Posted by mansfield.andrew on 02/22/07 03:09

On Feb 21, 2:25 pm, "Stuart Miller" <stuart_mil...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> <mansfield.and...@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

Uh, right . . .

What an idiot.

Intellectual property is an artificial construction supposedly for the
good of the public, not the rights holder. The concept, at least over
200 years ago, was that those who create literary works or useful
inventions should be provided a *limited* and short term exclusive
right to reproduce or control the manufacture of the invention. This
was considered an exchange between the public and the rights holder.
We give you, through our graciousness, some compensation for the
supposed creativity exhibited. For patents, there was and is a
further trade-off: the exact way to make the invention has to be
disclosed, to be made "patent." The public gets to learn how to make
it in exchange for one getting the rights to exclusively make it.

The keys: short term, limited, and in the public interest.

All of this has been skewed by people of small intellect such as this
poster. There is no such thing as intellectual property. It is a
construct. The construct has now been abused beyond recognition and
it is the obligation of concerned citizens to rebel, to appropriate
intellectual property to express indignation at the current imbalanced
system.

For example:

Patent rights should have never been extended by the Surpreme Court to
software. Software is protected by copyright already. Software and
business methods are simply not inventions. This was a gift to
software companies.

Copyright has been extended in time . . . and extended in time . . .
and extended again. Copyright, through the efforts of companies such
as Disney seeking to protect the Mickey Mouse character cartel, has
been stretched into almost an infinite right. It was supposed to
expire and allow works to pass into the public domain rather quickly.

The cornerstone of copyright on the public side is fair use. I don't
care how much you feed your family from a given work -- I have the
absolute right to excerpt it, to sample it, to comment on it and
critique it, and to include large sections for such purposes in other
works, especially scholarly works.

BUT NO: Now under the fascist DMCA regime, it is a CRIME to circumvent
encryption and other devices employed by copyright holders to lock out
users from fair use. Under the supposed threat of full copying, the
balance in intellectual property rights was entirely tipped in favor
of the copyright conglomerates, also known as studios. One cannot cut
and past a section of any DVD. One cannot sample music. One cannot
cut and paste TEXT from an encrypted CD-ROM. Suddenly . . . you have
to pay for what has been your right for two centuries.

And the beat goes on. Now, my Comcast DVR puts "flags" on content so
I can watch it only X number of times on Tivo or Comcast DVR or limits
what electornic devices I can move it between. The content licenses
are becoming so restrictive, I have to purchase a license to own
content on DVD, purchase a license to download and watch PPV on
Comcast, purchase a license to own the same content on my iPod, and
call and get a special license to sample or cut and paste content from
any of the above, regardless of the purpose.

To naive people like poster, I can only say, enjoy the hostile world
of controlled information you endorse. You have pissed away your
rights a drop at a time until nothing is left in the public sphere.
The public, which granted these limited rights to copyright holders,
has to pay to turn around in the commons now. And it will only get
worse if we let copyright holders use the tools of techology to
further lock us out.

I support companies like Slysoft and I will continue to do so until
the balance is restored. Use AnyDVD to strip macrovision, remove
region encoding, break encryption, and descramble content. It now
breaks HDCP, too.

Let's restore copyright and patent rights to the public, where they
belong. We can then choose what rights to give others to incentivize
them to create instead of begging for our constitutional rights for
fair use.

A

[Back to original message]