Macrovision defeater

[DavidW]

Hello,

I have a "Video Stabilizer" device inline with the video input to a VCR. Its
purpose is to remove the Macrovision copy protection where it is included in the
signal (in my case from a DVD player or Foxtel On Demand movies). It works very
well for Macrovisioned PAL video but it doesn't work for Macrovisioned NTSC
video, although un-Macrovisioned NTSC video passes through it unaffected. Any
ideas why this would be the case and whether it should have been easy to design
it to work on both signal types? I suppose there's nothing I can do to get
around it other than bypass the VCR.

 

[John Tserkezis]

I have a "Video Stabilizer" device inline with the video input to a VCR. Its
purpose is to remove the Macrovision copy protection where it is included in the
signal (in my case from a DVD player or Foxtel On Demand movies). It works very
well for Macrovisioned PAL video but it doesn't work for Macrovisioned NTSC
video, although un-Macrovisioned NTSC video passes through it unaffected. Any
ideas why this would be the case and whether it should have been easy to design
it to work on both signal types? I suppose there's nothing I can do to get
around it other than bypass the VCR.

While I'm not fully clued-in on what's out there, I do know there are
different "versions" of Macrovision copy protection.

I can only guess that one would make boxes in both PAL and NTSC
flavours, it does not mean that said boxes cover ALL forms of
Macrovision protection.

The other question I have to ask, is since the tape is copy protected
(and that costs money), it's likely from a higher budget production
company (hollywood?), and if so, do you not have the means to use
torrents? You get DVD rips that are arguably as good as (if not better)
than tape copies.

Unless you're dealing with non-popular material, in which case that's
not an option...

 

[DavidW]

While I'm not fully clued-in on what's out there, I do know there are
different "versions" of Macrovision copy protection.

I can only guess that one would make boxes in both PAL and NTSC
flavours, it does not mean that said boxes cover ALL forms of
Macrovision protection.

The other question I have to ask, is since the tape is copy protected
(and that costs money), it's likely from a higher budget production
company (hollywood?), and if so, do you not have the means to use
torrents? You get DVD rips that are arguably as good as (if not
better) than tape copies.

The particular product that won't work is an NTSC version of the DVD box set of
Buffy the Vampire Slayer (seven seasons, about 40 DVDs). What pisses me off is
that I don't want to copy them. I only use the VCR as a switching box or
occasionally to play an old tape. I would have thought that the VCR could have
been made so the protection only comes into effect when you actually record
something, not when you are just using it as a pass-through device. I shouldn't
have to re-cable my equipment to get around this crap. Also, I read somewhere
that there are standards for video signals and that Macrovision deliberately
breaches them.

I haven't got into torrents at all yet. They sound like a pain. I want to watch
on the TV, not a computer, so I'd somehow have to get the stuff off the PC and
onto a DVD. Then there's finding the shows in the first place, download
problems, download cost, whatever conversions I'd need to do, etc., etc. Much
easier just to buy some DVDs.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

The particular product that won't work is an NTSC version of the DVD box set of
Buffy the Vampire Slayer (seven seasons, about 40 DVDs). What pisses me off is
that I don't want to copy them. I only use the VCR as a switching box or
occasionally to play an old tape. I would have thought that the VCR could have
been made so the protection only comes into effect when you actually record
something, not when you are just using it as a pass-through device. I shouldn't
have to re-cable my equipment to get around this crap. Also, I read somewhere
that there are standards for video signals and that Macrovision deliberately
breaches them.

I haven't got into torrents at all yet. They sound like a pain. I want to watch
on the TV, not a computer, so I'd somehow have to get the stuff off the PC and
onto a DVD. Then there's finding the shows in the first place, download
problems, download cost, whatever conversions I'd need to do, etc., etc. Much
easier just to buy some DVDs.

**What you need is a programme called DVDFab. It'll exactly what you
need and a whole lot more.

 

[Phil Allison]

"David Wanker "

I have a "Video Stabilizer" device inline with the video input to a VCR.
Its purpose is to remove the Macrovision copy protection where it is
included in the signal (in my case from a DVD player or Foxtel On Demand
movies).

** You still copy DVDs onto VHS tape ??

FFS why??

Blank DVDs are way cheaper ( like 30 or 40 cents each) than any VHS tape.




..... Phil

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"David Wanker"



** You still copy DVDs onto VHS tape ??

FFS why??

Blank DVDs are way cheaper ( like 30 or 40 cents each) than any VHS tape.

**Dunno why David wants it, but I can attest that, despite my best
efforts to move my mother and my partner's parents into the 21st
century, they stubbornly refuse to record to their PVRs and DVD
recorders (which I lovingly installed and spent hours teaching them to
use), preferring instead, to stick to VHS. Likewise, they don't watch
DVDs either. And yes, I've patiently explained that in around 12 months,
they'll have almost no choice in the matter.

I think I'll sneak in one night and steal their VHS machines. It's the
only way.

 

[DavidW]

"David Wanker "



** You still copy DVDs onto VHS tape ??

FFS why??

Blank DVDs are way cheaper ( like 30 or 40 cents each) than any VHS
tape.

Quote from above: "video input to a VCR"
No mention of copying.

Quote from my reply to John Tserkezis: " I only use the VCR as a switching box
or occasionally to __play__ an old tape."

 

[DavidW]

On 11/10/2011 6:33 PM, Phil Allison wrote:

**Dunno why David wants it, but I can attest that, despite my best
efforts to move my mother and my partner's parents into the 21st
century, they stubbornly refuse to record to their PVRs and DVD
recorders (which I lovingly installed and spent hours teaching them to
use), preferring instead, to stick to VHS. Likewise, they don't watch
DVDs either. And yes, I've patiently explained that in around 12
months, they'll have almost no choice in the matter.

I think I'll sneak in one night and steal their VHS machines. It's the
only way.

Don't they have any old tapes they want to watch sometimes? There must be a
massive amount of stuff on tapes out there. People either chuck them out or they
need a VCR.

 

[Phil Allison]

"David Wanker "

Quote from above: "video input to a VCR"
No mention of copying.

** But you did mention copying:

" Its purpose is to remove the Macrovision copy protection .. "

Macrovision only affects VCRs when RECORDING to tape.

Quote from my reply to John Tserkezis: " I only use the VCR as a switching
box

** The you need to explain more - cos TV sets are not bothered by
Macroviosion.



.... Phil

 

[DavidW]

"David Wanker "

** But you did mention copying:

But not that I was copying anything.

" Its purpose is to remove the Macrovision copy protection .. "

Yes, so it's watchable. Macrovision copy protection doesn't stop you copying
anything.

Macrovision only affects VCRs when RECORDING to tape.

It affects my Sony VCR whether recording or not. The Macrovisioned DVDs were
unwatchable just having the video pass through the VCR. I think a Panasonic I
had a while ago was the same.

** The you need to explain more - cos TV sets are not bothered by
Macroviosion.

I explained enough for what I was asking. I want to remove Macrovision from the
video into the VCR. That's all. I know TVs are not affected. I was forced to
connect the DVD player directly to the TV to fix it, but I shouldn't have had to
do that. Going through the VCR gives me more flexibility, such as choosing audio
output to an amplifier or TV sound any time.

 

[Phil Allison]

"David Wanker "

But not that I was copying anything.

** Pedantic bullshit - like all your thinking.

It affects my Sony VCR whether recording or not.

** That is not usual.

I explained enough for what I was asking.

** You made everyone think you were recording to the VCR

- by failing to mention that you were not.

Fuckwit.


.... Phil

 

[DavidW]

"David Wanker "


** Pedantic bullshit - like all your thinking.

This from the most pedantic Usenet poster on the planet when it comes to trying
to wriggle out of erroneous posts with technicalities. Have you ever admitted a
mistake? Witness your use of "criteria" as singular a while back.

** That is not usual.




** You made everyone think you were recording to the VCR

Irrelevant. I asked on an electronics ng why an electronic Macrovision-removing
device does not work with NTSC. I mentioned the VCR only for background, since
if the signal were not going into a copying device I would not need the video
stabilizer at all. Even if I were copying, what difference should that make to
the answers? I described the setup and asked a question pertaining to the
behaviour of a device _in that setup_.

 

[keithr]

Don't they have any old tapes they want to watch sometimes? There must be a
massive amount of stuff on tapes out there. People either chuck them out or they
need a VCR.

For about $40 you can get a little gadget with 3 RCAs on one side and a
USB plug on the other that converts whatever video comes in to DVD via
your PC. I'll chuck the pile of tapes and the VCR when I get around to
doing it

PS Of course the result looks just a shitty as the original did, but we
didn't know any better in those days.

 

[John Tserkezis]

The particular product that won't work is an NTSC version of the DVD box set of
Buffy the Vampire Slayer (seven seasons, about 40 DVDs). What pisses me off is
that I don't want to copy them. I only use the VCR as a switching box or
occasionally to play an old tape. I would have thought that the VCR could have
been made so the protection only comes into effect when you actually record
something, not when you are just using it as a pass-through device. I shouldn't
have to re-cable my equipment to get around this crap. Also, I read somewhere
that there are standards for video signals and that Macrovision deliberately
breaches them.

Oh, don't bother with that. I decode the DVD directly. It's much
easier, more flexible and faster than stuffing around with macrovision
boxes.
Kinda like making HDMI entirely pointless. It was *supposed* to stop
people from taking the DVD/blueray stream and passing into a black box
that duplicates elsewhere. They employ a combination of encryption and
security by obscurity to stop people from doing things that way.

Unfortunately for them, since DVD and BlueRay encryption was hacked
within a week of release, thus by-passing the HDMI issue altogether, you
not only get direct access to the raw video stream, you also get menus
as well.

But since this is not what you're after, in your case, an AV switcher
might be a lot easier to deal with. Some smaller simpler units are
available for reasonable prices. It means an extra remote, but a lot
less stress.

I haven't got into torrents at all yet. They sound like a pain. I want to watch
on the TV, not a computer, so I'd somehow have to get the stuff off the PC and
onto a DVD. Then there's finding the shows in the first place, download
problems, download cost, whatever conversions I'd need to do, etc., etc. Much
easier just to buy some DVDs.

I'm the opposite, I've given up and changed the way I do things
altogether. I use a PC and larger monitor with a tuner to replace the
job of the "VCR" and TV of old.

I actually have a file server holding the video files, but within
reason, you can hold the video files on that same PC. So you certainly
don't need the infrastructure and hardware that some of us have.

The added advantage is, most (proper) PC players will play DVDs with
all protection turned off. Getting past FBI warnings is easy as the
skip button, no need to be FORCED to wait for things like that. Nor
previews on some Disney DVDs.

Even better, some video cards have composite or HDMI or similar that
many TVs have, so you don't even have to upgrade your TV to take
advantage. More so, Macrolvision doesn't exist at this composite output
anymore, so you could tape it (if you wanted to).
You *DO* need a PC though.

 

[Phil Allison]

"David Wanker = FUCKWIT "

( snip stupid crap)




** See how this utter fuckwit ignores the main point completely .

Irrelevant.

** Fraid it is 100% relevant to my posted question.

I asked on an electronics ng why an electronic Macrovision-removing device
does not work with NTSC.

** A fuckwit question to begin with.

I mentioned the VCR only for background, since if the signal were not
going into a copying device I would not need the video stabilizer at all.
Even if I were copying, what difference should that make to the answers?

** FFS - imbecile, the whole purpose of Macrovision is to defeat
RECORDING of a video signal by a VCR.

I described the setup ...

** We can all see what you wrote and it is completely MISLEADING !!

Piss off FUCKWIT !!!!!!!!!!!


..... Phil

 

[swanny]

For about $40 you can get a little gadget with 3 RCAs on one side and a
USB plug on the other that converts whatever video comes in to DVD via
your PC. I'll chuck the pile of tapes and the VCR when I get around to
doing it

PS Of course the result looks just a shitty as the original did, but we
didn't know any better in those days.

There are special filters on moden NLE's to get that shitty look of old
tapes, film and TV sets. Ironic isn't it.

 

[John Tserkezis]

** The you need to explain more - cos TV sets are not bothered by
Macroviosion.

Some are. I had a combination PVR/VCR/Tuner box, that would refuse to
deal with Macrovision (and another form of digital-based protection) at
the inputs.

So I couldn't plug my DVD player into it (to use the PVR as a defacto
switch box) because it would forcibly blank the video.

In my case, at that time, I was lucky enough to be able to modify the
DVD firmware to disable Macrovision and that other protection signal, so
it worked.
I also had the added bonus of disabling the "FBI warning" blocks, that
otherwise force you to watch certain streams, so I could easily skip them.

There are also some TVs (OK, admittedly I haven't seen any for ages)
that are not tolerant of some versions of Macrovision signal. But I'd
disable Macrovision out of principal anyway.

Personally, since I started using a PC to handle the job of
DVD/BlueRay/AVI whatever media, all those issues went away. But I still
refuse to use HDMI or Displayport, again purely out of principal. VGA,
or DVI isn't going out of style for a long time, and I'm happy with that
situation.
When VGA, DVD (and composite) become extinct, then I would of course
be forced to use something like some more modern incarnation of HDMI or
DisplayPort.

But only grudgingly, even though it could never possibly affect me in
the first place.

Don't get me wrong. In certain circumstances, I'll sell out and
squeal like a little girl for a chocolate bar and a pat on the back.
But when it comes to copy protection on media, forget it.

 

[Phil Allison]

"John Tserkezis"

Some are. I had a combination PVR/VCR/Tuner box,

** So not a TV set .

**** off - nutter.

 

[DavidW]

"David Wanker = FUCKWIT "


( snip stupid crap)

Yes, you don't want to revisit that.

** See how this utter fuckwit ignores the main point completely .

Two out of two VCRs I've mine of the biggest VCR brands you could buy don't make
the distinction. I think you are simply wrong about this. In any case, what did
you expect me to add?

** Fraid it is 100% relevant to my posted question.



** A fuckwit question to begin with.

Questions don't need your approval, Phil.

** FFS - imbecile, the whole purpose of Macrovision is to defeat
RECORDING of a video signal by a VCR.

Irrelevant to my question, which was about the device.

** We can all see what you wrote and it is completely MISLEADING !!

No. If you just stuck to what I wrote instead of jumping to assumptions you
would have been relevant.

 

[DavidW]

Oh, don't bother with that. I decode the DVD directly. It's much
easier, more flexible and faster than stuffing around with macrovision
boxes.
Kinda like making HDMI entirely pointless. It was *supposed* to stop
people from taking the DVD/blueray stream and passing into a black box
that duplicates elsewhere. They employ a combination of encryption
and security by obscurity to stop people from doing things that way.

Unfortunately for them, since DVD and BlueRay encryption was hacked
within a week of release, thus by-passing the HDMI issue altogether,
you not only get direct access to the raw video stream, you also get
menus as well.

But since this is not what you're after, in your case, an AV switcher
might be a lot easier to deal with. Some smaller simpler units are
available for reasonable prices. It means an extra remote, but a lot
less stress.


I'm the opposite, I've given up and changed the way I do things
altogether. I use a PC and larger monitor with a tuner to replace the
job of the "VCR" and TV of old.

I actually have a file server holding the video files, but within
reason, you can hold the video files on that same PC. So you
certainly don't need the infrastructure and hardware that some of us
have.
The added advantage is, most (proper) PC players will play DVDs with
all protection turned off. Getting past FBI warnings is easy as the
skip button, no need to be FORCED to wait for things like that. Nor
previews on some Disney DVDs.

Even better, some video cards have composite or HDMI or similar that
many TVs have, so you don't even have to upgrade your TV to take
advantage. More so, Macrolvision doesn't exist at this composite
output anymore, so you could tape it (if you wanted to).
You *DO* need a PC though.

Thanks. I might get around to something like that one day.