Fed up with ATI-Any Suggestions
R
from my vcr so I can store the VHS tape so it won't get ruined and just
create a VCD from the mpeg I would capture. Well, as all of you probably
well know, ATI instilled Macrovision into capture drivers so you can't do
this. Could anyone suggest a decent capture card that doesn't have
Macrovision?
Copyright law states that anyone who has purchased a video may duplicate it
if it's not for unlawful but personal use. ATI needs to read this and fix
it. Anyways, can someone help out here?
Thanx
Brock Landers
VHS for personal use. Please feel free to cite the law when you get the chance!
Brock
"R" <m...@me.com> wrote in message news:tntr37q...@corp.supernews.com...
Audio Dude
one on the internet)
"Brock Landers" <drbrock...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c%Cf7.41697$K6.16444694@news2...
Martian Welk
Users who purchace videos and cds may flagrantly violate copyright laws
without govemrment intervention
in so much as motivate the copies to thousands of Home computers for
personal use
destroy the original quality of said copies by compression methods
this fantasy is inclusive of games and os software.
i think it is mainly a Austrailian law :-)
its also in the TOU for napster
While although it is against the law to copy and distribute copywritten
material
the main purppose of this software is to do exactally that , so dont do it
with our software
all other uses are strictly prohibited , that is why we made this software
"Brock Landers" <drbrock...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c%Cf7.41697$K6.16444694@news2...
John Dondzila
>from my vcr so I can store the VHS tape so it won't get ruined and just
>create a VCD from the mpeg I would capture. Well, as all of you probably
>well know, ATI instilled Macrovision into capture drivers so you can't do
>this. Could anyone suggest a decent capture card that doesn't have
>Macrovision?
I returned my ATI for that reason. Why not buy a Sigma copymaster ?
The cheaper versions are around $40 and work with VHS.
DVD will cost you more.
Anti SPAM In Use !
Remove the * from *pcj...@classicgamecreations.com
to send E-Mail.
Brock Landers
Brock
"Audio Dude" <audio...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ByDf7.22746$lr2.4...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
Bill Van Dyk
> As a copyright attorney I'm curious about this alleged law which allows a person to copy a
> VHS for personal use. Please feel free to cite the law when you get the chance!
As a literate computer professional, occasional song-writer and author, I'd like to know if
you can cite a single case in the United States of America in which a home user has been
prosecuted for making a backup copy of a video, audio recording, or image.
Someone from the RIAA-- sorry, I normally get the name but I lost the original bookmark--
said, at a conference, that he thought they should start busting students at college compuses
for downloading MP3's.
Oh, how I wish they would, I wish they would! And then I fervently hope they start issuing
warrants and breaking into homes and seizing people's computers and hauling them off to the
police labs to check for unauthorized copies of software and games and start prosecuting
them. Please, please do! Soon, there will be rewards for information leading to the arrest
and conviction of software pirates. $500 to fink on your neighbor. Three times and you're
out? We'll have to triple the already gruesome sizes of our massive prisons!
But they won't, and everybody knows why.
When the law, if that really is the law (until the courts and the police actually enforce it,
it isn't) is utterly in conflict with the practises of 2/3 of the population, your choice is
to either revert to a police state or change the law to recognize new realities.
For the record, as always, I absolutely support fair and just payment to artists for their
created works. Can't we 'til we get a system that actually does that. The Motion Pictures
Association of America appears to be stepping in the right direction with plans to make their
entire catalogues availabe online at a reasonable price. The jury is still out, but maybe
someone finally got smart in the entertainment industry. Someone actually acknowledged that
viewers want to be able to see any movie they want when they want it and are willing to pay a
fair price for the privilege. If the "fair" price proves to be fair, I'll buy it.
Robert P. Drake
Get DVD Genie, its a freeware program that will kill off macrovision.
Brock Landers
it. Sure, no one has been arrested for copying VHS tapes. Also, probably no one has been
convicted of a federal hate crime in Idaho, that doesn't mean it's fair game!
Anyone who has seen my posts in the napster and winmx newsgroups knows that I am totally
anti-RIAA (and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act!) And I'd certainly argue in court
that making one backup copy of a VHS tape would fall under the fair use exception.
However, no court in this country has accepted that argument as of yet. Accordingly, I'm
simply pointing out that the original poster is misstating the law. Or would you prefer
to remain ignorant?
Brock
"Bill Van Dyk" <bvand...@home.com> wrote in message news:3B7F2A23...@home.com...
Bill Van Dyk
> Just because a law has never been enforced does not mean it's suddenly acceptable to break
> it. Sure, no one has been arrested for copying VHS tapes. Also, probably no one has been
> convicted of a federal hate crime in Idaho, that doesn't mean it's fair game!
Well, I wish the world were that simple. If I were a black in Mississipi in the 1950's, would
I give up my seat on the bus to a white person? Rosa Parks broke the law. The law was an
ass.
What is most interesting about the civil rights comparison is not the issue itself (racism was
and is a far more serious problem than copyright infringement) but the principle that when the
government and politicians lag behind society, society sometimes forces them to catch up....
by defiance. Subversion. Passive resistance.
In my view, the government, which probably will give Microsoft nothing more than a slap on the
wrist (expense money for them, to maintain their monopoly), is lagging behind the population
on copyright issues, but it seems to be right in step with the demands of Hollywood and the
RIAA.
> Anyone who has seen my posts in the napster and winmx newsgroups knows that I am totally
> anti-RIAA (and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act!) And I'd certainly argue in court
> that making one backup copy of a VHS tape would fall under the fair use exception.
> However, no court in this country has accepted that argument as of yet. Accordingly, I'm
> simply pointing out that the original poster is misstating the law.
But, of course, our rights are not limited to what the courts have said they are not!
The courts don't have to accept that argument. They simply have to decline to convict users
of copyright infringement, and that has indeed happened (in the case of man running a BBS with
full copies of Microsoft Office on it-- the judge actually said "everybody does it".) And
that is probably why you will never see home users in court for copyright infringement: almost
no court would convict the person, and if one did, it would certainly be overturned on
appeal. In fact, the software association declined to appeal that case because their lawyers
advised them that they would probably lose again, and if they lost in a higher court it would
have a greater impact on legislation and public perception of what their rights were. They
backed off.
> Or would you prefer
> to remain ignorant?
I always like to see new information.
>
Brock Landers
copy a VHS, I'm not arguing against it.
I'll repeat my point: "I'm simply pointing out that the original poster is misstating the
law." You may disagree with it. I may disagree with it. Heck, 99% of Americans probably
disagree with it. And you're absolutely right that if the copyright holders actually
started enforcing the laws as written, they'd only end up screwing themselves. (Which is
exactly why you'll only see people heavily profiting from copyright infringement sued or
arrested."
But, regardless of what we think of the laws and how they're enforced, we do NOT have the
right to make back up copies of copyrighted VHS tapes, even for personal use. The
original poster stated that the copyright law gave him the right. And he's wrong. It's
as simple as that.
Brock
"Bill Van Dyk" <bvand...@home.com> wrote in message news:3B7F4374...@home.com...
Spongebob Squarepants
Spongebob Squarepants
"R" <m...@me.com> wrote in message news:tntr37q...@corp.supernews.com...
Red Harvest
want to alter the format for storage, etc, I would be willing to fight in
court on fair use issues as long as I can prove it is for my own personal
use. Sure I can't give it to friends and neighbors for free, but if I
choose to change the format for my own use, the RIAA, etc. can kiss my
skinny white butt. This seems a matter of intent. If the intent is not to
distribute (and thereby impair the right of seller to collect further fees
on their material), then I don't see how they have a leg to stand on. Their
powerful lobby has been successful in getting the laws worded and
*interpreted* to overextend their interests, but that is more a reflection
of the lack of objectivity of our legislative and legal system than anything
else. These things tend to change over generations. When the MP3
generation acheives power, I expect the fair use provisions to be
dramatically expanded.
I hope they also go after the software industry concept of not being able to
return defective software once you open the shrinkwrap. It really chaps my
a** to buy a piece of software that is so fundamentally flawed that it fails
to run properly or run at all and be told that it can't be returned since it
is opened. I've faced this exactly twice with software so poorly coded that
it could not do what it was purchased to do. I got refunds only because I
became rather vocal about the problem to managers with customers standing
around, and told them I would dispute the credit charges since the software
did not meet basic fitness for use criteria.
"Brock Landers" <drbrock...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c%Cf7.41697$K6.16444694@news2...
Ben Hoff
"R" <m...@me.com> wrote in message news:tntr37q...@corp.supernews.com...
R
"Spongebob Squarepants" <inapin...@underthesea.com> wrote in message
news:tnujl26...@corp.supernews.com...
Audio Dude
informing them what they are doing is harmful(right or wrong) in their
respect? No one likes pushy invasive professional people that take it upon
themselves to stick something in their face. Especailly something as
controvercial and arbitrary as copyright laws. No one likes LAWS and LAWYERS
for that very reason. If someone tells you they are going to copy something
for their own use one should take it at face value and be a nice enough
person and not pick them apart. You aleinate people when you do this. Can't
you see this? I am not trying to be cruel but lawyers that insist on this
behavior come off this way.
"Brock Landers" <drbrock...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u5Ff7.41882$K6.16541775@news2...
Cliff-F
I have VHS tapes of Woodstock 94 I taped while viewing this on Pay Per
View. I guess this must be a crime so I would never hand copies out to the
public. While I viewed and copied them to DV format recently I noticed the
announcer advocated the use "now get out your VCR" of your recorder due to
the fact this was an all-nighter. Where do you stand on this issue. Also the
issue of the hypocritical RIAA people that never mention in their defense of
the artist that virtually every one of them started out stealing when they
perform as young professionals in clubs never rendering any profits to Led
Zeppelin for performing their work.
"Brock Landers" <drbrock...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u5Ff7.41882$K6.16541775@news2...
Stu@.
use or somthing?(hence VCR's actually having a legal use) or is that yet
another copyright myth?
Who cares,
Stu
Stu@.
cover bands of which in theory a percentace of which will get dispenced to
copyright holders as royalties.
but yet again who cares
Stu
"Stu@." <s...@thepink.worldonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9lo9g5$879$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
Audio Dude
"Stu@." <s...@thepink.worldonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9lo9kb$8an$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
oh, I agree 100%. Like drug testing. There are those that demand it and
those that say START AT THE TOP NOT AT THE BOTTOM. That is why this bench
test has not caught on quicker. Far to many hippocrits.
Mark Elliott
> Email addy doesn't work
Did you read my post telling you how to fix this problem ? I'd email
you privately but you don't give an address.
Mark
Bill Van Dyk
people can defy the legislation. What is "right" or "lawful" in a pure sense is
philosophical.
I know that one version of the copyright law did in fact specify that users can copy music to
a cassette and can even lend the cassette to a friend. But I am not sure if that version was
superceded by the DMCA or if it still exists. I spent a couple of hours trying to find it
again but failed. Maybe it was a version that was proposed and never passed. I've never
heard from anyone else who seems to have read it.
Brock Landers
one should take it at face value and be a nice enough person and not pick them apart."
Maybe you can't read, but the original poster said more than merely that. He also said:
"Copyright law states that anyone who has purchased a video may duplicate it if it's not
for unlawful but personal use."
You may disagree, but that statement is wrong. There is currently no law in the US which
allows a consumer to copy a copyrighted VHS even for personal use. If you wish to remain
ignorant of the laws I'm not surprised.
Brock
"Audio Dude" <audio...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BiNf7.22761$lr2.4...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
Brock Landers
performance, unless you're specifically told not to record it. Most musical groups forbit
such copying. Groups such as the late Grateful Dead encouraged it.
To the issue of playing covers in bars: Bars and clubs which play music (on sound systems
better than what an average person would have in their homes) for the purpose of getting
people to attend are obligated to sign up with deals with music publishers. They'll pay
one flat rate and the music publishers will divide it up (using some obscure formula)
amoung its artists. So, technically, copyright holders are even paid when cover bands
perform their material.
Brock
"Cliff-F" <cli...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:zGNf7.22836$lr2.4...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
Brock Landers
record television programs. But it did NOT allow users to make libraries of their
favorite shows. It specifically (and repeatedly) only allowed for "time shifting." E.g.,
you could record Battlebots at 10:00 PM Tuesday so you watch it later when its more
convenient.
Obviously this "time shifting" approach was and is totally unenforceable. As Audio Due
points out, what are they going to do, create a police state to check every house?!
What the television copyright holders wanted was to get a cut out of the sale of Beta (and
VHS) players and/or tapes. So, every time you buy a VHS, a little bit of the money would
go to NBC, CBS, etc. Even if you intended to use it for personal use!
The copyright holders argued that the ONLY purpose for using a beta machine was to violate
copyright law. This was the same argument Napster attempted to use. That is shouldn't be
shut down because there are legitimate uses for it. A court bought the argument in Sony,
but did not buy it in Napster's case.
As to a 6th month rule, I've never heard of a specific time limit imposed. A different
and later court may have imposed such a rule, but I've never read it. So this could be a
myth.
Brock
"Stu@." <s...@thepink.worldonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9lo9g5$879$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
lhorwinkle
But I don't know of one that prohibits it, either.
Brock Landers <drbrock...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:NKPf7.43351$K6.16942477@news2...
Isaac
>I don't know of a law that allows this ...
>
>But I don't know of one that prohibits it, either.
>
This is silly. Copyright law gives the copyright holder the exclusive
right to control who can make copies (among other exclusive rights).
Those rights are spelled out in 17 U.S.C. Sec. 106 in complete
detail.
There are some statutory (e.g. fair use, computer program archival
copies) and judicial exceptions (e.g. time shifting using VCR, copies
made in the process of reverse engineering) exceptions to those
exclusive rights.
So now you know what prohibits it. What exception can you describe
that allows personal use copies of VHS tapes?
I found the Brock's original posting informative rather than
accusatory. He didn't describe any moral obligation not to copy, he
simply pointed out that someone had cited the law improperly. Any
suggestion that stating the law correctly is the same as telling you
what you should and shouldn't do probably comes from your own
conscience.
Isaac
Bill Van Dyk
current copyright law is and, preferably, the actual text of the law? I think both are
needed-- good analysis and the actual text-- because sometimes it isn't clear to me where a
new law supercedes the old and where it does not. Thanks.
Audio Dude
> To your first point, it is not a violation of a copyright to video or
record a
> performance, unless you're specifically told not to record it. Most
musical groups forbit
> such copying. Groups such as the late Grateful Dead encouraged it.
>
> To the issue of playing covers in bars: Bars and clubs which play music
(on sound systems
> better than what an average person would have in their homes) for the
purpose of getting
> people to attend are obligated to sign up with deals with music
publishers. They'll pay
> one flat rate and the music publishers will divide it up (using some
obscure formula)
> amoung its artists. So, technically, copyright holders are even paid when
cover bands
> perform their material.
Believing that this is practiced in itself is a myth. The same as wedding
performances and a mulitude of others. That is what is meant by the letter
of the law and the practice of the law. There is some truth to the saying
laws are meant to be broken so they may be tested in a court of law. Without
this being the case most lawyers would be out of work. To the point of sound
systems you make seems of little concequence as many performances are
strictly accoustic with meerly a simple PA.
R
akmus...@hotmail.com
"Mark Elliott" <m.c.e...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:190820011402019178%m.c.e...@btinternet.com...
R
that would allow macrovision to not be an option? (worded differently but
still the same point) Don't have a big ole debate over this. It's not
that big of a deal. Gesh
"Ben Hoff" <goodid...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tnum2b2...@corp.supernews.com...
GMAN
Pinnacle STUDIO DC10+ , MJPEG . Ignores macrovision and is less than $100
Spongebob Squarepants
"R" <m...@me.com> wrote in message news:tnurkke...@corp.supernews.com...
Cliff-F
the world. If you notice the phrase "there is currently no law in the US
which allows a consumer....." if that doesn't stink of CONTROL what does? I
remember when laws mainly forbad something. I personally believe that once
something is commercialized enough it should be public domain. Especially
so-called TOP-40 music where the public has to pay enough putting up with
the discusting radio commercials. TV being in the same category.
"Robert P. Drake" <haildi...@no.hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
news:e611ot0eui1e27gmj...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 19 Aug 2001 14:07:41 GMT, "Brock Landers"
> <drbrock...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Audio Dude said: "If someone tells you they are going to copy something
for their own use
> >one should take it at face value and be a nice enough person and not pick
them apart."
> >
> >Maybe you can't read, but the original poster said more than merely that.
He also said:
> >"Copyright law states that anyone who has purchased a video may duplicate
it if it's not
> >for unlawful but personal use."
> >
> >You may disagree, but that statement is wrong. There is currently no law
in the US which
> >allows a consumer to copy a copyrighted VHS even for personal use. If
you wish to remain
> >ignorant of the laws I'm not surprised.
>
> Its perfectly okay here in Canada.
Mark Elliott
> yeah you told me to go to a site and download somethin. That didn't work.
Okay, fair enough. It worked perfectly for me with the Radeon version of
the card.
The problem for me is not with the Macrovision itself. It's that the
card thinks there is macrovision when in fact there isn't. Also, ATI
seem to have no interest in fixing it, despite this being a known
problem.
Mark
GMAN
ATI get off yer' thumbs.
The Realist
>I have a ATI All-in Wonder 128 32MB and I'm trying to capture a VHS tape
>from my vcr so I can store the VHS tape so it won't get ruined and just
>create a VCD from the mpeg I would capture. Well, as all of you probably
>well know, ATI instilled Macrovision into capture drivers so you can't do
>this. Could anyone suggest a decent capture card that doesn't have
>Macrovision?
>
>Copyright law states that anyone who has purchased a video may duplicate it
>if it's not for unlawful but personal use. ATI needs to read this and fix
>it. Anyways, can someone help out here?
>
>Thanx
>
I too, am totally disgusted by the fact that I have aging VHS
cassettes, many of which are NOT avilable on DVD, and I can't make a
preserved copy of them onto CD's using the All In Wonder Radeon-which
is one of the main reasons I bought the card. Everyone knows that
unlike disk based medium, cassette tapes wear out with plays as well
as just plain age....just sitting on a shelf deteriorates VHS tapes.
In as little as 10 years, even VHS cassettes that have not been
frequently viewed, can deteriorate to the point that *THEY ARE NO
LONGER VIEWABLE*.
I think it is more than reasonable that this card should be able to
make copies of VHS cassettes. For crying out loud, VHS cassettes are
far from the perfect quality of DVD, yet DVD's can EASILY and
EFFORTLESSLY be copied with any half decent PC, and depending on the
compression and software used, can be made almost identical to the
original DVD. They claim that they are most concerned about DVD
copying, because they are "perfect sources". Well VHS is no where near
DVD, so they should lighten up.
R
"The Realist" <tr...@hurts.com> wrote in message
news:8mk3ot4d0e55ts4a1...@4ax.com...
Werner Purrer
>
>As a copyright attorney I'm curious about this alleged law which allows a person to copy a
>VHS for personal use. Please feel free to cite the law when you get the chance!
I´m neither a lawyer nor do I live in the US but as far as I know the
according law in the US which grants fair use is the so called home
recording act.
Werner
--
Memory Dragon
Werner Purrer
>
>Oh, how I wish they would, I wish they would! And then I fervently hope they start issuing
>warrants and breaking into homes and seizing people's computers and hauling them off to the
>police labs to check for unauthorized copies of software and games and start prosecuting
>them. Please, please do! Soon, there will be rewards for information leading to the arrest
>and conviction of software pirates. $500 to fink on your neighbor. Three times and you're
>out? We'll have to triple the already gruesome sizes of our massive prisons!
Well the situation is actually worse. They busted a non us citizen for
speaking on a US conference about the technical details of the adobe
e-book encryption scheme. Speaking of free speech, there is none in the
US anymore, thanks to the RIAA, MPAA and other similar organizations.
You can speak about everything except the copy protection of digital
data.
Werner
--
Memory Dragon
GMAN
Free speech doesnt allow you to give away a companies trade secrets to the
masses!!!!
>
>Werner
>
Warren Young
>
> I´m neither a lawyer nor do I live in the US but as far as I know the
> according law in the US which grants fair use is the so called home
> recording act.
The Home Recording Act does not apply to making dubs of VHS tapes. See
http://www.hrrc.org/html/ahra_summary.html
"Fair use" is not right, it's just a moral concept. As I understand it,
the lawyer who posted earlier is right: there is not a single law that
gives you fair use rights. All of these "rights" are either laws that
do not specifically prohibit things that fall under the "fair use"
concept, or court decisions that clarify and limit the laws that do
exist.
For a similar example, "nudity is bad" is a moral concept that is also
not enforced at the federal level. It's only a principle embodied in
state and local laws -- there is no law against nudity on federal land.
I'm not here to recommend things you should do with the intellectual
property you have access to, any more than I wish to recommend the
amount of clothing you should wear. My point is, we don't necessarily
get laws that are morally right. We get the laws that we ask for. If
you don't ask, you have to obey laws that _other_ people ask for.
In this case, the laws we are bumping up against are ones that the RIAA
and the MPAA asked for. If we don't step up and start asking for our
own laws, we have no one to blame but ourselves.
--
= Warren -- Video articles: http://www.cyberport.com/~tangent/video/
=
= ICBM Address: 36.8274040 N, 108.0204086 W, alt. 1714m
Ken Creppin
Software anyway!
Warren Young
>
> I think it is more than reasonable that this card should be able to
> make copies of VHS cassettes. For crying out loud, VHS cassettes are
> far from the perfect quality of DVD, yet DVD's can EASILY and
> EFFORTLESSLY be copied with any half decent PC, and depending on the
> compression and software used, can be made almost identical to the
> original DVD. They claim that they are most concerned about DVD
> copying, because they are "perfect sources". Well VHS is no where near
> DVD, so they should lighten up.
Unfortunately, there is no way for the card to distinguish a VHS source
from a DVD source. Or, for that matter, a Beta deck.
Why fight ATI on this? The real source of the problem is the laws we
have allowed to be passed at the behest of the MPAA and the RIAA. You
have a choice to either work to get those laws repealed, or spend money
to work around their results. (I.e. "buy a Sima box")
Werner Purrer
>
>Free speech doesnt allow you to give away a companies trade secrets to the
>masses!!!!
Come on a Rot13 isn´t a trade secret it is an ancient algorithm even
used by the Romans.
Werner
--
Memory Dragon
Cliff-F
others and go to binary newsgroups like al.binaries.movies and SOOOooo many
more. You can hang out there and download all the stuff you want. Music,
movies, software, whatever. Let the lawyers hang out there where their scary
post will fall on deaf ears. THIS is a fact of life. It is a WAR out there
and this is that way it HAS to be. Big business has to be kept in check.
What does one suppose would things be like if the VCR had never
proliferated. Has the movie industry suffered in any way? NOT. Copy what you
want WHEN you want and let them come take me away. All others be as scared
as you like.
"Warren Young" <war...@etr-usa.com> wrote in message
news:3B829EAC...@etr-usa.com...
Isaac
It's real name is the "Audio Home Recording Act". Can you guess what
it doesn't cover?
Isaac
>
>
>
>Werner
>
>--
>Memory Dragon
The Realist
wrote:
> All anyone has to do is download a binary newsreader like GRAVITY among
>others and go to binary newsgroups like al.binaries.movies and SOOOooo many
>more. You can hang out there and download all the stuff you want. Music,
>movies, software, whatever. Let the lawyers hang out there where their scary
>post will fall on deaf ears. THIS is a fact of life. It is a WAR out there
>and this is that way it HAS to be. Big business has to be kept in check.
>What does one suppose would things be like if the VCR had never
>proliferated. Has the movie industry suffered in any way? NOT. Copy what you
>want WHEN you want and let them come take me away. All others be as scared
>as you like.
I say we all do that hoot-hoot-hoot chant they used to do on Arsenio
Hall :-) You go Cliff! Tell em! lol :-) Amen!
Werner Purrer
>
>>Free speech doesnt allow you to give away a companies trade secrets to the
>>masses!!!!
>Come on a Rot13 isn´t a trade secret it is an ancient algorithm even
>used by the Romans.
Besides that is reverse engineering without having seen any of the
original material and talking about the discovered algorithm used really
giving away trade secrets?
Werner
--
Memory Dragon
Mark Elliott
Warren Young <war...@etr-usa.com> wrote:
> Why fight ATI on this? The real source of the problem is the laws we
> have allowed to be passed at the behest of the MPAA and the RIAA. You
> have a choice to either work to get those laws repealed, or spend money
> to work around their results. (I.e. "buy a Sima box")
The problem as reported by the original poster was not that ATI uses
MacroVision protection. It's that there is a bug in their MacroVision
protection which means that it thinks a recording is protected when it
actually isn't. Until I found the MacroVision hack, I was unable to
record from the TV.
ATI should fix this bug, but they don't seem interested.
Mark
The Realist
wrote:
Yeah well live and learn folks. Between this issue and the lack of
driver updates, I have to agree with another poster in this group...If
I had to do it over again, I wouldn't go ATI. Maybe their head is just
getting so big that they feel they don't have to deliver customer
satisfaction anymore. I just don't understand any other possibility,
as to why a company could basically just shit all over their
customers.
GMAN
>>
>> I think it is more than reasonable that this card should be able to
>> make copies of VHS cassettes. For crying out loud, VHS cassettes are
>> far from the perfect quality of DVD, yet DVD's can EASILY and
>> EFFORTLESSLY be copied with any half decent PC, and depending on the
>> compression and software used, can be made almost identical to the
>> original DVD. They claim that they are most concerned about DVD
>> copying, because they are "perfect sources". Well VHS is no where near
>> DVD, so they should lighten up.
>
>Unfortunately, there is no way for the card to distinguish a VHS source
>from a DVD source. Or, for that matter, a Beta deck.
Its TOTAL BULLSHIT that it has to consider my home movies video taped on an
old full size VHS camcorder as protected material. It should not do this.
GMAN
Its a canadian company being chickensit about US laws. Since the card is
considered a multi function device and the primary use is not for video
capture but for video display, then it could be manufactured with no
macrovision detection included. This is per the DMCA , This is why boxes like
the SIMA SCC box can still be sold, as well as the Dazzle DV Bridge, neither
of which recognize or react to macrovision. Sony took the chicken shit route
with their DV conversion box.
dddibley
ddd
;--------------
Warren Young
>
> Free speech doesnt allow you to give away a companies trade secrets to the
> masses!!!!
Wrong. Trade secret law only constrains people with an affirmative duty
to protect the trade secret: employees of the company, people they've
divulged the secret to under NDA, etc. If J. Random Hacker discovers
the secret, as happened in the DeCSS case, that's not a violation of
trade secret law.
Warren Young
>
> >Unfortunately, there is no way for the card to distinguish a VHS source
> >from a DVD source. Or, for that matter, a Beta deck.
>
> Bullcrap, either the source has the macrovision encoded on it or it doesnt.
You wouldn't say that if you knew how Macrovision works. It's not like
there's a digital bit in the video that's set to 1 for "Macrovision" or
0 for "no Macrovision". Macrovision works by taking advantage of the
fact that VCR recording sections are built to be less tolerant of
varying signals in a certain non-video part of the NTSC signal, while
TVs are tolerant of these variations.
Bad VHS recordings can inadvertently contain Macrovision-like signals in
them, and there's not a thing a card like the ATI AIW can do to detect
this other than reducing their Macrovision detector's sensitivity. Now,
do you think the MPAA will sit quietly by if ATI tried that?
> Its TOTAL BULLSHIT that it has to consider my home movies video taped on an
> old full size VHS camcorder as protected material. It should not do this.
Macrovision is a lock, and like every other lock, it cannot be
transparent. Locks inconvenience both the thief and the legitimate user
of the property. They are a friction, an impediment, and all your
griping will not change these basic facts.
The MPAA didn't care that it would impede legitimate users when it
mandated that every DVD decoder include Macrovision detection. They
want their locks. If you want this changed, grumbling on newsgroups or
bitching to ATI isn't going to help.
Go do something productive, like joining the EFF.
Martian Welk
because i have piped loads of cunsumer crap through it and it works
everytime
course i am in NTSC country not PAL
"Warren Young" <war...@etr-usa.com> wrote in message
news:3B851AC2...@etr-usa.com...
Audio Dude
anything from my VCR. Might it be that I have not encountered a recording
with Macrovision yet or my Radeon works different that other ATI products.
"Mark Elliott" <elli...@cf.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:elliottmc-8A6D1...@fafnir.cf.ac.uk...
Fred MacMurray
"John Dondzila" <*pcj...@classicgamecreations.com> wrote in message
news:pj3unts7tqlbge10d...@4ax.com...
> >I have a ATI All-in Wonder 128 32MB and I'm trying to capture a VHS tape
> >from my vcr so I can store the VHS tape so it won't get ruined and just
> >create a VCD from the mpeg I would capture. Well, as all of you probably
> >well know, ATI instilled Macrovision into capture drivers so you can't do
> >this. Could anyone suggest a decent capture card that doesn't have
> >Macrovision?
>
> I returned my ATI for that reason. Why not buy a Sigma copymaster ?
>
> The cheaper versions are around $40 and work with VHS.
> DVD will cost you more.
>
>
> Anti SPAM In Use !
> Remove the * from *pcj...@classicgamecreations.com
> to send E-Mail.
Fred MacMurray
than most people here. Does this fix work on all ATI cards (for that matter
do they all have this problem?)?
"Spongebob Squarepants" <inapin...@underthesea.com> wrote in message
news:to0om3a...@corp.supernews.com...
> http://www.edl2011.demon.co.uk/ go here.
bernard_...@hotmail.com
Have an ice day ;)
Bernard
In article <tv57t1l...@corp.supernews.com>, Fred MacMurray says...