Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: ROTFL @ MacroVision (Read 8359 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ROTFL @ MacroVision

Just out of curiosity I read MacroVision's FAQ on CD protection (since they acquired MidBar, the makers of Cactus Data Shield). The next topic in the FAQ is hilarious and shows what kind of artificial reasoning is used to answer a difficult question:

Quote
Q:The protection of intellectual property is justified. But most of the copyright laws also allow fair use. If your system prevents users from making MP3-files and copying them to their mobile device, doesn't your system undermine the fair use principle?

A:No, quite the contrary. In this age of digital media, fair use is being redefined by the courts and the legislatures. Unrestricted digital copying translates into a disaster scenario for the content owners and artists. CDS and SafeAuthenticate actually support enhanced CD features that provide consumers with more, not less. CDS supports a “second session” encrypted compressed music file that allows record labels to offer ‘pre-ripped’ music files available on the CD if they wish. National legislation is not consistent around the world. Macrovision is not a music label or record publisher and, therefore, cannot determine where and how technology is used.


So you all agree with me that you get "more" from those annoying WMA @48kbps files on a CD then the original WAVes? It makes me want to spend 25 instead of 18€ on a CD! How about you?
No inspiration

ROTFL @ MacroVision

Reply #1 –
Yes, indeed... I would even spend 30 on that great offer!

ROTFL @ MacroVision

Reply #2 –
Some of that FAQ makes good reading.  Macrovision recommends NOT putting the CD logo
on protected CD's  do to issues with the "logo licensing entity" (that would be Philips).

Sing along now... "Look for..  the CD Label... On all the disks you buy"

ROTFL @ MacroVision

Reply #3 –
yes because all copy protected cd's aren't compliant with the original standard from Philips and Sony. It's funny though, Sony now makes MP3 cd players that can't swallow their own discs .
No inspiration
 

ROTFL @ MacroVision

Reply #4 –
Quote
Q:The protection of intellectual property is justified. But most of the copyright laws also allow fair use. If your system prevents users from making MP3-files and copying them to their mobile device, doesn't your system undermine the fair use principle?


Their answer is unbelievable!

However, I've heard the legal answer on this question: You don't have fair use "rights" - that's what they'v often been called, but that's not what they are "in law". Instead, they're an exemtion from prossecution. Copying a copyrighted work is illegal. Plain and simple. "Fair use" says that this is waived if you make a copy of something that you have purchased for your own personal use. But it doesn't say that you have a right to do this. Legally, if the technology allows you to, and you want to, then it's fine. But legally, the technology doesn't have to allow you to make a copy.

So, Human Rights Laws (we have those in europe) do basically mean that the government should ensure that everyone is provided with clean drinking water*. The "fair use" laws do not mean that the government must provide everyone with a tape recorder or CD burner!

This came from a "discussion" I heard between a lawyer and a consumer. But the lawyer did work for the record industry.

Cheers,
David.

* - this (usually) works in practice. For example, even though people are charged for water through the pipes to their house, this water supply cannot be cut off, even if they don't pay. That's in the UK, anyway.

ROTFL @ MacroVision

Reply #5 –
IMHO, any product carrying the "Macrovision" system: VHS tapes..., TV and Capture Cards...Software... CDs...etc is crappy.
I dont like fake, low quality, capped products.
In most cases, the presence of it is hided by the manufactures(ex: ATI cards) and this is not fair.
BTW, that FAQ makes me laugh.... 

LIF
"Jazz washes away the dust of everyday life" (Art Blakey)

ROTFL @ MacroVision

Reply #6 –
Quote
IMHO, any product carrying the "Macrovision" system: VHS tapes..., TV and Capture Cards...Software... CDs...etc is crappy.

So.... DVD's are out?  THe vast  majority of them have macrovision.  That's why most VCR's won't tape them.

ROTFL @ MacroVision

Reply #7 –
Quote
The "fair use" laws do not mean that the government must provide everyone with a tape recorder or CD burner!

Well no but the principle should allow you to use the product bought the way you like. I can understand you shouldn't copy for handing out to your friends since this is to protect the artist's work, however you should be able to copy for personal use or play your disk on whatever medium you want including a DVD player or even an MP3 player. Record companies don't have the right to tell you how to use the product after you bought it... that's invasion of privacy. If they want to control that they have to 'lease' thier product to me, not sell it, because selling implies transfer of ownership rights.
No inspiration

ROTFL @ MacroVision

Reply #8 –
>>>'If they want to control that they have to 'lease' thier product to me, not sell it, because selling implies transfer of ownership rights.'<<<

record companies will probably tell you that you don't own the rights when you buy the CD. you buy a "license" to use it, but the actual ownership rights remain with the label
Be healthy, be kind, grow rich and prosper

ROTFL @ MacroVision

Reply #9 –
Quote
Quote
IMHO, any product carrying the "Macrovision" system: VHS tapes..., TV and Capture Cards...Software... CDs...etc is crappy.

So.... DVD's are out?  THe vast  majority of them have macrovision.  That's why most VCR's won't tape them.

Does Macrovision stay in the stream even after the MPEG2 streams have been ripped, say, to HD?

ROTFL @ MacroVision

Reply #10 –
Quote
Does Macrovision stay in the stream even after the MPEG2 streams have been ripped, say, to HD?


Yep. AFAIK, it's independent of CSS and actually is done by perverting the color/brightness of the content before it's released to the public at large. So there would actually be 2 levels of protection on DVDs.
The sky is blue.

ROTFL @ MacroVision

Reply #11 –
>>DonP wrote:
>>So.... DVD's are out?  THe vast  majority of them have macrovision.  That's why most VCR's won't tape them.

Of course they arent out. Just forgot to mention...
BTW, DVDs carries not only Macrovision, but another ways to prevent, limit or difficult backups.(encryption, region blocking, etc etc etc etc....).
The DVD format itself is great, but I cannot say the same about the unwanted "extras features" they carry...
LIF
"Jazz washes away the dust of everyday life" (Art Blakey)

ROTFL @ MacroVision

Reply #12 –
Quote
Does Macrovision stay in the stream even after the MPEG2 streams have been ripped, say, to HD?

Usually it doesn't - the few relevant bits in the stream are disabled by the ripper. If you want, though, you can choose to keep it 

Quote
Yep. AFAIK, it's independent of CSS and actually is done by perverting the color/brightness of the content before it's released to the public at large. So there would actually be 2 levels of protection on DVDs.

It's independant of CSS, yes, but it's an analog process (sync signal weakening, etc) that will occur in the TV encoder (if the dvd software asks for it).

Usually, the dvd player will read the relevant bits in the stream (=file), to determine if macrovision will be enabled or not.

I think this is a really lame "protection". It does nothing but lowers the quality.

Edit:  oops !  maybe I understood you wrong.. I thought you were saying that macrovision corrupts the digital color and brightness values (in digital stream) - which is not the case 

ROTFL @ MacroVision

Reply #13 –
Quote
Quote
The "fair use" laws do not mean that the government must provide everyone with a tape recorder or CD burner!

Well no but the principle should allow you to use the product bought the way you like. I can understand you shouldn't copy for handing out to your friends since this is to protect the artist's work, however you should be able to copy for personal use or play your disk on whatever medium you want including a DVD player or even an MP3 player. Record companies don't have the right to tell you how to use the product after you bought it... that's invasion of privacy. If they want to control that they have to 'lease' thier product to me, not sell it, because selling implies transfer of ownership rights.

Yeah - well I'll just go and file a law suit against Thomas Edison, because this wax cylinder he sold my Grandma won't play in my CD player - and I have a right to play it in anything I choose, so it's his problem!

Seriously - you know what they're selling you. If you don't want it, don't buy it. Really - this is the most powerful weapon us consumers have.

Cheers,
David.

ROTFL @ MacroVision

Reply #14 –
Quote
Yeah - well I'll just go and file a law suit against Thomas Edison, because this wax cylinder he sold my Grandma won't play in my CD player - and I have a right to play it in anything I choose, so it's his problem!

Seriously - you know what they're selling you. If you don't want it, don't buy it. Really - this is the most powerful weapon us consumers have.

Cheers,
David.

You're forgetting that audio cd's are advertised to play in cd players - and that's their only feature btw !

For this reason, if I buy an audio cd and it turns out to be an unusable read-proof coaster that won't play on my cd drive, I have a right to complain - and bring it back. The reason ?  Simple:  I've been fooled.

If it's advertised (=labeled) as a copy-protected cd, no problem, one won't buy it - but what about the other cd's ? I mean, how do you know which you should avoid and which are just fine ?  That, I think, is the problem.

You can't always know in advance, whether a product will work as advertised, or not at all.. 

ROTFL @ MacroVision

Reply #15 –
Yes NumLOCK - I agree with you totally.

But it's not like we're powerless - as consumers, we have a right to take it back if it doesn't work. Most shops will exchange or refund even if "doesn't work" actually means "doesn't copy onto my mp3 device".

What I was saying was that, legally, we don't have a right to copy it. But I think we do have good grounds to return it to the shop (if we want to) if we can't "copy" it.

Cheers,
David.

ROTFL @ MacroVision

Reply #16 –
I also agree with the important point you have raised: nobody guarantees that the music can be copied flawlessly to portable music devices.

However, the problem with CD's is:  if it was made to prevent copying, then it is - by definition - made to prevent reading in "undesired" cd-audio compliant drives (=cd-rom drives). So it's not "copy protection", but "read protection". The cdrom drives are cd-audio compliant, so by definition, it doesn't fully work as advertised.

So, because of the very technical nature of cd audio, in my opinion, "audio cd copy protection" and "false advertisement" are always tied (loosely or highly - depending on whom you ask).

There's also the problem of backups: either the recording labels are selling a physical audio cd, in which case one can do anything with it, or they sell a license to listen to music, in which case they should provide a $0.50 replacement service for scratched cd's !  If one buys a license, I don't see any reason to buy it every time the fragile media is scratched...

About the shops:  I have never bought a copy-protected cd so far, but from what I read in the shops (Switzerland), it seems their policy is: they can only take the cd's back if the plastic cellophane is intact (for copyright reasons of course). Don't know what they would say 

ROTFL @ MacroVision

Reply #17 –
In the biggest UK record shops, you can take a CD back, without a receipt, unsealed (but obviously undamaged) and exchange it for another CD or vouchers to the appropriate value. This is to allow people to exchange unwanted gifts.

They take your name and address - presumably to check that you're not doing this on a weekly basis!


Under UK consumer law, anything that is sold and doesn't work has to be repaired, replaced, or refunded (your choice). Whether a copy protected CD counts as "not working" (or strictly, not of "mechantable quality" and/or "not fit for it's purpose") has not been tested in law yet (I assume - I'm sure it would have been reported!), but (as the example at the top of my post shows) the big record stores like to keep consumers on-side, so I doubt they'd quibble.

D.

ROTFL @ MacroVision

Reply #18 –
I'm a bit astonished - didn't know they took care of the consumer so much in UK 

In the long run, I think this trend (copy protect) will hurt the stores themselves though..

ROTFL @ MacroVision

Reply #19 –
Yeah I've seen this kind of propaganda before, and quite frankly the Cactus cd protection system is pissing me off.  I buy lots of CDs and expect to be able to rip them and use my PC as a frontend for my stereo.  I first encountered it a month ago and I haven't really been able to crack it yet (at least not for every track).  If it ends up that I'm not able to rip ANY of the new CDs I buy, I might as well just keep group released mp3s.

And what an insult expecting people to listen to 48kbps wma files,  I can't even stomach 192kbps wma files.

ROTFL @ MacroVision

Reply #20 –
Quote
Yeah - well I'll just go and file a law suit against Thomas Edison, because this wax cylinder he sold my Grandma won't play in my CD player - and I have a right to play it in anything I choose, so it's his problem!

THe key difference of course is that wax cylinders don't have a "cd" logo, aren't advertized as
CD's, and the help at the store doesn't call them CD's.  Any of those would be an inducement
for you to believe you were buying a CD.

Macrovision is at least acknowledging that  their copy-protected audio product on a CD-like
plastic disk shouldn't be labeled as a CD.

Side points on Edison wax cylinders: 1) The same company, GE, invented the plastic used in CD's and
probably still makes most of it.

2) In the US, those wax cylinders are probably the ONLY sound recordings old enough to be out of copyright, so feel free to transcribe them to digital and share away!

ROTFL @ MacroVision

Reply #21 –
Quote
2) In the US, those wax cylinders are probably the ONLY sound recordings old enough to be out of copyright, so feel free to transcribe them to digital and share away!

I've never got to the bottom of US copyright law - is there any useful informaton on the web? Most of the stuff I found just says "any recording you could want to copy is almost certainly in copyright in the USA, so forget it!".

In the UK, it's not a problem - the law is plain and simple. If it was released before 1953, the recording is out of copyright. And any USA recordings released in the UK fall under the UK law for me, so again, it's no problem.

Thus, an American recording of an American orchestra playing a (long) dead composer's work, made before 1953 can be remastered and sold by me - and I don't have to pay any rights. I can only sell the recordings in the UK (and europe?) - I can't sell them in the USA - though any US citizen is free to import them from the UK to the US themselves.


Cheers,
David.

ROTFL @ MacroVision

Reply #22 –
The copyright law in USA is quite simple:
when something important (that is still generating money) has a copyright that is about to expire, then change the copyright law to extend the copyright period.
Simple, isn't it?

ROTFL @ MacroVision

Reply #23 –
Quote
I've never got to the bottom of US copyright law - is there any useful informaton on the web? Most of the stuff I found just says "any recording you could want to copy is almost certainly in copyright in the USA, so forget it!".

Try this one:

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15t.html

It describes the copyright extensions.  It goes into excruciating detail
about what is covered and/or extended depending on it's renewal status
(and many cases of automatic renewal).

There have been at least 10 extensions to the protection time of copyright
in the last 50 years.  THe key factor (not expained this way on the government site)
is that every time the FIRST mickey mouse cartoon (1933?) is in danger of expiring,
Disney dumps enough money into campaign contributions to convince congress
that artists/authors won't have financial incentive to work unless they are assured
that royalties will still be coming in to pay for their grandchildren's funerals.

Bottom line points:
1) works prior to 1923 have expired.  They apparently didn't get a boost from
  this last extension as they were public be the time the extension went into effect.
2) Mickey Mouse (and current works) are protected for 95 years from first publication,
    providing the owner keeps up to date on renewal.
3) count on another lobbying effort by Disney et al as we approach 2017

ANother fly in the ointment:  I don't know where this is formally documented, but
works that have been "remastered," colorized, or otherwise enhanced may have copyright on the
enhancements.  Collections of public or licensed works can have copyright on the collection, just
as a collection of "public domain words" can make a copyright book, or a performance of
public domain music can be copyright.

edit: the last copyright extension was appealed to the US Supreme Court.  The decision was
that just because a law is stupid doesn't make it unconstitutional. They didn't use the word "stupid",
but it was close.

ROTFL @ MacroVision

Reply #24 –
Laws being extended(or even changed) in benefit of BigCorps and associates...!
As Gabriel said: only money manners.

On the Real World, musicians pay the cost of production, advertising etc...while the "masters" still owned by the recording companies...
Costumers feel lack of titles, high prices and now the biggest of all abuses: non-playble CDS.
On FantasyLand, The RIAA trying to "export" the DMCA, in a hope to make easier and bigger profits all over the globe.

They see us as enemies, not buyers. But as someone said: (We)The costumers ALWAYS have the final decision...(and this make me very very happy:)

LIF
"Jazz washes away the dust of everyday life" (Art Blakey)