SCREEN-L Archives

July 1996, Week 4


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Richard C Cante <[log in to unmask]>
Wed, 24 Jul 1996 01:56:40 EDT
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (28 lines)
> Recently, I've been watching lots of New Yorker Films videotapes to prepare
> for a course I'm teaching in the fall.  I've noticed that many, if not
> most, of such tapes available at my local video store wear a label claiming
> they've been copy protected with the "Macrovision process."
> Now, call me a criminal, but today I decided to try to make a copy of one
> of their tapes anyway (Godard's VIVRE SA VIE).  Mysteriously, I had
> absolutely no problem.
> Can anyone shed light on this?  This has really aroused my curiosity as to the
> nature of the relationship between copyguard companies and tape
> distributors.  It would seem that the former would have a strong incentive
> to insure that a tape has *actually been encoded with a particular
> protection mechanism* if it wears such a label, wouldn't it?  Or, is it more
> likely that the video store itself is attaching the labels for some reason?
> Is this common?
> More generally, does anyone know technical details about how these things
> actually work (beyond the obvious, I mean)?
> Rich Cante
> Worcester State College
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]