Lawsuit Invokes DMCA to Force DRM Adoption 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 ..."
Couldn't anyone say this? (Score:5, Interesting)
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:DRM (Score:3, Interesting)
When? (Score:2, Interesting)
We're all complicit (Score:5, Interesting)
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! (Score:5, Interesting)
Suicide or Buyout (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:DRM's never been used for worthless suits befor (Score:4, Interesting)
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:Macrovision once did the opposite (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Hilarious PR (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:And it is wrong too (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:DRM's never been used for worthless suits befor (Score:1, Interesting)
There's a reason why every year we are subject to more laws than the year before, and it's not because expanding government power is unprofitable for those in the business of government. The US government of today dwarfs the US government of only 50, let alone 100 years ago, both in revenue and power over the people. This near-exponential growth of centralized power would never have been possible under a sane system of law, based on simple common sense, the self-evident laws of human nature, and (heaven forbid) understandable by the common man. The more complexity, and the more ambiguity, the more exploitable the law is for the power elite who make their fortunes on Big Government, either directly or (more commonly) indirectly.
Smells similar to some legal strife I've seen ... (Score:2, Interesting)
So while it may look frivolous - it would pretty much have to go to court to decide. Unfortunately - at least on an international (NAFTA) level - there's precedence. But IANAL and I'm not a US citizen either.
However I suspect the cease and desist letters can be ignored. There doesn't seem (again IANAL) to be any legal validity to them. Perhaps - if it's found the organization's associated with the MPAA or something though - they could be used as evidence as racketeering charges? *grin*
Re:DRM's never been used for worthless suits befor (Score:2, Interesting)
If you insist on disbarring the lawyers, perhaps you should permanently ban the plaintiffs from litigation as their maximum sentence. It would at least even a little inequality.
This is not funny. What does it mean for Linux? (Score:3, Interesting)
But that's not really funny. Actually, it could be a threat to Linux altogether. How can you make sure that Linux, being compiled from source by its user, keeps said user from accessing content he's not allowed to access?
I predict that a lot of Linux devs and gurus will move out of the US into some free country.
Re:DRM's never been used for worthless suits befor (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:your sig [OT] (Score:3, Interesting)