Legal issues

[mentat89]

http://www.macrovision.com/webdocuments/PDF/acp_faq_videocopyprotection.pdf

http://askville.amazon.com/bypass-codes-vhs-tapes-copy-dvd/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=5919151

United States fair use law, as interpreted in the decision over Betamax (Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios), dictates that consumers are fully within their legal rights to copy videos they own. However, the legality has changed somewhat with the controversial Digital Millennium Copyright Act. After April 26, 2002, no VCR may be manufactured or imported without Automatic Gain Control circuitry (which renders VCRs vulnerable to Macrovision). This is contained in title 17, section 1201(k) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. However, there are a number of mostly older VCR models on the market that are not affected by Macrovision.

On October 26, 2001, the sale, purchase, or manufacture of any device that has no commercial purpose other than disabling Macrovision copy prevention was made illegal under section 1201(a) of the same controversial act.

In June 2005, Macrovision sent a cease and desist letter to "Lightning UK!", the maker of DVD Decrypter, a program that allows users to backup their DVDs by bypassing CSS and Macrovision. They later acquired the rights to this software and withdrew it from circulation on the internet.

In June of 2005, Macrovision sued Sima Products under section 1201 of the DMCA, claiming that Sima's video processors provided a way to circumvent Macrovision's analog content protection (ACP). As of June 2006, Macrovision received an injunction barring the sale of this device, while the court proceedings continue.




How do you legally by pass copyright laws and microvision?

My research on this has lead me to believe that any device that bypass's or eliminates copy protection in any form is illegal.

Can you post information to clearify?

I think it's a great idea. I would love to move all of my daughters VHS and DVD's over to my home server. I have always been leary due to copyright laws.......

Thanks
Mentat89

[greyback]

First off, I'm not a lawyer, nor a Neuros employee, nor a US citizen, but I do fall under similar laws.

I believe the OSD takes advantage of the so-called "analog hole". When digital media is being played on an analogue TV screen, the protected digital signal must be converted to an unprotected analogue one. This analogue signal may be intercepted, and as long as it is for personal use and you own the original, it may be stored for future viewing, i.e. "fair use".

Circumventing the digital protections directly is not allowed, as you are breaking the encryption. Also, the Neuros OSD is not a VCR, which the DMCA explicitly applies the Macrovision provisions to.

Section 1201 prohibits the act of circumventing unauthorized access to a work and proscribes circumvention of copy protection schemes. Circumventing copying protection schemes, unlike circumventing access, is not tightly prohibited because fair use (at least theoretically) applies to works online, and thus in some instances the public will be justified in circumventing copy protection schemes in order to make fair use copies of a work.
...
Section 1201(k) requires, in a clear case of special interest legislation, that ... all analog videocassette records be designed to conform with Macrovision to prevent copying of videos and analog signals.

This is the "analog hole" that is being closed with the HDCP specification for HD content. Personally, I dislike being treated as a criminal, when products I purchase prevent me doing what I please (with the remits of fair use). I'm delighted to see the increasing back-lash against DRM on music sales, and hope with the prevalence of personal video players that this will happen to video too.
-G

[Brill]

In Canada it's not *yet* against any copyright law to record content you own or even make copies for your own use.
The folks that screwed the American and Australian public are working hard to try and get something like that in here though (they have failed twice I think).

In fact, having used MCE for about 5 years now, I get kinda pissed when American DMCA locks on certain channels mess up my viewing pleasure, particularly since I have every right to record them (if I was even going to bother recording them at all).

I'm looking forward to an open device that knows the difference between what you are and are not allowed to do in your locale.

- Brill

How do you legally by pass copyright laws and microvision?

My research on this has lead me to believe that any device that bypass's or eliminates copy protection in any form is illegal.

Can you post information to clearify?

[heyrick]

I believe the OSD takes advantage of the so-called "analog hole". When digital media is being played on an analogue TV screen, the protected digital signal must be converted to an unprotected analogue one. This analogue signal may be intercepted, and as long as it is for personal use and you own the original, it may be stored for future viewing, i.e. "fair use".

I know this reply is somewhat 'late', but I thought it useful to add that Macrovision is quite happy in the analogue domain. If you play with your TV's vertical hold, you will see it on numerous DVDs as flashing black/white up the top of the screen.

FWIW, I don't give a crap about the legalities (I'm not a US citizen, so the DMCA can get stuffed), I rip most of the DVDs that I have had (either bought, borrowed, or loaned) to XviD. Why? Easy. In the last decade a change was made to analogue Macrovision. I don't know what, nor do I care for the specifics. The result, however, is my old television exhibits rolling pictures and 'tearing' depending on what the macrovision signal is up to. I am quite prepared to use the media that I am entitled to use in the manner in which it is supposed to be used. However their paranoid approach to copy protection makes this extremely difficult (for some reason, the worst one I've seen recently was "The Day After Tomorrow").
Thus, I will rip it and watch it as digital video on my laptop. Or maybe via the Neuros.

Oh, and yes. I may decide to 'keep' a copy of some of the stuff rented/borrowed. It takes my desktop computer 6-7 hours per rip. Nothing here is cutting edge. I'm not happy tying up a machine and that much electricity just to watch a damn movie. It is SUCH a hassle. You do know I could probably download the same in half the time? <sigh>

So all their efforts to make me not be a criminal and follow the patronising "you wouldn't steal..." introductions [um, copyright infringements are NOT the same as theft!? please!], they have made me resort to something dubious in order to even get as far as watching the film. Sale of Goods Act, anyone? Whatever, there's a sort of beautiful irony in that.

Section 1201(k) requires, in a clear case of special interest legislation, that ... all analog videocassette records be designed to conform with Macrovision to prevent copying of videos and analog signals.

Heh, the word "videocassette" which is not really necessary in that sentence opens the doors for all sorts of digital PVRs. Anything that can record a video signal and NOT onto video tape. Clever. About as clever as the DMCA...

Personally, I dislike being treated as a criminal, when products I purchase prevent me doing what I please (with the remits of fair use).

I, personally, believe that "illegal" downloading is only going to become more and more widespread. Already we are seeing new HD media that won't work on older HD equipment, plus plans for HD equipment that connects to the internet to check for licences (and licence revocation which can remotely nobble the equipment itself). The more and more this sort of thing is applied to video media, and the higher and higher the prices rise, the greater the problem of downloads will become.
I believe that the majority of people are basically honest. If an MPEG4 of a film was downloadable, without DRM restriction, for around €2 - €4, people would download and watch - legally. It's half the price of a cinema ticket and all that needs to happen is it is held on a server. Will it turn up on fileshare? Of course it will, some people are like that. However, to download a movie for a reasonable fee and watch it at leisure, that is a lot more attractive than other methods of downloading. But it will not happen as it is also a lot more attractive than €16 for a DVD, and the studios would much rather punt a DVD for €16 or a Bluray for somewhat more, than to think of just offering the movie for a small fee. Can I justify a DVD? Rarely. It is cheaper to go to the cinema. The pricing is all messed up.
But, hey, we're speaking about an industry that believes 1000 downloads equals 1000 lost sales... They seem happy to try to mess up existing legal frameworks in order to get their own way (namely copyright infringement = criminal offence) with the oft-quoted three-strikes idea for internet disconnection. This, to support an ailing industry that has been peddling recycled cack for years and has resolutely done pretty much everything possible to resist the digital revolution. Now they can't deny it, so they want to quash it. And extend the length of copyright to woefully unreasonable lengths since they realised all their best work is from many decades ago and due to pass into the public domain. Will there be tears before bedtime, or is the consumer population that sheeplike? Well, loads went out and bought the iPhone 4, and are defending it to death in the face of so many reports about antenna problems. Doesn't fill me with a lot of confidence... But then, I watch TV these days and find there are more and more channels with less and less worthy of my time. I'm writing this on a Saturday evening and once upon a time there would be something interesting. Now I have about forty real channels (plus several hundred telesales/god/naked-babe-on-phone channels that can be discounted immediately) and nothing worthy of my attention. What does this say about mass media? What does this say about us as a population?

[greyback]

What does this say about mass media? What does this say about us as a population?

I don't think it is primiarily the populace's fault. I think it's symptomatic of the large monopolistic tendencies of these corporations which produce creative content like music, tv shows, film and literature - I like to call them Big-Content.

Their purpose is ultimately to create profit, and creation of quality content is not the best way to do that. Look at the trends in the entertainment industries now:

TV - peddling crappy-yet-addictive reality TV, supposed "real people" call-in shows, and expensive but guaranteed seller (esp. to DVD) dramas are mainly is done now IMO.
Film - Hollywood rehashing old successful plots and making mega-blockbusters. Only originality I see is in animated movies, and the CGI means comic books can now shot. Otherwise very be few original stories.
Books - immensely difficult to get published unless you win a literary award of some kind, or are famous & write a pointless autobiography.
Music - the number of highly-manufactured music groups today is scary. But independent labels are helping equalise the balance a bit.

Sure I'm being harsh, but I think many would agree my premise is not inaccurate. But people have a desire to be entertained, we're almost trained to be so these days, and you'll eagerly ingest that which is convenient. It's only when you take a step back and analyse the quality of the content you're "enjoying", do you start to question how good it actually is, and whether it's worth paying for.

I don't think many people are prepared to do this, for a couple of reasons:
1. Entertainment is supposed to relax you. If you start worrying that your entertainment is crap, then you can't relax any more. Seeking out new media is a bit of work - well worth it IMO, but others may disagree
2. Entertainment is a social thing. If people consume something, and you don't, you feel a little left out. You do yourself no favours declaring that certain TV show is crap either, people think you're snooty, and you're further out again!
3. I think many people zone-out when watching TV/movies, and fail to be critical of what they see. What really annoys me are TV shows with continuous background music (new release of "V" case in point) - is the dialogue really not considered enough to keep me amused?!

So people accept the lower quality content. Big-Content still make money, so they continue to lower quality, making more mass-produced crap, which people accept ... and so on.

I think the combination of society's laziness and Big-Content's profit-obsession has made things the way they are today. It's how DRM has become such a contentious issue, but only to a small segment of the populace - those who truly understand the value of media. They are fighting hard for what is right, but there's not enough voices shouting to shake Big-Content.

Only hope I've got is for governments to enforce some correct behaviour upon Big-Content. Governments can't force them to improve their content quality, but they can influence the draconian so-called copyright protections, and maybe allow a little more interesting content to appear from independent sources (which I why I think internet is great - I think this is slowly appearing in the music industry) with new distribution systems. Slowly people will see how bad things have become, and then there'll be a revolution!
.....
or not. Most likely not, things will just continue on as now. But some of us can hope
-G

[heyrick]

So, I take it you live in a country that values freedom. Canada, perhaps? You can't like in the UK as the Mandleson Bill (a man who does not appear to understand the concept of integrity) is being passed around as a way of criminalising so-called "illegal" downloads. In France, HADOPI is/isn't a law, which rather takes the expletive as we already have a loading applied to blank media (CD-Rs, DVD-Rs, SD cards...) to cover the automatic assumption that copyrighted material will be placed upon such media. So when HADOPI is active, we'll be paying a levy against a criminal act. That in itself should be a criminal act, but Big Media has money and Government Politicians lost the concept of serving the people decades ago, now they mostly serve themselves (in the UK, under NuLab, shamelessly so - just ask the one who sucked the "permitted allowance" to have his MOAT cleaned, while they all voted to not do anything useful to the basic state pension ... I'm so glad those thieving expletives are out, the new lot may not be much better but at least it's a different bunch of crooks).
This, in conjuction with super-secret pan-global anti-counterfeit talks (ACTA) which has somehow been hijacked in the cause of copyright infringement. It may make sense if some workshop in China is bashing off a million clones of Avatar to ship to the west, as that is as counterfeit as printing money on an inkjet... but domestic home users downloading movies off the Internet? Which part of that falls into counterfeit? That's just your basic home-taping-kills-music style copyright infringement. Soon, if Big Media gets their way, to be a criminal offence like, say, murder or sex with kiddies.

You're bang on target with TV. I happen to enjoy watching a lot of low budget nonsense horror flicks (there's even a satellite channel devoted to that sort of thing, wheeeee! (you can guess where my OSD sees a lot of use!)), but what on earth is this obsession with reality shows, be it people singing or people acting badly or people skating or people stuck in a giant diaper and tied to a tree in the middle of a jungle while lethal scorpions are thrown at them. Has television fallen back into the Middle Ages where mindless "entertainment" is more valued than anything remotely educational? I recently watched a documentary on the solar system and origin of the planets and it was horrific. Lots of flashy animations repeated over and over and a narrative that wouldn't be out of place in a primary school. I could have cried.
 
You aren't quite right with entertainment being relaxing. I've just endured the World Cup. To me, it was intensely boring. To others. Well... They probably don't even manage to get that excited when making babies...

I would love to hope with you, but hope doesn't carry a dollar symbol. Big media does. They'll eventually get their way until there is a mass backlash, by which time it might be too late.
To show you how nonsensical things can be, take a look at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/25/dancing_baby_universal_dmca/ (from 2008)

So you and I can hope together. And cringe. A lot.