- Related Stories
-
Tech, studio giants team on new DVD locks
July 14, 2004 -
Judge: DVD-copying software is illegal
February 20, 2004 -
Movie trade group tries to block DVD cracking tool
November 18, 1999
The content-protection company is pointing to the failure of the copy-proofing on today's DVDs, which was broken in 1999. Courts have ordered that DVD-copying tools be taken off the market, but variations of the software remain widely available online.
Macrovision executives said that even if it's not perfect, the new RipGuard DVD technology can prevent much of the copying done with such tools and can help bolster studios' DVD sales.
"Encryption standards either work or they don't," said Adam Gervin, Macrovision's senior director of marketing, "Now the cat's out of the bag. (DVD sales) are going to be one of the main sources of revenue for Hollywood for a long time, so why leave billions of dollars on the table when you can do something about it?"
The company could be hard pressed to break into the DVD protection market, which has historically been managed by companies or industry groups closely associated with the Hollywood studios themselves. However, studios have been deeply concerned by the failure of today's DVD copy protection and may be willing to experiment with an alternative if it proves practical.
The original DVD copy-protection tool--called Content Scramble System--was developed by a technology coalition that included studio representatives. The tool is licensed by a group with close ties to Hollywood.
A new coalition, which includes Warner Bros., Walt Disney, IBM, Sony, Microsoft and Intel, is working on another content-protection technology for next-generation DVDs. That technology called the Advanced Access Content System, which is not designed for today's DVDs, is being designed to let movies be moved around a home though a digital network.
The group has said little about its progress since announcing the project last year, but companies involved have said they expect to have it ready in time for the first expected release of high-definition video on DVD late in 2005.
Meanwhile, Macrovision is promoting its alternative. The company, which has worked with the studios in the past, was responsible for the technique that makes it difficult to copy movies from one VCR to another, and it has updated that technique to help prevent people from making copies of movies using the analog plugs on DVD players.
The company is using a new version of that analog guard to create copy protection for video-on-demand services. That new guard will be included in TiVo devices and other set-top boxes beginning later this year.
Macrovision's new product takes a different approach to antipiracy than it has taken for analog or audio CDs. Gervin said Macrovision engineers have spent several years looking at how various DVD-copying software packages work and have devised ways to tweak the encoding of a DVD to block most of them.
That means the audio and video content itself requires no new hardware and isn't scrambled anew, as is the case with most rights-management techniques. Someone using one of the ripping tools on a protected DVD might simply find their software crashing, or be presented with error messages instead of a copy.
Macrovision's analog copy-protection business means that it receives pre-market versions of most major DVD players in order to test for compatibility, and it has been performing RipGuard DVD tests on these machines for months. As a result, the company says it is confident that discs encoded with its new product will be playable on all major DVD player brands and PC drives.
Gervin said that the technique would block most rippers, but not all, and could be easily updated for future discs as underground programmers find ways to work around RipGuard.
If adopted, the technology could be a welcome financial shot in the arm for Macrovision. The company has seen its revenue from DVD copy protection fall over recent quarters and has increasingly been looking to other businesses to make up for the shortfall.
See more CNET content tagged:
Macrovision Corp., copy protection, antipiracy, The Walt Disney Co., DVD-copying
Most software is garbage
Most movies are paint by number snoozefests
Most music is produced in the boardroom, not by artists. How many in the top 100 can even be considered real musical artists? Very few.
These industries will make more profit and bolster their image with the public if they stop wasting money to punish honest customers and create original, excitng content. In the case of software makers, how about creating useful software that works as advertised and is secure from the day of release?
But your arguments have absolutely no merit. It's true both music and movie studios are putting out a lot of crap. But people are copying none the less. And if the studios spent more and made a more appealing product, the result would be more people copying it, not more "pirates" deciding to stop copying and start paying.
Your arguments amount to nothing more than weak attempts to validate piracy, to which I say, if you're not morally comfortable with your actions, don't do them. If you're fine with copying, then don't waste time clouding the issue with nonsense... we get enough of that from the industry.
Most software is garbage
Most movies are paint by number snoozefests
Most music is produced in the boardroom, not by artists. How many in the top 100 can even be considered real musical artists? Very few.
These industries will make more profit and bolster their image with the public if they stop wasting money to punish honest customers and create original, excitng content. In the case of software makers, how about creating useful software that works as advertised and is secure from the day of release?
But your arguments have absolutely no merit. It's true both music and movie studios are putting out a lot of crap. But people are copying none the less. And if the studios spent more and made a more appealing product, the result would be more people copying it, not more "pirates" deciding to stop copying and start paying.
Your arguments amount to nothing more than weak attempts to validate piracy, to which I say, if you're not morally comfortable with your actions, don't do them. If you're fine with copying, then don't waste time clouding the issue with nonsense... we get enough of that from the industry.
there ain't no secret that anti-copying schemes will be broken but why bother? bring over your dvd player with its red, white and yellow RCA connectors (or even that funny din connector I think they call S-Vidio) plug it into my computers inputs and I'll have a perfect copy
it takes full play time but I'm not gonna go into business recording dups either so thats no problem with movies I like
for those who dup and sell there are laws that put them in prison so leave it open and spend your money on the lawyers
there ain't no secret that anti-copying schemes will be broken but why bother? bring over your dvd player with its red, white and yellow RCA connectors (or even that funny din connector I think they call S-Vidio) plug it into my computers inputs and I'll have a perfect copy
it takes full play time but I'm not gonna go into business recording dups either so thats no problem with movies I like
for those who dup and sell there are laws that put them in prison so leave it open and spend your money on the lawyers
So much for jAnus.
So much for jAnus.
Who is the winner here?
Well Macrovison and to some degree the studios of course. First they sell a copy protection to the studios which in turn the cost is passed onto John Q Consumer (who is the loser in all this).
Most all other Macrovison copy protection schemes that I am aware of are broken or circumvented. This will be no different.
Seems to me the studios and perhaps even the consumer should sue Macrovision for selling something that doesn?t work. The studio can sue Macrovison for failing to actually protect the content and the consumer can sue because they have been not been protected from being able to copy the material in question. The consumer paid for it shouldn?t it work? Same for the studio.
The price goes up and piracy will continue as normal. I am not advocating piracy I am merely stating a very likely truth.
Who is the winner here?
Well Macrovison and to some degree the studios of course. First they sell a copy protection to the studios which in turn the cost is passed onto John Q Consumer (who is the loser in all this).
Most all other Macrovison copy protection schemes that I am aware of are broken or circumvented. This will be no different.
Seems to me the studios and perhaps even the consumer should sue Macrovision for selling something that doesn?t work. The studio can sue Macrovison for failing to actually protect the content and the consumer can sue because they have been not been protected from being able to copy the material in question. The consumer paid for it shouldn?t it work? Same for the studio.
The price goes up and piracy will continue as normal. I am not advocating piracy I am merely stating a very likely truth.
Sounds like another 'press the space bar to copy your CD now' scheme. An utter waste of money and time.
Studios need to accept that users have a legitimate need and desire to copy their own media. This will likely result in some copies of media not owned by the consumer, but that is a cost of business, like shoplifting and spoilage. New protection schemes will do nothing to stop commercial pirates and as long as the studios ignore them and focus on private individuals copying for personal use and not profit, the public will view all efforts at stopping piracy as infringement on fair use... fair use pricipals which have already been held up in the courts. Ill will will be the only result.
Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to go finish backing up Resident Evil - Apocalypse and The Forgotten. ;)
Sounds like another 'press the space bar to copy your CD now' scheme. An utter waste of money and time.
Studios need to accept that users have a legitimate need and desire to copy their own media. This will likely result in some copies of media not owned by the consumer, but that is a cost of business, like shoplifting and spoilage. New protection schemes will do nothing to stop commercial pirates and as long as the studios ignore them and focus on private individuals copying for personal use and not profit, the public will view all efforts at stopping piracy as infringement on fair use... fair use pricipals which have already been held up in the courts. Ill will will be the only result.
Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to go finish backing up Resident Evil - Apocalypse and The Forgotten. ;)
I own over 500 DVD's of which about 70% are ripped and stored on my home server. Before you pick up that god damn phone to sue me I don't share **** you pricks. I use my collection when I go on business trips or know that I have a long flight ahead or a very long car trip. Lets do the math. Which takes up more space. 20-30 DVD?s that can get lost, stolen, or broken or 20-30 divxx files that can fit neatly on my laptop?s hard drive. If you want to play games that is fine. Just be aware that you lost another high paying customer you pompous idiot. (Collectively that is.)
- Dear MPAA?screw off
- by Jonathan February 15, 2005 7:09 AM PST
- To the MPAA.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (56 Comments)I own over 500 DVD's of which about 70% are ripped and stored on my home server. Before you pick up that god damn phone to sue me I don't share **** you pricks. I use my collection when I go on business trips or know that I have a long flight ahead or a very long car trip. Lets do the math. Which takes up more space. 20-30 DVD?s that can get lost, stolen, or broken or 20-30 divxx files that can fit neatly on my laptop?s hard drive. If you want to play games that is fine. Just be aware that you lost another high paying customer you pompous idiot. (Collectively that is.)