Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News

Universal Music Hit with Anti-Piracy Suit 220

Posted by michael from the sticky-fingers dept.
prostoalex writes "Remember Bon Jovi trying to fight piracy with individual PIN numbers that legitimate buyers could get off the CD? DownloadCard, who claims to have invented the technology, filed a lawsuit against Universal Music Group saying the music execs stole the technology and trade secrets from the company. Yahoo! Launch headline suggests that Bon Jovi album might be delayed because of the lawsuit."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Universal Music Hit with Anti-Piracy Suit More

Universal Music Hit with Anti-Piracy Suit

Comments Filter:

  • Yeah, but look on the bright side... (Score:5, Funny)

    by GreyWolf3000 ( 468618 ) on Saturday September 28, 2002 @05:33PM (#4351456) Journal
    Yahoo! Launch headline suggests that Bon Jovi album might be delayed because of the lawsuit.

    That's the best news I've heard all day...

  • OH THE IRONY!!! (Score:2, Informative)

    by gatesh8r ( 182908 )
    Megacorp gets sued by a smaller company for infringement... ROFL

  • Bad MI (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    You can't ignore other people's intellectual property, damnit. Only pirates would do that kind of stuff.

    • Re:Bad MI (Score:4, Informative)

      by mgv ( 198488 ) <Nospam...01...slash2dot@@@veltman...org> on Saturday September 28, 2002 @06:49PM (#4351678) Homepage Journal
      You can't ignore other people's intellectual property, damnit. Only pirates would do that kind of stuff.

      True, but you can redefine how much of their intellectual property they own.

      Seems strange? Well, copyrights have been extended a couple of times (mostly at the whim of large content providers) in legislation. Otherwise, all of Elvis's work would be in the public domain by now, for example. Just like nobody owns Beethoven's or Mozart's work.

      The truth is, its not as if intellectual property is a black and white issue.

      Michael

    • Re:Bad MI (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Zemran ( 3101 )
      What are you saying ? People are going to arrive in tall ships with cannons blazing and swing over with swords in their teeth to kill us? Stop all this daft clap trap. Kids copying music has been going on for decades. Most reasonable people will tape a TV programme that is on while they are out. I am sure you would. That *IS* the same thing. Big business has brought in the term "pirate" to make it sound a lot worse than it really is and the term is completely innapropriate. These kids do *NOT* steal anything. Stealing, by legal definition, involves an intention to permanently deprive the owner of the object. These kids have no such intent. It is all claptrap to make something out of nothing in an effort to make more money out of the public. If it were a geuine intent to stop copying they would target the commercial operations, which so far have been generally left alone. If they did that I would support them wholeheartedly but while they try to make out I am a criminal because I want a copy of something for the car that I have bought for my home, I support the bad guys.

    • Re:Bad MI (Score:4, Informative)

      by Melantha_Bacchae ( 232402 ) on Sunday September 29, 2002 @10:07AM (#4353662)
      An AC wrote:

      > You can't ignore other people's intellectual
      > property, damnit. Only pirates would do that kind
      > of stuff.

      Three incidents show the tip of an iceberg:

      1) Eisner, Disney's president, showed a pirated Sony movie at a Senate hearing on Hollings' bill.

      2) CNN showed a pirated tape of a bin Laden interview after the Afghan TV station that did the interview refused to give the rights to show the interview to CNN.

      3) InterTrust is suing Microsoft because DRM in Windows XP, .Net, Office XP, and Windows Media Player infringe on its patents.

      Face it, the very people who want to treat customers like criminals and take away our rights are the biggest pirates of all!

      Actually, "Mosura no Uta" (Mothra's Song) has a better term for people like these, the words it applied to Nelson and his goons: "tong yu" or "barrel of sharks". Me, I just call 'em "media sharks".

      Bells are ringing: Mothra, Mothra! Every heart is calling: Mothra, Mothra!
      Come on, Tok Wira, these sharks have gotta pay! New Kirk calling Mothra, we need you today!

  • Good to know (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Inthewire ( 521207 )
    <nelson>
    Ha ha!
    </nelson>

    Should've run a patent search, no?

    Well, maybe not. Theft of trade secrets suggest that this isn't a patent issue.

    Fuck it.

  • At least something good comes of it (Score:5, Funny)

    by Chester K ( 145560 ) on Saturday September 28, 2002 @05:37PM (#4351469) Homepage
    Patents suck Patents suck Patents suck... er... hello what's this?

    Yahoo! Launch headline suggests that Bon Jovi album might be delayed because of the lawsuit."

    Yay for patents! Yay for patents! Yay for patents!
    • Patents aren't mentioned in the articles at all, it looks like its trade secrets (as to what they've got that's secret I'm not sure, probably because it's secret :) They (DownloadCard) claim they've got something unique but having worked on something similar about five years ago I think they should do a serious patent search.
    • Patents don't have anything to do with this. It's not a "we patented this" suit, it's a "they hired us to do this, watched what we were doing, then fired us and ripped us off" suit. Whole different animal entirely.

  • So? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by pla ( 258480 ) on Saturday September 28, 2002 @05:37PM (#4351471) Journal
    More IP BS, this time entirely between those that abuse such laws regularly.

    Money gets shifted around, and we, the consumers, get screwed like usual. The *only* outcome I see from this involves the album coming out late, and the lawsuit justifying yet more "cost-added" excuses on the part of the recording industry.

    I'll care more when 72 minutes of pure audio doesn't cost 50% more than 2 hours of high quality movie footage with soundtracks in three language plus bonus material, AND I can legally (and easily) store what I buy on my file server. Until then, the MPAA and RIAA can collectively "bite me".

    • Re:So? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Monkelectric ( 546685 )
      More IP BS, this time entirely between those that abuse such laws regularly.

      Live by the sword, die by the arrow ... the irony is deliscious

    • Re:So? (Score:2)

      by dirk ( 87083 )
      I'll care more when 72 minutes of pure audio doesn't cost 50% more than 2 hours of high quality movie footage with soundtracks in three language plus bonus material, AND I can legally (and easily) store what I buy on my file server. Until then, the MPAA and RIAA can collectively "bite me".

      Can we finally stop the comparison between CDs and DVDs, since it is one of the most flawed comparison that exists. A DVD is an aftermarket product of a movie. The money is spent making a movie, not the DVD. The cost of the DVD is fairly small, especially compared to the movie. Marketing is also very small (if anything), because there was so much advertising for the movie very little is needed (although sometimes a lot is done anyway). By the time a DVD comes out, the movies has already made back a portion of the money (hopefully at least a decent portion if not actually made money) in the theatres. Even the extras are cheap, using footage already filmed and maybe bringing in a few people to record an audio soundtrack. All of these things combined make the DVD fairly cheap to produce compared to a CD. A CD has made no money when it is released and must make enough money to pay for every single thing that went into the making/marketing of the CD. Taking an already made movie and slapping it on a DVD and making basically nothing but profit from the sale is a lot different than putting out a CD and hoping the sales pay for the expense of the CD itself.

      And just for the record, you can legally and easily store the MP3s you make from a CD you own on your file server. That has already been established. You can't share them with other people, but you are free to rip MP3s from CDs you own and listen to them.

      • Re:So? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by letxa2000 ( 215841 )
        Can we finally stop the comparison between CDs and DVDs, since it is one of the most flawed comparison that exists. A DVD is an aftermarket product of a movie. A CD has made no money when it is released and must make enough money to pay for every single thing that went into the making/marketing of the CD

        While this is a valid explanation of the relative pricing from a business standpoint, it doesn't mean squat to the consumer who has to decide how to spend $20.

        Whenever someone at some company gives me justifications or reasons why they can't give me the service I deserve or paid for my answer is quite simple: "Your internal company problems are not MY problems, they're yours. You deal with your internal problems, but in the meantime solve the problem you have right now with the consumer--me!"

        In this case, my heart bleeds for the RIAA (sarcasm), but I really don't care what their costs of business are, nor do I care if their business model is broken. As a consumer I see a $15 DVD for a movie I thought was fun when I saw it, or I see a $20 CD that might have one good song, maybe. Where do you think I'm going to spend my money?

        Fact is, the DVD vs. CD comparison is a VERY valid comparison from a consumer standpoint. The DVD vs. CD decision is one that is made probably thousands of times per day by consumers around the world. It just turns out the business model of the movie industry is more profitable than that of the RIAA. Tough luck.

      • Re:So? (Score:2)

        by pla ( 258480 )
        The money is spent making a movie, not the DVD

        I think you just defeated your own point, there. I agree fully that it costs a *lot* more to produce (the content on) a DVD than a CD. Hundreds of millions, compared to a few tens of thousands (if that). And yes, a movie has most likely at least broken even by the time it comes out on DVD. However, an audio CD *starts* closer to "breaking even" than just about any DVD ever made - the latter either have made a huge profit already, or failed miserably, by the time they hit stores. Naturally, exceptions to this exist... For example, how about some of Disney's "direct to DVD" releases, which presumeably still cost money to make (if not as much as a typical for-theater production), yet sell for less than a "real" movie on DVD?

        Basically, no matter how you look at it, you have to agree that the comparison *doesn't* count as fair - the pure audio CD should sell for *far* less.


        you can legally and easily store the MP3s you make from a CD you own on your file server

        Really? I have a handfull of CDs that I have yet to find a way around the copy protection on, and even if I do find a way, doing so violates the DMCA. Please, tell me how I can satisfy both "easy" and "legal" in making MP3s of these. And, believe it or not, I do actually only make MP3s (VQFs, actually, but same idea) for personal use. I don't know if most people fall into that category, but I simply find it much more convenient to load up a 200 hour WinAmp playlist than to change CDs every 40-70 minutes.

  • This gives me an idea! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by antisocial77 ( 74255 ) <bjwtf13@gSLACKWAREmail.com minus distro> on Saturday September 28, 2002 @05:38PM (#4351476) Homepage Journal
    Somebody go get a bunch of patents on anti-piracy googaws and then claim prior-art on all the companies attempting to put stuff like this in place. When it ends up costing them more money in legal fees than they would allegedly recoop from the stop of piracy, they'll just give up. Hopefully.

    Yes, I know it's a pipe dream. So what.

    • Re:This gives me an idea! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Saturday September 28, 2002 @05:51PM (#4351525)
      they'll just give up. Hopefully.

      From the original article

      Retail CDs will be distributed with a unique serial number with which the purchaser can register in order to receive such exclusives as prioritized concert ticket purchases and unreleased music.

      THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT THEM TO DO!!!

      Added value for purchasing the CD is what most of the ./ community has been pushing for for months! The record companies are going to do something one way or another, with this scheme instead of taking something away they are giving something extra. If they give up on this scheme more likely than not they are going to shove some anti-piracy, anti-fair use, anti-consumer DRM technology down their throat. Even if we didn't want this scheme to work this is precisly the type of soft patent that we are trying to get rid of, the moment we start selling ourself by abusing the very flaws we are trying to get rid of in the patent system we are worse than the corporations who are doing it (at least they won't be hypocrites). No we do not want this actually good idea industry to fail. No we do not want to abuse a flawed patent system. We do not want this lawsuit to succed.

      • Re:This gives me an idea! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by garcia ( 6573 ) on Saturday September 28, 2002 @07:07PM (#4351722)
        you're wrong. That's NOT what I want.

        First. There is NO WAY that I want a UNIQUE identifier linking me w/ANY purchase.

        Second. Fuck that, I don't want priority on concert tickets nor do I want unreleased music. The music is easy to find (see Sopranos season 4 ep. 1 - 4 on Kazaa or IRC).

        What I want is simple. I want CHEAP music. I want music to be like movies... I can wait several months and buy a DVD at $9.99 when it was originally $25.00. Why the fuck doesn't music drop in price like that? They come out at $12.99+ and stay that way or even GO UP.

        Sorry, but movies have the same amount of longevity as music. They should go down in price (just like everything else).

        I will CONTINUE to support free music until the "BIG ARTISTS" and the RIAA decides that what they are doing is DUMB as HELL.

        That's my worthless .02
        • Because you don't watch the same movie
          as many times as you listen to the same
          CD.
        • to quote you:

          I will CONTINUE to support free music until the "BIG ARTISTS" and the RIAA decides that what they are doing is DUMB as HELL.


          You mean to say that you will continue to support illeagal activity, and the destruction of the music industry as it currently stands. By the same token, youi also then support the motivatiosn of the RIAA to install their DRM technologies in the next gen music distribution formats. LEt me remind you that there is no such thing as FREE MUSIC from a free lable, and what your talking about is you will continue to support stolen music.

          If contracting HIV came were possible from copyright violations, instead of sex, you would be a AIDS crack-whore needle freak.

          It is true that copywrite violation is a statutory crime, unlike violent crimes, and by that token most folks feel it is simply OK to break the law. Just because it is possible to download music doens't mean it is actually ok to do so, no matter how much you pretend it is, or justify it, or whatever. What you call supporting free music is just a cop-out to make your crimes seem alright in your mind. Finding a piece of crack rock on the street is also a very simple minded thing, but picking it up is against the law as it is possestion of a controlled substance, as is the same when you download a copy-protected work.

          Now it is true the copywrite law suck int he usa, and so do patent laws. Maybe destroying the music industry is you form of civil disobediance, or whatever. How cares! The fact is that this Bon Jovi CD is being dellayed because of a patent issue that is simply crazy. This patent is akin to having a patent on signing your name on paper, yet since it is involving electronics/technologies, etc... it is now something patentable. This is akin to patent on whiping my ass with your idiot resume with a technological robot arm.

          Think about it this way. That card that is shiped with the bon jovi cd, in the future that might be some sort fo smart card with a special decrypt key to decypher the encrypted music on the disc. Think your gonna have kazaa trading then? No! The fact that this method is not involving DRM is good, the fact that your too stupid to understand that is bad! Your the motivation behind suck ideas. The problem is too many of you type folks exist (the ignorant, and arrogant).

          • Re:This gives me an idea! (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward
            1. Learn to spell.

            2. Bullshit. Listening to free music is not theft. There are literally thousands of artists on the net who are giving away their music. Take a look at MP3.com for an obvious example of this. Take a look at official band websites for another example of this.

            3. The rest of your post rests on the false assumption that the only free music on the net is illegal music.

            4. STFU.
          • you will continue to support stolen music.

            I will continue to support the fight against artificial scarcity towards business models that work. Capitalism doesn't work well when things aren't scarce... it's a kludge.

            mp3's are free ads in my book - for (overpriced) CDs, concerts (real work), merchandise, direct support, etc. The recording isn't scarce, which is why pressing CDs is liking printing money, which in turn is why the RIAA is fighting like mad to keep control of their old cashcow.

            --

        • There is NO WAY that I want a UNIQUE identifier linking me w/ANY purchase.

          Nobody's forcing you to use the PIN to listen to the CD.

          This PIN system is much like the system used for Quake III Arena. You can play the game without the CD, but if you want to use id Software's master servers, you have to punch in the CD key.

        • > First. There is NO WAY that I want a UNIQUE identifier linking me w/ANY purchase.

          You mean, like your credit card number?
        • quantaman was right: this is a step in the right direction, much better than DRM.

          garcia was also right: there is an even better alternative, that of much cheaper music, and easily downloadable.

          Extrapolating even further along this line, I offer this point of view: that what I *REALLY* want is for music copyright to go away entirely, and for a completely different mode of thinking to arise regarding music and how and why it is shared and produced. I know this is radical, but I believe it is right.

          .


    • Somebody go get a bunch of patents on anti-piracy googaws and then claim prior-art on all the companies attempting to put stuff like this in place.
      Actually, the cryptographer Lucky Green has already done this with respect to Palladium and software piracy. At a panel on Palladium at the USENIX Security Conference in August the Microsoft Palladium team claimed that Palladium couldn't and thus wouldn't be used to combat software piracy. However, Lucky Green was able to think of several methods to use Palladium / TCPA in the enforcement of software licenses, so in response has applied for patents on all of the methods he could think of in an effort to thwart any such use.

      For more information, see the following posts (August 8th [mail-archive.com] and August 10th [mail-archive.com]) to the Cryptography mailing list.
    • I just noted a -1, Troll mod on this, and can't see why. This is a really interesting idea...

      A while back I read an article by an environmental group discussing using funds to out-n-out purchase environmentally valuable lands, and then putting them in a trust. From that point on, you don't have to worry about regulations or which way the political wind blows, the land is simply administered according to the trust.

      This is the same idea, but for intellectual property. It has its problems -- it only works as long as the property laws are applicable, it takes money to stake out the claim and administer it, and finally, it lends some legitimacy to what may be illegitimate processes. The best thing, though, is that you don't have to wait to change the world before you get to protect something important.

      There ought to be more people doing this...

  • That while this may be targetting 'the enemy', we need to consider other rammifications if this lawsuit succeeds. The 'PIN' idea seems rather, well, obvious (I'm not sure if DownloadCard was responsible for this, but Daft Punk did the same thing with their album 'Discovery'). While the DownloadCard is 'novel, original and unique' it doesn't mention that it is patented.

    In the same sense, you shouldn't support the US government's attack on Microsoft just because you don't like Microsoft.
    • I agree with you here. It could be very much likened to the 'technology' used in old computer games and stuff where the manual or cassette inlay card had a "PIN type" number which needed to be entered to have access to the purchased software.
    • I agree. You shouldn't support the US government's attack on Microsoft just because you don't like Microsoft. You should support the US government's attack on Microsoft because it's right.
    • Still, just the fact that they ape now attacking their own kind indicates both, ammunition to use against such laws, and possibly a changing stance on the issue. Perhapse they'll sue each other silly, and hollywood will begin lobying against those same laws they've voraciously supported.
      So far it's been big companies against individuals who can't afford a lawsuit, so they gave in to the big company. Now, big company against big company should prove interesting (as was the AOL v. MSN messengers battle).

    • Support (Score:4, Insightful)

      by _Sprocket_ ( 42527 ) on Saturday September 28, 2002 @07:01PM (#4351709)


      In the same sense, you shouldn't support the US government's attack on Microsoft just because you don't like Microsoft.

      And by the same token, one should not withhold support from the US Government's prosecution of Microsoft just because one likes Microsoft.

      Now that we have that minor little point sewen up... mind if we remain focused on the topic at hand?
    • Exactly. In the UK, Bizarre magazine has been using the same idea for a long time. They include a serial number in each issue you can use to access extra content on their website.

      From the story: As previously reported by LAUNCH, the Bon Jovi album will include a serial number in the CD packaging, which will allow users to access exclusive content from the band's website. DownloadCard has filed a claim that it created the program used for access and offered it to the record label.

      What "technology" is this exactly. For god's sake, its a number. The buyer types a number into a website and gets access - hardly cutting edge technology! Absolute crap - I hate the record companies as much as anyone with any sense of right and wrong, but seems to me "DownloadCard" are yet another 2 bit outfit trying to make a fast buck. We'll doubtless never hear of them or their "technologies" ever again after this case...

  • This is the future! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by A nonymous Coward ( 7548 ) on Saturday September 28, 2002 @05:39PM (#4351481)
    Big companies and greedy SOBs trying to be big have wanted this patent nonsense; maybe they will regret getting what they asked for. Maybe, just maybe, when enough of these ridiculous patent fights take up so much of their time and resources, really innovative people will be able to get on with their lives, and common sense will be restored. Maybe. Someday.
  • Did I miss something? I thought the Bon Jovi thing was just like printing a unique serial on the booklet or a piece of paper that comes with the thing, or something.

    How the hell is that technology, or more to the point, patentable?

    • Re:Wait a second (Score:5, Funny)

      by WEFUNK ( 471506 ) on Saturday September 28, 2002 @07:06PM (#4351719) Homepage
      Did I miss something? I thought the Bon Jovi thing was just like printing a unique serial on the booklet or a piece of paper that comes with the thing, or something.

      How the hell is that technology, or more to the point, patentable?

      I think it's because companies finally ran out of existing ideas that they could patent by tacking on "with a computer". The next round of bad patents will take obvious ideas and tack on "by an 80's hair band".

      For instance, DownloadCard has the rights to "a means of using and distributing unique serial identifiers to provide redeemable incentives to discourage the online theft of intellectual property where said intellectual property is audio or video media content by an 80's hair band". The Dave Matthews Band and the Crystal Method were able to get around this patent by not being an 80's hair band, but Universal finally got busted for trying it with Bon Jovi.

      In related news, Jeff Bezos has just invented and patented a one-click combination CD player power-on/play button to allow quick and efficient listening of any of his favorite music by an 80's hair band.
  • It's kind of sad, actually. A plan was finally put into use that 'accepts' the trading of mp3s, giving more incentive to buy the actual album. If this goes through, I sincerely doubt the record companies are going to try that hard to come up with better plans.

  • I don't get it. . . (Score:5, Insightful)

    by An Onerous Coward ( 222037 ) on Saturday September 28, 2002 @05:44PM (#4351501) Homepage
    Why is this a novel technology? Sure, it's never been done by the music industry, but the commercial software folks have been providing "registration keys" for decades now.

    This just doesn't strike me as something that should be patentable. Of course, that seldom impedes the patent process.

    Bon Jovi rocks! Peace, out.

  • This just underscores the need for a new, novel, music distribution system that allows the music conglomerates to receive money for sales of the songs their artists record & sing. The PIN system is nothing new... this gimmick has been around for quite some time. All that most of us want is to be able to buy the songs we like with the FREEDOM to use the music as we like (computer, mp3 player, car stereo, home entertainment centre, etc.).

    Unfortunately, the result of this infringement will likly just cause the music industry to go back to their pet senators for exceptions or maybe even buying out the patent rights so that they can perpetuate the crap system that exists today.

  • Call Hillary Rosen we found a pirate (Score:3, Funny)

    by linuxislandsucks ( 461335 ) on Saturday September 28, 2002 @05:47PM (#4351512) Homepage Journal
    Now lets see how long it takes Hillary Rosen to go after Universal for piracy...now holding breathe.. ah turning blue..
  • Great! They tried to use some technology to prevent piracy, and they're getting SUED! Bwaaaahaaaahaaahaahahahah!!! That's what the evil recording industry deserves!
    • Hu? This isn't an anti-piracy technology. You should read the original slashdot article about it. There is no anti-piracy technology. There is simply a number that comes with the CD, this number can be used to download unreleased tracks off the internet, and concert ticket discounts/good seats. Its giving something more for the cd, not a technology to mess with fair use at all.
  • This seems very silly. Should I be worried that my ATM card will no longer work, or that I will no longer have access to my Ameritrade account? Both of those things use PIN's. PIN's aren't a technology. I get so sick of people misusing the term technology. Clicking a mouse button isn't technology either, but that didn't stop amazon from getting a patent. One arsehole even has a patent on waving a laser in front of a cat for chissakes!
  • The delaying of a Bon Jovi album?

    I sense a great disturbance in the force, as if the state of New Jersey is crying out in pain..
  • did they use hospital corners when they made their bed?
    • Actually, I think they short sheeted themselves.

      (Okay, to the dense amongst the moderators. Parent asked about making a bed with hospital corners. What he's implying is that 'Universal has made their bed; now they must lie in it'. To which I make the funny comment... Christ, if you haven't figured it out by now, just mod me -1, offtopic already)

  • delayed launch (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Eric Smith ( 4379 ) on Saturday September 28, 2002 @06:06PM (#4351564) Homepage Journal
    Yahoo! Launch headline suggests that Bon Jovi album might be delayed because of the lawsuit.
    I don't suppose it has occurred to anyone at Universal to simply release the album as an ordinary CD with no PIN? And that consumers might actually buy it?
  • Really, the best news i've heard in a while. Anti-piracy efforts being slapped down by anti-piracy efforts. The MAN is attacking the MAN.

  • So it's OK now? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by halftrack ( 454203 ) <{jonkje} {at} {gmail.com}> on Saturday September 28, 2002 @06:10PM (#4351578) Homepage
    So, suddenly IP is a real thing and patent suits are great?

    It seems to me that somethimes the /. crowd get's a bit narrow sighted.

    Here are the facts:

    1. No /.ers (or just a few) listens to BonJovi (I don't) which automatically means that he's a crappy, bad sounding, commercial doll, which again means that everything he (or those who really control him) does is bad.

    2. Universal can be regarded as big and bad.

    3. DownloadCard is David fighting Goliat for the money. It's not a /.y principal suit.

    4. Universal is making an honest attempt to fight piracy without crippeling user rights. They are trying to make the CDs you purchase more like DVDs, with extra stuff BonJovi fans (not /.ers) would like.

    Belive it or not, /. is not the center of the world. Even though we dislike something/someone doesn't mean that others have to dislike it/them too.
  • let the games begin!

  • Fat chance... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by zman99 ( 612240 )

    I really can't possibly see this lawsuit winning. This is the same model of registration that the software industry has been using for years.

    • Buy the software
    • Register it with your personal serial number
    • Get free updates, tech support, newsletters, etc.

    If this isn't an example of prior art, then I don't know what is. Once again, the consumer is getting screwed while the lawyers cash in....

    • This is the same model of registration that the software industry has been using for years.

      We really don't know enough about this to say Universal didn't break the patent. We all know there are 10,000 ways to implement this that don't break any patents. But we also know that the Patent office hands out patents for left handed bum washing, so they may very well have a defendable patent on a say a particular formula for computing a one way hash, and if Universal copied that willy nilly then maybe they should cough up the pocket change they are asking for.

      We don't even know if it is like the keys on software, since the features sound like a web site it could just be a random string that's easy to type but hard to remember.
  • Last Post! (Unless you want to beat me and post after this!)
  • Um, Universal is a customer of Downloadcard, which you find out if you read the article. Maybe they're having a tiff or something, but look here [downloadcard.com], and see: "Cards manufactured in English, French and German offer several exclusive Universal Records rock tracks to fans in many foreign territories."

    I think what has acutally happened is that Downloadcard is mad that Universal is taking their toys and going home and not using their service anymore.
  • The big companies will sue each other left and right, while technology and file sharing will advance beyone our wildest dreams (and their nightmares).

    Remember seeing the Martrix, and other SciFi flicks where people swap and sell disks like it was crack? Well, once again SciFi predicts the future. But who ever though that it would turn out to be MUSIC and MOVIES on those disks! Listen, pundints and nay-sayers can bitch al they want, but once I have a little hollogram cube that is black market, so it can hold it's 10 petabytes without needing MS Palladium v4, you can hold EVERY SONG EVER MADE and EVERY MOVIE EVER MADE in your pocket. TEll me agian why a distribution channel for anything that can be stored digitally should even be a business model?

    I'm sure once there was a great business where for a few pennies you could get your loom repaired, or the cotton gin fixed. Those days are gone, and so are the music and movie distrubtors. If any artist wants my cash, I will gladly fork it over for a LIVE performance only. So Brittney, bring some kneepads, otherwise you will never get my $16 sweetie.

    • "I will gladly fork it over for a LIVE performance only"

      Lots of very talented artists don't/can't perform live. Take Enya for example, she writes and records everything herself. Want her to stand on a stage by herself performing? that wouldnt be a very good show.

      Where do you think they get the money to put on the show in the first place? FROM THE ALBUM SALES.

      Just because you can transfer music and movies over a digital connection doesn't mean you have a right to. I can crawl through your bedroom window at night, but that doesn't make it legal.

      Grow up. Pay some respect to the authors of the arts you admire. Art appreciation in the country has gone to shit. Artists don't owe YOU anything. Get over yourself
      • I think you may be misinformed. My understanding was that artists make diddly from album sales, and make big bucks from live performances. Granted, the performances are probably financed by record companies who get money from record sales, but that's not a necessary part of the food chain here. Anyone could finance a concert series: even a banks. Hell, they finance everything else.

        Having said that, my personal opinion is that recordings should have reasonable, limited protection based on copyright law, under control of the author until his death and no longer. Anything more is beyond the point of diminishing returns with respect to fostering creativity, which was, after all, the whole point of copyright in the first place.

      • that wouldnt be a very good show. So don't go!

        And where do I think artists get money from? NOT THE CD, BUDDY! Use a little google action and see just how much artists get from CD sales. Apart from mega-star contracts (ala N'Sync) an artist can owe money, even after going gold. Read up. Artists keep their largest chunk of change from Live performances.

        You do post an intersting question about Enya, which can be transposed to say, Techno artists who make sweet mixes and pre-mix everything in a studio. No, they won't perform live. So how do they get paid? I don't know...

        Point is this: As long as there is a massive, fraudulat abuse of power to keep crappy music (Brittney, NSync) at a high price ($16+) on an obsolete medium (CD) all the artists can starve for all I care. I'm not out to fix the world. I would gladly pay for recorded works ONLY if I can put them where I want (car, iPod, etc). If a music company tells me I can only listen to my music on my living room Palladium controlled X-Box2, I say FUCK THEM and FUCK YOU TOO and FUCK THE ARTISTS. I'm not going to be forced to pay outragous money for crap music on an ***obsolete medium*** like CD's.

  • Damnit! Release a new bon Jovi song. I'm sick of the only damn radio station [thexradio.com] in my BFE town playing the same Bon Jovi song from the mid 80's. Maybe they'll play a new bonjovi song with the old one and double the damn playlist.


    (Watch, I'll be modded as troll/offtopic while others that say "not releasing Bon Jovi is good" will not be modded as redundant.

  • Stole the tech? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by geek ( 5680 ) on Saturday September 28, 2002 @06:41PM (#4351654)
    Umm it's a PIN for crying out loud. Banks have been using this same system for ages, not to mention about a billion other business. I mean really whats the diff between this technology wise than with a CD key for winxp?

    All it is, is a number that allows you to access a service or feature. I could do this with pen and paper if I wanted too.

    Maybe i'm not understanding their "technology", so feel free to correct me.
    • I'm guessing it's the implementation of that technology that is patented.

      You see, even if you disagree with IP in general, the term goes "build a better mouse trap". There are numerous patents on mouse traps, but it's the design and implementation of that new trap which gets it awarded a patent.

      Looking around I found 4 three-ring binders which all have their own systems of opening and closing those rings. Just because it has been done before doesn't mean that you can do something like it again.

      I don't think there is anything which isn't built on earlier works, nothing is new.

      • The problem is not patenting "Novel, clever, detailed method for trapping mice". The problem is patenting "Vermin suppression technology".

        Patenting specific, detailed, mechanisms is one thing. That's arguably OK. Patenting anything that can accomplish task X is NOT OK, and runs contrary to the philosophy behind patents.
    • My best guess is they stole the "encryption scheme", and we all know copying or reverse engineering a encryption scheme is a more sever crime than assination of an elected official.
  • "The proprietary DownloadCard Technology is novel, original and unique."

    Just like that claim itself.
    • Hehe, the lawyers just put those words in because I bet somewhere in case or patent law there is a requirement for the idea to be "novel, original, unique" now my question is can Judges start suing lawyers for IP infringement if they copyright their decisions.
      Umm... I'm sorry you can't use that case law until you pay the Judge $14.99 don't think its a rip off, there are 18 other pieces of case law on that CD. But if you only pay 14.99 you only get the right to view it on your computer and not present it to the court.

  • Bon Jovi album delayed!?? Now I'm mad!
  • "Yahoo! Launch headline suggests that Bon Jovi album might be delayed because of the lawsuit."
    • Why don't they just release a copy onto Kazaa? That's where it's going to end up anyway.
  • I mean, could it get any better than one group wanting to screw fair use rights going after another?

  • My guess is that the intellectual property lawyers with UMG looked at it, and said "prior art" as in games and software distributed a few years ago as pointed out on this thread.

    Any patents based on what's described should be readily breakable.

    Just as well because I'm thinking of using this one of these days on a music project [eliangedeon.com] I'm involved with.

  • Put all the legal teams in a cage and give them knifes. The legal team still standing at the end gets $1 million, and their client wins. (Appeals could be handled by pistols at 20 paces).

    The outcome would stand about the same as the current way our courts work, just faster and far more entertaining.

  • It only makes sence that most of the obveous and commen prior art type methods of controlling content is a patent.
    The type of person who thinks about content control would say "patent it" no matter how obveous it is.

    With the music industry running in the whole (knownladge as propety) croud it's only a matter of time before a music industry stunt was patented. I wouldn't be supprised if the preveous stunts did have rejected patent applications from a time when you had to earn a patent award not just buy it.
  • The following are the intellectual property of Downloadcard, and Universal may not use them: 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9

Slashdot Top Deals

There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann

Close