Any way to *CREATE* Vcr+ (VCR PLUS) codes??? (please read)
Jeremy A Moskowitz
I was wondering - my cable listings dont provive codes for
Comedy Central, channel 39. Drat. I always want to tape
Mystery Science Theatre 3000 on Friday Evenings and
Saturday Mornings.
I was furious when I called Gemstar and asked them how to
get to program the numbers myself. They told me to screw off.
So, I did a little figurin'.
I played for an hour with the box, and realized something.
Year (operater) code = Channel, Time, and Length
BUT! Many times, the DATE will USUALLY still be the same. Hm...
So, I was wondering if anyone WROTE a program that'll
let you input today's date, the channel you want, the time and
length, and the VCR Plus code would be spit out.
Let me know, I am really curious.
I have never even attempted to crack any other code in my life,
but am willing to learn!!
Also, I did finally get the code out of the guy. It took 30 minutes of
badgering and pleading. But that code is only good for next week, unless
I say I want it EVERY week with the weekly button.
--
// Email: jer...@brahms.udel.edu------\ Monitor of---------------\
// Registered Commodore Amiga Developer| Comp.sys.amiga.EMULATIONS|
\\ // "I'm spellunking."- BAB "There's medicine you can take for that." - BB
\X/ My Life Needs Cheap Dubbed in Sound Effects - Anon.
Phil Howard
>I was wondering - my cable listings dont provive codes for
>Comedy Central, channel 39. Drat. I always want to tape
>Mystery Science Theatre 3000 on Friday Evenings and
>Saturday Mornings.
I did once see a program posted for the reverse of what was requested.
However it did not produce correct results. When I looked at the code
it was clear it was not even complete (although complete from the
compiler's point of view).
I would consider cracking VCR+ an interesting and challenging exercise.
I've noted some patterns in the codes in TV Guide and thought I would
give it a try sometime. I've collected a few issues, including one week
from several areas so I can get a lot of channel diversity. Some day I
may even get around to it.
In the mean time, I still program my VCRs the old way... I put in the
actual time and channel I want to record.
--
/************************************************************************\
| Phil Howard, p...@netcom.com, KA9WGN Spell protection? "1(911)A1" |
| "It's not broken... it's just functionally challenged" --Phil and Pete |
\************************************************************************/
Russ Schnapp
|> I would consider cracking VCR+ an interesting and challenging exercise.
|> I've noted some patterns in the codes in TV Guide and thought I would
|> give it a try sometime. I've collected a few issues, including one week
|> from several areas so I can get a lot of channel diversity. Some day I
|> may even get around to it.
Is it really necessary to reverse-engineer the VCR+ algorithm? I thought
that VCR+ is patented. If you can obtain the patent number, then the patent
can be retrieved. The patent _must_ disclose the method used.
Of course, you can't legally _use_ the patented technology without licensing
it, but it's perfectly legal to understand the technology. That's the whole
point of the patent system -- to make information public.
I guess the question is whether the patent number is public information...
--
...Russ Schnapp
BIX: rschnapp Email: netcom!metaflow!rschnapp or rsch...@metaflow.com
Metaflow Technologies Voice: 619/452-6608x230; FAX: 619/452-0401
La Jolla, California Unless otw specified, I`m speaking only for myself!
Ken Shirriff
>Is it really necessary to reverse-engineer the VCR+ algorithm? I thought
>that VCR+ is patented. If you can obtain the patent number, then the patent
>can be retrieved. The patent _must_ disclose the method used.
The patent doesn't include enough information to decode the VCR+ code.
It explains how to make/decode _a_ VCR code, but not _the_ VCR+ code. That
is, there are a bunch of specific details you need that aren't included. (As
an analogy, the RSA patent won't help you decode a particular RSA-encoded
message.)
Ken Shirriff shir...@sprite.Berkeley.EDU
Greg Donovan
Look in alt.sources or rec.video. There is a posting containing a shar
of code to encode/decode numbers and times. Here is the description
from the header:
This ZIP archive holds three files
X readme.txt
X encode.c
X decode.c
X
X
decode.c is source program that reads a VCRPLUS code
number value you find in the newspaper and calculates
X date_of_the_tv_program
X starting_time_of_the_tv_program
X run_length_of_the_tv_program
X
X
encode.c is source program that reads a date, start time,
and run length then turns them into a VCRPLUS code number
like the ones in the newspaper.
Good luck,
Greg
These are my words and thoughts, no one elses.
Vesselin Bontchev
> Look in alt.sources or rec.video. There is a posting containing a shar
> of code to encode/decode numbers and times. Here is the description
> from the header:
> This ZIP archive holds three files
> X readme.txt
> X encode.c
> X decode.c
Hmm... isn't there an ftp site that has them or could somebody post
them here for those of us who do not have access to the above
newsgroups? Thanks.
Regards,
Vesselin
--
Vesselin Vladimirov Bontchev Virus Test Center, University of Hamburg
Tel.:+49-40-54715-224, Fax: +49-40-54715-226 Fachbereich Informatik - AGN
< PGP 2.1 public key available on request. > Vogt-Koelln-Strasse 30, rm. 107 C
e-mail: bont...@fbihh.informatik.uni-hamburg.de D-2000 Hamburg 54, Germany
Larry Loen
Has anyone thought to call their local TV station or a local newspaper that
publishes VCR+ codes?
I would imagine the manufacturer doesn't care a fig if the algorithm is
published. They would only care to license the production of the _hardware_
in actual VCRs. It would be in their interest, I would think, to _give away_
the encoding algorithm to TV stations and any producer of TV listings, such
as a newspaper. Perhaps later on, they will try & get revenue out of the
guides, but at first they surely gave it away and still may be doing so. . .
I could be wrong, but for those who care, a phone call or two ought to
do it if my guess is correct.
--
Larry W. Loen | My Opinions are decidedly my own, so please
| do not attribute them to my employer
Ken Shirriff
>I would imagine the manufacturer doesn't care a fig if the algorithm is
>published.
They do.
>It would be in their interest, I would think, to _give away_
>the encoding algorithm to TV stations and any producer of TV listings, such
>as a newspaper.
They don't give it away; they don't even reveal the algorithm. They sell
the code numbers to the newspapers.
Ken Shirriff shir...@sprite.Berkeley.EDU
Paul C Leyland
> This ZIP archive holds three files
> X readme.txt
> X encode.c
> X decode.c
Hmm... isn't there an ftp site that has them or could somebody post
them here for those of us who do not have access to the above
newsgroups? Thanks.
black.ox.ac.uk (129.67.1.165) /src/vcr+.shar.Z
Have fun.
Paul
--
Paul Leyland <p...@oxford.ac.uk> | Hanging on in quiet desperation is
Oxford University Computing Service | the English way.
13 Banbury Road, Oxford, OX2 6NN, UK | The time is come, the song is over.
Tel: +44-865-273200 Fax: +44-865-273275 | Thought I'd something more to say.
Finger p...@black.ox.ac.uk for PGP key |
Arthur Rubin
>Has anyone thought to call their local TV station or a local newspaper that
>publishes VCR+ codes?
>I would imagine the manufacturer doesn't care a fig if the algorithm is
>published. They would only care to license the production of the _hardware_
>in actual VCRs. It would be in their interest, I would think, to _give away_
>the encoding algorithm to TV stations and any producer of TV listings, such
>as a newspaper. Perhaps later on, they will try & get revenue out of the
>guides, but at first they surely gave it away and still may be doing so. . .
>I could be wrong, but for those who care, a phone call or two ought to
>do it if my guess is correct.
To add to another reply, they have a 900 number to get codes for new
programs. (I don't know if it's voice or tone -- as I only have an
academic interest in VCR+, being able to program my VCR without it, I am
not willing to pay a significant amount in research costs to investigate.)
--
Arthur L. Rubin: a_r...@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea
216-...@mcimail.com 7070...@compuserve.com art...@pnet01.cts.com (personal)
My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer.
My interaction with our news system is unstable; please mail anything important.
David Sternlight
As I understand things from my conversations with the inventor of the
VCR+ (they are down the street from me and make another wonderful
American success story--he's a very young recent Cal Tech graduate of
Chinese extraction who had a brilliant idea and seems to have done
everything right--the next American self-made multi-millionaire),
they provide the program to the stations on very stringent security
terms, to compute the codes. That was my info as of six months
ago--it may have changed--dunno. Back then, I noticed that two
sources of published codes, the L.A. Times and TV guide occasionally
had different codes for the same program, which suggests other
than a central source. (They weren't typos, and both worked.)
I don't know what his motives are on refusing to publish or give out
the algorithm, but if I were he, I'd behave that way in order to
avoid the legal costs and niusance of having to take infringers
to court. if that makes life harder for innocents who simply want
a few codes for personal use, that's unfortunate.
Further, the 900 number (it works by touch tones) MIGHT be a source
of revenue, though my guess is that it's run at a loss. I say that
because it isn't very highly publicized.
By the way, the local PBS station has now gotten on the bandwagon, and
their monthly program guide (KCET) carries the codes.
Finally, there seem to be two sets of codes. One, of up to six digits,
is for the standard start times (on the half-hour) and lengths (multiples
of 30 minutes). A second, of more digits, seems to be for the exception
cases. The first set has now been broken and a convenient pair of
"c" routines is making its way around the world. The second has not
yet been broken, as far as I can tell, but is mostly of interest only to
make sure the recordings of cable movies with odd ending times are
correctly stopped to avoid wasting tape.
Either the primary code is a table look-up in the chip, or it has been
broken by trial and error--the c routines work by table look-up.
Since there aren't as many published canonical instances of the
secondary code, it may be a while before it is broken.
--
David Sternlight
RIPEM Public Key on server -- Consider it an envelope for your e-mail
Curt Welch
>Finally, there seem to be two sets of codes. One, of up to six digits,
>is for the standard start times (on the half-hour) and lengths (multiples
>of 30 minutes). A second, of more digits, seems to be for the exception
>cases.
I'm one of the people the "broke" the codes. It isn't that simple.
The algorithm starts out being quite simple for single digit codes, and
gets more and more complex for each digit you add. The VCR Plus+
algorithm is desinged so that common shows map to shorter numbers -
which reduces the average number of digits you have to type. The shorter
the code, the more "typical" the show time.
The algorithm gets more complex every time you add another digit. There
is no second algorithm for 7 and 8 digit codes. We just lost interest
in the project and stopped working on it before solving the 7 and 8 digit
codes.
>The first set has now been broken and a convenient pair of
>"c" routines is making its way around the world.
Those routines (as far as I know - I haven't looked at them that closely
yet) are an implementation of our algorithm - the one that was published
in Cryptologia.
>The second has not
>yet been broken, as far as I can tell, but is mostly of interest only to
>make sure the recordings of cable movies with odd ending times are
>correctly stopped to avoid wasting tape.
As far as I know, no one has made in progress on the 7 and 8 digit codes.
However, like all the digits before, it's most likely just an extension
of the algorithm used on the shorter codes. The 6 digit algorithm stops
in the middle of a range of shows. I'm sure the 7 digit algorithm picks
up where the 6 digit algorithm stops.
However, the change in the algorthim from the 6 to 7 digit codes seems
more complex than the change from the 5 to 6 digit codes.
>Either the primary code is a table look-up in the chip, or it has been
>broken by trial and error--the c routines work by table look-up.
Not really. Most of it is is algorithmic. However, there are tables
used in the algorithm. The day and channel are calculated without the
use of any tables, and most of the start times and durations are also
calculated without the use of tables. And I wouldn't be surprised if
the one table that is used could be replaced with an algorithm.
The algorithm was created by many, many hours of research. We never
looked at the ROMs in the VCR Plus+ device (assuming it has ROMs), so I
have no idea what you could learn (or would find) by doing that.
>Since there aren't as many published canonical instances of the
>secondary code, it may be a while before it is broken.
You don't have to collect published codes, you can just sit down with the
VCR Plus+ device and start punching in numbers. But there are 9,999,999
7 digit codes (and each one requires 9 button presses to test), so it can
take a long time to get enough numbers.
This is at least part of why we stopped working on the codes. It was
taking too much time.
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Curt Welch - KCW Consulting By 1995, there will be just two kinds |
| cu...@kcwc.com - NeXTmail please! of professionals: Those who use NeXT,|
| (703) 938-4152 FAX (703) 938-5756 and those without Jobs. |
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------/
Paul Rubin
VCR Plus+ device and start punching in numbers. But there are 9,999,999
7 digit codes (and each one requires 9 button presses to test), so it can
take a long time to get enough numbers.
What does pushing buttons on the device tell you? Doesn't pushing
a number like 1952037 cause the device to send some infrared pulses
at a particular time which is difficult to predict from the number
alone? Or does the device somehow display what is going to send and
when it is going to send them?
Note: I don't own a VCR+, or a VCR, or even a TV set so I'm asking
from curiosity only (I think it's an interesting problem). But
this should explain why I'm not familiar with using the device.
David Sternlight
Curt Welch posts a fascinating explanation of the cracking of the
VCR Plus codes, replacing my speculation and inference with facts--
always welcome.
Good job.
Since some of the movies shown on Cable are of unusual length or
occur at odd times, and since it is convenient to be able to
tape several shows in sequence without having to back up over
extraneous material at the end (especially if one is away), it would
be a real public service if Curt and his colleagues would find their
way clear to returning to the task for longer numbers.
By the way, I should have realized that one doesn't need published codes
to do the job--just a VCR Plus device and the time to punch in codes.
I'm not clear on one thing, though. The device doesn't tell you the
duration of the program, except to the nearest hour. How does one
determine that part of the coding system without using published
codes?
Finally, I wonder of Curt or any of his colleagues have compiled the
c code for the Mac?
Carl Oppedahl
>As I understand things from my conversations with the inventor of the
>VCR+ ... [stuff deleted]
>they provide the program to the stations on very stringent security
>terms, to compute the codes. That was my info as of six months
>ago--it may have changed--dunno. Back then, I noticed that two
>sources of published codes, the L.A. Times and TV guide occasionally
>had different codes for the same program, which suggests other
>than a central source. (They weren't typos, and both worked.)
I trust that readers of this group have no trouble figuring out why
this would happen -- right?
The VCR+ people provide programs to the LA Times, and to TV Guide,
that are not identical. Sure the codes work the same from both versions
of the program, but the difference in what is printed in the guide
makes it possible for the VCR+ people to figure out _which_ copy
of the program was used to create a given set of plus codes.
That way if, say, LA Times started selling codes to TV Guide, or to
someone else, the VCR+ people would be able to blame the LA Times.
We intellectual property lawyers call that a "spike".
--
Carl Oppedahl AA2KW (intellectual property lawyer)
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112-0228
voice 212-408-2578 fax 212-765-2519
Paul C Leyland
...
Finally, there seem to be two sets of codes. One, of up to six digits,
is for the standard start times (on the half-hour) and lengths (multiples
of 30 minutes). A second, of more digits, seems to be for the exception
cases. The first set has now been broken and a convenient pair of
"c" routines is making its way around the world. The second has not
yet been broken, as far as I can tell, but is mostly of interest only to
make sure the recordings of cable movies with odd ending times are
correctly stopped to avoid wasting tape.
Of much greater interest on this side of the pond. In the UK, TV
programs very often start and finish on non-30 minute boundaries. I,
for one, would like to see a complete solution.
Curt Welch
>to do the job--just a VCR Plus device and the time to punch in codes.
>I'm not clear on one thing, though. The device doesn't tell you the
>duration of the program, except to the nearest hour. How does one
>determine that part of the coding system without using published
>codes?
The easiest way is to use published codes to get the duration. But that
gets hard when they start using codes with 5 minute start times. If
a movie ends at 20 minutes after the hour, does the code end there or
did they pick a code that just ends at 25 after?
BTW, I'm not sure what the finest granularity of the duration is, but I
assume it's 5 minutes. The start times seem to have a maximum granularity
of 5 minutes.
But there is a trick you can use with the device. It shows you the
_total_ duration of all the shows your have progammed using a bar
graph. This is to let you know how much tape you need. Each bar is 1
hour. If you punch in a number, and it shows 2 bars, then you know the
duration is greater than one hour and less than or equal to two hours,
but you don't know where it falls between there.
But you can then punch in more codes, with known durations, and see
what happens. If you add a code with a 30 minute duration, and the
number of bars stays at 2, then you know the first number had a
duration that is less than or equal to 90 minutes.
Doing this allows you to figure out all the codes, but it's very time
consuming.
Another way to find the duration is to program your VCR Plus+ with
a code, and then video tape the VCR Plus+ as it sends out the
IR signals. You can't see the IR signals, but camcorders can. If
your camcorder has an Hour/Minute/Second tape counter, then it's easy
to calculate when the VCR Plus+ tried to stop and start your VCR. It
adds some extra time to the beginning and end of each show, so you have
to adjust for that, but that's easy to do by experimenting with
known codes.
>Finally, I wonder of Curt or any of his colleagues have compiled the
>c code for the Mac?
Nope, I'm not a Mac person. A good friend of mine (actually the guy that
got me started looking at the codes in the first place) is a full time
Mac programmer. Maybe I can talk him into putting togither a nice
little Mac version of the program.
Curt Welch
> You don't have to collect published codes, you can just sit down with the
> VCR Plus+ device and start punching in numbers. But there are 9,999,999
> 7 digit codes (and each one requires 9 button presses to test), so it can
> take a long time to get enough numbers.
>
>What does pushing buttons on the device tell you? Doesn't pushing
>a number like 1952037 cause the device to send some infrared pulses
>at a particular time which is difficult to predict from the number
>alone? Or does the device somehow display what is going to send and
>when it is going to send them?
Yes, it has an LCD display that shows you the start time, the channel, and
the date. This allows you to confirm that you punched in the correct
number. The duration is also shown using a bar graph (see the other
article I just posted about this.)
Curt Welch
>Back then, I noticed that two
>sources of published codes, the L.A. Times and TV guide occasionally
>had different codes for the same program, which suggests other
>than a central source. (They weren't typos, and both worked.)
oppe...@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl) writes:
>I trust that readers of this group have no trouble figuring out why
>this would happen -- right?
>The VCR+ people provide programs to the LA Times, and to TV Guide,
>that are not identical.
That's a good theory, but I doubt it's correct. I've checked hundreds
of codes from many different publications and I've never found two
different codes that mapped to the same show. Our 6 digit algorithm
produces a perfect 1 to 1 mapping of numbers to shows for all 6 digit
codes, so there's no way Gemstar could have different programs
producing different numbers.
Part of the success of the VCR Plus+ system is due to the length of
the codes being very short. Gemstar bent over backwards to reduce
this as much as possible. This was the key weakness in the code that
made it so easy to break. If they allowed multiple PlusCodes to map
to the same show (so they could tell who encoded it) then it would
make the codes longer. I doubt they did this.
Sometimes, the same show
will have different numbers because the different guides will be using
different channels (which they expect you to deal with using the channel
mapping function of the VCR Plus+). But you can see this when you punch
in the numbers because it shows you the channel.
If you punch in two different numbers, and it seems to map to the same
show and same channel, then the difference is probably in the duration.
This has been the case every time I've found two different numbers
for the same show. It will typically be for shows when strange
durations or start times. On guide might use a duration of 1:50 and the
other will choose 1:55.
Peter Trei
>In sci.crypt, strn...@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>>Finally, there seem to be two sets of codes. One, of up to six digits,
>>is for the standard start times (on the half-hour) and lengths (multiples
>>of 30 minutes). A second, of more digits, seems to be for the exception
>>cases.
>I'm one of the people the "broke" the codes. It isn't that simple.
>The algorithm starts out being quite simple for single digit codes, and
>gets more and more complex for each digit you add.
[...]
>You don't have to collect published codes, you can just sit down with the
>VCR Plus+ device and start punching in numbers. But there are 9,999,999
>7 digit codes (and each one requires 9 button presses to test), so it can
>take a long time to get enough numbers.
>This is at least part of why we stopped working on the codes. It was
>taking too much time.
Wasn't Gemstar also threatening to sic rabid lawyers on you? Or
did that only come later?
I got one of these devices for Christmas (though I usually use a
CP8 programmable remote, which is far more versatile, if not quite as
user-friendly). Since some of my cable channels don't have TV Guide
listings, I'd like to be able to generate my own codes.
When I looked in the front of TVG, I found that the numbers are
claimed to be *copyright* by Gemstar. I suspect that selling the
numbers to TVG and other publications is another revenue stream for
them. (Can you really copyright a number? Intel is calling it's new
chip the "Pentium" since it can't copyright 586, any more than it
could 286, 386, or 486).
A possibly relevant note appears in John Dvorak's column in the
Jan 12 PC Magazine. To summarize:
Sega sued Accolade, which was making Sega Genesis game
cartridges without getting licensing from Sega. This suit was settled
in Accolade's favor with a ruling that:
* Accolade could make Genesis games without asking Sega's permission.
* Accolade could reverse engineer the Sega software needed to let the
cartridge talk to the machine.
* Accolade could use a Sega cartridge as a model for the reverse engineering.
Dvorak says: "Who says you can't look at the code of the product
you're reverse engineering? ... This means that software code of a
competitor now can be examined for the purposes of reverse
engineering."
I'm not a lawyer (and neither is Dvorak), but I suspect that
this ruling means that a lawsuit from Gemstar against someone who
published an algorithm which produced codes with the same values as
the VCR+ device would fail, and quickly.
Peter Trei
pt...@Mitre.org
Curt Welch
>This is at least part of why we stopped working on the codes. It was
>>taking too much time.
In sci.crypt, pt...@bistromath.mitre.org (Peter Trei) writes:
> Wasn't Gemstar also threatening to sic rabid lawyers on you? Or
>did that only come later?
Yes. Well actually it came later. We did most the work around July
and August of 91, and got almost the entire 6 digit algorithm figured
out then. We were having a lot of problems figuring out the final part
of the 6 digit algorithm, and I hadn't spend more than a few hours on
it total over the next few months. At the end of November, in response
to someone asking about the algorithm on the net, I decided to post my
version of the program, but I wanted to clean it up some first, so I
posted a messages saing that I would post the program in about a week.
At the end of the week, before I posted it, I got a call from Gemstar's
lawyer. We had multiple conversations with them (the Lawyer - I never
talked to anyone at Gemstar directly) but nothing every happened. In
the middle of January, we finally got a letter from them stating that
they would take no legal action against us (at that time) but implied
they might if we released our version of the program.
All the advise we got implied that they would have no chance of winning
a court battle, be we didn't want to take the chance, so we didn't
release our work. We decided to go with the Crytologia article
instead.
> When I looked in the front of TVG, I found that the numbers are
>claimed to be *copyright* by Gemstar. I suspect that selling the
>numbers to TVG and other publications is another revenue stream for
>them.
Yes, a big revenue stream.
>(Can you really copyright a number?
You can copyright anything. The question is whether it would
hold up in court or not. No copyright on just a number would hold up in
court however.
But you can Copyright a table of numbers and show times that you publish
(which is what they do). However, it's questionable if they could claim
infringment if you copied some of those numbers and times and re-publilshed
them. I'm sure however, that Gemstar would take you to court if they could
prove that you copied one of they copyrighted listings, and let the court
decide.
> A possibly relevant note appears in John Dvorak's column in the
>Jan 12 PC Magazine. To summarize: [...]
Interesting.
> I'm not a lawyer (and neither is Dvorak), but I suspect that
>this ruling means that a lawsuit from Gemstar against someone who
>published an algorithm which produced codes with the same values as
>the VCR+ device would fail, and quickly.
Yes, it sounds that way to me too. But I think the case would always
had failed - even without the new ruling.
It's only a guess, but I kinda got the impresion that when Gemstar
was talking to us last year, they were only trying to delay us from
releasing to code. Maybe they were trying to close some big deals
with VCR manufacturers and didn't want them to find out that someone
had broke the code until after the deal was signed?
ce...@vixvax.mgi.com
> I'm one of the people the "broke" the codes. It isn't that simple.
:
> You don't have to collect published codes, you can just sit down with the
> VCR Plus+ device and start punching in numbers. But there are 9,999,999
> 7 digit codes (and each one requires 9 button presses to test), so it can
> take a long time to get enough numbers.
>
> This is at least part of why we stopped working on the codes. It was
> taking too much time.
OK, let's see. Break out the old, klunky hot-box computer. Warm up
the solder gun. Use an I/O port to "press" the buttons on the unit, and
read the output with a(n infrared?) detector. Push RUN, let it go for
awhile, and then look at the gathered data. It may not be trivially
easy (the funnest things often aren't), but it doesn't have to be slow.
Just a-dreamin'...
Brian Casey
Unfortunately, this is not correct. The majority of codes
for both the LA Times and the TV Guide are identical. The
major class of programs where differences occur is with
movies. The LA Times produces codes from the beginning of
the movie until the start of the next listed program, while
TV Guide produces codes for the exact running time of the
movie.
Brian Casey
b...@macsch.com
William Unruh
> A possibly relevant note appears in John Dvorak's column in the
>Jan 12 PC Magazine. To summarize:
> Sega sued Accolade, which was making Sega Genesis game
>cartridges without getting licensing from Sega. This suit was settled
>in Accolade's favor with a ruling that:
> * Accolade could make Genesis games without asking Sega's permission.
> * Accolade could reverse engineer the Sega software needed to let the
> cartridge talk to the machine.
> * Accolade could use a Sega cartridge as a model for the reverse engineering.
> Dvorak says: "Who says you can't look at the code of the product
>you're reverse engineering? ... This means that software code of a
>competitor now can be examined for the purposes of reverse
>engineering."
That's one Judge on the particulars and peculiarities of one case. Teh
next judge could well ignore this judgement and come to the opposite
conclusion, or say that the case is sufficiently different that this
judgement has no bearing. Ah the fun of the Law.
Steven Bellovin
> (which is what they do). However, it's questionable if they could claim
> infringment if you copied some of those numbers and times and re-publilshed
> them. I'm sure however, that Gemstar would take you to court if they could
> prove that you copied one of they copyrighted listings, and let the court
> decide.
It strikes me as improbable that they could enforce such a copyright.
The courts have ruled that to be copyrighted, a work must be a creative
act. In the particular case I'm thinking of, it was ruled that a phone
book could not be copyrighted, since no creativity went into it.
In this case, there is creativity in how the numbers are created -- but
copyright protects the expression, not the ideas, and an algorithm is
not subject to copyright. It may be patentable -- but as far as I know,
their patent has not yet been issued.
Paul C Leyland
You can copyright anything. The question is whether it would
hold up in court or not. No copyright on just a number would hold up in
court however.
But you can Copyright a table of numbers and show times that you publish
(which is what they do). However, it's questionable if they could claim
infringment if you copied some of those numbers and times and re-publilshed
them. I'm sure however, that Gemstar would take you to court if they could
prove that you copied one of they copyrighted listings, and let the court
decide.
A similar case was decided in the UK about a year ago. TV listing
used to be the perogative of the broadcasting companies, so there were
only two magazines: one by the BBC and the other by the independents
acting in concert. Recently, it was held that this was monopolistic,
and so now anyone can publish listings.