Posted by Stuart Miller on 02/21/07 19:25

<mansfield.andrew@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171935208.043210.141040@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 19, 5:20 pm, "Alpha" <n...@none.net> wrote:
>> "Alpha" <n...@none.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:erd7ja$6te$1@zinnia.noc.ucla.edu...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > <mansfield.and...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:1171908148.631190.276770@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>> >> On Feb 19, 11:33 am, Don Del Grande <del_grande_n...@earthlink.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> Andrew Mansfield wrote:
>> >>> >> Macrovision Buster for Sale on Ebay: Tonight Only. DVD-DX11.
>>
>> >>> >> Please see my Ebay listing at the following link if you are
>> >>> >> interested:
>>
>> >>> >Hi guys:
>>
>> >>> >I am really sorry you thought my posting was spam. It is very
>> >>> >difficult to get word out about these devices: everything I read
>> >>> >indicates they are legal. They are not regulated under the DMCA
>> >>> >because they are analog signal cleaners. Yet last night Ebay took
>> >>> >down my auction for copyright infringement.
>>
>> >>> Your problem might be that eBay could be trying to prevent the sale
>> >>> of
>> >>> something whose use is illegal. (17 USC 1201(a)(1)(A): "No person
>> >>> shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls
>> >>> access to a work protected under this title." Using your "signal
>> >>> cleaner" does just that.)
>>
>> >>> Besides, if you want a strict interpretation of DMCA, selling your
>> >>> device sounds like it is illegal (17 USC 1201(a)(2)(A): "No person
>> >>> shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise
>> >>> traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or
>> >>> part thereof, that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose
>> >>> of circumventing 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"; your eBay auction page admits that your
>> >>> Macrovision Buster removes Macrovision - true, it's to "remove color
>> >>> and analog noise caused by Macrovision," but nevertheless it removes
>> >>> Macrovision).
>>
>> >>> -- Don
>>
>> >> Sorry Don:
>>
>> >> Not true. The terms of the DMCA apply *only* to digital technologies,
>> >> i.e., encryption. No analog protection scheme, however implemented,
>> >> qualifies under the "title" of the DMCA. Look at the definitions at
>> >> the top of the title.
>>
>> >> Thanks to the dozens of people who have emailed in support of this
>> >> device and with advice on selling it (and the many places that do).
>> >> It is heartening to see so many good people opposed to the DMCA and
>> >> copyright fascism.
>>
>> >> Andrew
>>
>> > This is a grey area. A number of rulings have required Macrovision
>> > removal in DVD recorders imported from China to be disabled...etc etc.
>> > The courts in California disagree with your interpretation.
>>
>> > There are several important modifications made to the DMCA in December
>> > by
>> > the Library of Congress, but they do not hold here.
>>
>> > I believe the Sima CT-2 clarifier had to be pulled from the market by
>> > Sima...and that is what your device does.
>>
>> PS
>>
>> I am absolutely against the absurdly written DMCA, and a member of the
>> EFF,
>> but that does not change reality.
>
> Interesting, thanks for the heads up.
>
> One of two suppliers is still selling this unit directly into the US
> market new. It just seems absurd to me that ebay appears to be going
> further than the DMCA requires. On further back-and-forth with them,
> they basically admit they are not required by law to block the sale of
> analog Macrovision removers, but their poilcy requires the take-down
> of any ad / listing that "encourages" anyone to violate copyright, by
> whatever means.
>
> So . . . if I sell an old-school VCR and fill the ad / listing with
> encouragement for folks to copy other VCR tapes, even non Macrovision,
> I would be in violation of their terms of use. Or to keep up the with
> the absurd analogies, I couldn't sell a book and fill the ad / listing
> with advice to copy a chapter at Kinko's.
>
> And in general, courts that extend anti-circumvention protection to
> analog distortion should be tarred and feathered.
>
> We will all soon be living in a world of micropayments to the patent
> and copyright holders of the world. Welcome to hell.
>
Many literary works require the expenditure of a great deal of time and
effort, and often cash, to get the work created. It is totally fair that
those who created the work be paid according to market forces for that work.
When there is unregulated copying or such works, the owner of the work is
denied payment, and the copier, who has invested nothing, stands to make the
profit instead.

If you want the content, for work or enjoyment, pay for it. If you want free
entertainment, use your television.

There is nothing evil about being a copyright or patent holder - that is
what makes it worthwhile to take a risk on a project.

I don't give away the rights to the products I have created - the rolayties
give me the income so I can feed my family and create new products. If you
judge that the copyright holder is rich enough already, then buy your
entertainment from someone else. When people stop buying the products, the
price will drop.

If you want to live in a world of free products, then be prepared to work
for the government, for free. This is the principle of communism - everybody
shares, everybody works.

Stuart

[Back to original message]