Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Lawsuit Invokes DMCA to Force DRM Adoption

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the interesting-legal-tactic dept.

It's funny.  Laugh. 332

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 ..."

cancel ×

332 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

How dare they.. (3, Funny)

Spritzer (950539) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082249)

... ignore something so customer friendly and inviting as DCE [slashdot.org] !!!

Re:How dare they.. (1)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082303)

Don't these companies realize how much they are harming consumers when they are slow to adopt these restricti^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H rights management technologies?

My suggestion (-1)

JonTurner (178845) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082371)

I suggest they go plug this digital hole (NSFW!) [goatse.cx] and get back to us.

Re:My suggestion (1)

cdrudge (68377) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082457)

Your post would be better if that link actually was what it once was. These days it's just a domain for sale sign.

Re:My suggestion (2, Funny)

JonTurner (178845) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082643)

Oh, thank God! Now I can repurpose a hundred thousand neurons I've dedicated to making sure I never click on that link. I feel smarter already!

DRM? Oh... You mean... (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082635)

Herpes? [slashdot.org] I like the ring of "Lawsuit Invokes DMCA To Give You Herpes"

Re:How dare they.. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19082737)

The Niggers would like to say that we support forcing nigger cock to white ass adoption. We has been lobbying (raping) for this legislation for some time now. I be reading them legal books in between rapin' some white anus and I thinks we got a good chance. Anyway if it don't be workin out we will still be at your house at 8pm for the ass rape of your life. Try not to cry

Signed,
The Lobbying Niggers

Re:How dare they.. (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082905)

DCE should be pronounced dicey.

This sounds a lot like Diebold suing Mass [slashdot.org] because they weren't selected.

Re:Digital Consumer Exploitation (1)

Migraineman (632203) | more than 7 years ago | (#19083235)


... and if they don't like us calling DCE "Digital Consumer Exploitation," and they change the name/acronym again, we'll follow suit ... again.

It gets worse... (5, Funny)

powerpants (1030280) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082273)

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... (5, Funny)

boilerbrown (1006617) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082301)

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

Re:It gets worse... (5, Funny)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082313)

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.

Re:It gets worse... (1)

TheMadcapZ (868196) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082545)

With the rising of threat of global warming and the link of methane as a major green house gas..... can it really be far behind? (no pun intended).

Hope you like government issued butt plugs with methane catalytic converters on them.

Re:It gets worse... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19083377)

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! [uncyclopedia.org]

And it is wrong too (1)

aepervius (535155) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082823)

none are able to control what happens between the rendering device and the sound card - what might be called "the digital hole".

Stop me if I am wrong, but the analogue hole means you CANNOT protect analogue signal against copy protection, as soon as the media content is transformed into an analogue signal (sound or light) and sent to the human for perception then it is over, you can hijack that signal and make a copy all over the place. This has nothing to do how your signal is going to go to your sound card, but what happens afterward... Isn't it ?

Re:It gets worse... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19082931)

At least they're not trying to plug up my Analogue, or A-Hole...

Hilarious PR (5, Insightful)

mcvos (645701) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082279)

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.

Re:Hilarious PR (1)

Divebus (860563) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082383)

This will be the world's shortest hearing.

Re:Hilarious PR (3, Informative)

dougmc (70836) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082663)

This will be the world's shortest hearing.
No it won't. The world's shortest hearing happened in a courtroom -- and this will never make it to court. It's a publicity ploy.


I might have tought they were hoping to settle out of court, because it would be cheaper to pay them off than to go to court and defeat them there, but considering their claim, that doesn't even seem likely. It must just be a way to get people to think about their product.

Re:Hilarious PR (1)

HostAdmin (1073042) | more than 7 years ago | (#19083065)

No it won't. The world's shortest hearing happened in a courtroom -- and this will never make it to court. It's a publicity ploy.
I hope you're right. I don't see how looking like a bunch of Orwellian thugs is good for them. Even if "any publicity is good publicity", this looks like a surefire loser.

Re:Hilarious PR (4, Funny)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082551)

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

Re:Hilarious PR (3, Funny)

norminator (784674) | more than 7 years ago | (#19083317)

Media Rights Technologies (MRT) and BlueBeat.com have issued cease and desist letters to both companies [MS & Apple] and to Adobe Systems Inc (nasdaq: ADBE - news - people ) and Real Networks

Shouldn't they be sending out Commence and Continue letters?

By the way, I'm going to start suing random people for not buying products that I'm going to invent, because those products would be really good and would help them a lot. You've all been warned!

Re:Hilarious PR (4, Informative)

Garrett Fox (970174) | more than 7 years ago | (#19083455)

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.

DRM's never been used for worthless suits before.. (5, Funny)

Anarchysoft (1100393) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082283)

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!

Re:DRM's never been used for worthless suits befor (5, Insightful)

southpolesammy (150094) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082847)

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.

Re:DRM's never been used for worthless suits befor (1)

Anarchysoft (1100393) | more than 7 years ago | (#19083249)

But, think of the Court TV shows! What would bored people watch at 2 PM? Seriously though, I agree with your intent. The current legal system seems setup almost purposefully to be unjust.

Re:DRM's never been used for worthless suits befor (1)

WhiteDragon (4556) | more than 7 years ago | (#19083509)

It's a good idea, but it will never happen. (slow down, cowboy...)

DRM (5, Insightful)

Tuoqui (1091447) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082287)

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).

Re:DRM (2, Interesting)

Pofy (471469) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082509)

Didn't Blizzard claim something similar in the bnetd case regarding not testing the cd-key "properly"?

Re:DRM (2, Informative)

MathFox (686808) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082775)

But the judge convicted on a contract violation for reverse-engineering the protocol.

Re:DRM (1)

bluprint (557000) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082527)

I agree. Lack of implementation can't possibly (can it?) be the same as circumvention. In order to circumvent something, it has to be there to begin with.

Re:DRM (1)

djasbestos (1035410) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082613)

Yeah, it's like trying to charge someone with hotwiring a keyless, push-button start car...there is nothing to be "circumvented" in the first place.

Maybe they should sue homeowners who don't have burglar alarms, cuz, you know, locks-only = invite to thieves, which means you're an accessory to burglary of your own house.

Re:DRM (1)

leuk_he (194174) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082667)

well looking at the law:

1201 A 1)....(A) No person shall circumvent a technological
measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title....


futher below...

''(A) to 'circumvent a technological measure' means to
descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work,
or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair
a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright
owner; and


Not providing a mechanism at all to protect is pretty much avoidance. That is exactly why MS buildin a lot of DRM crap into vista: to be able to have a mechanism that is very hard to circumvent. Or would it be allowed to build and distribute a version of a media player that does not have the protections?

However, i think the copyrightholder should go to court, not some random producer.

Re:DRM (1)

djasbestos (1035410) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082841)

Well, if you look at the rest of the verbs there, they're all ones that'd be done by a "pirate". The manufacturer or distributor of an IP can't really "bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure" they don't even put in. I think avoid is more in the sense of: if you rip a DVD bitwise without decrypting it...that's avoiding a copy protection while still copying it.

Re:DRM (2, Insightful)

Clock Nova (549733) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082935)

But it also says "without the authority of the copyright owner," which I'm pretty sure Apple has. So, once again, this lawsuit is meaningless because the DMCA doesn't say you have to use DRM, just that you can't go around it without the owner's permission.

Re:DRM (2, Interesting)

PenguSven (988769) | more than 7 years ago | (#19083049)

you missed the important part. "without the authority of the copyright owner;" anything released on itunes or MS store is clearly going to have the copyright holder's blessing. see this is why the US legal system is fucked. they should impose fines on assholes for creating this frivolous cases. i dunno. even claim $10 an hour for every hour of time it takes up for everyone involved. lawyers, the companies being sued, the judge, court staff, etc. maybe that would stop it. or you could just shoot all the stupid people. but then someone has to assassinate the president.

Re:DRM (2, Funny)

djasbestos (1035410) | more than 7 years ago | (#19083221)

I'd help you out with the president, but my guns all have Digital Rifle Management.



Note to DoD, DHS, etc: the above statement is a joke. I do not intend to shoot the president and do not condone criminal behavior. Your Mooninite Scare lawsuits will not touch me.

Re:DRM (1)

LazySlacker (212444) | more than 7 years ago | (#19083071)

Extract the additional stuff we get: "otherwise to avoid a technological measure"

If the measure isn't there you can't avoid it. My reading is that it's not saying
"avoid having a technological measure"

Re:DRM (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19082863)

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 = Consumer Choice Enablement


Actually, "consumer choice" technically means the ability of a consumer to choose between multiple competing offerings and pick the one the consumer feels best meets his needs. The criteria can be many things, including whether or not the offering has DRM or the like. Your "consumer choice enablement", above, actually isn't the same thing. It actually allows the 'consumer' to unilaterally decide to take a contract offering in this case, the licensing mode of "you give me money and you can have a copy of this content" and turn it into "I'll take a copy of the content anyway and not give you anything for it". While it does empower the 'consumer' to circumvent licensing contracts, it is not a part of the traditional meaning of 'Consumer Choice'.

Re:DRM (3, Informative)

Mprx (82435) | more than 7 years ago | (#19083193)

Freely sharing information is as old as language. Copyright is the breach of tradition here.

Re:DRM... No!!! We WANT them to WIN!!! (4, Insightful)

Fallen Kell (165468) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082921)

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.

Re:DRM (1)

Heir Of The Mess (939658) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082929)

If circumvent means the same as "not use" then they could have a winable case. Let me just check the Websters Dictionary here....."to make a circuit around". Hmm not sure. Ok lets check the free online dictionary.."To Avoid".

Ok, so the defendants avoided using the copyright protection. At a push you could say that's the same as circumvent. There really should be some specified limits put on that stupid DMCA thing. The way it stands it's almost a piece of evidence to corruption in the system.

Re:DRM (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 7 years ago | (#19083207)

No it's better than that. Apple is not using THEIR DRM system and therefore in violation of the DMCA.
This company is trying o get a court to say that if you are not buying THEIR product then you are in violation of the law.

Is is far more incredulous and crazy than you originally thought.

I Don't Think That's Right (1)

Alaren (682568) | more than 7 years ago | (#19083279)

Reading the article, it sounds like their technology is a bit broader than that... it's not that companies aren't protecting their content, I think it's that operating systems and software are not actively preventing user hardware from being employed in circumvention and copyright infringement...

The logic is tortured and so I could be totally missing their point, but it seems like the thrust of their argument is that computers can be used to circumvent DRM, but their software prevents that from happening...? Remember that under a broad interpretation of the DMCA, it could be illegal to sell or own a PC if you have any intention of using it to break DRM. Seriously: go buy a PC and say to the seller, "I want to use this to rip DVDs," you may actually be in violation of the DMCA as written (disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice), because the PC is a circumvention tool. It tortures the language of the statute but a luddite judge could easily take this position.

So this isn't (apparently) about encrypting content, it's about crippling your hardware and software so that you cannot under any circumstances employ said hardware and software as a circumvention device.

At least, that's what I get out of the article. Frankly, either way I hope they get laughed out of court.

Re:DRM (1)

norminator (784674) | more than 7 years ago | (#19083497)

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.

2 thoughts I would like to add:
1) Isn't the requirement of DRM or no DRM left up to the content provider? If the content provider isn't satisfied with FairPlay or PlaysForSure, they can make the choice not to sell through that DRM platform.
2) Apple and MS have their own DRM that they have developed themselves (or maybe bought?), and that DRM has been about as effective as any DRM can really hope to be (meaning someone will always find their way around it, but it manages to keep the honest people from exercising their fair use rights).

Is there anything to this lawsuit other than publicity? How in the world could they hope to force companies that already use DRM (MS hasn't even realeased any real plans to abandon DRM, and I don't think Apple has even starting seeling the DRM-free EMI tracks through iTunes yet) to use their own DRM, which has not been proven to be able to integrate smoothly into Apple and MS's platforms?

Couldn't anyone say this? (4, Interesting)

fudgefactor7 (581449) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082291)

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.

Re:Couldn't anyone say this? (3, Funny)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082375)

Note to self: take out copyrights on pig latin, ROT13, and substituting "no" for "yes" in responses to women who ask if their butts look big in those jeans...

Re:Couldn't anyone say this? (1)

frdmfghtr (603968) | more than 7 years ago | (#19083009)

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.
I hope not, this is just asinine. I bet the jokers at MRT are looking for an out-of-court settlement, as somebody has their eye on a shiny new boat and can't scrape up the payments.

I hope this doesn't get settled...I want to see Apple, Microsoft, et al go to court and make it hurt. How much do you want to bet that when court day arrives, the suit gets dropped?

Futility. (2, Funny)

LoyalOpposition (168041) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082309)

I would say more, but without controlling access to this paragraph with MRT's products, I fear I have already risked too much ..."

It won't work. Even if you don't say anything, you're "failing to include measures to control access" and thus "constitut[ing] a circumvention of a copy protection system." -Loyal

I'm filing suit against Media Rights Technologies (5, Funny)

neoform (551705) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082323)

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: (5, Funny)

PlayItBogart (1099739) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082341)

Dead people being sued for not living.

Re:This just in: (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082417)

Dead people being sued for not living.

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

Re:This just in: (5, Funny)

UCRowerG (523510) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082521)

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: (2, Funny)

c (8461) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082605)

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

A life sentence of pushing up daisies, I presume?

c.

Re:This just in: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19082973)

I think most of them end up working for government agencies, particularly the state highway administrations. Pretty easy to lean against the shovel and watch the one guy actually doing some amount of work.

Jim

Like offensive old people... (1)

u-bend (1095729) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082377)

The best medicine for folks like this is to ignore them. You know, when 90-year-old Grannie says something socially offensive. Maybe she's even baiting you. Is she going to change? Is a stern lecture or public censure going to modify her behavior? Yes, Granny, you're right. Then go about business as usual. This lawsuit isn't based somewhere in Texas is it?

Re:Like offensive old people... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19082555)

Ah, but ignoring granny's racist quips is free. Default judgments are not, and may set precident to boot.

The only responsible course of action is the clue stick. In this case delivered by the lawyer squads of two $(Xe9) companies. And also Real Networks.

Re:Like offensive old people... (1)

u-bend (1095729) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082661)

I guess what I'm saying is that there is some stuff, like this, that is so stupid and outlandish, that it will probably not work. That's why I liken it to Granny. There are other things, like almost everything the RIAA's done or tried to do in the last few years, that absolutely deserve attention, and which must be resisted. I wouldn't liken the RIAA to Granny because they're not innocuous.

I hope they win (1)

Guaranteed (998819) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082385)

Maybe then the DMCA would get a much-needed makeover.

Re:I hope they win (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19083283)

Actually, I hope they win so that I can sue THEM for not using my own effective copyright protection for their web site. As it stands, anyone could easily copy their web pages, but my software protects it and I should easily win millions of dollars from them for every visit to their site that did not use my technology.

This is BRILLIANT (1)

bcharr2 (1046322) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082393)

This is BRILLIANT! They will force Congress to take a more careful look at the DMCA, and thus realize that it was so poorly conceived and written in the first place that it is inviting frivilous lawsuits such as the above.

Re:This is BRILLIANT (1)

Sancho (17056) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082763)

Except that the court will just find that this isn't circumvention of an effective copy control system. It's a bullshit lawsuit, but not because it's a bullshit law.

Re:This is BRILLIANT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19082875)

quit whining. if anything the DMCA needs to be beefed up to stop warez kiddies from copying other peoples hard work. quit your fucking slashdot groupthink for once.

Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19082397)

Eventually, some politicians will correct the current policy of puckering up and giving anything to a lobbyist with money and introduce some realistic & fair copyright laws.

I'm just being proactive in my media-sharing until then.

Re:Who cares? (1)

Miseph (979059) | more than 7 years ago | (#19083443)

LOL.

Oh, huh, you weren't kidding... ...

LOL!

asdf (1)

UPZ (947916) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082427)

this reminds diebold suing massachusetts for not buying its voting machines

A blow to academia (2, Funny)

qengho (54305) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082505)

Next up: Dostoevsky scholars denied access to source materials because they couldn't not think of a white bear. [wikipedia.org]

When? (2, Interesting)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082513)

At what point do judges step up and slap around plaintiffs who are obviously abusing the legal system? How frivolous does a lawsuit need to be (such as this "free publicity" lawsuit) before a judge will say enough is enough?

Re:When? (1)

cduffy (652) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082645)

About this frivolous.

I'm serious. You can file for anything you want to, but these folks are going to get slapped down hard when they actually come before a judge.

What Would Monty Python Do? (2, Funny)

Detritus (11846) | more than 7 years ago | (#19083383)

I can't help thinking of the judge reaching under his desk, and pulling a lever, dropping a 16 ton weight on the plaintiff and his lawyer.

Thank you for making me laugh! (1)

Stochastism (1040102) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082523)

I notice they didn't sue anyone that can't pay out mega dollars.

We're all complicit (4, Interesting)

Random BedHead Ed (602081) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082557)

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! (5, Interesting)

notabaggins (1099403) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082563)

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...

Re:Paging George Orwell! (0)

Alaria Phrozen (975601) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082843)

What does the guy who wrote Star Trek have to do with this?

Business opportunity! (5, Funny)

johnw (3725) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082577)

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

Re:Business opportunity! (1)

dafz1 (604262) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082941)

Stop giving them ideas. They don't need any help sinking their own ship.

There is no lawsuit. (5, Informative)

jonnythan (79727) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082601)

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.

Re:There is no lawsuit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19083401)

don't you mean start and continue?

Let's expose these bastards (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19082617)

We need to expose the people behind frivious lawsuits such as this! We need to forget about bullshit that it's the "company" at fault when in fact this has been decided and executed by HUMAN BEINGS.

Let's expose these bastards.

Suicide or Buyout (4, Interesting)

caveman (7893) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082681)

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.

Zonk sold out! (1)

Atraxen (790188) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082685)

This part week, Spider-Man turned from being a good guy to a bad guy, the Green Goblin turned from a bad guy to a good guy, and Sandman turned from a hardened criminal to a crybaby asking for forgiveness.

Just because MS went from bad guy to good guy in this story does not mean you too will make 10 trillion dollars.

Re:Zonk sold out! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19082861)

Actually Spider-man turned from good guy to bad guy and then back again. Harry turned from a bad guy to a good guy to a bad guy to a good guy and finally to a dead guy.

Einstein strikes back (1)

ilovecheese (301274) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082715)

This kind of reminds me of another loozer company that tried this a few years back. Something about LZW compression in GIF files. Smells like another loozer company grabbing at straws.

There is no law suit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19082743)

Thisis a cease and desist letter and a press release. No one filled anything and it's completely meaningless. This is 100% DRM publicity stunt.

sued into oblivion (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082755)

i hope these assholes get sued into a big blackhole. what they are claiming, is that if i create something, i MUST drm it, and it MUST be their own technology. excuse me while i shit on their door step.

Re:sued into oblivion (1)

smidgie82 (1078041) | more than 7 years ago | (#19083281)

Actually, they're claiming that if you develop a system that can be used for playing/reading/viewing copyrighted materials, you MUST include in it the ability to support ALL extant DRM mechanisms. (They're actually just claiming that MS, Apple, and RealNetworks have to include support for THEIR mechanism, but if they somehow won, the precedent would be set.)

is this a joke (1)

AoMoe (1095449) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082789)

It must be a joke. The logic behind this is absurd. It is common for companies to be sued for using another companies technology, but not using their technology. We must of all slipped down the same hole that Alice did.

Macrovision once did the opposite (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19082803)

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.

Yawn, nothing to see here. (1)

SlayerofGods (682938) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082835)

No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.


Yah... good luck proving that about Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, and Real Networks software.

Death to the company... (0, Troll)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082899)

employees. The only answer to greedy, immoral shit like this is to behead those that participate. There is no valid reason these people should be alive. The day corporal punishment became taboo is the day that Western civilization ended. No one has to take any responsibility and every single child is taught that nothing is their fault. Is it any wonder that more and more crap like this happens every moment?

Sanctions? (1)

wytcld (179112) | more than 7 years ago | (#19082951)

Can a lawyer out there speak to the likelihood that the judge will sanction the lawyers who brought this to court? If the judge does sanction them, how severely will that damage their careers? I've had a lawyer profess fear of sanction even when I had a solid case against a business partner who'd misappropriated my software. With no case, isn't that threat much worse?

Re:Sanctions? (1)

mstahl (701501) | more than 7 years ago | (#19083291)

I think you mean censure [uscourts.gov]

crack it once ... forgotten forever (1)

icepick72 (834363) | more than 7 years ago | (#19083037)

Please somebody defeat this non-issue with a black magic marker and have it permanently over with already. Making the claim they are the only basemost or root DRM scheme is absurd. Somebody simply has to crack it open once and then nobody will trust it against the claims originally made.

The logic of retardedness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19083089)

Why not sue Intel, Amd and IBM for making CPU's in the first place or how about they sue the electric companies for allowing all this to happen. We should sue god for giving us ears and the desire to listen to music in the first place.

Please, DMCA is desperate for power and they know their time is going to be up sooner or later and this scam they have running with be dismantled. Of course, a move like this will only speed up the demise of this organization by making big name enemies. Plus their is obviously no way in hell some idiotic case like that is going to fly against the billion dollar defense teams these companies have. Shit, these DRM backers can't even win cases against residents no less billion dollar companies.

And, it's not like it wouldn't just get cracked again. The more forceful and effective they are in spreading music protection schemes the quicker people will be forced to crack them. Plus it's not as if any level of music protections scheme is ever going to make it impossible to record your songs onto the computer. If you can listen to it, then you can pirate it.

Plus all this DRM bs on popular music helps drive the indie scene and other independent production and recording companies. If I couldn't download top 40 music for free, I'd just find the next best thing. Sure as hell wouldn't pay for it in any case. We get ripped off enough as consumers for merchandise, tickets, gas to get there, skyrocketing cable costs, drinks and food at 300-500% markup. Maybe if the entertainment industry was actually offering us some kind of decent deal we wouldn't sit around stealing their music, but UNTIL that time comes we are all going to take what we can. Either that or ignore them completely, which I'm personally not far from doing anyway, especially considering the current state of music in the US.

I'm safe (3, Funny)

ameline (771895) | more than 7 years ago | (#19083111)

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!

A Legal Fantasy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19083123)

How about:

1. Case goes to trial.
2. Judge finds for defendants.
3. Decision states that buggy DRM is equivalent to no DRM.
4. Since no DRM is bug-free, no media can ever be DRM'ed.
5. DMCA effectively neutered.

Why is /. playing along with this? (4, Insightful)

gregor-e (136142) | more than 7 years ago | (#19083369)

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).

Board of directors? (3, Insightful)

phrostie (121428) | more than 7 years ago | (#19083421)

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

Geez, the world has gone insane

And in other news ... (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 7 years ago | (#19083457)

And in other news, Linux developers have threatened to sue MRT and BlueBeat.com for failing to open source the X1 SeCure Recording Control on the grounds that failing to provide a GPL version suitable for Linux is an act of circumventing the DMCA.

too easily circumvented (1)

amigabill (146897) | more than 7 years ago | (#19083501)

If the total lack of support for this DRM is enough to circumvent it and gain access to content protected in this format, then maybe it's really just not very good. So bad so that it's not appealing to content owners (RIAA/MPAA) to use, and thus not worth paying license fees by the OS/player guys since the poor quality will have it never actually used for anything.

Seriously, doesn't circumvention mean you actively do something to go around or break through a protection in order to reach the prize inside? How does doing nothing at all and remaining unable to see the prize inside equate to circumvention? Brain not understand... Maybe the lines of text above and below what I was focusing on confused me?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?