Macrovision Wants Old DRM to Work Forever 288
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.
Digital, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
One Fine Day In The Not So Distant Future (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
Not good (Score:2, Insightful)
I thought that the DMCA did that already. These products are knowingly removing DRM from an original tape. Regardless of how you feel, the DMCA specifically outlaws this. According to TFA, the problem is that the means by which the program strips DRM is through converting it to digital and by outlawing the program the judge could outlaw AD conversions.
Re:Not good (Score:4, Insightful)
"How we feel" is the central tenet of a democratic society. If a law is unjust, it is our duty to defy it.
Re:Not good (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not good (Score:2, Insightful)
Disobeying laws is sometimes the most moral, reasonable, and responsible thing to do. Ask Gandhi.
Its about who owns what. (Score:5, Insightful)
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:
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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."
Re:Not good (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you get a law overturned, without first breaking it and going to court? And what is unethical about breaking an unethical law?
Re:Digital, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Digital, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
No one cares about rights - it's Macrovision (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Anyone can overcome macrovision protection,
2. It will be useless to even build it in anywhere.
4. No company will by the protection from macrovision.
5. Loss
Flawed analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
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:One Fine Day In The Not So Distant Future (Score:2, Insightful)
Put another way, how would you feel if it was illegal to maintain your car? I mean, you can buy a new one when it wears out...
Not disagreeing with you, but books are very simil (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not disagreeing with you, but it's not really that different from a book, the one exception being fair use of excerpts.
You pay for the book, but you don't own it:
When a new version comes out (like the English version of "A Clockwork Orange", a paperback, or an ebook) you have to buy it if you want it in the new format or with the extra material. If your book wears out, or you spill coffee on it and it become illegible, you have to buy a new copy.
The biggest difference is a book never becomes unusable due to technological obsolescence.
Re:Digital, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not good (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:What about market regulation? (Score:1, Insightful)
Cable companies?
Despite what the MPAA wants you to believe, there's more to "content providers" than than your local movie theater.
Re:Not good (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm not sure I even have to comment on this one, but..
"Easily changed"? Sure, it's easily changed if you have a few million bucks lying around to buy off some senators and congressmen. Yeah, that's JUST as easy as disobeying it, which is something that doesn't require you to be a blueblood capable of "lobbying" those in power.
Re:What about market regulation? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:One Fine Day In The Not So Distant Future (Score:4, Insightful)
Try selling a copy of MS Windows on ebay. The RIAA is against the reselling of music as well, but they lost that battle.
If I bought a right to use it, I should be able to get another copy of the medium if mine was damaged or destroyed for the cost of the medium+shipping. Try to get that on MS Windows (Tell them it came with your computer and you want an OEM copy, but will settle for an end-user copy).
So, did I buy MS Windows, or just the right to install it?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:One Fine Day In The Not So Distant Future (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I used this tactic (Score:5, Insightful)
Putting someone's own prejudices to work for you is sometimes all that you can do.
Macrovision (Score:2, Insightful)
video production equipment illegal now? (Score:3, Insightful)
You can kill someone with a hammer; are they gonna make those illegal too now?
There's a consumer based solution (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
We need to form together to help change these laws. I believe joining the Pirate Party may be a start to this. Boycotting also works effectively, but only if enough people do it. Raising awareness of these issues is also a very good thing to do as many people simply aren't aware that it happening until it is too late. Even just trying to talk to your representatives may help things as most of th time they aren't even aware of these types of issues or if they don't listen, then vote for someone else next time. If we can get enough people to realize what is really occuring, then change can happen.
Re:Flawed analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
First of all, ownership and intellectual property are the terms used by the MPAA and RIAA. They want it characterized as ownership when it comes to their rights, but not when it comes to the rights of the consumer. Their advertising is deliberately deceptive, "Own it on DVD today". So, they do want you to think of it as ownership - except when it comes to exercising your rights. Then, they say that different rules apply.
It's not my analogy - it is the MPAA's, and it is not just flawed, but deliberately dishonest. I'm merely exposing the dishonesty involved when it comes to considering a movie as property.
But on to practical matters.
Well, I can understand if they had a problem with me uploading my copy to a filesharing network. Doing so would probably prevent a slim margin of sales by people who wouldn't buy the DVD if they could download it. It would probably be unethical on my part to do so because it reduces their ability to be compensated for the work they've done. As you mentioned, the reason why DVD's are $15 is because they are allowed to spread the production cost across the millions of DVD's stamped.
However, this has nothing to do with what I can and can't do with what I've legally purchased. Granted, I bought a copy of the movie; I helped pay the studio's production costs. I shouldn't ever have to pay for a copy of the movie again - I don't get paid twice for the same work, and neither should the studio. If they want to make more money, they should do it the way the rest of the working people do: make another movie. Why should they be rewarded for laziness?
At the risk of abusing physical analogies, it's as if your carpenter came by every month after installing a picture window and charges you a royalty for your enhanced view of your back yard. He's not doing any additional work; why should he get paid again?
What the studios are doing is theft, plain and simple. I do rent movies - with the understanding that I can't keep the copy. This, at least, is honest. But, a lot of Americans are buying movies with the intent of owning them. 20 years from now, when DVD's are obsolete and players hard to find, they will become angry with Hollywood for preventing them from legally preserving their investment in movies. They're going to find that they will have to either re-buy their collections, some of which won't be available, or simply take a loss.
In essence, buying a DVD is just a long term lease. It ends when Hollywood says it does, and despite the fact that you did compensate the actors and the studio, you still don't own what you paid for.
That is the problem. When it comes to movies, you don't really own what you buy.
I could feel sorry for the movie studios about the impact of piracy, were it not for the fact that pirating a DVD is the only way to truly own it. I'd love to build a collection of movies, but there's no way I'm going to buy something that will be unwatchable by the time my kids are old enough to appreciate it.
Re:shocked (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes, companies are made up of relatively small groups of people (when compared with the total population of say the US), and when they screw the majority of the populace they must be reminded that they exist at the pleasure of the society in which they operate. The problem here is that companies are allowed to lobby and contribute to politicians, which is bullshit. The employees of the companies each have their vote in our political system, and that should be the limit of a company's political influence, full stop. But of course, it isn't, and they have disproportionate influence, so cry me a fucking river.
On top of that, the companies that must "pay their people" can't even seem to do that properly (i.e. retirees), which is why it's a damned shame Ken Lay and his family weren't dragged into the street and lynched live on television.
Re:Flawed analogy (Score:4, Insightful)
(I don't know why it's ignoring my italics here--you italicized "bought," just for reference.)
Your statement is correct, but it seems to me that your italics stopped a bit too soon. It should be: "[You] bought a copy of the movie."
You bought the copy, not the movie. If you want to spread peanut butter all over it and eat it for lunch, that's your business. If you want to snap it over your knee, also your business. Plus of course all the more practical uses. You can also sell your copy, or borrow it to a friend.
You can argue about whether or not this is fair, but that is the current reality. You DO really own what you buy, you just think you have bought more than you have.
No, it ends when the market says it does. If DVDs become obsolete and players hard to find, it isn't because Hollywood walked into every electronics store in the world and threw their merchandise on the ground. It's because a new format has become more popular and stores aren't interested in stocking something that hardly anybody buys. They shouldn't be. (Though that said, I also find it hard to believe that you would not be able to find a DVD player anywhere, but we'll ignore this for now.)
With that said, Hollywood has absolutely no say on how long I can legally use my purchased DVD. The fact that (in your example) all of my players broke or were thrown away as obsolete or what have you, and I can no longer play that DVD, is likewise not their fault.
Again, argue as much as you want over whether or not this is how it should be, but at least for now it's how it is. Understanding what it is you bought is critical to any understanding of the issues involved.
Re:One Fine Day In The Not So Distant Future (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [digitalproductions.co.uk] for one of those methods: It allows unlimited copying but also recoups production costs and profits for artists, keeping them in business.
Re:One Fine Day In The Not So Distant Future (Score:3, Insightful)
Or, simply, "See that disc? Buying it gives you the right to play that disc - it doesn't give you any rights to the identical one next to it".
Of course, the law is more complicated and less exact than that - which is why they're both lobbying to change it, and advertising to change public perception.
And look around for the precursors to the next level - a licence to play a specific instance of a specific recording of a specific sound or video event from a specific piece of media on a specific device . Player-locked videogames &/or HD/Blu-Ray discs anyone?
Open letter (Score:3, Insightful)
While you were busy making life hard for legitimate customers, I downloaded four movies that had been Macrovision-scrubbed for my convenience.
Sincerely,
Ha Ha Ha!
PS: Eat a dick.
Re:Not disagreeing with you, but books are very si (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, you own the copy of the book.
The only restrictions on it is is use in various forms involving making it available for the public. Of course, you can't make NEW copies in several cases either. Ownership has nothing to do with copyright though. It applies equally regardless of if you would own the book or not. That is irellevant.
Illegal? (Score:3, Insightful)
Macrovision is not copy protection (Score:1, Insightful)
Selling videos with Macrovision is like selling books that are so poorly printed that a page can't be photocopied and many users won't be able to read all the text in the original. One key difference is with a book, you could see how badly printed it is and avoid buying it. In contrast, with Macrovision, you don't know until you try to play it - at which point many people mistakenly blamed their equipment.
All kinds of pro video equipment can repair some of the damage done by Macrovision. This is not equipment designed for removing Macrovision, It's designed for ensuring a high quality signal is maintained throughout the production process. This equipment is comparable to the equipment a print house might have to ensure books are printed with some measure of quality.
Simply putting your trademark on a common type of analog degradation does not get you a form of copy protection, it simply ensures products are (in)consistently defective.
Re:shocked (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it the "owners" or the "workers" part of the corporation that get the benefits?
Is it the "owners" or the "workers" part of the population that pay the price?
Take a look at wealth distribution and you get the answer: http://www.faireconomy.org/research/wealth_charts
Bottom 50% ownling less that 3% of the wealth.
Top 1% owning more than 30% of the wealth.
We are seeing an absurd concentration of wealth and power into the hands of a few at the cost of the many, and it is getting worse all the time. http://www.faireconomy.org/research/income_charts
Yes, corporations are manned by average people. However, a very small group of privileged people are reaping all the benefits. And the disparity has been snowballing the last decades.
http://www.cbpp.org/9-23-03tax.htm [cbpp.org]
So don't tell me it's OK for corporations to suck the marrow out of the rest of society because they are made up of people. It's a case of the few getting absurdly rich at the cost off the many, there's no way to get around that fact.
Re:One Fine Day In The Not So Distant Future (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet.