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 ..."

28 of 332 comments (clear)

  1. It gets worse... by powerpants · · Score: 5, Funny
    From Media Rights Techonologies' website:

    X1 provides the root source of copy protection. However sophisticated the upstream DRM systems used to govern the use of content are, none are able to control what happens between the rendering device and the sound card - what might be called "the digital hole". The X1 technology provides the governance mechanism for the digital hole and thus underpins the entire rights management structure. They also want control over your "digital hole". Where do I sign up?
    1. Re:It gets worse... by boilerbrown · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ah how I love the sweet sound of copyright lawyer jackboots in the morning.

    2. Re:It gets worse... by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 5, Funny

      They also want control over your "digital hole". Where do I sign up?

      They can have as much control of my digi. hole as they want, just as long as they don't go after my anal. hole.

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    3. Re:It gets worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      They can have as much control of my digi. hole as they want, just as long as they don't go after my anal. hole.

      Too late!

  2. 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 Volante3192 · · Score: 4, Funny

      They're just taking a page from Diebold v. Massachusettes...

    2. Re:Hilarious PR by Garrett+Fox · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      Revive the Constitution.
    3. Re:Hilarious PR by kripkenstein · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.
  3. DRM's never been used for worthless suits before.. by Anarchysoft · · Score: 5, Funny

    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. They said a failure to comply with the cease and desist order could result in in a federal court injunction and/or the imposition of statutory damages of 200-2,500 usd per product distributed or sold. I, for one, am shocked to see DRM laws being used by frivilous lawsuits. This certainly is a first!
  4. 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
  5. Couldn't anyone say this? by fudgefactor7 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  6. I'm filing suit against Media Rights Technologies by neoform · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!
  7. This just in: by PlayItBogart · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dead people being sued for not living.

    1. Re:This just in: by UCRowerG · · Score: 5, Funny
      I hope those pesky dead people get sentenced to a bunch of community service.

      Eh. They'd probably break parole and just not show up. Slackers.

    2. Re:This just in: by SuluSulu · · Score: 5, Funny

      I hope those pesky dead people get sentenced to a bunch of community service.

      Eh. They'd probably break parole and just not show up. Slackers.

      Nah, they just put them to work in congress.

  8. We're all complicit by Random+BedHead+Ed · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  9. Paging George Orwell! by notabaggins · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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...

    1. Re:Paging George Orwell! by Shadowlore · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
  10. Business opportunity! by johnw · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does this mean SCO can sue IBM for not including their copyrighted code in Linux?

  11. There is no lawsuit. by jonnythan · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  12. Suicide or Buyout by caveman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  13. Macrovision once did the opposite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Macrovision once did the opposite by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.
      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  14. 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.
  15. 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"
  16. 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).

  17. 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?
  18. Re:DRM's never been used for worthless suits befor by mnemotronic · · Score: 4, Funny

    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. Amendment to Reform # 3: If a plaintiff has had 3 lawsuits deemed frivolous, the plaintiff is to be divvied up.

    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. Amendment to Reform # 4: If the lawyer walks upright or breathes oxygen, the lawyer is to be divvied up.

    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.