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

Hilarious PR

[mcvos]

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.

Re:Hilarious PR

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they're not. Massachusetts is a government entity. They're not allowed to play favorites, there are specific rules about how they decide who to buy from. (However, it's Massachusetts, so it's not surprising that they would play favorites. Do a quick Google on "Big Dig". Might also want to add "corruption" or "killed" to the search to get a better idea.)

Diebold's offering was considerably cheaper than the one Massachusetts inexplicably decided to choose. (Something like half the cost.) Since Massachusetts is bound, by law, to pick the cheapest option that meets the requirements they set out (which was Diebold's offering) Diebold has a right to sue them.

Now, private entities have no such restriction. A private enterprise might decide to buy a more expensive computer system with lower specs solely because the color of the case goes well with their logo. (Or, to meet the car analogy requirement, people can decide to buy SUVs over more practical cars even though they're more expensive to own and maintain and a cheaper car would have met their needs.)

So this lawsuit is baseless - there's no legal obligation for a private entity to choose a certain vendor. The same is not true of the government.

Re:Hilarious PR

[srmalloy]

Didn't Diebold already lose a "Waaahhh, you didn't buy our product, so we're gonna sue" lawsuit like this one? If I understand the provisions of the DMCA, it criminalizes the act of bypassing DRM on copyrighted material, but it does not mandate the presence of DRM on copyrighted material (much less a specific company's DRM product), in the same manner that the laws criminalizing the unauthorized entry into someone's home do not require that the resident install locks on their door, much less buy those locks from (say) Schlage.

Re:Hilarious PR

[watchingeyes]

No lawsuit here. The fact that this was posted by Zonk explains everything. It was a C&D that was sent, and it was for publicity purposes. The company wouldn't be stupid enough to sue, because they don't have standing, and would be sanctioned severely and relatively quickly.

Off-topic: We should start a petition for OSTG to replace Zonk with a monkey.

DRM

[Tuoqui]

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).

Re:DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 = Consumer Choice Enablement

Actually, "consumer choice" technically means the ability of a consumer to choose between multiple competing offerings and pick the one the consumer feels best meets his needs. The criteria can be many things, including whether or not the offering has DRM or the like. Your "consumer choice enablement", above, actually isn't the same thing. It actually allows the 'consumer' to unilaterally decide to take a contract offering in this case, the licensing mode of "you give me money and you can have a copy of this content" and turn it into "I'll take a copy of the content anyway and not give you anything for it". While it does empower the 'consumer' to circumvent licensing contracts, it is not a part of the traditional meaning of 'Consumer Choice'.

Re:DRM

[Clock Nova]

But it also says "without the authority of the copyright owner," which I'm pretty sure Apple has. So, once again, this lawsuit is meaningless because the DMCA doesn't say you have to use DRM, just that you can't go around it without the owner's permission.

Re:DRM

[bluprint]

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.

Re:Like offensive old people...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, but ignoring granny's racist quips is free. Default judgments are not, and may set precident to boot.

The only responsible course of action is the clue stick. In this case delivered by the lawyer squads of two $(Xe9) companies. And also Real Networks.

Re:DRM's never been used for worthless suits befor

[southpolesammy]

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.

Re:Zonk sold out!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually Spider-man turned from good guy to bad guy and then back again. Harry turned from a bad guy to a good guy to a bad guy to a good guy and finally to a dead guy.

Re:DRM... No!!! We WANT them to WIN!!!

[Fallen Kell]

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.

Why is /. playing along with this?

[gregor-e]

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).

Board of directors?

[phrostie]

these guys don't have the same board of directors(or major stock holders) as SCOG do they?

Geez, the world has gone insane

Indeed, GP is blind

[mattgreen]

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.

Re:DRM's never been used for worthless suits befor

[cfulmer]

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.

Re:DRM's never been used for worthless suits befor

[jd]

(1) is already done in England, extensively, and is the main reason it's less lawsuit-happy than the US.

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.

No lawsuit filed

[codepunk]

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.

The keyword is.....

[mengu]

Then, 1201(a)(2)(A) provides that "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;"

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

Re:DRM... No!!! We WANT them to WIN!!!

[Tuoqui]

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.

DCMA is open for interpretation...

[Coolhand2120]

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?

Re:DRM's never been used for worthless suits befor

[Overzeetop]

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.

Something wrong with the article

[Technician]

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.

Open Source Wins Again

[Interfect]

These guys can have fun suing VLC. And mplayer. And every other open-source audio program.

Re:The real reason ...

[Zeinfeld]

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.

Its either a publicity stunt or public stupidity.

Failure to deploy a mechanism is not circumvention by any stretch of the imagination. And the DCMA only makes it illegal to circumvent an effective DRM scheme. This scheme is not effective by any stretch of the imagination.

Furthermore there is a simple mechanism for them to prevent content being displayed on unauthorized machines - encrypt it and build the decryption key into the reader.

What the suit amounts to is a demand for Microsoft to do all the hard work required to develop a DRM scheme and allow this gang of twits to set up the toll booth.

To circumvent protection....

[mark-t]

.... doesn't protection have to be there in the first place?

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?