Slashdot Mirror
Lawsuit Invokes DMCA to Force DRM Adoption
TechnicolourSquirrel writes "Forbes.com informs us that the company Media Rights Technologies is suing Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, and Real Networks for not using its DRM technology and therefore 'failing to include measures to control access to copyrighted material.' The company alleges that their refusal to use MRT's X1 Recording Control technology constitutes a 'circumvention' of a copyright protection system, which is of course illegal under the Digital Millenium Copryight Act. I would say more, but without controlling access to this paragraph with MRT's products, I fear I have already risked too much ..."
... ignore something so customer friendly and inviting as DCE!!!
Now this is truly funny. Not buying from them is a violation of the law? I suspect it's a publicity campaign. Lawsuits are very popular for that sort of thing, nowadays.
Hax-fu?
So Apple by NOT using any DRM, is circumventing the DMCA?
Let me be the first to call BULLSHIT on that. DMCA only applies AFTER you've applied DRM to the material involved. I hope the judge tells this little company to GTFO of his courtroom and laugh them out of court because in all honesty this lawsuit is bullshit.
Remember it is the right of the company to choose NOT to protect the copyright with DRM. Apple is taking a step in the right direction with their iTunes store with the DRM-free songs people can buy even if is its $1.30 (which may be more than the market is willing to bear).
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
Couldn't any DRM-maker say this same thing and sue again, and again, and again.... Hell, I could make up some random cipher and claim that, too!
These guys are pretty big tools to think that they'll actually get away with this....then again, the way the government (and silly laws) work, they may just win the day.
Just another reason why DRM is not just shit, but it's evil shit.
It won't work. Even if you don't say anything, you're "failing to include measures to control access" and thus "constitut[ing] a circumvention of a copy protection system." -Loyal
I aim to misbehave.
I think it's about the right time for me to file suit against Media Rights Technologies for not employing me at a salary of $10,000,000/year to refill their coke machines. Because of their unwillingness to hire me as a coke machine filler, their machines are dreadfully low, who knows how many people could become thirsty as a direct result..!!
Some companies really have no conscience.
MABASPLOOM!
Dead people being sued for not living.
The best medicine for folks like this is to ignore them. You know, when 90-year-old Grannie says something socially offensive. Maybe she's even baiting you. Is she going to change? Is a stern lecture or public censure going to modify her behavior? Yes, Granny, you're right. Then go about business as usual. This lawsuit isn't based somewhere in Texas is it?
u-bend
Maybe then the DMCA would get a much-needed makeover.
This is BRILLIANT! They will force Congress to take a more careful look at the DMCA, and thus realize that it was so poorly conceived and written in the first place that it is inviting frivilous lawsuits such as the above.
Eventually, some politicians will correct the current policy of puckering up and giving anything to a lobbyist with money and introduce some realistic & fair copyright laws.
I'm just being proactive in my media-sharing until then.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Your post would be better if that link actually was what it once was. These days it's just a domain for sale sign.
Next up: Dostoevsky scholars denied access to source materials because they couldn't not think of a white bear.
At what point do judges step up and slap around plaintiffs who are obviously abusing the legal system? How frivolous does a lawsuit need to be (such as this "free publicity" lawsuit) before a judge will say enough is enough?
I notice they didn't sue anyone that can't pay out mega dollars.
I just found the above text at the bottom of all /. pages. Read that again: all pages. Taking all the posts into account, that means there are probably limitless violations right on this site. In fact, I have to admit that this comment uses no technology from Media Rights Technologies to encrypt it. Perhaps I should have posted as an AC.
That is which not permitted is forbidden, that which is permitted is mandatory. I think that was Orwell. Either way, how Soviet. The greatest enemy of the capitalism these days are the... capitalists...
Does this mean SCO can sue IBM for not including their copyrighted code in Linux?
This company has cent cease and desist letters.
That's all.
There is no lawsuit. There's the apparent threat of a lawsuit, but that's all.
Move along folks. Move along.
Herpes? I like the ring of "Lawsuit Invokes DMCA To Give You Herpes"
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Oh, thank God! Now I can repurpose a hundred thousand neurons I've dedicated to making sure I never click on that link. I feel smarter already!
My initial suspicion was that this company is trying to commit suicide.
However, after engaging the brain for a microsecond, I suspect what they are trying to do is get themselves bought out, because that result is probably cheaper in the long run to one of the big DRM users out there (mm. surprised they didn't sue Sony/Disney)
Otherwise I read the case like this: I don't pay you to get your car keys from you in order to steal your car. I don't steal your car. I don't even know where your car is, and have no intention of stealing it, but I'm guilty of not using the official theft-prevention technology (i.e. your keys) to not steal it. I think that makes about as much sense as this lawsuit.
This part week, Spider-Man turned from being a good guy to a bad guy, the Green Goblin turned from a bad guy to a good guy, and Sandman turned from a hardened criminal to a crybaby asking for forgiveness.
Just because MS went from bad guy to good guy in this story does not mean you too will make 10 trillion dollars.
Be careful of your thoughts; they could become words at any minute...
This kind of reminds me of another loozer company that tried this a few years back. Something about LZW compression in GIF files. Smells like another loozer company grabbing at straws.
Thisis a cease and desist letter and a press release. No one filled anything and it's completely meaningless. This is 100% DRM publicity stunt.
i hope these assholes get sued into a big blackhole. what they are claiming, is that if i create something, i MUST drm it, and it MUST be their own technology. excuse me while i shit on their door step.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
It must be a joke. The logic behind this is absurd. It is common for companies to be sued for using another companies technology, but not using their technology. We must of all slipped down the same hole that Alice did.
Macrovision once threatened to sue our company if we wouldn't
license their DRM - because their DRM doesn't work.
The codecs we licensed for our products unintentionally ignored
the Macrovision DRM. It was simply caught by the error correction.
Macrovision threatened to sue the company I work at for violating
the DMCA. This could only be avoided if we explicitly checked their
DRM so we wouldn't ignore it accidentally. To check for their DRM,
we would need to license their system.
none are able to control what happens between the rendering device and the sound card - what might be called "the digital hole".
Stop me if I am wrong, but the analogue hole means you CANNOT protect analogue signal against copy protection, as soon as the media content is transformed into an analogue signal (sound or light) and sent to the human for perception then it is over, you can hijack that signal and make a copy all over the place. This has nothing to do how your signal is going to go to your sound card, but what happens afterward... Isn't it ?
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
Yah... good luck proving that about Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, and Real Networks software.
Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
ObDisclaimer: IANAL
I think it's high time we had lawsuit reform.
Reform #1: If lawsuit is deemed frivolous, plaintiff pays for defendant's legal fees, court costs, and some penalty to be divvied between the court and the defendant(s).
Reform #2: Neither party is allowed to spend more on legal fees and/or time spent, in the case of pro bono.
Reform #3: If a plaintiff has had 3 lawsuits deemed frivolous, they are barred from suing for one year. A fourth is 5 years. A fifth is 10 years.
Reform #4: A lawyer who's had 3 or more lawsuits dismissed for frivolity is suspended for one year. A fourth is grounds for disbarment. A fifth is automatic disbarment.
Like I said previously, IANAL. Some of these might already be in place. Some might not be good ideas. But the time for stopping this litigious nonsense has come.
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
employees. The only answer to greedy, immoral shit like this is to behead those that participate. There is no valid reason these people should be alive. The day corporal punishment became taboo is the day that Western civilization ended. No one has to take any responsibility and every single child is taught that nothing is their fault. Is it any wonder that more and more crap like this happens every moment?
Come on guys. You are looking at this all wrong. You WANT them to win this suite. Why? Because then the big corporations will FINALLY be on OUR side in saying the DMCA is one of the worst laws to be passed in recent times.
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
Can a lawyer out there speak to the likelihood that the judge will sanction the lawyers who brought this to court? If the judge does sanction them, how severely will that damage their careers? I've had a lawyer profess fear of sanction even when I had a solid case against a business partner who'd misappropriated my software. With no case, isn't that threat much worse?
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Please somebody defeat this non-issue with a black magic marker and have it permanently over with already. Making the claim they are the only basemost or root DRM scheme is absurd. Somebody simply has to crack it open once and then nobody will trust it against the claims originally made.
Why not sue Intel, Amd and IBM for making CPU's in the first place or how about they sue the electric companies for allowing all this to happen. We should sue god for giving us ears and the desire to listen to music in the first place.
Please, DMCA is desperate for power and they know their time is going to be up sooner or later and this scam they have running with be dismantled. Of course, a move like this will only speed up the demise of this organization by making big name enemies. Plus their is obviously no way in hell some idiotic case like that is going to fly against the billion dollar defense teams these companies have. Shit, these DRM backers can't even win cases against residents no less billion dollar companies.
And, it's not like it wouldn't just get cracked again. The more forceful and effective they are in spreading music protection schemes the quicker people will be forced to crack them. Plus it's not as if any level of music protections scheme is ever going to make it impossible to record your songs onto the computer. If you can listen to it, then you can pirate it.
Plus all this DRM bs on popular music helps drive the indie scene and other independent production and recording companies. If I couldn't download top 40 music for free, I'd just find the next best thing. Sure as hell wouldn't pay for it in any case. We get ripped off enough as consumers for merchandise, tickets, gas to get there, skyrocketing cable costs, drinks and food at 300-500% markup. Maybe if the entertainment industry was actually offering us some kind of decent deal we wouldn't sit around stealing their music, but UNTIL that time comes we are all going to take what we can. Either that or ignore them completely, which I'm personally not far from doing anyway, especially considering the current state of music in the US.
I'm safe from these lawsuits.
Absolutely everything I produce (including this post) is encrypted with 26 rounds of a sophisticated encryption algorithm known as ROT13. Sometimes, when I'm feeling particularly concerned about the value of the IP I'm producing, I'll apply 32 or even 64 rounds of this algorithm!
I am afraid, however, that by decrypting this post, you are in violation of the DMCA. See you in court suckers!
Ian Ameline
How about:
1. Case goes to trial.
2. Judge finds for defendants.
3. Decision states that buggy DRM is equivalent to no DRM.
4. Since no DRM is bug-free, no media can ever be DRM'ed.
5. DMCA effectively neutered.
But, think of the Court TV shows! What would bored people watch at 2 PM? Seriously though, I agree with your intent. The current legal system seems setup almost purposefully to be unjust.
Hax-fu?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's an obvious attempt to mooch free advertising. And here we are, giving them exactly what they want. All for the cost of having their lawyer send a couple of C&D letters. Sad. (But instructive).
I can't help thinking of the judge reaching under his desk, and pulling a lever, dropping a 16 ton weight on the plaintiff and his lawyer.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
these guys don't have the same board of directors(or major stock holders) as SCOG do they?
Geez, the world has gone insane
And in other news, Linux developers have threatened to sue MRT and BlueBeat.com for failing to open source the X1 SeCure Recording Control on the grounds that failing to provide a GPL version suitable for Linux is an act of circumventing the DMCA.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
If the total lack of support for this DRM is enough to circumvent it and gain access to content protected in this format, then maybe it's really just not very good. So bad so that it's not appealing to content owners (RIAA/MPAA) to use, and thus not worth paying license fees by the OS/player guys since the poor quality will have it never actually used for anything.
Seriously, doesn't circumvention mean you actively do something to go around or break through a protection in order to reach the prize inside? How does doing nothing at all and remaining unable to see the prize inside equate to circumvention? Brain not understand... Maybe the lines of text above and below what I was focusing on confused me?
It's a good idea, but it will never happen. (slow down, cowboy...)
Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?
I've seen many comments about the lack of copy protection, but from what I read, they have filed suit with these companies because they provide a "product" that can be used to circumvent the protection. MRT is asserting that by failing to use its copyright protection solution, these "products" are in fact illegal (they provide the functionality for DRM circumvention).
Can someone confirm that this assertion is in line with the DMCA?
From their website, it appears that they think they can close the digital->analog hole. That even though the customer can listen on headphones, they can't grab the stream and record it.
I'm guessing that the rational goes that having drm'ed material on a device providing an unprotected output then circumvents this protection.
Use my product or I'll sue...
This sounds just like a patent application. So circuitous, non-obvious, just plain confusing that no one knows what the he11 they're talking about.
"A little misunderstanding? Galileo and the Pope had a little misunderstanding."
IANAL too, but AFAIK part of #1 already exists:
;-)
after being hit with a frivolous lawsuit, you can sue the plaintiff to recover your legal fees and have a good chance of winning.
In this case, I think plaintiff is asking for it (by suing some big corporations who can afford fighting this bullshit in court
C - the footgun of programming languages
This is exactly the point that I believe MRT is trying to make. They are saying that Windows or OSX can be used as a circumvention device to circumvent other people's copyrights protection measures. They are not saying that they are worried about people circumventing Microsoft's or Apple's protections on their own copyrights.
I have not read the DMCA, but it would seem that their interpretation is way, way too broad. The aforementioned technologies do not really work that way out of the box since they require some work on the user's part plus additional software or hardware inputs to use them to circumvent. Also, they also have overwhelming non-infringing uses. So, saying that they are circumvention products is an incredible stretch. By the same logic, they could attack Dell for making general purpose computers or Intel for making general purpose CPU's.
Good day Comrades...
:-)
You will bow to the will of the lawyers here who are the real villains taking advantage of the law to make money. That is all this is about is "free money".
I am going to sue all of you now because I developed communications models that are still in use today with the modern browser that was designed on a CPM computer. It's still in use today, so you ALL owe me some serious cash. My lawyers will be contacting you soon for negotiations.
Does anyone see how much of a farce this DMCA really is???!!! Utter nonsense designed specifically to generate revenue for the lawyers. Its getting to be time to abolish lawyers.
All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.
Because of their unwillingness to hire me as a coke machine filler, their machines are dreadfully low
So that explains MRT's bad attitude. We're all a bit cranky before our morning caffiene...
Blank until
Frankly, either way I hope they get laughed out of court.
I hope they don't. I hope the DMCA is applied as broadly and as liberally as possible so we can see how silly it is.
Chamberlin vs. Skylink advanced a new theory of interpretation of the DMCA that actually made some sense: the code that actuates the motor is the protected IP and Skylink's openers bypasses the protection. The judge didn't throw it out because the theory was too far a reach, but because he didn't think Chamberlin should be able to control customers' access to their own garages, which was a Luddite decsision that happened to find *against* a DMCA-abuser.
Maybe I can come-up with some technology and post-facto companies into paying for it.
I know! I'll invent the Digital Rights Monkey; a cyber-simian that is trained to recognize paper receipts and bar codes from media packaging. If he finds media that doesn't have a matching receipt, he goes nuts, breaks it to pieces and douses it in urine and feces. (making the content unplayable)
Okay, media industry... PAY UP! You must use my idea, or I'll abuse the powers of the legal system all over you!
This strategy would seem brilliant... only it's not.
If they try to twist the language of the DMCA into leveraging platform developers into adopting their little DRM mechanism (and presuming they pull it off) I'm just going to have to kidnap their executives and make them watch every single Disney DVD title on a 9-inch CRT using just the composite-video signal.
“It watches The Lion King and sees the colors fade in and out or else it gets the hose again!”
This post © Copyrite Duggeek, all rights reversed.
With rule #1 you don't need rules 3 and 4 (subject to appeal). That way they don't loose the right to sue if they really do have a legit claim. It also protects them if they happen to be filing in a district with a biased judge. "Sorry boy, you can't go su'n no whites only diners..."
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Geez! Am I ever behind the times. I didn't know that Darl had left his old job and moved into the DRM business.
if a lawsuite is frivolous it means that it should never gone to court in the first place. Alot of the cases that come up on court tv are not frivolous. They may be Joe Redneck wanting his cousin to give him back his trans am seat cover but its still a legitimate claim. Just because its in small claims court doesn't mean its frivolous. Remember most of these people don't even have lawyers.
I know you were kidding around I'm just bored.
Where is the unibomber when you need him?
Aside from the fact that their interpretation of the DMCA is contorted, the companies that sent the Cease and Desist letters suffer from an additional, critical disability: they do not have standing to sue. Perhaps a real expert like NewYorkCountryLawyer will comment, but as I read it, only the copyright owners have standing to sue under the DMCA. DRM providers do not. When a lawsuit is actually filed, one of the first things the plaintiff needs to establish (along with the jurisdiction of the court to hear the case) is standing to sue. Failure to do so should result in a successful motion for summary judgment by the defendant.
Let me be the first to patent the new "flbay" software for marketing your remaining frivolous lawsuit quotas. As an added bonus I'll throw in a free copy of "How to become a lawyer in 21 days" ...
http://ewatch.prnewswire.com/rs/display.jsp?a=3070 2-309198409-850566157&key=D%7C136206%7CS%7C0%7Cx%7 C309198409
From article:
In the summer of 2001, The MoMI was hit with a cease-and-desist letter
from the RIAA for copyright infringement, alleging damages of $150 million
to their members. Upon further investigation it was discovered that
Microsoft had circumvented The MoMI's copy protection, exposing hidden
music files in an "upgrade" to the Windows Media Player, turning secure
MoMI performances into downloads. We notified the RIAA of the circumvention
and immediately removed the music from our exhibitions. Subsequently, the
RIAA took no action against the MoMI.
Take off your blinders buddy, there are no friendly companies so long as DRM is out and about. You want it totally gone. Not half-ass solutions that RoughlyDrafted insists are acceptable.
"MRT and Bluebeat said the failure to use an available copyright protection solution contravenes the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which prohibits the manufacture of any product or technology designed to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work or protects the rights of copyright owners."
So, basically, any computer without DRM hardware/software is illegal under the DMCA? Wait, no -- and stereo systems, and TVs, and... why, the entire electronics industry is going to be shut down thanks to the DMCA. I wonder what the media companies will do to sell content then?
It wouldn't be all bad. It would be back to live performances only, assuming that the use of air for sound transmission and light for visual transmission isn't also circumventing the provisions of the DMCA.
I'm going to sue Media Rights Technologies for not DRMing their Cease and Desist letters using my patent-pending "09F9" DRM technology. I sell each license for $10 million (or would have if I ever sold a license), therefore I should be entitled to $10 million times the number of letters that they sent!
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Completely frivolous lawsuits really aren't really that big a problem. The bigger problem is lawsuits which have some slim amount of merit, so they aren't technically frivolous, but which are brought mainly for harassment purposes. You're not really allowed to do that, but it's exceptionally hard to ascribe motive. We do have anti-SLAPP laws to address some of these problems.
Reform #1: In the US, Rule 11 sanctions are available if you institute a frivolous lawsuit. The exact sanction is determined by the judge on a case-by-case basis, and may be against the party, his lawyer, the lawyer's firm or any combination thereof. It can be monetary or non-monetary.
Reform #2: Why? If they persist, there'll be another Rule 11 sanction, which would probably be worse.
Reform #3: I don't think you need this. Lawsuits are expensive enough, as-is. If you're forced to pay the other side's fees (see #1), you'll stop quick enough.
Reform #4: This just isn't a problem. How many lawyers do you know who have even filed one frivolous lawsuit?
If this story isn't a complete farce, then there are probably some important details that we're missing.
i fixed your sig... and stole it :P
Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
Those who would tweak Architecture for a Marketing Advantage, deserve no Success and will not have it in the long run.
Those who fail to understand that the only point to an architecture IS for marketing advantages deserve no success and will not have it at any time.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
The last thing we want is for lawyers to be in prisons. THOUSANDS of potential clients, all with nowhere to run. No, that's just not fair.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
First of all no lawsuit has been filed, they just sent a cease and desist.
This is otherwise known as creative marketing, nobody even knew these guys existed up
to this point. Will they every file a lawsuit? Doubt it, but this little stunt makes
it possible that someone will look and possibly care about whatever snake oil they produce.
Got Code?
The real reason they are claiming that not using their DRM is a circumvention mechanism is because their whole technology depends on their software being present in order for the content to remain protected. If the software is absent, the content can be accessed in the clear. Apparently it is some kind of watermarking system that would trigger the software to check your authorization to access the content.
So, is their technology that dumb? Or just their lawyer?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Live by the sword... die by the sword.
The key word in DMCA would be effectively.
What DRM (Well, OK, DCE then) today does effectively control access to a work?
Most DRM Schemes are rendered useless within weeks (often only days) of appearing on the market, the only thing those schemes do is make it a hassle for all of us who legally buy movies, music and so on.
Just my $0.02
Jay: How are ya gonna make 'em?
John: We'll sue the pants off of 'em!
Bob: And then we'll sell 'em pants!
Coupon: The Trial
David V. O.: "Coupon: The Movie" versus the people of the United States.
John: Your Honor! *We* were cheated. No one *saw* this movie.
Bob: This court finds in favor of...the plaintiff!
Bob: [bangs gavel] I sentence each and every person in the United States to one viewing of "Coupon: The Movie." And may God have mercy...on your souls. Who wants to go Friday?
"The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
MRT and Bluebeat said the failure to use an available copyright protection solution contravenes the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which prohibits the manufacture of any product or technology designed to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work or protects the rights of copyright owners.
Oh... I see what you did there.
1. DCMA prohibits technology designed to circumvent DRM.
2. Failure to use DRM = active circumvention
3. Profit!
They appear to be assuming that copyright law is itself a DRM technology, and therefore digitizing copyrighted information without protecting it qualifies as "technology designed to circumvent".
The problem, of course, is that if there isn't any DRM in place, you can't circumvent it, and therefore the DMCA doesn't apply. P implies Q, but not-Q doesn't imply not-P.
The machines these days are digital and have a right to be filled. Thus, by not stocking the machines, they are managing to violate the machine's digital rights. This has to be covered by the DMCA somewhere.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Well, if they cover up one digital hole, I hope it's this one http://www.goatse.cx/ (come on, you don't need to be warned not to click).
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Then I can use that "DCMA Haiku" site to claim a similar protection scheme? Because Microsoft isn't using that copyrighted protection scheme on _other people's_ copyrighted material (Disney movies, say), then I can sue for money?
Cool, free money. Thanks lawyers!
It will never happen. Why? Because for the power elite who are in the business of government, lawsuits are simply good business: the more lawsuits, the more power and revenue they "need" in order to administer the whole system, and the more precedent they have for future expansions of power and revenue. Frivilous lawsuits represent business too. What would the power elite prefer: a citizen running to government when his neighbor plays the car stereo too loud, or the citizen actually going across the street to discuss the issue like adults, solving the problem without involving government?
There's a reason why every year we are subject to more laws than the year before, and it's not because expanding government power is unprofitable for those in the business of government. The US government of today dwarfs the US government of only 50, let alone 100 years ago, both in revenue and power over the people. This near-exponential growth of centralized power would never have been possible under a sane system of law, based on simple common sense, the self-evident laws of human nature, and (heaven forbid) understandable by the common man. The more complexity, and the more ambiguity, the more exploitable the law is for the power elite who make their fortunes on Big Government, either directly or (more commonly) indirectly.
It's the same by the same court traditions that protectionist actions have been put against my home province (British Columbia) by the US. RE: softwood lumber levies and protectionist actions against hothouse tomato growers. (*cough* 100 years of hothouse tomatos here. Since when is industrial failures in the southern states - who started growing these ~1980s - OUR fault?) (both are breach of NAFTA... but that's an entirely separate issue. The fact they happened at all is kind of precedence)
So while it may look frivolous - it would pretty much have to go to court to decide. Unfortunately - at least on an international (NAFTA) level - there's precedence. But IANAL and I'm not a US citizen either.
However I suspect the cease and desist letters can be ignored. There doesn't seem (again IANAL) to be any legal validity to them. Perhaps - if it's found the organization's associated with the MPAA or something though - they could be used as evidence as racketeering charges? *grin*
You know on second thought... this could be treated as an attack on the Open Source movement.
If suddenly anything you distribute needs to be protected by DRM then licensing schemes like the GPL and even Creative Commons License become null and void because DRM exists to restrict the free flow of information.
So technically NO, you do not want them to win this lawsuit despite what other people have been saying in other comments.
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
Martha! Fetch up the chainsaw! We got us a legal problem needs fixin.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
As they read the DCMA it sounds like: If you have digital information that you would like to copyright then you must protect it with DRM. That means that EVERYTHING that doesn't have DRM, from this web page to the ROM in your microwave must be protected somehow. So does DRM require DRM?
Some companies really have no conscience.
All companies have no conscience. By definition. And things would be much nicer in this country if people would realize that and legislate/demand legislation accordingly.
"Choosing to refrain from producing another person demonstrates a profound love for all life" [vhemt.org]
Funny stuff, man. :D
But also after some small fish, similar to SCO, who never guessed IBM would pay. But some SME did; just scared and wanting to settle.
How if an unsuspecting owner of a small enterprise finds a warning letter:
We assume that you want to avoid a similar situation. Don't worry, we also rather reach an amicable settlement, and we are willing to help you.
Please, call our local representative at
Disbarring the lawyer is a little extreme. You'd be permanently ruining the livelihood of the lawyer, which is particularly unjust if the lawyers are on staffs who's employers force them to pursue frivolous lawsuits. I don't believe it's wise to create a situation where a person risks punishment no matter what action they take.
If you insist on disbarring the lawyers, perhaps you should permanently ban the plaintiffs from litigation as their maximum sentence. It would at least even a little inequality.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Cool, thanks.
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
Oh man...I love that second idea of yours! It's brilliant, of course they'd find a way to circumvent it, "We won't actually 'pay' you to sue for us, but hey, is that a big pile of cash in the corner...go on, take it, it's a donation" but that idea is genius. I can just see the plaintiff in some major case donating some money to the defense so that they can hire a good lawyer so that the plaintiff can hire a good one too. The only thing I would change about it would be a % system rather than actual values, as in "Neither side in a legal case may spend more than 10% over their opponent on legal fees or time spend in pro bono".
I really wish that was law...would get rid of 90% of the frivolous lawsuit's on it's own while also eliminating the majority of the 'sue for money' crowd.
There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
count in hex much?
This is a perfect case for a sort of civil grand jury system or at least a civil judicial review.
The idea is that before a defendant can be bothered in the slightest by a lawsuit, it must first be reviewed to determine if the plaintiff can even hope to prevail. Firstly, assuming everything the would-be plaintiff alleges is true, would/could they win? If not, the suit dies right there and the named defendant recieves only a notice of summary judgement in their favor requiring no reply. It's surprising how many lawsuits are filed that would fail this test.
Next, any claims that by nature cannot be substantiated in court are thrown out. Any novel legal theories that cannot be supported are also thrown out. If the remaining claims cannot support the suit, it too is thrown out. That would take care of cases like the nutjob who claimed that he was God, several professional magicians were using divine powers, and so were infringing on his exclusive right to wield divine power.
A lawyer that files suits that fail these tests certainly should face disciplenary actions. It's their job to know when a suit cannot possibly prevail. If they do not, they are incompetant. If they do, but file anyway they are unethical. Note that this is reserved for suits that positively CANNOT prevail at all.
The next question should be a matter of jurisdiction. If it is filed in the wrong court, it gets tossed. That includes requiring small claims to be filed in small claims court.
Assuming it gets past those tests, it may still be found frivolous when it's tried if the plaintiff can't substantiate the claims or support any novel legal theories that the suit depends on. This would be for cases that could have potentially prevailed on their face, so due process required that it go to trial but once tried proved baseless. In these cases, the plaintiff's attourney might or might not face disciplenary action depending on the particulars, but plaintiff or plaintiff's attourney might well be required to pay defendant's costs (including lost work etc).
The objective of this is to recognize that the process of defending oneself in court is in and of itself a penelty. The costs in time and money and can be ruinous. Some plaintiffs, in fact, know that well and deliberatly use civil suits as a bludgeon. All too frequently, courts become pawns in what amounts to legalized extortion. By the reletively simple process of filing a few documents and paying a small fee, any nutjob can cause the courts to lend the full force of government to his lunatic ravings.
Consider, some nutjob decides that it's really important that you listen to him raving that the moon really IS made of green cheese and the "American cheese food product" on your sandwich is actually bleached moon cheese sold by the U.S. Air Force and UFO aliens to support their conspiracy of silence (And Kennedy knew too much!). By telling him to get lost you "caused him great mental anguish" and "slandered him" when you called him a nutjob in front of other passengers on the bus. By filing a few papers and paying a few dollars, he can cause the sheriff to drag you (perhaps literally) into court to hear him out. You'll certainly prevail, but not until you have spent far more time and money than his rantings could possibly merit.
That seems extreme, but similar court supported madness has happened.
Thanks for ruining the movie for those who haven't seen it yet, you insensitive clods!
"It's not whether you win or lose, it's how drunk you get." -- H. J. Simpson
Good idea, let's all sue them!
Lessee... I've done tech writing and they didn't use me to do their documentation...
Oh, I was talking about the RIAA. What was this article about again?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
You create a video recorder. Your recorder isn't like a VCR that gets tripped up by it in a technical manner; it's a digital recorder. It can record Macrovision-protected content without difficulty. You are forced to either add recognition of the protection and prevent recording (ReplayTV) or re-add Macrovision protection on playback (TiVo) so further copying by VCRs is prevented. And now that they have their foot in the door, you can be expected to comply to future enhancements that limit how long you're permitted to keep the recordings (TiVo again).
Surely there is pleny of law that violates reason, and I don't claim to under stand DRM case law by any stretch. Also, I'm not familiar with the technical details of what you describe above, so I'm just taking it on it's face.
In the above case, it seems to me that the protection is incomplete. In that case, the "Macrovision-protected content" is not protected sufficiently if my video recorder can read it (you have to be able to read something before you can copy it). If a broadcaster wants better protection, then they should protect it in a way that it is not openly readable.
Really, this is much like encryption, if party A sends a signal, and they declare that it is "encryptable", but rely on Party B to encrypt, I don't think it's fair to say that Party B has "circumvented" the encryption because Party B chose not to implement the encryption to begin with.
What we have here (it seems to me), is a situation where the distributors of the content are not sufficiently protecting their information and want to force other (e.g. people who make recorders) to "encrypt" that data on behalf of the distributors.
A modern day witchhunt.
You may not have noticed but
HTML wraps and encodes normal text and images you want your viewers to see and only people with the correct software decoder can then view your site.
HTTP is the network component which further delays would be criminals by forcing them to request all the content on a page using several requests to the same server, or possibly even different servers then manually recombine the decode and reformat text received according to arcane formatting rules.
Content owners can even use a third encryption format on top of all this called called CSS which can cause the text to be repositioned almost anywhere on the page, or even appear invisible or backwards.
Reform #5: Absolutely transparent frivolous lawsuits like this one, when dismissed, will result in the lawyers, the plaintiffs and all their families having their hands cut off and tongues cut out as a warning to those who may come in the future.
Actually, you touched on the problem in your first sentence: completely frivilous lawsuits are not really common. Why? Because lawyers are the ones determining what constitutes frivolity? It's a clear conflict of interest. And one we will never get away from, considering the large percentage of the legislators and judges are lawyers.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
If anything, it's not extreme ENOUGH. They should be disbarred immediately for sending any sort of frivolous action, including C&D. This is taxpayer money they're wasting by using court time for their idiotic garbage. It's not extreme in the slightest to hold lawyers responsible for their actions, just like everyone else is. It's about time they stop getting a free ride on taxpayer money, and start having to own up to their bullshit.
The number is in HEX, not Decimal. It should be:
09F9 1102 9D74 E35B D841 56C5 6356 88BF and 09F9 1102 9D74 E35B D841 56C5 6356 88C1
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
There is something wrong with the article. I could read it without loading any DRM software.. Even more important, there is absolutely nothing to prevent a copy and paste or a screen capture of the copyrighted article.
As an example of this failure to protect the copyrighted content, here is a copy/paste from the article.
MRT and Bluebeat said the failure to use an available copyright protection solution contravenes the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which prohibits the manufacture of any product or technology designed to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work or protects the rights of copyright owners.
I think this article would have been best posted in an encrypted form such as they use on Yahoo Music where you need an account to download the article and the article can't be freely posted online on slashdot due to effective DRM. I hope they properly sue Forbes for posting the article without DRM. In the future, I won't be bothered by these type of articles. because I don't do DRM.
I should post as AC so I don't get nailed for the above copyright violation.
Oh except for the above copyrighted quote, I'm posting this post as freeware. Feel free to repost. I hope that takes care of the requirement to post this with DRM.
The truth shall set you free!
In Soviet Russia, DMCA violates you!
-- I might be stupid, but you have to be good at something.
Actually, if they win it will just be appealed, and they'd win in appeal. Of course, if it went to a higher court before being laughed out, it might send a stronger message. On the other hand, judging by this suit these guys are total morons, so they're probably dumb enough to appeal if they lose, so it may go to a higher court no matter what.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
Well, first of all, it's DCE and not DRM anymore.
But that's not really funny. Actually, it could be a threat to Linux altogether. How can you make sure that Linux, being compiled from source by its user, keeps said user from accessing content he's not allowed to access?
I predict that a lot of Linux devs and gurus will move out of the US into some free country.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
companies can sue anyone who does not buy their products for depriving the company of their 'rightfully due' profits.
soo, what this says is that company A is yelling "you don't use our product! your a TERRORIST!" at companys B, C, D, E, F, and so on. thats it, i have to say it. This is Re-Damn-Tarded. people that bring law suits like this should be fish-slapped and left in the street.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
.. there sueing some if not the biggest names in the industry, Its like Some kid trying to fight super man, batman, wonderwoman(MS), and the hulk all at once. They are going to get stopmed into the ground if this goes to court.
Er, I mean:
Have gnu, will travel.
Just checking, is this one obligatory yet?
ObDisclaimer: IANAL
will you go out with me?
I am truly scarred for life... it's burned into my eyeballs! Help! I'm helpless to it's insane hole-y power!
These guys can have fun suing VLC. And mplayer. And every other open-source audio program.
ROT13 does not cover punctuation, capitalization or numbers... by definition...
Liar!
I disagree with these punishments.
#1 is OK. But #3 is totally wrong. Instead, if a plaintiff is a corporation and has only 2 frivolous lawsuits, they lose the company: the entire ownership reverts to the defendant, after court costs are paid. Also, the executives lose ALL their assets (including their Florida mansions, wives' wedding rings, etc.) and these revert to the defendant.
#4: A lawyer with just 2 frivolous lawsuits goes to prison for life.
Yep, they're in violation of the Dispensing Machines for Cola Act
Going up against Apple on this one is probably the dumbest things ever for them. I seriously expect Apple to bankrupt them with lawyers and fees just out of spite. And I seriously doubt any judge would fault Apple, either. Probably laugh at their complaints would be my guess.
Moral: Don't kick the shins of the 2000lb gorilla.
At the very least if you're going to disbar people, there should be a merely 'frivolous' and a 'flagrantly frivolous'. A merely frivolous suit should automatically have awards to the defendant and a fine from the court. The flagrantly frivolous ones should be the ones that get people disbarred. There's a matter of degree to everything, including how silly a silly court case is.
This sounds just like when Atat/SBC charged me $3 a month for NOT having long distance on a line. Correct there is a charge for NOT having a service!!!
Those who can, do.
You must've missed the spoliation motions SCO filed. In essence, because IBM developers cleaned out their sandboxes of old code (which might, theoretically, belong to SCO via some contorted "logic") so as not to get any of that into Linux (or maybe it was AIX/Dynix, I forget), SCO decided they must be destroying evidence.
Yes, never mind that SCO hasn't identified any contributions by them that might somehow infringe upon SCO's rights. SCO thinks it keeps them from knowing what those developers had access to (never mind that information can be found by checking who checked out what and when in CMVC, which IBM provided and SCO apparently never used).
So SCO accused IBM of destroying evidence because developers made sure *not* to use any potentially SCO-owned code while working on something else! Just one tiny problem: the judge didn't buy that, even for a second.
oh crap! i've patched my patch, thanks.
Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
fine development; perhaps this will make micro$oft and others realise the full implications of supporting DRM and DMCA.
First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win. -Gandhi
So, if you can make a good case that even if current law doesn't allow something, it should, and even if you don't currently have evidence backing up your claims, you think you probably will, you're good.
If you don't like these rules, get Congress to change them -- they're written into a federal statute. But, recognize that by doing so, some meritorious claims won't be heard.
Bah, that's nothing. All my text files are encrypted with 26 rounds of ROT-N, with the value of N randomly chosen for each file!
There has never been a requirement to use the "best" technology in any field (even when lives are at stake) -- after all, "best" does not have a cost associated with it and one can always add improvements, even if the cost is exponentially higher.
This is a desparate marketing and publicity ploy.
DING DING DING, we have a WINNER!
I don't know why we're classifying this as humor; we should be contributing to their legal fund just to make this suit set a really dangerous precedent. Once the carnage starts, other corporations will BEG to have the DMCA removed.
If this gets serious, look for at least one of these companies to file a counterclaim, so that the case *can't* just be dropped.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Note the number in the 16^1 spot is C in the second number thus making it 2 higher than the previous and thus ******C0 is the number in between. I'm writing this because I think you were saying that he was mistaken, if you are instead just pointing out that it isn`t normal to count in hex, well maybe you`re right.
Look at the horribly bad promotions for BlueBeat here:
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/83391
Same guy posts more than a half dozen times under different names to say positive things about BlueBeat.
Pump and Dump scam, most likely.
As for "litigious nonsense", that's just name calling. What, exactly, is your argument?
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
....Apple and Microsoft will be fighting on the same side! Now I wonder, what OS will their lawyers be using when they're working together?
"All you need is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." -- Mark Twain
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Where's their next stock holder meeting? Is it near VA Tech?
I've got to load some mags, get directions, and head out.
Bye!
These companies don't put DRM on their stuff, so there's no protection to be defeated in the first place. How is the DMCA applicable?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Just for shits and grins, I tried some stuff "protected" by this. Sound Blaster Live 5.1 Platinum, under Windows XP. The stereo mix was most certainly restricted, but the SB Live! has a "What U Hear" feature. You capture directly from the buffer of the sound card. (comes in handy when you're using the sound card as a guitar FX device) I was able to rip anything they supposedly had "protected" with the sound card's native capabilities.
And this is specifically the reason I don't upgrade to Vista, nor use much anything other than Sound Blaster hardware for sound. Sure, the line noise issue may be slightly annoying, but being able to get past ANY DRM by simply ripping directly from the cards internal buffer (in which all functionality to do so is provided directly by Microsoft and Creative Labs) is a godsend.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Actually, it's also an attack on, for instance, slashdot. Consider that under US and most other law, everything you "publish" here is copyrighted by you. /. even tells us this up front. And almost nothing here is encrypted or protected by any other DRM mechanism. So if these guys win, their next target will be everyone putting anything on the Web without DRM.
...
Myself, I wonder if the DMCA could be applied to hard copy publications. If so, these guys might also start suing every publisher for not using a product of theirs to encrypt and "protect" books and magazines.
But maybe we should keep quiet about this. It might give the dead-tree publishers an idea
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
But what do these jokers think they are doing taking on Microsoft AND Apple?! The others guys can provide clerk support. They'll probably just bankrupt themselves.
This is worse than Rambus.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
I think the word "conscience" was not the word he was looking for. Perhaps "stupid" or "idiotic". I guess the closest you can get to conscience is "not illegally screwing someone over".
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
I prefer Digitally Crippled Entertainment.
I have a amendment to #1
plaintiff will not pay more then his total legal fees to the defendant (Stop big companies hiring millions in lawyers to scare you off the case)
My Transformation Website
Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
See Groklaw regarding the SCOX v. World and dog lawsuits.
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
My point wasn't that there are none, just that there aren't many. SCO is such big news simply because it's short on merit. Your argument is sort of like saying that there must be a lot of ex-presidents because everybody knows of at least one.
In any case, the SCO cast wasn't completely without merit. The fact that you've filed a case that, later, completely falls apart, doesn't mean that it was frivolous when it was filed. Even so, they may be yet be hit with Rule 11 sanctions.
Using a bad law to fight itself:
This is a great idea! If Forbes can force MS to carry their DRM, then any one of us can too! How about someone write a 'DRM script generator' which slaps together some rudimentary DRM Code, and form e-mails to MS for inclusion. When Microsoft gets six hundred different DRM libraries they have to incorporate into the next Visa update, suddenly Bill isn't so DRM-friendly any more. With Steve and Bill staring down those movie studio pirates (I'm referring to the studio executives who steal from their producers and authors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting ), suddenly life will get hard.
Same with the 'own an integer' program. (This was on slashdot recently: encrypts a Haiku using this integer, which you can then claim as your 'key' and send a DRM takedown notice to anyone else who lists it).
See where this is going: "DRM takedown notice? I'll give you a DRM takedown notice. How about a million of them?" Any recipient who ignores or blocks it will be subject to DMCA penalties. How ironic!!!
While your suggestions are well-intentioned, I see the potential for merely adding complexity and confusion to the already extremely complicated world of "law".
Really, the whole darn system needs to be thrown out. Everything. No human can rationally understand or realistically abide by the hundreds of thousands (or is it millions?) of conflicting laws, by-laws, regulations, statutes, and precedents on the books in any given US jurisdiction.
Throw it all out. Reduce civil law to a simple description of what it means to injure another person, financially or otherwise. Make it so it fits on one sheet of paper, and a judge can try any reasonable case in a day. Make it so any person of average intelligence can understand the law in its entirety and argue his own case. Allow "open source law" where people can negotiate which court and judge will see their case; honestly, people like Judge Judy are a pretty good model: she applies common sense and can hand down a smart verdict in an hour that might take months in normal court.
Of course, if you have a simple legal system like that, based on actual actions and right and wrong, the corporations, lobbyists, and politicians all lose their jobs; so it will never happen, short of a revolution.
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
I have always thought penis enlargement appliances snake oil but now I will reconsider. In the end it is a husband's duty to provide maximal happiness to the spouse. Even if a PE kit it doesn't make any sense I now feel I have the obligation to at least give it a go. Thanks MRT for opening my eyes. I am forever in your debt.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
even in the future they will love DRM.5 /the_dark_centur.html
See my small cartoon:
http://geekandpoke.typepad.com/geekandpoke/2007/0
Bye,
Oliver
Just because something doesn't use DRM doesn't mean it is designed to circumvent copyright. Also, if Forbes doesn't like it, they can sell files in formats that isn't supported by Windows! And about playing sounds/light outside of human perceptive range, it is silly and won't work anyways, for one thing, you can just build an analog band-pass filter or such. Also, I read somewhere that DRM was invented for recording studios, recording studios want to rip off the artists. I say there are many good arguments in here. Another page on Slashdot says someone will change the name of DRM to "stupid", maybe that is OK?
Does DRM apply in Canada? (I am designing a product with non-DRM, but it isn't designed to circumvent copyright either, it is designed to play media and run software that doesn't use DRM.)
Be careful what you wish for. Soon the place will be full of lawyers from another planet, who look like creeping blobs of plasma and breathe sulphuric acid.
Then again, would it really make such a big difference? You still wouldn't want to be in the same room with them.
Tools > Add-ons > Blocksite > Options > Add > http://goatse.ca/
Man this is getting old.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Yes, but if the legal profession is like most other, the board which regulates their conduct is comprised mostly, if not exclusively, of fellow lawyers - which tend to look at such actions with a less cynical eye than the general public. There are cases of blatent disregard for the law, but those in the gray area are going to be seen in the accused favor more likely than not. I've been involved with both a professional and occupational board, and both tended to be pretty lenient on even the least trustworthy of members.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
ROTFLMAO
Regards,
Ryan Pritchard
Fun Extends All Basic Life Expectancies