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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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"
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
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).
these guys don't have the same board of directors(or major stock holders) as SCOG do they?
Geez, the world has gone insane
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
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.
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?
Strictly speaking the analog hole is any interconnect that is NOT digital, because there is no real way to encode an analog signal such that only the intended devices can interpret it. You can try of course but it gets very complicated
Obviously analog will always be subject to this lack of protection because speakers all contain 2 wire analog input, so unless we start hardening speakers like a DoD mainframe there will always be a way to get analog audio by cutting the speaker cone and setting volume level equal to ~1v like RCA line level.
Video is a bit different of course, but rest assured that until televisions are similarly hardened there will be a way to get analog, and probably even digital signals from inside them.
We need to start separating the discussion about piracy from the discussion about DRM, because they aren't entirely linked. DRM is most likely intended to stop sharing between friends, and will never stop real piracy. Until they really do implement a system that stops "break once run everywhere" we will always have piracy because all devices will agree to play media. To turn the system around you need to change the odds into a sort of break once run once system.
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.