I don't mean to repeat what everyone is saying, but why does it seem that more and more people are trying to sue companies for not using their product? It's like Coppertone suing the sun for not using its lotions.
Just out of curiosity, what is this in reference to?
It's not the RIAA that is behind this particular action, that I can tell. It is an RIAA approved product, but that doesn't mean that the RIAA sent out the letter or even authorized the notices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike12309
"Use our software or we will sue you"
That seems to be what they are saying. I agree with the bottom most comments in the articlek I think it is just sabre rattling.
You should put this at the beginning of your post, so no one has to waste their time.
I was not aware that only lawyers should post on this forum. Maybe you should be reading some other forum instead.
I and others are entitled to our opinion, you are entitled to yours and have the right not to read ours. This is a forum discussion, were we comment on the primary news/rumor. This is not the place to get a legal opinion.
Here are some lawyer related sites maybe you should read:
Had you ever heard of these losers before yesterday? No. Do you know who they are now? Yes. This company found out that the software market is hard, and that you won't do much business if people have never heard of you.
Remember that the company in question is not suing Microsoft and Apple. They've only sent them a cease and desist letter.
Had you ever heard of these losers before yesterday? No. Do you know who they are now? Yes. This company found out that the software market is hard, and that you won't do much business if people have never heard of you.
Remember that the company in question is not suing Microsoft and Apple. They've only sent them a cease and desist letter.
This is cheap marketing stunt, nothing more.
Maybe they are going out of business, loosing their shirt and need a cash infusion. I don't see them getting a lot of support from other than the RIAA. Most publicity they are going to get is negative, consumers will not be on their side and Apple will neither.
The DMCA "doesn't impose liability simply because some product could be redesigned to implement a technological protection scheme but its makers decline to do so."
Unless you make analogue video equipment in which case you are required to license Macrovision.
I'm waiting for the RIAA to claim music in any form belongs to them therefore we all must pay them for any type of music we hear, sing, etc...! So if you sing a tune to yourself you better watch out you filthy pirate because the RIAA will make you pay!
Unless you make analogue video equipment in which case you are required to license Macrovision.
I think that is only true if you make a DVD player. If you make an analog TV video out chip for use in a DVD player or computer, you will want to license it or else DVD software won't be allowed to use that chip. VHS decks didn't have to license Macrovision, but their AGCs eventually had to be within certain specs to be a legal VHS deck. I'm told by someone I trust in small-time video that the Beta decks, among other devices, were not affected by the Macrovision scrambling. A lot of pro level equipment doesn't bother with that sort of thing, that I am told. A time base corrector fixes Macrovision video, but that's a side effect of what it's supposed to do.
I think that is only true if you make a DVD player.
According to Wikipedia "DMCA Title I: WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act
DMCA Title I, the WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act has two major portions, one of which includes works covered by several treaties in US copy prevention laws and gave the title its name and the other which is often known as the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions. The latter implemented a broad ban on the circumvention of copy prevention systems and required that all analog video recorders have support for a specific form of copy prevention commonly known as Macrovision built in."
I should have said "analogue video recorders" not "analogue video equipment".
I'm waiting for the RIAA to claim music in any form belongs to them therefore we all must pay them for any type of music we hear, sing, etc...! So if you sing a tune to yourself you better watch out you filthy pirate because the RIAA will make you pay!
I'm waiting for the RIAA to claim music in any form belongs to them therefore we all must pay them for any type of music we hear, sing, etc...! So if you sing a tune to yourself you better watch out you filthy pirate because the RIAA will make you pay!
Sigh...I just gave them an idea!
I
Actually, I believe that's already covered by the laws surrounding copyrighted lyrics. So remember to get permission from the lyrics' copyright holder before singing any songs in the future (and depending on your musical talents, the people around you might be thankful for your new found silence).
Come on people. Are we just going to turn this great country over to the Lawyers? Or are we going to put up a fight?
You're 50 years too late. The lawyers already rule the country. Or perhaps you haven't noticed the recent cases where judges have ordered state legislatures to write and pass specific laws, without regard to the wishes of the rest of the state?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
Unless you make analogue video equipment in which case you are required to license Macrovision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
According to Wikipedia "... The latter implemented a broad ban on the circumvention of copy prevention systems and required that all analog video recorders have support for a specific form of copy prevention commonly known as Macrovision built in."
Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia. Especially when you're dealing with laws that have not been consistently interpreted by the courts.
Macrovision is a company that ownes a copy-protection technology. This tech is a chip that inserts high-frequency signal pulses in a video stream, designed to mess up with a recorder's automatic gain control, and prevent recording of the content.
Macrovision's products are very popular in the industry, but there is no law requiring anybody to buy their chips, or even requiring use of an equivalent tech. The confusion over this stems from two few other facts:
In order for a DVD player to get a license from the DVD Forum (the organization that sells licenses for the patented technology required to make DVD players that work), you have to install one of Macrovision's chips, and the chip must turn itself on whenever the content of a DVD requests that it be turned on.
There are no Macrovision chips in analog recorders. Macrovision on analog video tape is applied in the factory. The high-frequency signal pulses are recorded on the tape. VCRs pass this signal, unaltered to the video-out jacks. Macrovision is neither applied nor removed by VCRs.
Note that no law requires you to put a Macrovision chip in a DVD player. If a manufacturer doesn't include this chip, they will be violating several aspects of patent law (since the DVD Forum won't give anyone a license without Macrovision's chips), but there is no violation of copyright law.
Note also that analog VCRs do not add Macrovision's signals to new recordings. If you make a recording, whether from TV, or a camera, or anything else, the resulting tape does not have any Macrovision signals in it. Quality degrades as it is copied only because analog tape is an extremely lossy medium, not because of any explicit copy-protection technology.
Nobody forces movie studios to apply Macrovision's signals to the movies they sell. They voluntarily use this tech, because they think it will help their business, not because of any law.
There are devices that filter Macrovision's signals from a video stream. They are sold as "video stabilizers", or other devices for improving poor-quality signals. As long as the device has significant purposes other than defeating copy-protection, the courts have ruled that it can't be banned. This goes all the way back to the original Betamax lawsuits - VCRs could not be outlawed, because there were substantial non-infringing uses of the device. A device can only be banned if copyright infringement is its sole or primary purpose, not simply because infringement is one of many possible uses.
And this is why this lawsuit won't go anywhere either. Apple's software has many non-infringing uses. Copyright infringement is neither its sole or primary purpose, so there is no legal standing to have it banned under copyright law. The fact that they have chosen to not buy a third party product changes nothing, even if that product claims to be able to make Apple's products more secure.
Actually, I believe that's already covered by the laws surrounding copyrighted lyrics. So remember to get permission from the lyrics' copyright holder before singing any songs in the future (and depending on your musical talents, the people around you might be thankful for your new found silence).
If you sing someone else's music as a public performance, either you or the owner of the venue must pay a license for that song. Generally, this means purchasing blanket licenses from ASCAP, BMI and SESAC (which act as clearinghouses for most published music) because it's much easier and licenses you perform just about everything published without additional paperwork.
Non-public performances (what you were probably referring to), of course, require no such license.
I was not aware that only lawyers should post on this forum. Maybe you should be reading some other forum instead.
I and others are entitled to our opinion, you are entitled to yours and have the right not to read ours. This is a forum discussion, were we comment on the primary news/rumor. This is not the place to get a legal opinion.
Here are some lawyer related sites maybe you should read:
I think most are missing the fact that this also shows the extreme flaws in laws like the DMCA. Yes, this company is doing it for publicity. But, most anybody could sue some company or software developer because of what they view as a security flaw, backdoor or just a missing feature in their DRM support.
It's really no wonder the dot com bubble burst. Joe Bloe could no longer just write that innovative piece of software and sell it on the Internet with little overhead ... he suddenly had to have a bank of lawyers to protect him from these kinds of laws, weak patent claims, etc.
It'd be nice if we could get back to where people take responsibility for their actions rather than suing the company who makes the tools they use.
I think most are missing the fact that this also shows the extreme flaws in laws like the DMCA. Yes, this company is doing it for publicity. But, most anybody could sue some company or software developer because of what they view as a security flaw, backdoor or just a missing feature in their DRM support.
Except that the DMCA doesn't have any provision for a suit like this.
The DMCA allows a copyright holder, not a software publisher, to file suit. It allows the copyright holder to sue for using unlicensed software to remove DRM. It does not allow the copyright holder to sue a paid-up license holder for having a potential security hole in some other part of the application.
This suit is completely frivolous. There is no law, DMCA or otherwise, that can be used by a software publisher to force others to buy a product.
(It should also be noted that the "induce" clause of a DMCA follow-on law, that would make hardware and software vendors liable for illegal use of their products, was never passed into law.)
Comments
I don't mean to repeat what everyone is saying, but why does it seem that more and more people are trying to sue companies for not using their product? It's like Coppertone suing the sun for not using its lotions.
Just out of curiosity, what is this in reference to?
Lawyer sues dry cleaners
The companies cited should counter-sue them out of existence.
Exactly!
You should put this at the beginning of your post, so no one has to waste their time.
Ouch! Are you saying unless we are lawyers you won't read what we say?
This has to be the first time a "Cease & Desist" notice was replaced by a "Start & Continue" letter.
Good one
Wow, the RIAAtards are out in force.
It's not the RIAA that is behind this particular action, that I can tell. It is an RIAA approved product, but that doesn't mean that the RIAA sent out the letter or even authorized the notices.
"Use our software or we will sue you"
That seems to be what they are saying. I agree with the bottom most comments in the articlek I think it is just sabre rattling.
You should put this at the beginning of your post, so no one has to waste their time.
I was not aware that only lawyers should post on this forum. Maybe you should be reading some other forum instead.
I and others are entitled to our opinion, you are entitled to yours and have the right not to read ours. This is a forum discussion, were we comment on the primary news/rumor. This is not the place to get a legal opinion.
Here are some lawyer related sites maybe you should read:
1) http://www.ahajokes.com/law001.html
2) http://www.ahajokes.com/law005.html
3) http://www.ahajokes.com/law006.html
4) http://www.ahajokes.com/law008.html
5) http://www.ahajokes.com/law019.html
Remember that the company in question is not suing Microsoft and Apple. They've only sent them a cease and desist letter.
This is cheap marketing stunt, nothing more.
Had you ever heard of these losers before yesterday? No. Do you know who they are now? Yes. This company found out that the software market is hard, and that you won't do much business if people have never heard of you.
Remember that the company in question is not suing Microsoft and Apple. They've only sent them a cease and desist letter.
This is cheap marketing stunt, nothing more.
Maybe they are going out of business, loosing their shirt and need a cash infusion. I don't see them getting a lot of support from other than the RIAA. Most publicity they are going to get is negative, consumers will not be on their side and Apple will neither.
The DMCA "doesn't impose liability simply because some product could be redesigned to implement a technological protection scheme but its makers decline to do so."
Unless you make analogue video equipment in which case you are required to license Macrovision.
Sigh...I just gave them an idea!
I
Unless you make analogue video equipment in which case you are required to license Macrovision.
I think that is only true if you make a DVD player. If you make an analog TV video out chip for use in a DVD player or computer, you will want to license it or else DVD software won't be allowed to use that chip. VHS decks didn't have to license Macrovision, but their AGCs eventually had to be within certain specs to be a legal VHS deck. I'm told by someone I trust in small-time video that the Beta decks, among other devices, were not affected by the Macrovision scrambling. A lot of pro level equipment doesn't bother with that sort of thing, that I am told. A time base corrector fixes Macrovision video, but that's a side effect of what it's supposed to do.
Come on people. Are we just going to turn this great country over to the Lawyers?
They have that law in England where if you sue someone and lose you have to pay their legal expenses. That would have stopped this.
I think that is only true if you make a DVD player.
According to Wikipedia "DMCA Title I: WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act
DMCA Title I, the WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act has two major portions, one of which includes works covered by several treaties in US copy prevention laws and gave the title its name and the other which is often known as the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions. The latter implemented a broad ban on the circumvention of copy prevention systems and required that all analog video recorders have support for a specific form of copy prevention commonly known as Macrovision built in."
I should have said "analogue video recorders" not "analogue video equipment".
I'm waiting for the RIAA to claim music in any form belongs to them therefore we all must pay them for any type of music we hear, sing, etc...! So if you sing a tune to yourself you better watch out you filthy pirate because the RIAA will make you pay!
Sigh...I just gave them an idea!
I
This action does not come from the RIAA.
I'm waiting for the RIAA to claim music in any form belongs to them therefore we all must pay them for any type of music we hear, sing, etc...! So if you sing a tune to yourself you better watch out you filthy pirate because the RIAA will make you pay!
Sigh...I just gave them an idea!
I
Actually, I believe that's already covered by the laws surrounding copyrighted lyrics. So remember to get permission from the lyrics' copyright holder before singing any songs in the future (and depending on your musical talents, the people around you might be thankful for your new found silence).
Come on people. Are we just going to turn this great country over to the Lawyers? Or are we going to put up a fight?
You're 50 years too late. The lawyers already rule the country. Or perhaps you haven't noticed the recent cases where judges have ordered state legislatures to write and pass specific laws, without regard to the wishes of the rest of the state?
Unless you make analogue video equipment in which case you are required to license Macrovision.
According to Wikipedia "... The latter implemented a broad ban on the circumvention of copy prevention systems and required that all analog video recorders have support for a specific form of copy prevention commonly known as Macrovision built in."
Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia. Especially when you're dealing with laws that have not been consistently interpreted by the courts.
Macrovision is a company that ownes a copy-protection technology. This tech is a chip that inserts high-frequency signal pulses in a video stream, designed to mess up with a recorder's automatic gain control, and prevent recording of the content.
Macrovision's products are very popular in the industry, but there is no law requiring anybody to buy their chips, or even requiring use of an equivalent tech. The confusion over this stems from two few other facts:
- In order for a DVD player to get a license from the DVD Forum (the organization that sells licenses for the patented technology required to make DVD players that work), you have to install one of Macrovision's chips, and the chip must turn itself on whenever the content of a DVD requests that it be turned on.
- There are no Macrovision chips in analog recorders. Macrovision on analog video tape is applied in the factory. The high-frequency signal pulses are recorded on the tape. VCRs pass this signal, unaltered to the video-out jacks. Macrovision is neither applied nor removed by VCRs.
Note that no law requires you to put a Macrovision chip in a DVD player. If a manufacturer doesn't include this chip, they will be violating several aspects of patent law (since the DVD Forum won't give anyone a license without Macrovision's chips), but there is no violation of copyright law.Note also that analog VCRs do not add Macrovision's signals to new recordings. If you make a recording, whether from TV, or a camera, or anything else, the resulting tape does not have any Macrovision signals in it. Quality degrades as it is copied only because analog tape is an extremely lossy medium, not because of any explicit copy-protection technology.
Nobody forces movie studios to apply Macrovision's signals to the movies they sell. They voluntarily use this tech, because they think it will help their business, not because of any law.
There are devices that filter Macrovision's signals from a video stream. They are sold as "video stabilizers", or other devices for improving poor-quality signals. As long as the device has significant purposes other than defeating copy-protection, the courts have ruled that it can't be banned. This goes all the way back to the original Betamax lawsuits - VCRs could not be outlawed, because there were substantial non-infringing uses of the device. A device can only be banned if copyright infringement is its sole or primary purpose, not simply because infringement is one of many possible uses.
And this is why this lawsuit won't go anywhere either. Apple's software has many non-infringing uses. Copyright infringement is neither its sole or primary purpose, so there is no legal standing to have it banned under copyright law. The fact that they have chosen to not buy a third party product changes nothing, even if that product claims to be able to make Apple's products more secure.
Actually, I believe that's already covered by the laws surrounding copyrighted lyrics. So remember to get permission from the lyrics' copyright holder before singing any songs in the future (and depending on your musical talents, the people around you might be thankful for your new found silence).
If you sing someone else's music as a public performance, either you or the owner of the venue must pay a license for that song. Generally, this means purchasing blanket licenses from ASCAP, BMI and SESAC (which act as clearinghouses for most published music) because it's much easier and licenses you perform just about everything published without additional paperwork.
Non-public performances (what you were probably referring to), of course, require no such license.
I was not aware that only lawyers should post on this forum. Maybe you should be reading some other forum instead.
I and others are entitled to our opinion, you are entitled to yours and have the right not to read ours. This is a forum discussion, were we comment on the primary news/rumor. This is not the place to get a legal opinion.
Here are some lawyer related sites maybe you should read:
1) http://www.ahajokes.com/law001.html
2) http://www.ahajokes.com/law005.html
3) http://www.ahajokes.com/law006.html
4) http://www.ahajokes.com/law008.html
5) http://www.ahajokes.com/law019.html
Why would you think someone would be interested in an opinion about a subject that you know nothing about?
It's really no wonder the dot com bubble burst. Joe Bloe could no longer just write that innovative piece of software and sell it on the Internet with little overhead ... he suddenly had to have a bank of lawyers to protect him from these kinds of laws, weak patent claims, etc.
It'd be nice if we could get back to where people take responsibility for their actions rather than suing the company who makes the tools they use.
I think most are missing the fact that this also shows the extreme flaws in laws like the DMCA. Yes, this company is doing it for publicity. But, most anybody could sue some company or software developer because of what they view as a security flaw, backdoor or just a missing feature in their DRM support.
Except that the DMCA doesn't have any provision for a suit like this.
The DMCA allows a copyright holder, not a software publisher, to file suit. It allows the copyright holder to sue for using unlicensed software to remove DRM. It does not allow the copyright holder to sue a paid-up license holder for having a potential security hole in some other part of the application.
This suit is completely frivolous. There is no law, DMCA or otherwise, that can be used by a software publisher to force others to buy a product.
(It should also be noted that the "induce" clause of a DMCA follow-on law, that would make hardware and software vendors liable for illegal use of their products, was never passed into law.)