Slashdot Mirror


Universal Music Hit with Anti-Piracy Suit

prostoalex writes "Remember Bon Jovi trying to fight piracy with individual PIN numbers that legitimate buyers could get off the CD? DownloadCard, who claims to have invented the technology, filed a lawsuit against Universal Music Group saying the music execs stole the technology and trade secrets from the company. Yahoo! Launch headline suggests that Bon Jovi album might be delayed because of the lawsuit."

87 of 220 comments (clear)

  1. Yeah, but look on the bright side... by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 5, Funny
    Yahoo! Launch headline suggests that Bon Jovi album might be delayed because of the lawsuit.

    That's the best news I've heard all day...

    --
    Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    1. Re:Yeah, but look on the bright side... by Usquebaugh · · Score: 2

      Well I can see how the CD might be delayed by this action. But they could release the mp3s/oggs etc and build demand for the CD when it is released.

      Holy smokes, there goes a whole squadron of flying pigs past my window.

    2. Re:Yeah, but look on the bright side... by Lord+Sauron · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The MP3s have already been released in alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.complete_cd, 17 days ago, on Sep. 11.

      So, all we need now is a keygen that makes codes to access that web page that offers exclusive content.

    3. Re:Yeah, but look on the bright side... by Alsee · · Score: 3, Funny

      already been released ... on Sep. 11.

      Releasing a Bon Jovi album is clearly a terrorist attack.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  2. OH THE IRONY!!! by gatesh8r · · Score: 2, Informative

    Megacorp gets sued by a smaller company for infringement... ROFL

    --
    Karma whorin' since 1999
    1. Re:OH THE IRONY!!! by packeteer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is what we have to do. Beat them at their own game which is very hard because they have the money to play how they want. they only thing we have is numbers and the ability to vote. Lets use em people. Quit being apathetic and write a letter and get out and VOTE, EVERY TIME you get the chance.

      --
      unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
  3. Bad MI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    You can't ignore other people's intellectual property, damnit. Only pirates would do that kind of stuff.

    1. Re:Bad MI by mgv · · Score: 4, Informative

      You can't ignore other people's intellectual property, damnit. Only pirates would do that kind of stuff.

      True, but you can redefine how much of their intellectual property they own.

      Seems strange? Well, copyrights have been extended a couple of times (mostly at the whim of large content providers) in legislation. Otherwise, all of Elvis's work would be in the public domain by now, for example. Just like nobody owns Beethoven's or Mozart's work.

      The truth is, its not as if intellectual property is a black and white issue.

      Michael

      --
      There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
    2. Re:Bad MI by Zemran · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What are you saying ? People are going to arrive in tall ships with cannons blazing and swing over with swords in their teeth to kill us? Stop all this daft clap trap. Kids copying music has been going on for decades. Most reasonable people will tape a TV programme that is on while they are out. I am sure you would. That *IS* the same thing. Big business has brought in the term "pirate" to make it sound a lot worse than it really is and the term is completely innapropriate. These kids do *NOT* steal anything. Stealing, by legal definition, involves an intention to permanently deprive the owner of the object. These kids have no such intent. It is all claptrap to make something out of nothing in an effort to make more money out of the public. If it were a geuine intent to stop copying they would target the commercial operations, which so far have been generally left alone. If they did that I would support them wholeheartedly but while they try to make out I am a criminal because I want a copy of something for the car that I have bought for my home, I support the bad guys.

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    3. Re:Bad MI by Melantha_Bacchae · · Score: 4, Informative

      An AC wrote:

      > You can't ignore other people's intellectual
      > property, damnit. Only pirates would do that kind
      > of stuff.

      Three incidents show the tip of an iceberg:

      1) Eisner, Disney's president, showed a pirated Sony movie at a Senate hearing on Hollings' bill.

      2) CNN showed a pirated tape of a bin Laden interview after the Afghan TV station that did the interview refused to give the rights to show the interview to CNN.

      3) InterTrust is suing Microsoft because DRM in Windows XP, .Net, Office XP, and Windows Media Player infringe on its patents.

      Face it, the very people who want to treat customers like criminals and take away our rights are the biggest pirates of all!

      Actually, "Mosura no Uta" (Mothra's Song) has a better term for people like these, the words it applied to Nelson and his goons: "tong yu" or "barrel of sharks". Me, I just call 'em "media sharks".

      Bells are ringing: Mothra, Mothra! Every heart is calling: Mothra, Mothra!
      Come on, Tok Wira, these sharks have gotta pay! New Kirk calling Mothra, we need you today!

  4. At least something good comes of it by Chester+K · · Score: 5, Funny

    Patents suck Patents suck Patents suck... er... hello what's this?

    Yahoo! Launch headline suggests that Bon Jovi album might be delayed because of the lawsuit."

    Yay for patents! Yay for patents! Yay for patents!

    --

    NO CARRIER
    1. Re:At least something good comes of it by AtrN · · Score: 2

      Patents aren't mentioned in the articles at all, it looks like its trade secrets (as to what they've got that's secret I'm not sure, probably because it's secret :) They (DownloadCard) claim they've got something unique but having worked on something similar about five years ago I think they should do a serious patent search.

    2. Re:At least something good comes of it by Robotech_Master · · Score: 2

      Patents don't have anything to do with this. It's not a "we patented this" suit, it's a "they hired us to do this, watched what we were doing, then fired us and ripped us off" suit. Whole different animal entirely.

      --
      Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
  5. So? by pla · · Score: 4, Insightful

    More IP BS, this time entirely between those that abuse such laws regularly.

    Money gets shifted around, and we, the consumers, get screwed like usual. The *only* outcome I see from this involves the album coming out late, and the lawsuit justifying yet more "cost-added" excuses on the part of the recording industry.

    I'll care more when 72 minutes of pure audio doesn't cost 50% more than 2 hours of high quality movie footage with soundtracks in three language plus bonus material, AND I can legally (and easily) store what I buy on my file server. Until then, the MPAA and RIAA can collectively "bite me".

    1. Re:So? by Monkelectric · · Score: 3, Interesting
      More IP BS, this time entirely between those that abuse such laws regularly.

      Live by the sword, die by the arrow ... the irony is deliscious

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    2. Re:So? by dirk · · Score: 2

      I'll care more when 72 minutes of pure audio doesn't cost 50% more than 2 hours of high quality movie footage with soundtracks in three language plus bonus material, AND I can legally (and easily) store what I buy on my file server. Until then, the MPAA and RIAA can collectively "bite me".

      Can we finally stop the comparison between CDs and DVDs, since it is one of the most flawed comparison that exists. A DVD is an aftermarket product of a movie. The money is spent making a movie, not the DVD. The cost of the DVD is fairly small, especially compared to the movie. Marketing is also very small (if anything), because there was so much advertising for the movie very little is needed (although sometimes a lot is done anyway). By the time a DVD comes out, the movies has already made back a portion of the money (hopefully at least a decent portion if not actually made money) in the theatres. Even the extras are cheap, using footage already filmed and maybe bringing in a few people to record an audio soundtrack. All of these things combined make the DVD fairly cheap to produce compared to a CD. A CD has made no money when it is released and must make enough money to pay for every single thing that went into the making/marketing of the CD. Taking an already made movie and slapping it on a DVD and making basically nothing but profit from the sale is a lot different than putting out a CD and hoping the sales pay for the expense of the CD itself.

      And just for the record, you can legally and easily store the MP3s you make from a CD you own on your file server. That has already been established. You can't share them with other people, but you are free to rip MP3s from CDs you own and listen to them.

      --

      "Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
    3. Re:So? by letxa2000 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Can we finally stop the comparison between CDs and DVDs, since it is one of the most flawed comparison that exists. A DVD is an aftermarket product of a movie. A CD has made no money when it is released and must make enough money to pay for every single thing that went into the making/marketing of the CD

      While this is a valid explanation of the relative pricing from a business standpoint, it doesn't mean squat to the consumer who has to decide how to spend $20.

      Whenever someone at some company gives me justifications or reasons why they can't give me the service I deserve or paid for my answer is quite simple: "Your internal company problems are not MY problems, they're yours. You deal with your internal problems, but in the meantime solve the problem you have right now with the consumer--me!"

      In this case, my heart bleeds for the RIAA (sarcasm), but I really don't care what their costs of business are, nor do I care if their business model is broken. As a consumer I see a $15 DVD for a movie I thought was fun when I saw it, or I see a $20 CD that might have one good song, maybe. Where do you think I'm going to spend my money?

      Fact is, the DVD vs. CD comparison is a VERY valid comparison from a consumer standpoint. The DVD vs. CD decision is one that is made probably thousands of times per day by consumers around the world. It just turns out the business model of the movie industry is more profitable than that of the RIAA. Tough luck.

    4. Re:So? by pla · · Score: 2

      The money is spent making a movie, not the DVD

      I think you just defeated your own point, there. I agree fully that it costs a *lot* more to produce (the content on) a DVD than a CD. Hundreds of millions, compared to a few tens of thousands (if that). And yes, a movie has most likely at least broken even by the time it comes out on DVD. However, an audio CD *starts* closer to "breaking even" than just about any DVD ever made - the latter either have made a huge profit already, or failed miserably, by the time they hit stores. Naturally, exceptions to this exist... For example, how about some of Disney's "direct to DVD" releases, which presumeably still cost money to make (if not as much as a typical for-theater production), yet sell for less than a "real" movie on DVD?

      Basically, no matter how you look at it, you have to agree that the comparison *doesn't* count as fair - the pure audio CD should sell for *far* less.


      you can legally and easily store the MP3s you make from a CD you own on your file server

      Really? I have a handfull of CDs that I have yet to find a way around the copy protection on, and even if I do find a way, doing so violates the DMCA. Please, tell me how I can satisfy both "easy" and "legal" in making MP3s of these. And, believe it or not, I do actually only make MP3s (VQFs, actually, but same idea) for personal use. I don't know if most people fall into that category, but I simply find it much more convenient to load up a 200 hour WinAmp playlist than to change CDs every 40-70 minutes.

  6. This gives me an idea! by antisocial77 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Somebody go get a bunch of patents on anti-piracy googaws and then claim prior-art on all the companies attempting to put stuff like this in place. When it ends up costing them more money in legal fees than they would allegedly recoop from the stop of piracy, they'll just give up. Hopefully.

    Yes, I know it's a pipe dream. So what.

    1. Re:This gives me an idea! by quantaman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      they'll just give up. Hopefully.

      From the original article

      Retail CDs will be distributed with a unique serial number with which the purchaser can register in order to receive such exclusives as prioritized concert ticket purchases and unreleased music.

      THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT THEM TO DO!!!

      Added value for purchasing the CD is what most of the ./ community has been pushing for for months! The record companies are going to do something one way or another, with this scheme instead of taking something away they are giving something extra. If they give up on this scheme more likely than not they are going to shove some anti-piracy, anti-fair use, anti-consumer DRM technology down their throat. Even if we didn't want this scheme to work this is precisly the type of soft patent that we are trying to get rid of, the moment we start selling ourself by abusing the very flaws we are trying to get rid of in the patent system we are worse than the corporations who are doing it (at least they won't be hypocrites). No we do not want this actually good idea industry to fail. No we do not want to abuse a flawed patent system. We do not want this lawsuit to succed.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    2. Re:This gives me an idea! by richard-parker · · Score: 2

      Somebody go get a bunch of patents on anti-piracy googaws and then claim prior-art on all the companies attempting to put stuff like this in place.
      Actually, the cryptographer Lucky Green has already done this with respect to Palladium and software piracy. At a panel on Palladium at the USENIX Security Conference in August the Microsoft Palladium team claimed that Palladium couldn't and thus wouldn't be used to combat software piracy. However, Lucky Green was able to think of several methods to use Palladium / TCPA in the enforcement of software licenses, so in response has applied for patents on all of the methods he could think of in an effort to thwart any such use.

      For more information, see the following posts (August 8th and August 10th) to the Cryptography mailing list.
    3. Re:This gives me an idea! by garcia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      you're wrong. That's NOT what I want.

      First. There is NO WAY that I want a UNIQUE identifier linking me w/ANY purchase.

      Second. Fuck that, I don't want priority on concert tickets nor do I want unreleased music. The music is easy to find (see Sopranos season 4 ep. 1 - 4 on Kazaa or IRC).

      What I want is simple. I want CHEAP music. I want music to be like movies... I can wait several months and buy a DVD at $9.99 when it was originally $25.00. Why the fuck doesn't music drop in price like that? They come out at $12.99+ and stay that way or even GO UP.

      Sorry, but movies have the same amount of longevity as music. They should go down in price (just like everything else).

      I will CONTINUE to support free music until the "BIG ARTISTS" and the RIAA decides that what they are doing is DUMB as HELL.

      That's my worthless .02

    4. Re:This gives me an idea! by DEBEDb · · Score: 2

      Because you don't watch the same movie
      as many times as you listen to the same
      CD.

      --

      Considered harmful.
    5. Re:This gives me an idea! by JDizzy · · Score: 2
      to quote you:

      I will CONTINUE to support free music until the "BIG ARTISTS" and the RIAA decides that what they are doing is DUMB as HELL.


      You mean to say that you will continue to support illeagal activity, and the destruction of the music industry as it currently stands. By the same token, youi also then support the motivatiosn of the RIAA to install their DRM technologies in the next gen music distribution formats. LEt me remind you that there is no such thing as FREE MUSIC from a free lable, and what your talking about is you will continue to support stolen music.

      If contracting HIV came were possible from copyright violations, instead of sex, you would be a AIDS crack-whore needle freak.

      It is true that copywrite violation is a statutory crime, unlike violent crimes, and by that token most folks feel it is simply OK to break the law. Just because it is possible to download music doens't mean it is actually ok to do so, no matter how much you pretend it is, or justify it, or whatever. What you call supporting free music is just a cop-out to make your crimes seem alright in your mind. Finding a piece of crack rock on the street is also a very simple minded thing, but picking it up is against the law as it is possestion of a controlled substance, as is the same when you download a copy-protected work.

      Now it is true the copywrite law suck int he usa, and so do patent laws. Maybe destroying the music industry is you form of civil disobediance, or whatever. How cares! The fact is that this Bon Jovi CD is being dellayed because of a patent issue that is simply crazy. This patent is akin to having a patent on signing your name on paper, yet since it is involving electronics/technologies, etc... it is now something patentable. This is akin to patent on whiping my ass with your idiot resume with a technological robot arm.

      Think about it this way. That card that is shiped with the bon jovi cd, in the future that might be some sort fo smart card with a special decrypt key to decypher the encrypted music on the disc. Think your gonna have kazaa trading then? No! The fact that this method is not involving DRM is good, the fact that your too stupid to understand that is bad! Your the motivation behind suck ideas. The problem is too many of you type folks exist (the ignorant, and arrogant).
      --
      It isn't a lie if you belive it.
    6. Re:This gives me an idea! by mgblst · · Score: 2

      It actually has nothing to do with this. They only charge like this, because...SURPRISE...people will pay like this.

    7. Re:This gives me an idea! by Dwonis · · Score: 2
      There is NO WAY that I want a UNIQUE identifier linking me w/ANY purchase.

      Nobody's forcing you to use the PIN to listen to the CD.

      This PIN system is much like the system used for Quake III Arena. You can play the game without the CD, but if you want to use id Software's master servers, you have to punch in the CD key.

    8. Re:This gives me an idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      1. Learn to spell.

      2. Bullshit. Listening to free music is not theft. There are literally thousands of artists on the net who are giving away their music. Take a look at MP3.com for an obvious example of this. Take a look at official band websites for another example of this.

      3. The rest of your post rests on the false assumption that the only free music on the net is illegal music.

      4. STFU.

    9. Re:This gives me an idea! by Saeger · · Score: 3, Insightful
      you will continue to support stolen music.

      I will continue to support the fight against artificial scarcity towards business models that work. Capitalism doesn't work well when things aren't scarce... it's a kludge.

      mp3's are free ads in my book - for (overpriced) CDs, concerts (real work), merchandise, direct support, etc. The recording isn't scarce, which is why pressing CDs is liking printing money, which in turn is why the RIAA is fighting like mad to keep control of their old cashcow.

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    10. Re:This gives me an idea! by Xenographic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > First. There is NO WAY that I want a UNIQUE identifier linking me w/ANY purchase.

      You mean, like your credit card number?

    11. Re:This gives me an idea! by sacrilicious · · Score: 2

      quantaman was right: this is a step in the right direction, much better than DRM.

      garcia was also right: there is an even better alternative, that of much cheaper music, and easily downloadable.

      Extrapolating even further along this line, I offer this point of view: that what I *REALLY* want is for music copyright to go away entirely, and for a completely different mode of thinking to arise regarding music and how and why it is shared and produced. I know this is radical, but I believe it is right.

      .

      --
      - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
  7. Might I be the first to point out by pheph · · Score: 2, Offtopic

    That while this may be targetting 'the enemy', we need to consider other rammifications if this lawsuit succeeds. The 'PIN' idea seems rather, well, obvious (I'm not sure if DownloadCard was responsible for this, but Daft Punk did the same thing with their album 'Discovery'). While the DownloadCard is 'novel, original and unique' it doesn't mention that it is patented.

    In the same sense, you shouldn't support the US government's attack on Microsoft just because you don't like Microsoft.

    1. Re:Might I be the first to point out by evilviper · · Score: 2

      Still, just the fact that they ape now attacking their own kind indicates both, ammunition to use against such laws, and possibly a changing stance on the issue. Perhapse they'll sue each other silly, and hollywood will begin lobying against those same laws they've voraciously supported.
      So far it's been big companies against individuals who can't afford a lawsuit, so they gave in to the big company. Now, big company against big company should prove interesting (as was the AOL v. MSN messengers battle).

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    2. Re:Might I be the first to point out by FyRE666 · · Score: 2

      Exactly. In the UK, Bizarre magazine has been using the same idea for a long time. They include a serial number in each issue you can use to access extra content on their website.

      From the story: As previously reported by LAUNCH, the Bon Jovi album will include a serial number in the CD packaging, which will allow users to access exclusive content from the band's website. DownloadCard has filed a claim that it created the program used for access and offered it to the record label.

      What "technology" is this exactly. For god's sake, its a number. The buyer types a number into a website and gets access - hardly cutting edge technology! Absolute crap - I hate the record companies as much as anyone with any sense of right and wrong, but seems to me "DownloadCard" are yet another 2 bit outfit trying to make a fast buck. We'll doubtless never hear of them or their "technologies" ever again after this case...

  8. This is the future! by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Big companies and greedy SOBs trying to be big have wanted this patent nonsense; maybe they will regret getting what they asked for. Maybe, just maybe, when enough of these ridiculous patent fights take up so much of their time and resources, really innovative people will be able to get on with their lives, and common sense will be restored. Maybe. Someday.

  9. Wait a second by eyez · · Score: 2

    Did I miss something? I thought the Bon Jovi thing was just like printing a unique serial on the booklet or a piece of paper that comes with the thing, or something.

    How the hell is that technology, or more to the point, patentable?

    --
    get 0wned. irc.w30wnzj00.com
    1. Re:Wait a second by WEFUNK · · Score: 5, Funny

      Did I miss something? I thought the Bon Jovi thing was just like printing a unique serial on the booklet or a piece of paper that comes with the thing, or something.

      How the hell is that technology, or more to the point, patentable?


      I think it's because companies finally ran out of existing ideas that they could patent by tacking on "with a computer". The next round of bad patents will take obvious ideas and tack on "by an 80's hair band".

      For instance, DownloadCard has the rights to "a means of using and distributing unique serial identifiers to provide redeemable incentives to discourage the online theft of intellectual property where said intellectual property is audio or video media content by an 80's hair band". The Dave Matthews Band and the Crystal Method were able to get around this patent by not being an 80's hair band, but Universal finally got busted for trying it with Bon Jovi.

      In related news, Jeff Bezos has just invented and patented a one-click combination CD player power-on/play button to allow quick and efficient listening of any of his favorite music by an 80's hair band.

      --
      My next sig will be ready soon, but friends can beat the rush!
    2. Re:Wait a second by JohnG · · Score: 2

      Haha! I don't know why but reading that I imagined a late night talk show host. You should write for Conan O'Brian! :)

  10. Re:Rampant privacy violations possible! by egg+troll · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oh please! While the RIAA has policies many of us disagree with, I'm sure that it would do an excellent job of keeping this data safe. Can you imagine the outcry if it was hacked?

    Scaremongering like this is just pathetic.

    --

    C - A language that combines the speed of assembly with the ease of use of assembly.
  11. I don't get it. . . by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why is this a novel technology? Sure, it's never been done by the music industry, but the commercial software folks have been providing "registration keys" for decades now.

    This just doesn't strike me as something that should be patentable. Of course, that seldom impedes the patent process.

    Bon Jovi rocks! Peace, out.

    --

    You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

  12. Call Hillary Rosen we found a pirate by linuxislandsucks · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now lets see how long it takes Hillary Rosen to go after Universal for piracy...now holding breathe.. ah turning blue..

    --
    Don't Tread on OpenSource
  13. Prior art? by JohnG · · Score: 2

    This seems very silly. Should I be worried that my ATM card will no longer work, or that I will no longer have access to my Ameritrade account? Both of those things use PIN's. PIN's aren't a technology. I get so sick of people misusing the term technology. Clicking a mouse button isn't technology either, but that didn't stop amazon from getting a patent. One arsehole even has a patent on waving a laser in front of a cat for chissakes!

  14. Re:Rampant privacy violations possible! by gerardrj · · Score: 2

    You have no privacy rights pertaining to private companies and individuals in The Constitution. The only privacy right granted to you by The Constitution is that of right of protection from search and seazure of your person and your home unless duly athorized by a court of law, or if a crime is in progress.

    I'd really like to know (in the U.S.) where this notion of universal provacy came from. Whene people say "They violated my privacy", exactly what laws are they referring to?

    Unless you stay in your home with the windows covered, you have no resaonable expectation of privacy.

    --
    Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
  15. Bon Jovi? by digitalsynapse · · Score: 2, Funny

    The delaying of a Bon Jovi album?

    I sense a great disturbance in the force, as if the state of New Jersey is crying out in pain..

  16. one question... by kevin+lyda · · Score: 2

    did they use hospital corners when they made their bed?

    --
    US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
    1. Re:one question... by gmhowell · · Score: 2

      Actually, I think they short sheeted themselves.

      (Okay, to the dense amongst the moderators. Parent asked about making a bed with hospital corners. What he's implying is that 'Universal has made their bed; now they must lie in it'. To which I make the funny comment... Christ, if you haven't figured it out by now, just mod me -1, offtopic already)

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  17. delayed launch by Eric+Smith · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Yahoo! Launch headline suggests that Bon Jovi album might be delayed because of the lawsuit.
    I don't suppose it has occurred to anyone at Universal to simply release the album as an ordinary CD with no PIN? And that consumers might actually buy it?
  18. So it's OK now? by halftrack · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, suddenly IP is a real thing and patent suits are great?

    It seems to me that somethimes the /. crowd get's a bit narrow sighted.

    Here are the facts:

    1. No /.ers (or just a few) listens to BonJovi (I don't) which automatically means that he's a crappy, bad sounding, commercial doll, which again means that everything he (or those who really control him) does is bad.

    2. Universal can be regarded as big and bad.

    3. DownloadCard is David fighting Goliat for the money. It's not a /.y principal suit.

    4. Universal is making an honest attempt to fight piracy without crippeling user rights. They are trying to make the CDs you purchase more like DVDs, with extra stuff BonJovi fans (not /.ers) would like.

    Belive it or not, /. is not the center of the world. Even though we dislike something/someone doesn't mean that others have to dislike it/them too.

    --
    Look a monkey!
    1. Re:So it's OK now? by DAldredge · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes. We hate them so this is OK!

  19. Fat chance... by zman99 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I really can't possibly see this lawsuit winning. This is the same model of registration that the software industry has been using for years.

    • Buy the software
    • Register it with your personal serial number
    • Get free updates, tech support, newsletters, etc.

    If this isn't an example of prior art, then I don't know what is. Once again, the consumer is getting screwed while the lawyers cash in....

    --
    Tolerance does not tolerate intolerance, or hypocrisy.
    1. Re:Fat chance... by zenyu · · Score: 2

      This is the same model of registration that the software industry has been using for years.

      We really don't know enough about this to say Universal didn't break the patent. We all know there are 10,000 ways to implement this that don't break any patents. But we also know that the Patent office hands out patents for left handed bum washing, so they may very well have a defendable patent on a say a particular formula for computing a one way hash, and if Universal copied that willy nilly then maybe they should cough up the pocket change they are asking for.

      We don't even know if it is like the keys on software, since the features sound like a web site it could just be a random string that's easy to type but hard to remember.

  20. Read the articles next time... by gleffler · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Um, Universal is a customer of Downloadcard, which you find out if you read the article. Maybe they're having a tiff or something, but look here, and see: "Cards manufactured in English, French and German offer several exclusive Universal Records rock tracks to fans in many foreign territories."

    I think what has acutally happened is that Downloadcard is mad that Universal is taking their toys and going home and not using their service anymore.

  21. Re:Rampant privacy violations possible! by Eric+Smith · · Score: 5, Informative
    The only privacy right granted to you by The Constitution is that of right of protection from search and seazure of your person and your home unless duly athorized by a court of law, or if a crime is in progress.
    This demonstrates an amazing degree of misunderstanding of what the Constitution is all about. I wish the schools would better educate people on these matters!

    The Constitution does NOT grant rights to the people. The government has no power (authority) to grant rights! The powers of government are explicitly stated in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution and expanded on by a few of the Amendments.

    The people inherently have rights, and the Constitution establishes that the people grant the government certain powers, but that those powers are limited and the government is not permitted to take away the rights of the people. Certain of those rights are enumerated in the Bill of Rights. However, carefully read the Ninth Amendment:

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
    Thus the fact that a right to privacy is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution or Bill of Rights does NOT mean that the people don't have that right, or that the government has the power to take away that right from the people.

    The Supreme Court has repeatedly found that the people do have a right to privacy.

    However, as with all rights, there are some limitations. It is not possible to grant an absolute right without simultaneously taking away another right. For instance, you have the right to swing your fist, but that right ends where my nose begins.

    Back to your posting:

    right of protection from search and seazure of your person and your home unless duly athorized by a court of law, or if a crime is in progress.
    Actually, the Fourth Amendment doesn't say anything about a crime in progress. It says:
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
    Note that this doesn't even say that the police can conduct a search without a warrant if they have probable cause. It says that if they have probably cause, and give an Oath or affirmation, a warrant shall issue. This is possibly the most-trampled of the enumerated rights.
  22. Why we will win... by Eric_Cartman_South_P · · Score: 2
    The big companies will sue each other left and right, while technology and file sharing will advance beyone our wildest dreams (and their nightmares).

    Remember seeing the Martrix, and other SciFi flicks where people swap and sell disks like it was crack? Well, once again SciFi predicts the future. But who ever though that it would turn out to be MUSIC and MOVIES on those disks! Listen, pundints and nay-sayers can bitch al they want, but once I have a little hollogram cube that is black market, so it can hold it's 10 petabytes without needing MS Palladium v4, you can hold EVERY SONG EVER MADE and EVERY MOVIE EVER MADE in your pocket. TEll me agian why a distribution channel for anything that can be stored digitally should even be a business model?

    I'm sure once there was a great business where for a few pennies you could get your loom repaired, or the cotton gin fixed. Those days are gone, and so are the music and movie distrubtors. If any artist wants my cash, I will gladly fork it over for a LIVE performance only. So Brittney, bring some kneepads, otherwise you will never get my $16 sweetie.

  23. Stole the tech? by geek · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Umm it's a PIN for crying out loud. Banks have been using this same system for ages, not to mention about a billion other business. I mean really whats the diff between this technology wise than with a CD key for winxp?

    All it is, is a number that allows you to access a service or feature. I could do this with pen and paper if I wanted too.

    Maybe i'm not understanding their "technology", so feel free to correct me.

    1. Re:Stole the tech? by ImaLamer · · Score: 2

      I'm guessing it's the implementation of that technology that is patented.

      You see, even if you disagree with IP in general, the term goes "build a better mouse trap". There are numerous patents on mouse traps, but it's the design and implementation of that new trap which gets it awarded a patent.

      Looking around I found 4 three-ring binders which all have their own systems of opening and closing those rings. Just because it has been done before doesn't mean that you can do something like it again.

      I don't think there is anything which isn't built on earlier works, nothing is new.

    2. Re:Stole the tech? by ealar+dlanvuli · · Score: 3, Funny

      My best guess is they stole the "encryption scheme", and we all know copying or reverse engineering a encryption scheme is a more sever crime than assination of an elected official.

      --
      I live in a giant bucket.
    3. Re:Stole the tech? by Moofie · · Score: 2

      The problem is not patenting "Novel, clever, detailed method for trapping mice". The problem is patenting "Vermin suppression technology".

      Patenting specific, detailed, mechanisms is one thing. That's arguably OK. Patenting anything that can accomplish task X is NOT OK, and runs contrary to the philosophy behind patents.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  24. You're a thief by geek · · Score: 2

    "I will gladly fork it over for a LIVE performance only"

    Lots of very talented artists don't/can't perform live. Take Enya for example, she writes and records everything herself. Want her to stand on a stage by herself performing? that wouldnt be a very good show.

    Where do you think they get the money to put on the show in the first place? FROM THE ALBUM SALES.

    Just because you can transfer music and movies over a digital connection doesn't mean you have a right to. I can crawl through your bedroom window at night, but that doesn't make it legal.

    Grow up. Pay some respect to the authors of the arts you admire. Art appreciation in the country has gone to shit. Artists don't owe YOU anything. Get over yourself

    1. Re:You're a thief by p3d0 · · Score: 2
      I think you may be misinformed. My understanding was that artists make diddly from album sales, and make big bucks from live performances. Granted, the performances are probably financed by record companies who get money from record sales, but that's not a necessary part of the food chain here. Anyone could finance a concert series: even a banks. Hell, they finance everything else.

      Having said that, my personal opinion is that recordings should have reasonable, limited protection based on copyright law, under control of the author until his death and no longer. Anything more is beyond the point of diminishing returns with respect to fostering creativity, which was, after all, the whole point of copyright in the first place.

      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
  25. Support by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 4, Insightful


    In the same sense, you shouldn't support the US government's attack on Microsoft just because you don't like Microsoft.


    And by the same token, one should not withhold support from the US Government's prosecution of Microsoft just because one likes Microsoft.

    Now that we have that minor little point sewen up... mind if we remain focused on the topic at hand?
  26. yeah right by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    "The proprietary DownloadCard Technology is novel, original and unique."

    Just like that claim itself.

    1. Re:yeah right by m0rph3us0 · · Score: 2

      Hehe, the lawyers just put those words in because I bet somewhere in case or patent law there is a requirement for the idea to be "novel, original, unique" now my question is can Judges start suing lawyers for IP infringement if they copyright their decisions.
      Umm... I'm sorry you can't use that case law until you pay the Judge $14.99 don't think its a rip off, there are 18 other pieces of case law on that CD. But if you only pay 14.99 you only get the right to view it on your computer and not present it to the court.

  27. -1, Troll? by egg+troll · · Score: 3, Funny

    Suprisingly, you were modded down as a troll! Apparently Bon Jovi has mod points....

    --

    C - A language that combines the speed of assembly with the ease of use of assembly.
  28. Re:Why is everybody so HAPPY? by geek · · Score: 2

    I don't know personally. It seems however everyone forgot that it's Universal who's copyprotecting all their CD's (Fast and the Furious soundtrack for example). So this PIN isn't for "added extra" content, as in "go ahead and pirate the album if you want, you just dont get a PIN". This PIN is more of a way for Bon Jovi to get people to his website and make some more cash with banner ads and pedal t-shirts to online fans. It has nothing to do with piracy.

  29. Delayed!? by kstumpf · · Score: 2

    Bon Jovi album delayed!?? Now I'm mad!

  30. Um... why mod this a troll? by namespan · · Score: 2

    I just noted a -1, Troll mod on this, and can't see why. This is a really interesting idea...

    A while back I read an article by an environmental group discussing using funds to out-n-out purchase environmentally valuable lands, and then putting them in a trust. From that point on, you don't have to worry about regulations or which way the political wind blows, the land is simply administered according to the trust.

    This is the same idea, but for intellectual property. It has its problems -- it only works as long as the property laws are applicable, it takes money to stake out the claim and administer it, and finally, it lends some legitimacy to what may be illegitimate processes. The best thing, though, is that you don't have to wait to change the world before you get to protect something important.

    There ought to be more people doing this...

    --
    Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
  31. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  32. No I'm not... here's why... by Eric_Cartman_South_P · · Score: 2
    that wouldnt be a very good show. So don't go!

    And where do I think artists get money from? NOT THE CD, BUDDY! Use a little google action and see just how much artists get from CD sales. Apart from mega-star contracts (ala N'Sync) an artist can owe money, even after going gold. Read up. Artists keep their largest chunk of change from Live performances.

    You do post an intersting question about Enya, which can be transposed to say, Techno artists who make sweet mixes and pre-mix everything in a studio. No, they won't perform live. So how do they get paid? I don't know...

    Point is this: As long as there is a massive, fraudulat abuse of power to keep crappy music (Brittney, NSync) at a high price ($16+) on an obsolete medium (CD) all the artists can starve for all I care. I'm not out to fix the world. I would gladly pay for recorded works ONLY if I can put them where I want (car, iPod, etc). If a music company tells me I can only listen to my music on my living room Palladium controlled X-Box2, I say FUCK THEM and FUCK YOU TOO and FUCK THE ARTISTS. I'm not going to be forced to pay outragous money for crap music on an ***obsolete medium*** like CD's.

  33. Re:while digging some dirt... by alecto · · Score: 2

    Bwahaha! I like it. Of course, spammer's domain contact emails are usually routed to /dev/null. Better to use the Reply-To addresses (of the ones that request replies). This way, their business will be less likely to be interrupted by unwanted email after you opt them all out :).

  34. Why not just save a step? by telstar · · Score: 2
    "Yahoo! Launch headline suggests that Bon Jovi album might be delayed because of the lawsuit."
    • Why don't they just release a copy onto Kazaa? That's where it's going to end up anyway.
  35. Cool, let them by gotan · · Score: 2

    I mean, could it get any better than one group wanting to screw fair use rights going after another?

    --
    "By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
  36. They've got it all wrong... by artemis67 · · Score: 4, Funny

    They should be giving out the PIN numbers to pay to have it turned off, not on. I think they'll make a lot more money that way.

  37. Re:Rampant privacy violations possible! by gerardrj · · Score: 2

    Thanks for the construcive comments. I am intimately familliar with the Bill of Rights, I read it several times a year.
    If you read article four, the tone is generally that of preventing the government from snooping in your private life wihtout cause. Have you ever heard of someone being sued or charged under the fourth amendment for breaking and entering? I haven't.

    --
    Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
  38. the company with the "invention" getting hammered by alizard · · Score: 2
    My guess is that the intellectual property lawyers with UMG looked at it, and said "prior art" as in games and software distributed a few years ago as pointed out on this thread.

    Any patents based on what's described should be readily breakable.

    Just as well because I'm thinking of using this one of these days on a music project I'm involved with.

  39. Re:Rampant privacy violations possible! by gerardrj · · Score: 2

    First of all, I agree with you. I really posted that message as sort of devils advocate, I tend to get flamed when I post a messge along the lines of "you have the right to everything".
    An example I use is that you have the right to commit muder. The society also has the right, through laws, to make that act illegal and thus apprehend, charge, try and punish you for exercising your right to murder. It's a matter of whose rights take precedence. In this case a person's right to live is stronger than your right to kill them.

    The supreme court, and many other courts have also ruled that you generally have no reasonable expectaion of privacy in an public place, or in your workplace. Pretty much that means that the only place you can reasonably expect privacy is in your own home(s) or the homes of others.

    --
    Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
  40. Lets just make this simple. by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 5, Funny

    Put all the legal teams in a cage and give them knifes. The legal team still standing at the end gets $1 million, and their client wins. (Appeals could be handled by pistols at 20 paces).

    The outcome would stand about the same as the current way our courts work, just faster and far more entertaining.

    --
    The Internet is generally stupid
    1. Re:Lets just make this simple. by loraksus · · Score: 2

      naah, fuck knives, "everyday blunt instruments" (lamps, bats, etc) is what you are looking for - much more amusing.

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
    2. Re:Lets just make this simple. by renard · · Score: 2
      The outcome would stand about the same as the current way our courts work, just faster and far more entertaining.

      no - you forget one important bit - at the end of each "lawsuit" we would be assured of having fewer lawyers...

      i like your thinking...
      renard

  41. It only makes sence by Felinoid · · Score: 2

    It only makes sence that most of the obveous and commen prior art type methods of controlling content is a patent.
    The type of person who thinks about content control would say "patent it" no matter how obveous it is.

    With the music industry running in the whole (knownladge as propety) croud it's only a matter of time before a music industry stunt was patented. I wouldn't be supprised if the preveous stunts did have rejected patent applications from a time when you had to earn a patent award not just buy it.

    --
    I don't actually exist.
  42. Re:Rampant privacy violations possible! by shepd · · Score: 2

    >I'd really like to know (in the U.S.) where this notion of universal provacy came from

    Here.

    It's a good read.

    --
    If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
  43. Re:Rampant privacy violations possible! by Eric+Smith · · Score: 3, Insightful
    What it says is "no warrants shall issue, but upon probably cause". Not that if there's probable cause, no warrant is necessary.

    Police officers don't have the authority to issue warrants. This is a function of the courts. The Fourth Amendment requires that judges not issue warrants if there is not an oath or affirmation of probable cause.

    Presumably the way the system has gotten perverted into the state it's in is that people have said "well, getting a warrant is too much trouble, and if we have probable cause, we'll get one anyhow, so we'll just skip that step or do it later, since that is easier and faster." But the fact that it is easier and faster doesn't make it legitimate.

    A policeman's job is only easy in a police state. -- Orson Welles

  44. Re:Not really ironic by Zemran · · Score: 2

    Maybe you do not understand the concept of irony?

    --
    I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
  45. Property of Downloadcard by uncoveror · · Score: 2

    The following are the intellectual property of Downloadcard, and Universal may not use them: 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9

    --
    The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
  46. Re:Rampant privacy violations possible! by gerardrj · · Score: 2

    You article is interesting. I do find it interesting that it mentions early on the nevessity of religous tolerance and that this is not a christian nation, yet proceedes to use christian morals as the norm. Often in the text morals are compared agains actions.
    Morals are personal, any given act may be moral or immoral depending on the interpriter of the action. The article tends to enforce a notion of global morality that simply does not exist.

    --
    Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
  47. Re:PIN numbers by freeweed · · Score: 2

    Yeah, but we all know that GNU's Not Unix, WINE Is Not an Emulator, and PHP Hypertext Protocol exists..

    --
    Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
  48. Re:Bravo! (in theory, anyhow... reality is diff) by Eric+Smith · · Score: 2
    The government will obey the Constitution to the extent that we force them to do so. If they violate it, and we just say "too bad" and don't do anything, they'll keep right on doing it, and get increasingly bold about it.

    If we challenge the abuses, some of them will be curbed. But to mount an effective challenge against anything, you need citizens who are aware that there is a problem. Educating citizen as to how the goverment is supposed to work is essential. The fact that it doesn't actually work that way in practice much of the time is why we need to educate them, not a reason to let it slide.

  49. Re:Rampant privacy violations possible! by Eric+Smith · · Score: 2
    This talks about something not happening in real-time, and indicates the requirements for issuing a warrant. I don't see this second part being conditions on the police to act in real-time
    One might ask, then, why you think they put it in the same sentence? If it's as unrelated as you claim, surely it would have been written as a separate sentence?

    The very purpose of a warrant is to authorize search or seizure. Are you arguing that the only time a warrant is necessary is when there is no probable cause? That would flatly contradict the explicit statement. You can't have it both ways. Either probable cause is necessary to issue a warrant, and a warrant is necessary to conduct a search/seizure, or there's no rationale for having warrants.

    How can people be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," and at the same time give the police the power to break down their door at any moment for the slightest flimsy excuse?

    if someone calls the police and reports that she sees their neighbor beating his wife that the police can't act on that until a judge grants a warrant?
    From experiences of close friends, I know that the police often cannot be trusted to make a reasonable determination as to what constitutes "probable cause". This is why it is supposed to be determined by a court.

    I also don't trust my neighbors to sic the cops on me only when I'm beating my wife, and not when they have some other personal vendetta against me. The neighbor claiming that I'm beating my wife is not sufficient as probable cause if there is no other evidence.

    Allowing the police to determine when there is probable cause is hardly better than not requiring warrants at all.

    "A policeman's job is only easy in a police state." -- Orson Welles

    I really don't think the founding fathers had an impotent police force in mind that were not able to act on crimes in-progress.
    It is clear that historically it was expected that people defend themselves against criminals, using force as necessary. If you expect the police to do it for you, prepare to be disappointed, and quite possibly dead.