Talk:TiVo Corporation

this is a great page, thank you. i work in a library and was trying to figure out what the 'macrovision' label on some of the tapes was all about. great job.

this page seems a bit biased (anti-Macrovision) to me. personally, i'm completely anti-Macrovision, but neutral viewpoint takes precedence over mine. the explanations for why macrovision is bad should be in a separate section (not the introduction) and accompanied by reasons for macrovision.

Agreed with the above. This is an informative page, but the anti-macrovision viewpoint should not be included in with the introduction. This should be divided into another category! Other than that, this article was extremely insightful.

Can you quote the anti-macrovision part? I just read it and to me it almost seemed like a Macrovision brochure. If there is a NPOV check, it should for ommiting the users side.

To begin with, the original "macrovision" technique being called "copy protection" is a broad overstatement of a company that wants to sell a "product". Truth is, its more or less a "hack" they found on common VHS decks, or at least it used to be common, most current VHS decks (sold outside USA) and very old VHS decks have no problems with this noise they add. Its not like the VHS format was designed for copy protection on the first place, and other formats like betamax are totally inmune.

There is also something missing from the macrovision story. They also wanted this "noise" to be added to live broadcasting of public shows, but consumers of the day (and Sony, see (Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios) defended their right for time-shifting so they should be allowed to tape the shows while they are at work or doing something else. After the draconian DMCA and other recent US laws, this consumer right is in practice lost.

In fact, thanks to the DMCA, silly things started to happen. Because "circunventing" is now illegal in USA, a device which is normally not physically affected must now add extra components to _detect_ the macrovision noise and refuse the signal. This has been the case with some computer video capture boards, and dual decks produced after the year 2000. I own a dual deck vhs purchased before DMCA, and can confirm, you can perfectly make a backup copy of a vhs tape with macrovision just fine. The copy will even retain the macrovision noise. I'm sorry if i sound strong, but what macrovision does is almost a scam.

I didn't touched the article because i consider myself biased against the macrovision company. I hope some of you might have the time to verify any comments made here that could enrich the wikipedia entry. As it is, its biased in favor of the company. I agree any negative points could be added in a separate section.

Perhaps the intro could add a phrase like "According to the Macrovision company, etc."

Its quite clear what stance the whole of the ripguard section takes. Sections like "that every copy-protection scheme introduced by Macrovision to date has been circumvented" clearly show the writers bias. Stick to facts and refer to opinions as opinion.

---

    If it's a fact that every Macrovision technology to date has been circumvented (and I'm pretty sure it is a fact) then it should be included in the article because, well, it's a fact and not opinion.  The fact that you would like that reference removed would seem to indicate a bias on your part.

I think this page is biased. The tone of the author sound very much like contempt. Also, there is a link to a page that shows one how to circumvent Macrovision. Whether you like that inclusion or not, it is illegal to circumvent, and has no place on Wikipedia.

It is illegal to circumvent in the US kibibu 00:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And Europe. Proto t c 13:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that this page does conform to the NPOV. I do have the sense that the person who wrote about Macrovision being a nuisance to some is one of those who find it to be such, but this does not negate the veracity of that observation. Similarly, the part about how all Macrovision schemes to date have been circumvented is in fact a fact (assuming that it is in fact true) and, in any event, is not an opinion. The assertion that it is a good thing to circumvent all attempts to restrict the free use of information is an opinion which the author(s) of this page may hold, but they do not violate the NPOV because they provide the simple facts of the situation rather than endorsing this opinion.

I've gone through the article and taken out all the weaselly words, peacock terms, NPOV, rumours, hearsay, etc. Proto t c 13:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image request: Does anybody have an oscilloscope and the capability to make "screenshots" of signals of both Macrovisioned and non-Macrovisioned PAL or NTSC signal? They could be an excellent addition for the article. --Shaddack 21:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EMeta Corporation

Hello, the AfD for the above article has closed with a request that it be merged into this article. Could someone knowledgeable in this area please do so? Thanks. Babajobu 08:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DVD Decrypter Case

How the hell did Macrovision buy out DVD Decrypter? Did LIGHTNING UK! acquiesce willingly? NeoThe1 05:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

he agreed so as not to end up in prison -red-x

Can someone insert the cost of adding macrovision to, say, a DVD?

There is no fee required as it is simply a flag on the disc. But in order to use the technolgly legaly there is a fee around $0.50 per disc.

Plus, licensed DVD players themselves must implement Macrovision-generating circuitry. This includes software DVD players, too. EpiVictor 14:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

split RipGuard

why does ripguard not have its own article both ARccOS Protection and FluxDvd have articles

Macrovision removers illegal?

I don't think that it is at all clear that the DMCA outlawed such devices. 2 reasons:

1. In order to apply, Macrovision must conform to the definition of a "technical measure", which is: "... `effectively controls access to a work' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work." Given that Macrovision does not unlock the data in any fashion, this definition does not seem to apply. In other words, a VCR will play a Macrovision protected tape on a TV even both pieces of equipment have no Macrovision-specific components.

2. The applicability is being challenged in the Sima Products/Macrovision lawsuit. No final decision has been made in this case.

Safecast unrelated to FlexLM, not successor

Can someone please cite an authority for the claim that SafeCast is a successor to FlexLM? Macrovision's website seems to have little information on SafeCast, while FlexLM is there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Verilog (talk • contribs) 20:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Safecast = Wrapper. FlexLM/Flexnet publisher = API. Whether one succeeds the other is not relevant, they are different styles of licensing.

In other words, the article is wrong in asserting that "derived from FLEXlm" (in the "See also" section) Verilog 23:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Installshield activation service used Safecast to wrap windows binaries, ocx, dll, exes prior to packaging in Installshield, and it was rumored .NET and Java with some fiddling. The Installshield activation service is no longer being sold, but it is still supported by Macrovision.