[ReignOfError]

Actually the Company has a point. The DMCA law says circumvent means "to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid,bypass, remove, deactivate or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner."

Vista, OSX, DVD players etc. do make it possible to bypass the technological measures. This company probably has a Patented and Copyrighted scheme to prevent the bypassing. I don't see how a judge could rule against the suit.

As the artile says, that sill depend on how broadly the court interprets the term "bypass." Suppose, by way of analogy, an FM radio station decides one day that it should only be available to subscribers. It still transmits in the open on the FM band, so instead of encrypting it, the company decides to sue the manufacturers for not adopting its protective measures and building its encryption and subscription product into their receivers.

If the audio streams are in a format that Windows Media, Quicktime, Real, etc. can play, but with added data from this company's proprietary protection scheme -- if it isn't part of the published standard -- the companies aren'y bypassing it, they're just not implementing it.

[LeGrande]

As the artile says, that sill depend on how broadly the court interprets the term "bypass." Suppose, by way of analogy, an FM radio station decides one day that it should only be available to subscribers. It still transmits in the open on the FM band, so instead of encrypting it, the company decides to sue the manufacturers for not adopting its protective measures and building its encryption and subscription product into their receivers.

You are absolutely right. Maybe you shouldn't give their lawyers anymore ideas ^_^ And remember this is going to cost them (us) a ton.

If the audio streams are in a format that Windows Media, Quicktime, Real, etc. can play, but with added data from this company's proprietary protection scheme -- if it isn't part of the published standard -- the companies aren'y bypassing it, they're just not implementing it.

I don't think I completely follow you, but I think the purpose in this law suit is to force them to implement it (and pay for it of course).