<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
	<channel>
	<title>MetaFilter posts tagged with Macrovision</title>
	<link>http://www.metafilter.com/tags/Macrovision</link>
	<description>Posts tagged with 'Macrovision' at MetaFilter.</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 15 Jun 2002 20:32:30 -0800</pubDate> <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Jun 2002 20:32:30 -0800</lastBuildDate>

	<language>en-us</language>
	<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
	<ttl>60</ttl>
	<item>
		<title>Harry Potter released unprotected.</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/17847/Harry%2DPotter%2Dreleased%2Dunprotected</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992404"&gt;Harry Potter released unprotected.&lt;/a&gt; In a move that makes me say both &quot;Wha?&quot; and &quot;Kickass!&quot;, Warner Bros chose to release the Harry Potter DVD and VHS home versions sans the Macrovision copy protection. It could stand to be quite an experiment, or quite a blunder on their part.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2002:site.17847</guid>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Jun 2002 20:32:30 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>Blunder</category>
		<category>CopyProtection</category>
		<category>Copyright</category>
		<category>DRM</category>
		<category>DVD</category>
		<category>HarryPotter</category>
		<category>Macrovision</category>
		<category>VHS</category>
		<category>WarnerBrothers</category>
		<dc:creator>mathowie</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>Anti-rip CD system bypassed.</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/9419/Antirip%2DCD%2Dsystem%2Dbypassed</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/20766.html"&gt;Anti-rip CD system bypassed.&lt;/a&gt; heh.  nice try, boyos.  i&apos;ve never understood how people can believe something digitized can possibly be protected in such a manner as to be foolproof.  what one process can scramble, another can undo. [via &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.slashdot.org&quot;&gt;/.&lt;/a&gt;]  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2001:site.9419</guid>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2001 11:16:16 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>CDs</category>
		<category>copyright</category>
		<category>cracked</category>
		<category>Macrovision</category>
		<category>mp3</category>
		<category>ripping</category>
		<category>security</category>
		<category>software</category>
		<category>technology</category>
		<category>TheRegister</category>
		<dc:creator>fuzzygeek</dc:creator>
	</item>
      
	</channel>
</rss>


