Macrovision (news item 6/17)

[mpucoder]

This company has some very creative people working for them, unfortunately not in the development section, but in legal (and marketing). How can anyone stretch the law to include altering the result of a patented process as patent infringment? Last I knew patent infringment meant making and/or selling a patented device without a license from the patent holder. So if this is patent infringement, then I guess Macrovision is infringing on the many patented processes which produce the nice video before they corrupt it. And as Doom9 pointed out, it is simply a matter of restoring a signal to meet published and well known specifications.

And the DMCA does not cover analog signals.

Granted Sima is blatant about the purpose of their device. In fact while reading the news, and before reading the press release at Macrovision, the name that popped into my head was "Sima Copy This!". But what about Tektronix, For-A, Microtime, JVC, Sony, DPS, Panasonic, Lenco, Nova Systems, Alta Cygnus, Hotronic, and all the other TBC manufacturers? The principal purpose of a limited window TBC is to restore the timing of a VCR's video to spec (because all VCR signals, due to mechanical reproduction, are a little wobbly), making it possible to duplicate the tape without error. This is not to be confused with an infinite window TBC, also called a frame sync, which is used for feeding an SEG for mixing/switcing/effects.
What about digital video mixers, such as Videonics MX-1 or MX-Pro, or Panasonics MX line? They all include internal infinite window TBCs.
The only difference I see is the advertised and perceived purpose of these devices. They all work to remove Macrovision.

[mpucoder]

I forgot to mention, there are many other companies making devices called "stabilizers" for the same purpose. Besides Sima there is ElectroHome and you can still get Archer (Radio Shack) devices on eBay.

[Malphas]

And the DMCA does not cover analog signals.
Can you give me a reference to where this is stated? I've only briefly skimmed through the DMCA.

[mpucoder]

Then again, maybe it does - I'm no lawyer. But how is one to know if an analog signal is out of spec due to natural problems or Macrovision. There are no bits in analog to clearly label a signal as copy protected.
But the claim of patent infringment seems really far-fetched to me. As does their claim of copyright infringment against Lightning UK!

[neuron2]

It's really easy to see the "signature" of Macrovision when looking at the analog video signal on an oscilloscope. You can see it by setting H/V delay on professional monitors too.

[Doom9]

And the DMCA does not cover analog signals.It does.. but that only applies to analogue devices.. see pages 11-13 (http://www.doom9.org/Soft21/Docs/2281enrolled.pdf). Personally, even if we assume it falls under 12.2 (I'd swear in court that it's not.. any engineer would), if DVD Decrypter can make a digital copy of a DVD, the Macrovision flag is of really no significance. Why would you make a perfect digital copy just to make low quality analogue copy thereafter? (on a sidenote, perhaps you remember the French court ordering Macrovision be removed from DVDs because it prevents analogue copies.. but I'm certain 99.99% of the people using DVD Decrypter use it to make digital copies).

I'm no lawyer.I'm glad you aren't.. at least you can write coherent sentences. Re-reading the applicable passages in the DMCA make me very confused because I cannot find any sentences that make sense to a normal human being.

[mpucoder]

It's really easy to see the "signature" of Macrovision when looking at the analog video signal on an oscilloscope. You can see it by setting H/V delay on professional monitors too.
Yes, to a human it is fairly obvious. But instead of "how is one" I should have asked "how is a processor". Should video processors be required to recognize Macrovision? I think not. And wouldn't that prohibit Macrovision from changing its strategy if it ever felt that a new distortion was required? As I said, it's not digital, so therefore lacks a definitive marker.

[Joe Fenton]

Companies like Macrovision will be the first against the wall in the new world order. :D

If only it were true... I like my Sima SCC. My sets can NEVER get the damn brightness and contrast right. I actually DID get mine to give me control over how the picture looks. Does a good job too.

[adam]

There is absolutely no distinction between digital and analogue anything under the US DMCA. It applies to analogue signals, analogue protection methods, analogue devices, and analogue copies.

If you read section 1201 it never even uses the words digital or analogue once. It applies generally to any technological device that "in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work." If you read the Comittee notes they discuss the broad implications. They talk about those dual vcrs that let you dupe from one tape to another, or combining devices to dupe from VHS to DVD and vice versa. Its all covered.

Also just as a general comment to Doom9's news posting on this regarding Fair Use implications. I hate to say this but there probably are none. This is not a case involving section a) of 1201 (DMCA) which imposes liability for bypassing the protection mechanisms (infringement). This suit is being brought under section b) for the manufacture/distribution/etc.. of devices which bypass protection mechanisms. The Fair Use defense does not apply to section b) as ruled in Universal City Studios, Inc. v Reimerdes and Universal City Studios, Inc. v Corley.

They could still argue that the DMCA in its entirety is unconsitutional for impinging on Fair Use grounds but it didn't work for 321 Studios and the chances of getting Federal legislation struck down on constitutional grounds is slim to none.

I can understand Macrovision's DMCA claim against Sigma, I just think they can beat it. If you read the news blurb it is obvious exactly what section they are suing under:

1201(b)(1) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--

(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof.

I've never even used one of Sigma's devices but I'm pretty sure they are commercially viable for things other than just bypassing Macrovision. I'd actually guess that the number of people who use it to bypass Macrovision is relatively small.

As for their patent claims, the only thing I can think of is that they are saying it is possible to use Sigma's devices to make a copy and yet leave the Macrovision protection intact, therby making a copy which uses the patented technology. This is what happened with 321 Studio's and the judge bought it. If you remove Macrovision you violate the DMCA. If you leave it intact you infringe on their patents. I think this damned if you do, damned if you don't argument is weak but this is the exact same circuit as the 321 case was in so its likely they will be amenable to it.

I'm no lawyer.

I'm glad you aren't

Sorry to dissapoint, but I am :(

[mpucoder]

The company is Sima, Sigma is another company (which had other legal problems). They make several devices, and advertise most of the devices listed in the suit for the purpose of enhancing and stabalizing the video. A very useful device for old stretched and faded VHS tapes. But one device, called Copy This!, is sold for the purpose of copying DVDs. They don't mention "protected" or "Macrovision" in the ads. Here are their ads for some devices named in the suit SCC-2 (http://www.simacorp.com/products/item.ep.html?id=478) CT-200 (http://www.simacorp.com/products/item.ep.html?id=491) CT-2 (http://www.simacorp.com/products/item.ep.html?id=477)

These devices, in the course of cleaning up the signal, remove the out-of-spec distortion that is Macrovision. This distortion of the signal is so bad that the FCC has forbidden it to be broadcast. Macrovision works on two different parts of the signal. One is to confuse AGC (automatic gain control) circuits by periodically adding a line in the vertical retrace area that is greater than 100%. This causes the rest of the picture to appear dimmer. The circuitry in virtually all digital video processors and good analog processors will both ignore and remove this, as the standard for brightness is in the colorburst area, and unaffected by Macrovision. The second area is timing, making the horizontal sync pulse wobble and disappear. This is precisely what TBCs were designed to correct, and they existed before Macrovision.

So, in short, the devices do not pass the Macrovision modifications, nor do they enable recording a signal which contains Macrovision protection. Nor were they designed to remove Macrovision as many of the designs predate Macrovision. The removal of the distortion is a natural result of their intended function. That to me says no patent infringment.

As for constitutionality - correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought only the Supreme court could decide that. And that the biggest failing of 321 was not being prepared financially to go the distance. I was actually pleased that they lost in a lower court, since had they won the case would never have gone higher. But it looks now like they were not concerned with winning the war and having the DMCA striken down, but just a small victory.

[adam]

My mistake on the name of the company. And I agree with you regarding the merits of the case.

No, any federal court can decide the constitutionality of any federal law, but it will not become mandatory as to that jurisdiction unless upheld by the Court of Appeals. In order to be binding on all jurisdiction it will have to be upheld by the US Supreme Court. But a district court, for example, can certify a question as to constitutionality to a higher court instead of going through the formalities of the appeals process. They essentially take a break in the case and wait for the other court's ruling.

But as I mentioned before, attacking federal legislation on constitutional grounds isn't really a realistic option.