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 ..."

Comments

There is no lawsuit.

[jonnythan]

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.

Re:There is no lawsuit.

[in7ane]

From http://ewatch.prnewswire.com/rs/display.jsp?a=3070 2-309198409-850566157&key=D|136206|S|0|x|309198409 (linked to from http://www.mediarightstech.com/ ), the issue is BlueBeat.com an internet radio station (which is owned by the same people as MRT), and the increase in fees due to the Internet Radio Equality Act (which they think should not apply to them).

It all started when:

"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."

After which they invented a magic "anti-Stream Ripping provision" which others did not implement, and since:

"The basis for the rate hikes was primarily a result of the webcasting
community failing to adopt content control technology that would maintain
the integrity of the streamed performance."

It seems that what they are essentially trying to do it to get somebody else to compensate them for the rate hike that they will have to pay "If the Internet Radio Equality Act is to pass", or pressure others to influence the content of the act.

This is really a non-story, and since their issue seems to be with internet radio and stream rippers the inclusion of Apple may be due to their misunderstanding of the technology involved.

And their actual goal:

"The message is clear and simple: if webcasting royalty rates are to be
equalized with Satellite or Digital FM broadcasts by passage of The
Internet Radio Equality Act, Stream Ripping protection provisions must be
added to the Bill before the CRB rates go into effect May 15, 2007."

Making their position no less bizzare, they don't want anyone to buy their technology, just illogical in a different way.

Re:Hilarious PR

[dougmc]

This will be the world's shortest hearing. No it won't. The world's shortest hearing happened in a courtroom -- and this will never make it to court. It's a publicity ploy.

I might have tought they were hoping to settle out of court, because it would be cheaper to pay them off than to go to court and defeat them there, but considering their claim, that doesn't even seem likely. It must just be a way to get people to think about their product.

Re:DRM

[Mprx]

Freely sharing information is as old as language. Copyright is the breach of tradition here.

Re:Hilarious PR

[Garrett Fox]

There's precedent. I had heard about the dating site True.com lobbying Congressmen for "reform" of online dating, as a way to attract attention to the supposed virtues of their service.

Re:Hilarious PR

[kripkenstein]

it would be cheaper to pay them off than to go to court and defeat them there

What? Paying them off would invite every other DRM-wannabee startup to sue them as well. That's the worst solution. Far better to take them to court, demolish them, and avoid future problems.

But since they know that, perhaps their claim isn't as unwinnable as it seems. I admit at first glance I thought it must be some kind of joke, but there might be some details that we are unaware of (the Forbes article is very brief). Perhaps there were negotiations to use their product, and those were abandoned in bad faith in some manner? Or perhaps they did find a legal loophole to sue about? Who knows. Should be interesting to watch.

Re:Paging George Orwell!

[Shadowlore]

The greatest enemy of the capitalism these days are the... capitalists...

Wrong. Any time you have someone claiming you have to buy their product or service because it is the law (true or not), that's statism, not capitalism. Anytime someone argues that buying their product/service should be mandated by law, that's statism. A Capitalist wants the government to not interfere with her business transactions. Buying and/or selling does not a capitalist make.

Re:Hilarious PR

[watchingeyes]

RTFA. The submitter and Zonk have it completely wrong (gasp shock?). No lawsuit has been filed. Forbes apparently doesn't know the difference between a publicity stunt and serious lawsuit threats. I'm thinking of adding Forbes.com to my adblock filter, the "journalism" there is shoddy at best.

Reading the articles does take time, but when it is Zonk that accepts the submissions, it really is recommended.