Apple, others given notice over alleged DMCA gaps
A DRM software firm has sent cease and desist letters to Apple Inc. as well as other top media software providers, accusing them of copyright violations by choosing not to run proprietary anti-ripping tools.
Media Rights Technologies issued the formal but non-binding warnings to four key industry players this week, insisting that Adobe, Apple, Microsoft, and Real Networks were in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act through potential circumvention holes in their software.
The software developer argued that offering any media playback program whose Internet streams are vulnerable to being ripped and copied -- including iTunes and Windows Media Player -- is in itself a violation of the DMCA. Developers are obligated to provide as secure a solution as possible, according to the firm's interpretation of the law.
As Media Rights Technologies had developed a software control that was approved by the RIAA and other agencies for locking down those streams, it reasoned that Apple and the other subjects of the cease and desist letters could be held liable for copyright infringement for "actively avoiding" use of those controls. Any company named in the letters that refused to purchase a license for the controls could face a federal injunction to halt distribution of affected hardware and software, Media Rights threatened.
The court action could also involve financial penalties as high as $2500 for every device or program copy that passed through the doors of the allegedly guilty parties. Media Rights' CEO Hank Risan claimed that the scale of the supposed violations made it necessary to force the targeted outlets to use its copy protection software.
"Together these four companies are responsible for 98 percent of the media players in the marketplace; CNN, NPR, Clear Channel, MySpace Yahoo and YouTube all use these infringing devices to distribute copyrighted works," he said. "We will hold the responsible parties accountable. The time of suing John Doe is over."
Legal experts, however, doubted that the letters were more than an attempt to drum up press and near-term business.
"It looks to me like a play for publicity," claimed University of Michigan copyright expert and law professor Jessica Litman. 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." Lawyer Randy Lipsitz from New York law firm Kramer Levin agreed, saying that the DMCA was meant to prevent the products themselves from avoiding the use of DRM, not to impose one company's software on another.
Risan's Santa Cruz, California-based firm has a past history of pressing for government-mandated solutions that would help its business. MRT issued a statement as recently as late April that demanded the controversial Internet Radio Equality Act "must include an anti-Stream Ripping provision."
None of the targeted media player developers claimed to have received the cease and desist letters as of Friday. Apple in particular was unavailable for comment. Real Networks' representative Matt Graves nevertheless felt that the "desperate" financial motivation behind the action was self-evident from MRT's own words.
"[It's] a rather novel approach to business development," he said.
Media Rights Technologies issued the formal but non-binding warnings to four key industry players this week, insisting that Adobe, Apple, Microsoft, and Real Networks were in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act through potential circumvention holes in their software.
The software developer argued that offering any media playback program whose Internet streams are vulnerable to being ripped and copied -- including iTunes and Windows Media Player -- is in itself a violation of the DMCA. Developers are obligated to provide as secure a solution as possible, according to the firm's interpretation of the law.
As Media Rights Technologies had developed a software control that was approved by the RIAA and other agencies for locking down those streams, it reasoned that Apple and the other subjects of the cease and desist letters could be held liable for copyright infringement for "actively avoiding" use of those controls. Any company named in the letters that refused to purchase a license for the controls could face a federal injunction to halt distribution of affected hardware and software, Media Rights threatened.
The court action could also involve financial penalties as high as $2500 for every device or program copy that passed through the doors of the allegedly guilty parties. Media Rights' CEO Hank Risan claimed that the scale of the supposed violations made it necessary to force the targeted outlets to use its copy protection software.
"Together these four companies are responsible for 98 percent of the media players in the marketplace; CNN, NPR, Clear Channel, MySpace Yahoo and YouTube all use these infringing devices to distribute copyrighted works," he said. "We will hold the responsible parties accountable. The time of suing John Doe is over."
Legal experts, however, doubted that the letters were more than an attempt to drum up press and near-term business.
"It looks to me like a play for publicity," claimed University of Michigan copyright expert and law professor Jessica Litman. 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." Lawyer Randy Lipsitz from New York law firm Kramer Levin agreed, saying that the DMCA was meant to prevent the products themselves from avoiding the use of DRM, not to impose one company's software on another.
Risan's Santa Cruz, California-based firm has a past history of pressing for government-mandated solutions that would help its business. MRT issued a statement as recently as late April that demanded the controversial Internet Radio Equality Act "must include an anti-Stream Ripping provision."
None of the targeted media player developers claimed to have received the cease and desist letters as of Friday. Apple in particular was unavailable for comment. Real Networks' representative Matt Graves nevertheless felt that the "desperate" financial motivation behind the action was self-evident from MRT's own words.
"[It's] a rather novel approach to business development," he said.
Comments
I can't wait for them to announce that they're suing all countries with a capitalist-based economy for fostering an environment conducive to the exchange of goods and services, some of which are obtained illegally.
What a laugh.
Just as the Viginia Tech Killer's face and name should never have been made public, this company should not have been given a free publicity for this cheap stunt.
I guess they are hoping the get some tech ignorant judge to allow this to go forward. Hey, why not. If a judge can sue a mom and pop dry cleaner for 60 million dollars and waste 2 years of court time and rack up thousands of dollars in legal fees because they lost a pair of his pants. Why not?
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?
Alan
Wow, now I know we have too many lawyers in this country. Imagine suing someone for BILLIONS of dollars because they don't use your new product.
What a laugh.
Just as the Viginia Tech Killer's face and name should never have been made public, this company should not have been given a free publicity for this cheap stunt.
I guess they are hoping the get some tech ignorant judge to allow this to go forward. Hey, why not. If a judge can sue a mom and pop dry cleaner for 60 million dollars and waste 2 years of court time and rack up thousands of dollars in legal fees because they lost a pair of his pants. Why not?
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?
Alan
Hell yes, let's fight back and sue those bastards!!!
Wow, the RIAAtards are out in force. First trying to shut down all internet radio stations with ridiculous fees and now suing companies for not using a technology that someone else developed.
I can't wait for them to announce that they're suing all countries with a capitalist-based economy for fostering an environment conducive to the exchange of goods and services, some of which are obtained illegally.
RIAA tards. I love it. And sring capitalist countries. Nice. Perhaps you guys haven't seen my transcripts of Record Label Board Meetings in the last few years.
June 1999:
Event: Napster Released
RIAA Response: "You guys want cheesteaks for lunch?"
September 1999
Event: CD sales fall around campuses
RIAA: "Hmmm. Must be a seasonal thing. You know what would be cool? If people could buy music online. I realize it's way out there, Bob, but....hey...hold on. My cheesesteak is here"
December 1999
Event: CD sales plummet, Napster all over world.
RIAA: "Sombitch!" We gonna sue those bastaaadss!"
July 2001
Event: Napster orderd to shut down
RIAA: "Buuuyyyaa!" Phew. Now that digital music thing is over. Pass the Doritos, Bob. What? No, I don;t think we should offer a legal alternative. People are fucking thieves. Look...they stole from Napster...right?
April 2003
Event: Apple iTunes opens
RIAA: "This is a historic event. We are visonaries. We finally came to terms with Apple's ridiculous demands and are comitted to providing alternatives to customers stealing music. We know...we know...we hate digital music too. We wish it never happened. But this will hopefully help. Oh, and Grokster? You're next. Have a nice day."
April 2004
Event: iTunes is hugely successful
RIAA: "APPLE IS A MONOPOLY!...NO FLAT PRICING! WHERE'S MY CHEESESTEAK? "
Present
Event: Apple wants no more DRM
RIAA: "BWWHAHAHAHAHA! No DRM? What are you guys, on crack? People will STEAL music. See, we don't believe most consumers will do the right thing if you give them a reasonably priced choice. No way. They're fucking thieves. You want no DRM? Ha. We want MORE. We want DRM so restrictive that if you try to copy a CD even once, you're comptuter administers a non-lethal electric shock that increases in intensity each time, like in that one James Bond movie with the video game. Hey...speaking of...what's for lunch now that we're done worrying about customers? I usually have a cheesesteak. I think I'll have...yes..A T-BONE today. Bob...you guys should call be T-Bone now!
And the saga continues. Fucking labels....
Given the number of sites that linked to them, I'd say it worked.
Even if their legal theory were true, they'd fail at the first hurdle. They aren't the copyright holder, of whatever content isn't being protected so they don't have any standing to sue anybody.
I guess they are hoping the get some tech ignorant judge to allow this to go forward. Hey, why not. If a judge can sue a mom and pop dry cleaner for 60 million dollars and waste 2 years of court time and rack up thousands of dollars in legal fees because they lost a pair of his pants. Why not?
Just out of curiosity, what is this in reference to?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hank-r...-_b_47496.html
It seems like he's p'd off mostly at stream-ripping software - he doesn't really explain, but it may be the software that will take an internet radio stream and automatically record it and divide it up by tracks, so you can then put it on your mp3 player. But he blames Apple for the problem:
"That very same year, Steve Jobs debuted the iPod in a last ditch attempt to save his company's failing fortunes. Apple embarked on a huge media blitz, which empowered and taught America's disenfranchised youth that it was OK to steal from the artists they loved."
Nobody wants to buy their product so they lobby for laws to mandate it? Then they try to perform extortion based on their interpretention of the law??
From Wikipedia:
"Extortion is a criminal offense, which occurs when a person either obtains money, property or services from another through coercion or intimidation or threatens one with physical harm unless they are paid money or property. Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime groups. The actual obtainment of money or property is not required to commit the offense. Making a threat of violence or a lawsuit which refers to a requirement of a payment of money or property to halt future violence or lawsuit is sufficient to commit the offense."
Looks like extortion, Smells like extortion, tastes like shit, yep ... its extortion.
Someone may just come by and break their legs.
I can see the RIAA and others like them crying wolf, but I do not see these jerks crying wolf without being extortion.
Just my non-lawyer opinion.
Wow, now I know we have too many lawyers in this country. Imagine suing someone for BILLIONS of dollars because they don't use your new product.
What a laugh.
Just as the Viginia Tech Killer's face and name should never have been made public, this company should not have been given a free publicity for this cheap stunt.
I guess they are hoping the get some tech ignorant judge to allow this to go forward. Hey, why not. If a judge can sue a mom and pop dry cleaner for 60 million dollars and waste 2 years of court time and rack up thousands of dollars in legal fees because they lost a pair of his pants. Why not?
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?
Alan
I think Apple should raise RICO against their ass, this SO pisses me off.
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?
F'in lawyers....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042502763.html
F'in lawyers....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042502763.html
Sorry but I think these are much better links and a heck of a lot more appropriate:
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
"At Media Rights Technologies we gain customers the old-fashioned way -- we sue them!"
With a special thanks to the congress & senate for allowing this form of legal extortion.
D
Wait a second... they're trying to get an order for these major corporations to use a specific product/programming code that was probably developed by 3 or 4 college dropouts who call themselves a company? Isn't that illegal in itself, creating a monopoly, essentially, with such an order? Or something close to that, anyway... I swear, the RIAA would probably shut down if someone dropped a penny down a drain or something...
These asses are trying to extort money from all these companies, they should talk to their distric attorney to bring RICO charges against them.
It is extortion plain and simple.
Just my non-lawyer opinion.
You should put this at the beginning of your post, so no one has to waste their time.
Interesting, its a shame for this company that their is a crack for their software already out, luckily i sell software which patches their software from the crack-- we were just about to threaten to sue them under the DMCA for each copy of their software distributed unless they buy our software to patch it. Im liking where this is going.
Also since the time for sueing John Doe is over, can someone please inform the RIAA?