California Class Action Suit Sony Over Rootkit DRM 508
carre4 writes "Lawyers in California have filed a class-action lawsuit against Sony and a second one may be filed today in New York. The lawsuit was filed Nov. 1 in Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles by Vernon, CA attorney Alan Himmelfarb. It asks the court to prevent Sony from selling additional CDs protected by the anti-piracy software, and seeks monetary damages for California consumers who purchased them. The suit alleges that Sony's software violates at least three California statutes, including the "Consumer Legal Remedies Act," which governs unfair and/or deceptive trade acts; and the "Consumer Protection against Computer Spyware Act," which prohibits -- among other things -- software that takes control over the user's computer or misrepresents the user's ability or right to uninstall the program. The suit also alleges that Sony's actions violate the California Unfair Competition law,
which allows public prosecutors and private citizens to file lawsuits
to protect businesses and consumers from unfair business practices. EFF has released a list of rootkit affected CD's and Slashdot user xtracto also has a list."
I understand the first two... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I understand the first two... (Score:5, Informative)
NO SONY BMG PARTY SHALL BE LIABLE FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE, EITHER DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR OTHERWISE, ARISING OUT OF THE BREACH OF ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY, TERM OR CONDITION, BREACH OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY MISREPRESENTATION, FAILURE OF ANY REMEDY TO ACHIEVE ITS ESSENTIAL PURPOSE OR ANY OTHER LEGAL THEORY ARISING OUT OF, OR RELATED TO, THIS EULA OR YOUR USE OF ANY OF THE LICENSED MATERIALS (SUCH DAMAGES INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, LOSS OF PROFITS, LOSS OF REVENUE, LOSS OF DATA, LOSS OF USE OF THE PRODUCT OR ANY ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT, DOWN TIME AND USER'S TIME), EVEN IF THE SONY BMG PARTY CONCERNED HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. IN ANY CASE, THE ENTIRE LIABILITY OF THE SONY BMG PARTIES, COLLECTIVELY, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS EULA SHALL BE LIMITED TO FIVE US DOLLARS (US $5.00). SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES IN CERTAIN INSTANCES, SO THE ABOVE EXCLUSION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. THIS ARTICLE WILL NOT APPLY ONLY WHEN AND TO THE EXTENT THAT APPLICABLE LAW SPECIFICALLY REQUIRES LIABILITY DESPITE THE FOREGOING DISCLAIMER, EXCLUSION AND LIMITATION.
And this little bit too
Article 10. GOVERNING LAW AND WAIVER OF TRIAL BY JURY 1. THE VALIDITY, INTERPRETATION AND LEGAL EFFECT OF THIS EULA SHALL BE GOVERNED BY, AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPLICABLE TO CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO AND PERFORMED ENTIRELY WITHIN THE STATE OF NEW YORK (WITHOUT GIVING EFFECT TO ANY CONFLICT OF LAW PRINCIPLES UNDER NEW YORK LAW). THE NEW YORK COURTS (STATE AND FEDERAL), SHALL HAVE SOLE JURISDICTION OF ANY CONTROVERSIES REGARDING THIS AGREEMENT; ANY ACTION OR OTHER PROCEEDING WHICH INVOLVES SUCH A CONTROVERSY SHALL BE BROUGHT IN THOSE COURTS IN NEW YORK COUNTY AND NOT ELSEWHERE. THE PARTIES WAIVE ANY AND ALL OBJECTIONS TO VENUE IN THOSE COURTS AND HEREBY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THOSE COURTS. 2. YOU HEREBY WAIVE ALL RIGHTS AND/OR ENTITLEMENT TO TRIAL BY JURY IN CONNECTION WITH ANY DISPUTE THAT ARISES OUT OF OR RELATES IN ANY WAY TO THIS EULA OR THE SOFTWARE.
So yeah, they tried to get out of their corperate liabilities.
Re:I understand the first two... (Score:5, Informative)
I believe the term is "exculpatory", and the way my legal environment professor explained it was this: "If clauses like that worked, we'd all be driving around with signs on the front of our cars that say, 'Not responsible if I hit you'." (IANAL, of course.)
Re:I understand the first two... (Score:5, Informative)
Exculpatory/Hold Harmless/Indemnity agreement is/are the correct term(s).
Exculpatory agreements are those contracts that attempt to create a pretext of blamelessness when a party might otherwise be typically held liable for damages in the event of some sort of failing on their part.
They're generally challenged at a state level and taken before the state supreme court. Generally speaking, the track record of such agreements is dismal. Wisconsin, for example, has recently heard some six or so cases involving exculpatory agreements, including the one provided along with Atkins. In each case, the court ruled that the agreements were unenforcable. Here's the Supreme Court's overturn of the trial court's finding of indemnity:
http://www.gklaw.com/publication.cfm?publication_
They're not always ruled unenforceable, but because they tend to be so overbroad, they're highly subject to being ruled that way. Generally speaking, this type of agreement is used mainly to frighten people away from lawsuits. The handful of people who will actually challenge them and the cost they create for a company is usually much smaller than if the company actually had to pay out when they did some harm.
Re:I understand the first two... (Score:5, Informative)
Lawyers have to be careful online about giving out legal advice because of ethical standards, so they frequently disclaim their statements (whether it means anything or not) with "this does not constitute legal advice". Providing certain advice could be construed as creating an attorney-client relationship. At that point, you could also be automatically in breach of attorney-client privilege because you would be posting your new client's advice on a public forum.
There's actually a significant amount of debate on the matter. By simply pointing out that you're not providing legal advice, does your advice become any less legal?
Disclaiming is sort of like those statements at the bottom of corporate emails that say if you receive a message by mistake you're obligated to destroy it immediately. Well, of course you're not unless you have a contract with the company that says otherwise. If I get a private email from somebody with damaging corporate details, I'm in no way, shape, or form obligated to destroy it, and I'm entirely free to share it with other people so long as I'm not breaking other laws by doing so (e.g. - committing fraud, espionage, etc.).
Re:I understand the first two... (Score:4, Informative)
Because in many jurisdictions, offering certain types of advice (typically legal, financial or medical) as if you're knowledgable on a subject, but without the professional qualifications, insurance etc. to match, can get you in a whole heap of trouble if the advice turns out to be wrong. There's nothing wrong with discussing these issues anywhere, AFAIK, as long as it's clear that it's a personal opinion and not professional advice.
AIUI, the disclaimers are actually more relevant for those who are practising professionals. For example, if a lawyer gives some general legal advice randomly on the Internet, they probably wouldn't want it to be treated the same way as advice they gave in confidence to a client whose exact situation they knew. A couple of fairly regular Slashdotters have a sig that says something like "I am a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer, and this is not my legal advice to you".
Of course, the most important disclaimer is that if you get your legal advice from Slashdot, you probably deserve whatever consequences befall you anyway...
Re:I understand the first two... (Score:3, Informative)
It's because on /. we often assume the law should reflect our own common sense of how things should work. There is in reality no connection. Every day hundreds of disappointed litigants leave courts scratching their heads on how the law came up with such a screwy result against common sense and all decency.
'IANAL' is a nod to the way things really work. 'IANAL' says, 'Here's my common sense, but it means nothing in a court of law.'
Re:I understand the first two... (Score:4, Funny)
I believe the term is "exculpatory", and the way my legal environment professor explained it was this: "If clauses like that worked, we'd all be driving around with signs on the front of our cars that say, 'Not responsible if I hit you'." (IANAL, of course.)
So what your telling me is that my bumper sticker that says "If you can read this I'm about to lock my brakes" won't shield me from legal liability?
God damn it!
Re:I understand the first two... (Score:3, Insightful)
As far as I know, this is correct.
I've heard of people turning on their headlights (which also lights up the taillights) to scare the person behind them by making them think they're seeing brake lights, without actually slo
Re:I understand the first two... (Score:3, Informative)
These factors give it a higher velocity relative to your car, making them more dangerous the lon
Re:All Right Class... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I understand the first two... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Yeah, but... (Score:3, Informative)
As I recall my Business Law textbook stating "the court frowns on disclaimers of responsibility". You see such disclaimers all over the place, signs on stores and parking lots, purchase agreements, and eulas. However there is established criteria that a company or private owner must apply due diligence [jurisdictionary.com] to make sure their actions/product do not injure others and is generally determined in court by the "reasonable man" [jurisdictionary.com] test. "Injure" includes not only physical injuries to persons but financial, reputatio
Oh, to be a lawyer (Score:5, Interesting)
Suppose you sign a contract with me in which for $100 I promise to fix things so your neighbors stop complaining about your dog barking at night. We agree in our contract that you will limit my liability from anything resulting from my attempts to stop Fido from barking to $50. I then drive up to your house and put a bullet through Fido's head.
Now, does any person reasonably believe that you authorized me to shoot your dog, even if it's the most convenient way to accomplish what I said I'd do? Does any person reasonably beleive that consumers authorized Sony to completely undermine the security of their systems?
Or how about this: I agreed to limit any damage due to my use of Sony's software, but my system crashed as a result of my placing a Deustche Grammaphone CD in the drive. That wasn't my use of Sony's software, that was Sony's use of Sony's software to check up on me. Or my system is compromised by a hacker. That wasn't my use of Sony's software, that was the hacker's use of Sony's software. And don't say I promised not to hold you responsible for negligence. This isn't negligence it's misrepresentation. This is not "YOUR USE OF ANY OF THE LICENSED MATERIALS"; nor is it "THIS EULA" (see point above).
Sony should just own up to the fact this was incredibly stupid and irresponsible rather than bulling ahead and piling up liability for itself. Even at $5.00 a CD, it's going to hurt when the hammer drops. They should offer to replace all existing CDs with this software and provide technical support for one year to users who are affected by it.
Re:I understand the first two... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I understand the first two... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I understand the first two... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I understand the first two... (Score:5, Funny)
(e) IF YOU HAVE READ THIS FAR THEN YOUR EYES PROBABLY HURT. ALL CAPS, WHAT WERE WE THINKING? HOWEVER, WE ARE NOT LIABLE FOR THIS OR ANY OTHER OCULAR MALADY.
They have the balls I didn't.
Re:I understand the first two... (Score:3, Informative)
However, if the whole docum
Re:I understand the first two... (Score:4, Interesting)
This, of course, leaves open the question of what happens if you DON'T have autorun on, or you decline the EULA and play the CD via other means.
I didn't agree to the EULA if my wife plays a CD (Score:3, Interesting)
That is one point that I've never seen a good answer to: On PC's used by more than one person, there is only one person that "agreed" to the EULA.
How can the EULA be applied to the other users who may not even know that the EULA exists (let alone what is says)?
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Re:I didn't agree to the EULA if my wife plays a C (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I understand the first two... (Score:5, Insightful)
can't the judge throw this one right out?
He probably could throw it out but I hope the opposite happens. Toss a big fine and bad publicity to Sony for this. DRM went too far with a root kit and two wrongs don't make a right. Sony is going to have to learn this. But the worst may yet come for Sony, I for one will no longer buy Sony products.
And of all things, to remove the root kit you have to run an Active-X control from an untrusted site. Just what we in the security business tell people for good reason not to do.
So I support dragging Sony through the mud on this.
Re:I understand the first two... (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it's foolish to let companies write (nearly) arbitrary contracts for public commerce. It's widely accepted that non-lawyers are unfit to interpret contracts (that why we make fun of people who ask legal questions on Slashdot), and yet the dozens of different contracts you can't go a day without consenting to are supposed to be binding. It's unworkable. I think everyday commerce with private individuals should be governed by a small, standardized set of contracts established by law. Then allow companies to select which they want for each product or service.
Re:I understand the first two... (Score:3, Interesting)
Come to Germany, we've got something close to that.
The so-called AGB ("Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen", roughly meaning "general terms of doing business with us") are extremely common in Germany and regulate stuff like how to return stuff to claim warranty, how quickly to pay if you don't pay by cash or credit card, that the stuff remains property of the shop until paid in
Re:I understand the first two... (Score:4, Insightful)
First, you may never see the contract. Maybe you are tearing the shrinkwrap off a box of software with some disclaimers hidden somewhere inside. Maybe you're sitting down to use software installed by somebody else along time ago.
Second, the contracts are too long and complicated. It would be impossible for a company to conduct business if every customer who came in to spend $20 had their own unique multiple-page legal document that had to be scrutinized and accepted by a company lawyer. Not because companies are lazy or stupid but because it's economically infeasible. Yet somehow that's what we demand of private individuals (with no legal training) in dealing with dozens of companies every week. It's simply not workable, and gives the upper hand to businesses which conduct all end-customer transactions under the same contract (their own).
Third, even if you know all the jargon and have all the time in the world to read the contracts, you really can't interpret them without knowing the entire legal framework. Which parts are actually enforceable by law, and which are just wishful thinking by a company lawyer? Do you know all the applicable state regulations? How about for all 50 states, or do you never order things from another state?
The enticing ideal of two parties with mutual understanding entering a contract simply isn't very applicable to the myriad of little transactions we carry out on a day to day basis, and yet we pretend it is. That's why its such a mess.
Hell yeah! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hell yeah! (Score:5, Funny)
Not that there's anything wrong with that. (=
Re:Hell yeah! (Score:5, Funny)
Our Lady Peace, Healthy in Paranoid Times (Columbia)
Van Zant, Get Right with the Man (Columbia)
Switchfoot, Nothing is Sound (Columbia)
The Coral, The Invisible Invasion (Columbia)
Acceptance, Phantoms (Columbia)
Horace Silver Quintet, Silver's Blue (Epic Legacy)
Dexter Gordon, Manhattan Symphonie (Columbia Legacy)
The Bad Plus, Suspicious Activity (Columbia)
almost like they are an extra subliminal warning, given the extra Sony "Bonus" that awaits on the CD.
"Nothing for you to see here. Please move along." (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway, It's good to see this happening. It's important to make sure that the major labels realise that while DRM is legal, there are limits to what people will tolerate - and damaging peoples machines is not something that people are going to tolerate.
Heck, with luck they might even water down Blu-Ray as a result. I can dream
Re:"Nothing for you to see here. Please move along (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not simply a question of tolerance or not; some DRM may be "legal", but (IANAL) installing a root-kit on someone's machine without notification or permission almost certainly isn't. If they get away with this, it'll be because they have better lawyers, not because by any reasonable judgement it is "legal".
Of course, I hope it kicks up a stink for Sony too, but that's beside the point.
Re:"Nothing for you to see here. Please move along (Score:5, Informative)
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P
For short version, see this story;
http://www.joystiq.com/entry/1234000420067137/ [joystiq.com]
(Sony is patenting a method for games console discs to be tied to the console unit they're first ran on. No second hand game sales or loaning of games...)
Re:"Nothing for you to see here. Please move along (Score:3, Insightful)
implementation? (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, that'd be a surefire way to get Microsoft to succeed in Japan :)
Great, yet another reason ... (Score:5, Insightful)
If only someone would offer a digital download service with CD quality content.
Sony's DRM is Good (Score:3, Informative)
Install Sony DRM protected CD
Re-Name your favorite CD ripping program to $SYS$filename.exe
Now your CD ripper is hidden from Sony's DRM
It can also be used to hide cheat programs from various games.
Re:Sony's DRM is Good (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe you missed the story [slashdot.org] from a few days ago where it was indicated that Sony's spyware can see through [slashdot.org] veiled attempts to use files whose names begin with $sys$.
On the other hand, intentionally infecting oneself with this spyware in order to avoid other companies' DRM is simply genius, and is a sweet example of how multiple companies' competing DRM schemes will never be su
Re:Sony's DRM is Good (Score:4, Informative)
Besides, you still have their shitty security-compromising, phone-homing, CPU cycle eating rootkit installed! So what if there's some way of working around it to rip the CD, it needs eradicating completely or better yet to not be installed to begin with.
Better method :
- Disable autorun, or hold down shift whilst you insert and explore the CD
- Run ripper as normal, the rootkit isn't installed so there's nothing it can do
Best method :
- Don't buy the "CD" to begin with, write to the artist and Sony telling them why.
Yeah, it's being used to cloak several cheat programs like the WoW auto-fisher. If I were head of one of their publishers I'd have my team of vicious attack lawyers looking for some legal grounds to sue Sony for loss of earnings / financial harm, I know there probably there aren't any but it's worth a try.
no problem sony! (Score:5, Funny)
The mp3's have no DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
By the way, here's another interesting tidbit... (Score:5, Interesting)
Quoth the EFF :
Now the Legalese Rootkit: Sony-BMG's EULA
November 09, 2005
If you thought XCP "rootkit" copy-protection on Sony-BMG CDs was bad, perhaps you'd better read the 3,000 word (!) end-user license agreement (aka "EULA") that comes with all these CDs.
First, a baseline. When you buy a regular CD, you own it. You do not "license" it. You own it outright. You're allowed to do anything with it you like, so long as you don't violate one of the exclusive rights reserved to the copyright owner. So you can play the CD at your next dinner party (copyright owners get no rights over private performances), you can loan it to a friend (thanks to the "first sale" doctrine), or make a copy for use on your iPod (thanks to "fair use"). Every use that falls outside the limited exclusive rights of the copyright owner belongs to you, the owner of the CD.
Now compare that baseline with the world according to the Sony-BMG EULA, which applies to any digital copies you make of the music on the CD:
1. If your house gets burgled, you have to delete all your music from your laptop when you get home. That's because the EULA says that your rights to any copies terminate as soon as you no longer possess the original CD.
2. You can't keep your music on any computers at work. The EULA only gives you the right to put copies on a "personal home computer system owned by you."
3. If you move out of the country, you have to delete all your music. The EULA specifically forbids "export" outside the country where you reside.
4. You must install any and all updates, or else lose the music on your computer. The EULA immediately terminates if you fail to install any update. No more holding out on those hobble-ware downgrades masquerading as updates.
5. Sony-BMG can install and use backdoors in the copy protection software or media player to "enforce their rights" against you, at any time, without notice. And Sony-BMG disclaims any liability if this "self help" crashes your computer, exposes you to security risks, or any other harm.
6. The EULA says Sony-BMG will never be liable to you for more than $5.00. That's right, no matter what happens, you can't even get back what you paid for the CD.
7. If you file for bankruptcy, you have to delete all the music on your computer. Seriously.
8. You have no right to transfer the music on your computer, even along with the original CD.
9. Forget about using the music as a soundtrack for your latest family photo slideshow, or mash-ups, or sampling. The EULA forbids changing, altering, or make derivative works from the music on your computer.
So this is what Sony-BMG thinks we should be allowed to do with the music on the CDs that we purchase from them? No word yet about whether Sony-BMG will be offering a "patch" for this legalese rootkit. I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by Fred von Lohmann at 12:24 PM | Permalink | Technorati
Endquote. It's interesting to see just how far Sony will go to alienate the tech-savvy user base. It's been a few years since I religiously started forbidding people to buy Sony products, because I wouldn't be assed to "fix my vaio, please" or to "take a look at my LCD screen, there are, like black dots and stuff on it", but my brother-in-law still got himself a Sony DAP.
The first thing I thought was, "Wow! The salesman actually managed to sell him something that isn't an iPod.", but come on. What's you
Re:By the way, here's another interesting tidbit.. (Score:3, Funny)
I hate to do it, but I may have to issue the ultimatum "Do not buy a Playstation 3, because I will be forced to break up with you if you do."
Re:By the way, here's another interesting tidbit.. (Score:5, Interesting)
http://news.com.com/Antivirus+firms+target+Sony+ro otkit/2100-1029_3-5942265.html?part=rss&tag=594226 5&subj=news [com.com]
Excerpts:
However, Computer Associates, which has a security division, said on Monday it had found further security risks in the Sony software and was releasing a tool to uninstall it directly.
According to Computer Associates, the Sony software makes itself a default media player on a computer after it is installed. The software then reports back the user's Internet address and identifies which CDs are played on that computer. Intentionally or not, the software also seems to damage a computer's ability to "rip" clean copies of MP3s from non-copy protected CDs, the security company said.
"It will effectively insert pseudo-random noise into a file so that it becomes less listenable," said Sam Curry, a Computer Associates vice president. "What's disturbing about this is the lack of notice, the lack of consent, and the lack of an easy removal tool."
So, not only is it spying on you, it even prevents you from making good copies of the CD's WITHOUT any DRM!!! The BALLS!
Re:By the way, here's another interesting tidbit.. (Score:3, Informative)
Buying a new computer (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Buying a new computer (Score:3, Informative)
I bought a high end sony laptop (for £1900 in Aug 2001) and had no end of problems.
Mobo died after 4 months, and the default warranty didn't cover it. ( I was in Aus, I bought it in the UK. So much for an "international" company, which was one of the reasons I bought the VAIO in the first place.)
I git it repaired 7 months later on a return trip to the UK, leaving me with 1 month warranty.
The screen backlight died 3 months later. Sony told me it would cost over AU$1000 to replace the screen
Re:Buying a new computer (Score:5, Informative)
Of course that damage wasn't covered by my warranty, but the repair was covered by the other guy's insurance company. Their only clause for paying for it was this: any replaced parts needed to be shipped to them by me (I guess they wanted to make sure I wasn't trying to scam them and get myself a new computer).
When I got the repair authorization from Dell, and fronted the $800 cost, I told the tech on the phone that I needed the replaced parts returned to me (the mobo needed to be replaced). He said no problem, I just needed to attach a note to the laptop, and they'd ship the parts back with the repaired laptop.
I attached a note to the laptop to the effect (taped it securely to the back of the screen so it would be seen when the box was opened). After the laptop came back, it didn't have the old mobo, and the bill clearly stated that the mobo had been replaced. But there was no old mobo in the box.
When I called support to ask about it, the first guy I talked to said Dell had a policy of never returning bad parts, but instead they destroy them in an environmentally friendly fashion. I explained I'd been told I could get the parts back, and needed the parts back to get reimbursed for it by insurance, he sent me to level 2. Level 2 said they do have a policy that they'll return those parts, but that I needed to tell the guy who issued my RMA in the first place. I explained I had done so, and he said, "I don't see any note on your RMA for that, you must not have done so, perhaps if you'd attached a note." I explained I had also attached a note, because that's what I was instructed to do by the RMA issuer. He checked the unpacking logs, and said no mention was made of a note.
In the end I ended up talking to about a dozen different people in the returns area, almost every one had a different idea about how I'd have to have made sure I got the parts back, including some who told me that there's a 25% surcharge on getting the parts back (!).
They wouldn't provide a partial or full refund for the work completed, they wouldn't ship me another mobo (I told them I didn't care if it was smashed into 100 pieces), and they didn't care that I was out the costs of this repair without the original parts. I climbed all the way up the supervisor chain to the director of out of warranty repairs, and no one cared, and no one was 1) willing to admit that any mistake had been made on their end (I had a PHOTO of the laptop in the shipping package, with my note attached to it, clearly readable, they claimed I could have done that after the fact), nor 2) willing to take any steps to placate me as an unhappy customer.
So the insurance company wouldn't reimburse me, I spent $800 repairing a laptop that was not really worth that much (guess the insurance company should have totaled it), and it's all Dell's fault. They honestly didn't care.
Re:Buying a new computer (Score:4, Informative)
A body shop pulled a similar stunt with my car after I was in an accident. The repairs that they made were of poor quality, and the insurance company refused to do anything since I didn't tow the car 50 miles to the nearest authorized center.
Fortunately, I charged it to my amex blue card, and wrote them a letter describing the situation in detail. There was some back and forth with the body shop, but the end result was a $3,000 chargeback which allowed me to get the shoddy work replaced.
Re:Buying a new computer (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Buying a new computer (Score:3, Informative)
in the end i went for an eurocom. it's somewhat heavy, but does a damn good job
Re:Buying a new computer (Score:3, Informative)
More from Mark (Score:5, Interesting)
Most Spyware has fewer hoops to jump through to uninstall it.
Re:this sounds like a job for microsoft security (Score:3, Interesting)
Serves them right (Score:5, Interesting)
In meatspace, this would be called "vigilante justice," but I'm not sure that large corporations qualify for that label.
Re:Serves them right (Score:5, Informative)
Thomas Hesse, President of Sony BMG's global digital business division, showed up on NPR to try and sweep the entire thing under the rug.
Pathetic
Re:Serves them right (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Serves them right (Score:3, Funny)
"Most girls don't even know what date rape is, so why should they care about it?"
Re:Serves them right (Score:3, Insightful)
Are Sony CDs distinquished by appearing less often on rips?
Re:Serves them right (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's use it against them! (Score:3, Funny)
The end of democracy (Score:3, Insightful)
Now they done it. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Now they done it. (Score:3, Insightful)
I know you are being funny, but this is just a REALLY bad idea for a company that produces technology driven products. Who do family members turn to when they are considering dropping money on expensive technology products for advice? I know mine turn to me. Guess what I'm going to say from now on when they ask? "Whatever you do, don't buy a Sony product." Mine listen to me implicitly when I give such direct advice especially if I have suggestions to offer.
Sony has made a mis
Misleadings, expansions, and lawsuits abound (Score:5, Informative)
First, right now it isn't "California" as a whole suing Sony. An attorney has filed a class action lawsuit, and California citizens (and the world as a whole) will benefit. It would be nice if the California Attorney General would lend the government's support in an amicus curiae brief, but in media-rich California that isn't likely to happen. The representatives of the people of California haven't really weighed in on the matter yet, sadly.
Second, a New York law firm will be next to join the bandwagon. Things are heating up faster than the article summary indicates
Third, all of these lawsuits are going to hit Sony *hard*, right in the wallet. Any financial benefit they might have gained from their DRM will be lost unless the lawyers involved immediately drop their cases.
Finally, Sony really doesn't have any solid defense against the charge that they violated the Consumer Protection Against Consumer Spyware Act, *unless* the act specifies that spyware can only be classified as such if it submits personally identifiable information back to the authors or a third party. I'm not too clear on that regard- anyone have information they can add on that count?
mod parent up (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Misleadings, expansions, and lawsuits abound (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Misleadings, expansions, and lawsuits abound (Score:3, Interesting)
Second, a New York law firm will be next to join the bandwagon. Things are heating up faster than the article summary indicates
This is more important than you think.... Looking back to an earlier post, where the EULA was quoted, we have this:
THE VALIDITY, INTERPRETATION AND LEGAL EFFECT OF THIS EULA SHALL BE GOVERNED BY, AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPLICABLE TO CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO AND PERFORMED ENTIRELY WITHIN THE STATE OF NEW YORK (WITHOUT GIVING EFFECT
Well, how's this for irony? (Score:3, Funny)
Our Lady Peace, Healthy in Paranoid Times
Hrmmm....
Aim at foot, pull trigger (Score:5, Informative)
From the article: "Sony's move is the latest effort by the entertainment companies to rely on controversial 'digital rights management' (DRM) technologies to reverse a steady drop in sales that the industry attributes in large part to piracy facilitated by online music and movie file-sharing networks like Kazaa and Limewire."
Yeah, because installing secretive, privacy-invading software on your computer is sure to stimulate CD sales.
And the uninstall process [sysinternals.com] is a privacy invasion too... you gotta fill out an online form, check your email for a URL to ANOTHER online form, then get the uninstaller. And while the uninstaller gets rid of the XCP2 Aurora [xcp-aurora.com], it simultaneously installs another DRM (MediaJam). Nice. Sony, how I love thee. You're so sinister.
Re:Aim at foot, pull trigger (Score:3, Interesting)
Guess I'll get the next Nintendo Game Cube instead.
Boycotting DRM *forever* (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Boycotting DRM *forever* - EBAY! (Score:4, Informative)
There are already 10's of millions of non-TPC computers in the world. You should be able to live the rest of your life buying cheap used computers off of eBay to use.
Did you look at the list of "protected" CDs? (Score:5, Funny)
If you were really serious about XCP as a means to prevent illicit copying, in order to protect your revenue, how about applying it to music that people would want to download?
Re:Did you look at the list of "protected" CDs? (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, one could argue that, people which know how to actually copy CD's are the ones that do not listen to that music (i.e. the not average J6Pack). But, some of them use their knowledge to pirate & sell the illegal copies. I presume (*I hope*) those are the persons which sony was aiming when a
Serious work issue (Score:3, Insightful)
HELLO SONY! You are making your stuff unusable! Cease & desist, and all that.
Re:Serious work issue (Score:4, Interesting)
Problem "solved"
Caveat emptor! (read label, avoid zombie un-CDs)
Nice list of CDs.. (Score:2, Informative)
Celine Dion, On ne Change Pas (Epic)
Neil Diamond, 12 Songs (Columbia)
Our Lady Peace, Healthy in Paranoid Times (Columbia)
Chris Botti, To Love Again (Columbia)
Van Zant, Get Right with the Man (Columbia)
Switchfoot, Nothing is Sound (Columbia)
The Coral, The Invisible Invasion (Columbia)
Acceptance, Phantoms (Columbia)
Susie Suh, Susie Suh (Epic)
Amerie, Touch (Columbia)
Life of Agony, Broken Valley (Epic)
Horace Silver Quintet, Silver's Blue (Epic Legacy)
Gerry Mulligan, Jeru (Columbi
Will California also sue ... (Score:2)
DMCA defense? (Score:5, Insightful)
in similar news (Score:5, Informative)
For Everything Else There's... (Score:5, Funny)
- Patch to water-down DRM rootkit: $5,000,000
- Top notch lawyers to sue pirates: $100,000,000
- Being sued by the only legitimate users you have: Priceless.
There are some thought processes money can't buy. For everything else there's MasterTard (tm).
I see stupid people. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I love the fact that Sony wants to sell me a MP3 player and MP3 compatable CD and DVD players, but doesn't want me to actually USE the damn things to listen to thier music.
Go Figure.
The other stupid thing is the simple fact that there is no copy protection that has lasted more than 2 weeks before it was cracked, and at times in the most embarrasing way imaginable.
The one that cost millions to develop and was cracked using a $1.25 Sharpie marker jumps to mind.
Frankly I hope the music industry dies. I'm just so utterly sick to death about the whole goddamn thing I want it gone.
Phoenix
I actually bought one of these... (Score:3, Informative)
Besides putting a personal ban on buying any more Sony junk, and doing my best to avoid buying any albums on their label, I will also be writing to the artist and urging others to do the same.
Re:I actually bought one of these... (Score:5, Funny)
Funny, same thing happens when my wife plays the Celine Dion CD. But I think in my case, the horrible racket is the intended output.
ALCEI claims rootkit is a virus (Score:5, Interesting)
This opens another plan of attack which I think will have more chance of succeeding (at least for public mind-share. I can't judge the legal value of the argument).
Two thoughts (Score:3, Interesting)
2) Here's a link [sonymusic.com] where you can communicate to Sony how you feel about the rootkit situation. I used this link to send the following to Sony: I didn't submit this anonymously. Here is the email reply they sent me (pretty much a form letter): The most helpful thing about the faq was seeing which record labels are Sony. Unfortunately, Columbia Records is one of them - so I won't be buying the new System of A Down album when it comes out in a couple of weeks. That hurts, but in good conscience I just can't do business with Sony. If people buy Sony products in spite of this, Sony wins. So, no System CD for me, no PS3 for you gamers, no Vaio for you Mac-wannabes, etc. Don't just complain - let them know why you're boycotting, then actually do it.
Re:Two thoughts (Score:3, Interesting)
Dude, I used to be like you - only 5 years ago shifted. It was Tom was pissed that Napster users got kicked out for downloading their album tracks, and Zach did that and all.
Now, Tom is a fat sell-out on Audioslave and who knows where Zach is.
My point is how can you even trust someone whose music is being peddled by Sony? They're in the same list as Celine Dion and Van Zant.
Not only it is Lame, it contains.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not only it is Lame, it contains.... (Score:5, Informative)
*** IMPORTANT NOTE ***
The decoding functions provided in LAME use the mpglib decoding engine which is under the GPL. They may not be used by any program not released under the GPL unless you obtain such permission from the MPG123 project (www.mpg123.de).
Re:Not only it is Lame, it contains.... (Score:3, Informative)
*sigh*
As has been pointed out before, the static strings that are compiled into the program are just parts of the program that are LOOKING FOR LAME. It doesn't have any part of lame in it, it's making sure that you don't use lame to encode this CD. It's part of the so-called "protection". It's looking for a whole list of files and applications that it knows about in order to prevent them from being used to extract the audio from this CD.
No LGPL violation. Move along.
Copyright infringement? (Score:5, Interesting)
Also in the program go.exe their is an array called "largetbl", which is part of tables.c of libmp3lame. Can anyone confirm these findings?
LAME is licenced under the LGPL. Could this mean more trouble for Sony because of a license violation?
Suspicious Activity (Score:3, Funny)
And they really mean it!
Be rest assured Sony, that I will NEVER buy one of your invasive CDs.
Sony not found for comments... (Score:5, Funny)
Exploit claimed for Sony rootkit (Score:5, Informative)
[bitdefender.com]http://www.bitdefender.com/VIRUS-1000058-en--Backd oor.IRC.Snyd.A.html [bitdefender.com]
Naturally, they are promoting their software as protection.
sony hits Macs too! (Score:4, Interesting)
A reader followed up on the discovery that Sony was playing a dirty trick on its customers, secretly installing a malware-style "root kit" on their computers via audio CDs:
I recently purchased Imogen Heap's new CD (Speak for Yourself), an RCA Victor release, but with distribution credited to Sony/BMG. Reading recent reports of a Sony rootkit, I decided to poke around. In addition to the standard volume for AIFF files, there's a smaller extra partition for "enhanced" content. I was surprised to find a "Start.app" Mac application in addition to the expected Windows-related files. Running this app brings up a long legal agreement, clicking Continue prompts you for your username/password (uh-oh!), and then promptly exits. Digging around a bit, I find that Start.app actually installs 2 files: PhoenixNub1.kext and PhoenixNub12.kext.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of anyone installing kernel extensions on my Mac. In Sony's defense, upon closer reading of the EULA, they essentially tell you that they will be installing software. Also, this is apparently not the same technology used in the recent Windows rootkits (made by XCP), but rather a DRM codebase developed by SunnComm, who promotes their Mac-aware DRM technology on their site.
so, Mac users have been safe up 'til now......
A EULA is a Contract? (Score:3, Interesting)
Just curious.
Correction: (Score:5, Funny)
Re:No more DRM discs from Sony! (Score:4, Insightful)
and just in California
Except that CA is so huge that to market a disc in CA that was different than the rest of the US just wouldn't be worth the cost. Especially since CDs are bought online, etc. No, if CA wins, Sony will end up dropping THIS particular DRM method. And others will be less likely to do something like it.
Also, CA isn't the only state with such consumer protections. Others will follow suit if this one works, or even before.
Re:Why all the attention on Sony? (Score:4, Informative)
PS. iTunes for Windows will turn on auto-run if you have it disabled.