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 ..."

How dare they..

[Spritzer (950539)]

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

It gets worse...

[powerpants (1030280)]

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 (1006617)]

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

Re:It gets worse...

[gEvil (beta) (945888)]

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...

[by Anonymous Coward]

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]

Re:

[nutrock69 (446385)]

Speaking of Global Warming: I would guess that the increase in lawsuit activity over the past 50-odd years might look similar to the Global Warming temperature curve over the same time period...

Can we stop Global Warming simply by getting all the lawyers to shut up...? What they spew is pretty close to methane...

Hilarious PR

[mcvos (645701)]

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

[Volante3192 (953645)]

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

Re:Hilarious PR

[norminator (784674)]

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

[Garrett Fox (970174)]

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.

Re:Hilarious PR

[dougmc (70836)]

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

[kripkenstein (913150)]

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.

Re:

[0p7imu5_P2im3 (973979)]

I think it's a front company which was created to bring the DMCA up to the Supreme Court for review, especially considering how nearly useless the technological proposal is. Most likely, the DMCA would be thrown out for violating fair use laws if it ever made it to the Supreme Court. Hmmm... or the fair use laws could be revoked for being overwritten by the DMCA. This should be interesting to watch, indeed.

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

[Anarchysoft (1100393)]

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

[southpolesammy (150094)]

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

[Lonewolf666 (259450)]

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 ;-)

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

[cfulmer (3166)]

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.

Re:

[jd (1658)]

(1) is already done in England, extensively, and is the main reason it's less lawsuit-happy than the US.

The last thing we want is for lawyers to be in prisons. THOUSANDS of potential clients, all with nowhere to run. No, that's just not fair.

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

[mnemotronic (586021)]

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.

Re:

[prelelat (201821)]

if a lawsuite is frivolous it means that it should never gone to court in the first place. Alot of the cases that come up on court tv are not frivolous. They may be Joe Redneck wanting his cousin to give him back his trans am seat cover but its still a legitimate claim. Just because its in small claims court doesn't mean its frivolous. Remember most of these people don't even have lawyers.

I know you were kidding around I'm just bored.

DRM

[Tuoqui (1091447)]

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:

[Pofy (471469)]

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

Re:

[MathFox (686808)]

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

Re:DRM... No!!! We WANT them to WIN!!!

[Fallen Kell (165468)]

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.

Indeed, GP is blind

[mattgreen (701203)]

Take off your blinders buddy, there are no friendly companies so long as DRM is out and about. You want it totally gone. Not half-ass solutions that RoughlyDrafted insists are acceptable.

Re:

[Clock Nova (549733)]

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

[Mprx (82435)]

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

Couldn't anyone say this?

[fudgefactor7 (581449)]

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?

[Rob T Firefly (844560)]

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...

I'm filing suit against Media Rights Technologies

[neoform (551705)]

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 (1099739)]

Dead people being sued for not living.

Re:This just in:

[UCRowerG (523510)]

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 (1039126)]

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.

Re:

[c (8461)]

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

A life sentence of pushing up daisies, I presume?

c.

A blow to academia

[qengho (54305)]

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

We're all complicit

[Random BedHead Ed (602081)]

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 (1099403)]

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!

[Shadowlore (10860)]

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.

Business opportunity!

[johnw (3725)]

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

There is no lawsuit.

[jonnythan (79727)]

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:

[Farmer Tim (530755)]

This company has cent cease and desist letters.

Wow, where can I get lawyers that cheap?

Re:There is no lawsuit.

[in7ane (678796)]

From http://ewatch.prnewswire.com/rs/display.jsp?a=3070 2-309198409-850566157&key=D [prnewswire.com]|136206|S|0|x|309198409 (linked to from http://www.mediarightstech.com/ [mediarightstech.com] ), the issue is BlueBeat.com an internet radio station (which is owned by the same people as MRT), and the increase in fees due to the Internet Radio Equality Act (which they think should not apply to them).

It all started when:

"In the summer of 2001, The MoMI was hit with a cease-and-desist letter
from the RIAA for copyright infringement, alleging damages of $150 million
to their members. Upon further investigation it was discovered that
Microsoft had circumvented The MoMI's copy protection, exposing hidden
music files in an "upgrade" to the Windows Media Player, turning secure
MoMI performances into downloads."

After which they invented a magic "anti-Stream Ripping provision" which others did not implement, and since:

"The basis for the rate hikes was primarily a result of the webcasting
community failing to adopt content control technology that would maintain
the integrity of the streamed performance."

It seems that what they are essentially trying to do it to get somebody else to compensate them for the rate hike that they will have to pay "If the Internet Radio Equality Act is to pass", or pressure others to influence the content of the act.

This is really a non-story, and since their issue seems to be with internet radio and stream rippers the inclusion of Apple may be due to their misunderstanding of the technology involved.

And their actual goal:

"The message is clear and simple: if webcasting royalty rates are to be
equalized with Satellite or Digital FM broadcasts by passage of The
Internet Radio Equality Act, Stream Ripping protection provisions must be
added to the Bill before the CRB rates go into effect May 15, 2007."

Making their position no less bizzare, they don't want anyone to buy their technology, just illogical in a different way.

Suicide or Buyout

[caveman (7893)]

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

[by 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 (675604)]

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.

I'm safe

[ameline (771895)]

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!

Why is /. playing along with this?

[gregor-e (136142)]

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?

[phrostie (121428)]

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

Geez, the world has gone insane

No lawsuit filed

[codepunk (167897)]

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.

What Would Monty Python Do?

[Detritus (11846)]

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.