Posted by Stuart Miller on 02/22/07 04:47

<mansfield.andrew@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172113799.870548.163500@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> 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.

Please - you may not agree with the content of my post, but don't insult me.
You have no basis for judging my intelligence.

>
> 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.
>
Large sections, no, but the rest of this paragraph is valid, for the purpose
of critique or education, not for the purpose of having a complete copy of
my work.


> 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.

This is completely untrue. A quick look around you will give you the proof.
You know the details - I don't have to spell them out to you
>
> 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.
>

Right - if you want the content, pay for it. Nobody is requiring you to
watch/listen - you make that choice for yourself


> 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.

Lock you out of what? you are not locked out, you are just required to pay
for what you consume

>
> 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

It is hard to respond to all the detail on a line by line basis
It is clear that you have an entrenched position on this, and nothing I can
post, either factual or persuasive, is likely to change that.
You may have your opinion that the masses are entitled to have anything they
want for free, but my point stands, that if you want value (product,
entertainment or whatever) for free, then be prepared to work for free.

It is interesting to note that this discussion only involves entertainment,
which any of us can do without. It does not involve work or anything that is
a necessity for life.

If you don't like the laws and want change them, get active in politics -
that is your duty as a citizen of a democratic country. You can't morally
make a point for more free stuff when you are advocating breaking the law.

This sounds like the mantra of the 'me generation' - I want everything, I
want it now, I want it for free.

Sorry, no sympathy from me - I paid my own way, you pay your way in life.

Stuart

[Back to original message]