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."

30 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 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.

    2. 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. 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
  3. 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 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. 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 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

    3. 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.

    4. 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
  5. 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.

  6. 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
  7. 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!

  8. 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
  9. 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?
  10. 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!
  11. 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.
  12. 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 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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?
  15. 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!
  16. -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.
  17. 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.

  18. 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
  19. 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

  20. 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.
  21. 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!