Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Lawsuit Invokes DMCA to Force DRM Adoption

Posted by Zonk on from the interesting-legal-tactic dept.

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 ..."

9 of 332 comments (clear)

  1. Hilarious PR by mcvos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Hilarious PR by watchingeyes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      http://watching-eyes.blogspot.com/
  2. DRM by Tuoqui · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  3. Re:DRM's never been used for worthless suits befor by southpolesammy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  4. Re:DRM... No!!! We WANT them to WIN!!! by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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"
  5. Why is /. playing along with this? by gregor-e · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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).

  6. Board of directors? by phrostie · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    Geez, the world has gone insane

  7. Re:DRM's never been used for worthless suits befor by cfulmer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  8. No lawsuit filed by codepunk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?