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

Couldn't anyone say this?

[fudgefactor7]

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.

We're all complicit

[Random BedHead Ed]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2007 OSTG.

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.

Paging George Orwell!

[notabaggins]

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...

Suicide or Buyout

[caveman]

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.

Macrovision once did the opposite

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Macrovision once did the opposite

[HTH NE1]

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.

Indeed, the case of Macrovision was what I was going to cite. Failure to make a technology vulnerable to a particular DRM scheme would be seen as creating circumventing technology. As I recall, there used to be VCRs that were not vulnerable to Macrovision protection, able to record the signal from a deck playing a Macrovision-protected tape. I used to have one, but it finally died. (It also recorded better with one head than modern 4-head VCRs.) Now all VCRs are engineered to be vulnerable to Macrovision. (Probably integrated into the VHS technology license.)

So instead, I'll point out that it is rumored that early development versions of TiVo were so good at extracting a video signal from noise that they accidentally were very effective at defeating most analog cable scrambling in use at the time. They then had to re-engineer the TiVo so it was no longer capable of that function.

This case though should still be thrown out. The DMCA only prevents circumvention of effective controls. That one has to look for a particular protection and react accordingly does not make it effective. If not for expected FCC regulations to require its recognition, the Broadcast Flag would similarly be ineffective, as it is with HDTV tuner cards created without including such a flag's recognition.

You need a law making recognition of your particular crackpot protection scheme mandated before you can argue that someone is violating the DMCA by not recognizing your particular crackpot protection scheme.

IANAL.