do with that?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

I used this tactic

[Amazing Quantum Man]

When Hollings (D-Disney) was proposing the SSSCA/CBDTPA, I wrote to Pres. Bush and asked him to work against it, and veto it. I spewed a lot of malarkey that I didn't believe, such as "Hollywood liberal elite", "Unnecessary regulation of business", etc...

Putting someone's own prejudices to work for you is sometimes all that you can do.

There's a consumer based solution

[nightsweat]

Use less media. See fewer movies and NONE at the theater. Buy no new music, just buy used CD's.

Golly, you might not be cool, but you won't be a sucker, either. Fuck the media companies that want to ruin our intellectual property system.