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

It gets worse...

[powerpants]

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?

Re:It gets worse...

[boilerbrown]

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

Re:It gets worse...

[gEvil (beta)]

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.

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.

DRM's never been used for worthless suits before..

[Anarchysoft]

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!

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).

I'm filing suit against Media Rights Technologies

[neoform]

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.

This just in:

[PlayItBogart]

Dead people being sued for not living.

Re:This just in:

[UCRowerG]

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.

Re:This just in:

[SuluSulu]

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.

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...

Business opportunity!

[johnw]

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

There is no lawsuit.

[jonnythan]

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.

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: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.