• Home
  • 1st Annual Symposium
  • About
  • Available Positions
  • Issues
    • Vol. 4 Issue 2
    • Vol. 4 Issue 1
    • Vol. 3 Issue 3
    • Vol. 3, Issue 2
    • Vol. 3, Issue 1
    • Vol. 2, Issue 3
    • Vol. 2, Issue 2
    • Vol. 2, Issue 1
    • Vol. 1, Issue 1
  • Staff
    • 2009-2010 Staff
    • 2010-2011 Staff
    • 2011-2012 Staff
    • 2012-2013 Staff
  • Submissions
  • Subscribe
Featured Article

A featured article from the current issue of the Intellectual Property Brief.

Daily Blog

A daily blog of IP-related news and issues

Articles

All of the Intellectual Property Brief’s published articles. All articles are hand-selected from outside submissions and from our very own IPB staff members.

Issues

PDF versions of each of the Intellectual Property Brief’s issues.

Short Circuit

Case-by-case summaries of intellectual property related opinions from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Home » Daily Blog, Featured

How Do You Pirate Anti-Piracy Technology? Ask Warner Brothers.

Submitted by Mark Tratos on June 24, 2010 – 8:24 AM413No Commenthttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F2010%2F06%2F24%2Fhow-do-you-pirate-anti-privacy-technology-ask-warner-brothers%2FHow+Do+You+Pirate+Anti-Piracy+Technology%3F++Ask+Warner+Brothers.2010-06-24+13%3A24%3A17Mark+Tratoshttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F%3Fp%3D413

Medien Patent Verwaltung has brought forth a claim alleging that Warner Brothers Entertainment, Inc. stole anti-piracy software to be used in the distribution of films. Medien is a Swiss corporation that created a method of placing a specialized audio code inside the soundtrack of each film distributed. Since pirates cannot eliminate the soundtrack from the recording, the code is attached to every illegal copy made. Medien (or any other user of the technology) would then be able to find the code in the copy and track it to the theater where the film was originally distributed. According to the complaint, this technology would save the film industry almost six billion dollars a year in profits. Medien alleges that Warner Brothers liked the savings so much that they stole the technology.

The piracy allegedly occurred after a meeting between the two parties in Europe in 2003. Medien disclosed its invention to Warner Bros.. Medien supposedly made it clear to Warner Bros. that the technology was patented, but Warner Bros. began to implement use of the technology almost immediately. The complaint says that thousands of films were made with the stolen technology since that meeting, and Medien has asked for relief.

There is only one problem with the complaint, however. Medien is alleging violation of patent number 7,187,633. The complaint refers to this patent as “Motion Picture and Anti-Piracy Coding.” However, the patent’s actual title is “Marking of a Data Medium Material for Information Intended for Reproduction.” The patent title referred to throughout the complaint is the name of a patent owned by (you had to see this coming) Warner Brothers. The Hollywood Reporter was the first to catch this, and Medien’s lawyers are supposedly filing an amended complaint.

By Mark Tratos

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare

About the Author:

Author: Mark Tratos

Mark Tratos is a fourth year evening division student at the Washington College of Law. He is the current Senior Articles Editor for the American University Intellectual Property Brief. He also works for the United States Senate. He graduated from Washington University in St. Louis in 2006. Mark has recently focused his attention to the current orphan works problem in copyright law and the impact of proposed government legislation on current intellectual property and social norms.

Mark Tratos has written 32 posts for the IPB.

Leave a comment!

Click here to cancel reply »

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.

Copyright »

Appropriating Sid Vicious

Appropriating Sid Vicious

Mr. Brainwash’s works recently joined the increasing number of cases on appropriation art after photographer Dennis Morris sued the street artist for use of his 1977 picture of Sid Vicious.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Patents »

Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business

Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business

Shortly after the oral arguments between Monsanto and Bowman, WCL hosted both parties for a post argument discussion. Recently the Supreme Court ruled on the case, requiring annual purchases of Monsanto’s soybeans.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Trademark »

Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million

Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million

Supreme, one of the most coveted skate-inspired clothing brands, is suing women’s clothing brand Married to the Mob and its founder Leah McSweeney for trademark infringement to the tune of $10 million.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Facebook

Accepting Submissions

The IP Brief is currently accepting submissions. We are looking for papers that address a legal topic relating to any area of intellectual property. Please submit completed papers and a cover page with the name and title of the article to ipbrief [at] wcl.american.edu. Any questions can also be sent to this e-mail address.

Blogroll

  • American University Washington College of Law
  • Carrollogos
  • Copyright Blog
  • GamePolitics
  • Intellectual Property Watch
  • PatentlyO
  • Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property
  • Spicy IP
  • The TTABlog®
  • ©ollectanea

Tags

Archives

  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • January 2010

Random Posts

Microsoft Safe from Xbox Patent Violations Guess? Who: Gucci “wins” injunction, $4.6 million in trademark suit against Guess? Senate Judiciary Committee Seeks  To Combat Online Piracy with New Anti-Piracy Bill Conflicts at the Intersection of ACTA & Human Rights: How the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement violates the right to take part in cultural life Lady Gaga Legal Woes Should Buying Designer Goods Be a Crime? The North Face and The South Butt Reach a Settlement Clash of the Titans: Yahoo Sues Facebook for Patent Infringement Defining a Red Sole: Louboutin’s Last-Ditch Effort To Protect The Brand’s Soul Prison Toothbrush Design is Functional
(refresh random posts)

Latest Video Post

Relatively New Anti-Piracy PSA: Another Analogy Comparison of Piracy to Stealing Cars or an Effective Message?

Recent Posts

  • Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business
  • Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million
  • Appropriating Sid Vicious
  • Chick-Fil-A’s ‘Eat Mor Chikin’ Trumps Kale-Promotion Slogan
  • Oxycontin and the Implications of Pay-For-Delay

Twitter

  • No public Twitter messages.
  • Copy / Paste
  • Site Search
  • Wikipedia
  • Google
  • Facts
  • Amazon
  • eBay
  • Outlook
  • Gmail
  • Y! Mail
  • Twitter
  • Search & Share
Powered by WordPress | Log in | Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS) | Arthemia Premium theme by Colorlabs Project
The American University Intellectual Property Brief is licensed by the staff of the American University Intellectual Property Brief under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License. IPBrief.net is hosted by Dan Rosenthal. For technical queries, contact dan@danrosenthal.org

Creative Commons License