Sony Sues Rootkit Maker 334
flyboy974 writes "Sony BMG Music Entertainment is suing the company that developed anti-piracy software for its CDs, claiming the technology was defective and cost the record company millions of dollars to settle consumer complaints and government investigations. The software in question is the MediaMax CD protection system, widely derided as a rootkit. Sony BMG is seeking to recover some $12 million in damages from the Phoenix-based technology company, according to court papers filed July 3."
$12,000,000 is peanuts. (Score:5, Insightful)
Responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)
The enemy of our enemy... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is actually a very good thing, because no-one involved will be immune to the consequences.
Dan East
Why stop there? (Score:3, Insightful)
Time to [try to] save face.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Sony isn't earning any points back with me on this one..
Taking responsibility (Score:3, Insightful)
But isn't this a bit like a bank robber who shoots a cop suing Smith and Wesson? E.g., it sounds like Sony knew (or should have known) exactly what it was putting on their CDs.
There's an idea! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)
Now they are trying to hold someone responsible for distributing to them.
But didn't they read the Click-through EULA? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Like a celebrity deathmatch... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Responsibility (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Responsibility (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems like they are bringing to the public light again. Most people I know have forgotten about this debacle (or never knew about it to begin with). If I was Sony, I'd try to bury the rootkit fiasco as much as possible, not have a large public lawsuit.
Seems like really bar PR. But then again, it IS Sony.
IT'S DEFECTIVE (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait, did anyone here think Sony complained that it was a rootkit, and that this was the defect? Get real.
Re:If Kim Jong Il Were President (Score:4, Insightful)
[/joke]
Re:$12,000,000 is peanuts. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think Sony should be the ones suing them, they contracted the software, and it was delivered to their specifications. Sony can't blame the people who wrote the software for doing what was asked.
If Sony didn't know what the software was doing then it's their own stupid fault.
If the software was illegal, then it's surely a matter for criminal court, and surely Sony shouldn't be awarded damages for being stupid enough to have this software written in the first place
Re:Let's have a closer look at that business plan (Score:3, Insightful)
A better analogy would be: if you pay a hitman to rid you of your nemesis, and he gets caught, who will go to jail? The answer: both you and the hitman...
Re:Sony BMG does nothing to hurt their reputation (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sony BMG does nothing to hurt their reputation (Score:5, Insightful)
Sony made the purchase from Amergence -- they are claiming, among other things, that Amergence delivered a product that did not operate as described.
If Amergence wants to sue Fortium along the same reasoning, they are welcome to -- though I think they'd have a hard time of it.
Who originally wrote the rootkit is of no relevance. What matters is whether Amergence falsely represented the product they sold to Sony.
Re:Responsibility (Score:4, Insightful)
Counterpoint:Sony is still ultimately responsible for what goes on their disks.
Counter-counterpoint:If Sony sends a software engineering firm a description for a project and the firm gives them a finished project, expecting Sony to have software engineers of its own to go over and affirm it is built to spec is a bit hard to swallow. They might have well just built it themselves in the first place. I'm sure you could think of a million examples, like a mobo manufacturer that orders capacitors that are faulty. .
Alright, before I go I'll say one more thing: How does this compare to Firestone v. Ford blowouts. Discuss.
Re:$12,000,000 is peanuts. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think they probably missed one important specification:
It was supposed to do it without anybody knowing about it.
Re:$12,000,000 is peanuts. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sony settled with various governments to avoid a lengthy legal process. If one of their suppliers was responsible for the illegal code, and falsely represented to Sony that the code was completely legal, then Sony sure as hell has both standing and reason to sue to be recompensed for those damages.
Yes, Sony was responsible for releasing the rootkit on their CDs. However, it is quite possible that Amergence should be held responsible for misleading Sony if that is in fact what happened.
Re:$12,000,000 is peanuts. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sony BMG does nothing to hurt their reputation (Score:5, Insightful)
It's probably understandable that technologists would assume that the original author of the software would be the correct target of the lawsuit. This is not so. Sony is not suing over the failure of the code (the code worked relatively correctly), but over the fact that the software was sold to them as a means of controlling their market, and it not only failed to do so, but cause serious injury to their business as a result. That's the fault of the people who represented this software to Sony as a viable solution with acceptable risk.
Re:Responsibility (Score:4, Insightful)
That's not really the way it works, in any company.
Too many deals are done for a large company to scrutinize every single product they buy. That's the whole point of using outside vendors; if they're going to put in the time to fully examine all the code, they may as well just develop the DRM themselves. Instead, the contracts are worded in such a way that it puts the onus on the provider of the product. That way, it's in the best interests of the provider of the product to ensure that what they're providing meets specifications and adheres to the letter of the contract. Otherwise, they know they're at risk of a lawsuit like this.
I doubt the contract here was any exception, which means Sony most definitely has the upper hand. And they really have to file a lawsuit in order to preserve their leverage against all of their other technology providers. This is how they ensure they get what they're contracting for.
Re:Sony BMG does nothing to hurt their reputation (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is not to say that Sony BMG's case has any merit. But then I, and everyone else here, do not know what the contractual arrangement between the two companies was and how the rootkit was presented to Sony.
Re:Responsibility (Score:1, Insightful)
Absolutely! It's the motherboard manafacturer's responsibility to ensure their product is in working condition before selling it to consumers, which means if they get a shipment of faulty capacitors (and they catch that) then they should go get non-faulty replacements before shipping the product to consumers.
Sony should have checked the software for obvious faults that would arise from general use before incorporating it into their product. Now that's assuming the software was faulty. What the software did and what I think Sony would have wanted it do (based on previous observations of Sony's behaviour and attitude) seem to line up perfectly. I guess it's up to Sony now to prove that it didn't want a 'rootkit' that could potentially compromise a system.
Re:There's an idea! (Score:4, Insightful)
If you hired a security company to burglar proof your home and were not present for the installation of land mines then you might have a case.
Re:I'm confused (Score:5, Insightful)
The Sony I used to love is dead. Management changes have turned it from a pioneering company into a slogging lumbering hulk that only wants more money, not customers' loyalty.
-nB
Re:Responsibility (Score:2, Insightful)
What happened was criminal. If it was Sony's specification, then whoever specified and authorized should go to prison, just as would have happened if this were some individual "hacker." If the contractor did it on their own then some of them should go to prison, just as would have happened if this were some individual.
In hopes of avoiding a series of "you must be new here" and "welcome to America" replies, I'm not saying I'm surprised nobody was punished. I'm just saying that's what *should* have happened.
Re:$12,000,000 is peanuts. (Score:4, Insightful)
What do you think went down? Sony asked for a noninvasive piece of monitoring software that could be easily detected and removed or blocked from being installed, and then they were delivered a fucking rootkit instead and they went "Dur, look fine to us" and ran with it? Fuck no. They tested it, inspected it, decided it was exactly what they wanted, and then ran with it. And they deserve every penny lost because of their actions.
Re:Sony BMG does nothing to hurt their reputation (Score:4, Insightful)
The letter of their contract will decide (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I'm confused (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I don't currently intend to ever purchase anything from Sony again. I suppose that they *could* change my mind, but not without understanding just how evil it is to put rootkits in people's computers. After realizing that, then they'd need to decide to provide genuine, as opposed to symbolic, recompense. Then they'd have to actually do the deed. That would bring them back close to neutral. At that point I'd start considering them again. Then I'd reject them because I don't like DRM. Currently I reject them for being treacherous backstabbing sleaze mongers who make equipment that can't be trusted because they either think rootkits are good or have neither morals nor ethics.
Once they recover their status to just being DRM vendors, then I can consider them. They'll still probably lose out against the competition, because I don't like DRM and won't pay extra to support it, but they'll have a possibility of a sale if they provide superior equipment at a good price, and if non-DRM software isn't discriminated against. But they'll need to prove that latter.
Re:I'm confused (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is why those who support that portion of the DMCA are enemies of freedom.
So to speak.