Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Sony Government Media Music Security The Courts News Your Rights Online

Sony Sues Rootkit Maker 334

Posted by kdawson
from the still-trying-to-recover dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sony Sues Rootkit Maker

Comments Filter:
  • by trudyscousin (258684) * on Thursday July 12, 2007 @09:37AM (#19837055)
    The rootkit software was developed by First 4 Internet (now called Fortium Technologies). I suppose that an inability to sue straight can now be added to Sony BMG's portfolio of stupidity and arrogance. I hope SunnComm (now called The Amergence Group), as despicable as its own efforts were, totally owns Sony BMG.

    With all these name changes, I wonder when Macrovision is going to change theirs?
    • by arivanov (12034) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @09:54AM (#19837275) Homepage
      With all these name changes, I wonder when Macrovision is going to change theirs. Probably on the day DRM is renamed as DCE as per recent industry execs suggestions. Digital Consumer Enablement.
    • by suv4x4 (956391)
      First 4 Internet (now called Fortium Technologies). [....] SunnComm (now called The Amergence Group) ... I wonder when Macrovision is going to change theirs? [....from another post:...] DRM is renamed as DCE as per recent industry execs suggestions. Digital Consumer Enablement. [...]

      Wow, I'm suddenly excited: this entire business DEPENDS on being able to change their trademarks every now and then!

      Now all we have to do, is wait that they run out of trademarks and implode upon themselves. Shit, there's quite
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by staticneuron (975073)
      The are suing who they purchased from. Why are you critizing a point that isn't even important.
      • First, Sony releases CD's with a rootkit, and I'm supposed to hate them for it.

        Then, they announce they're going to recall the CD's, and I'm supposed to like them again.

        Then, their "removal" program doesn't work as advertised, and I'm supposed to hate them again.

        Now, they sue the company that provided them with the DRM, implying that they didn't want a rootkit to begin with.

        So is Sony "good" again, or are they now evil for using the legal system? It often seems to be taboo around here for any company to su
        • by Craig Maloney (1104) * on Thursday July 12, 2007 @10:54AM (#19837945) Homepage
          I believe the formula works like this:

          Sony releases DRM protected discs = -5,000 pts.
          DRM Discs contain rootkit = -10,000 pts.
          Sony denies any wrongdoing = -60,000 pts.
          Sony realizes mistake = +100 pts.
          Sony releases patch = +1,000 pts.
          Public realizes cure worse than the disease = -5,000 pts.
          Sony recalls discs = +10,000 pts.
          Sony releases BluRay and PS3 = 0 pts.
          Sony sues DRM Manufacturer = + 1pts.

          So, in total, Sony is 68,899 points in the hole. I think its safe to say they're still pariahs here.
    • by Red Flayer (890720) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @10:41AM (#19837781) Journal
      Well, seeing as Sony did not have direct business dealings with Fortium, how would they have standing to sue them?

      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.
    • First off, Sony will likely win, but as always, it will depend on the specifics of the contractual relationship.

      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.
    • by gsslay (807818) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @11:05AM (#19838045)

      The rootkit software was developed by First 4 Internet (now called Fortium Technologies)
      Which is a totally irrelevant fact. Sony BMG's contract was with The Amergence Group Inc. If your phone didn't work, would you sue Alexander Bell or your phone company? Guess who you'd have more success suing?

      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.
    • >I hope SunnComm (now called The Amergence Group), as despicable as its own efforts were, totally owns Sony BMG.

      In dealing with product liability claims, which this is, you have the right, generally, to go after anyone in the chain of commerce you want. If they think someone else is at fault, they can cross-complain. This provision is good consumer protection.

      For example, let's say you bought one of the famous inferno model Mr. Coffee makers at Sears. You take it home, take it out of the box, plug

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 12, 2007 @09:38AM (#19837065)
    Being able to pass the blame to someone else is priceless.
    • New York-based Sony BMG, a joint venture of Sony Corp. and Bertelsmann AG, declined to elaborate on the suit. Sony BMG is home to names such as Bruce Springsteen, Carrie Underwood and Modest Mouse.

      Modest Mouse
      Worms. vs Birds


      Self pity me, it's so pitiful
      You can see that birds and worms don't get along
      Self-righteous me, it's so wrong and
      You can see that we don't have to get along
      Self pity me, it's so pitifull
      You can see that birds and worms do not agree
      And we will crawl
      (Will crawl)

      Sony = Bird
      DRM = Worm

      No, scr
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by B'Trey (111263)
      $12,000,000 is peanuts to Sony, perhaps, but it isn't necessarily peanuts to the other players involved. Personally, regardless of how I feel about Sony, I think this is a wonderful development. I suspect that a lot of DRM technology companies will reconsider how they do business based on this. Anything which might give them pause is a Good Thing in my book.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The company behind the rootkit used to be based just up the road from me in Banbury uk. Before the company website was taken down there were some nice BIO's of the directors. Would you know it they were all Sony Directors as well.

      This whole thing stinks big time
  • Responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fastest fascist (1086001) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @09:38AM (#19837069)
    Seems to me like the responsibility for the functioning of a product should fall upon the distributor. Of course, you could ask if Sony is suing more for the money or as a PR measure to try to shrug off some of the blame for the whole debacle.
    • Re:Responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AvitarX (172628) <me@brandyHORSEwi ... minus herbivore> on Thursday July 12, 2007 @09:44AM (#19837155) Journal
      Sony was responsible for distribution to the public.

      Now they are trying to hold someone responsible for distributing to them.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by cbreaker (561297)
        That seems proper if you ask me.
      • by ookabooka (731013)
        I think the real question is what exactly did Sony ask for from this firm. If Sony gave a vague description, then I think both would be to blame. If Sony gave a very verbose description, and all the offending stuff was added by the firm for whatever reason, then sure I think they should sue. If, however, the firm built it to Sony's description, then obviously they have next to no liability (maybe accessory to crime or negligence).

        From me weak understanding of corporate politics and keeping in step with t
        • Re:Responsibility (Score:4, Insightful)

          by ookabooka (731013) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @10:44AM (#19837811)
          I just thought of a counterpoint to my argument, and then figured out a counterpoint to that. . .so I'm gonna post both as a reply:

          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. . .whos responsibility is it? The mobo manufacturer because they are last in line before consumers?

          Alright, before I go I'll say one more thing: How does this compare to Firestone v. Ford blowouts. Discuss.
      • Correct, but the lawsuits should end with the company that decided to use it as a weapon (Meeting minutes will be subpoenaed to determine this, I am certain)otherwise, the lawsuits never end. Next up? Microsoft... they distributed the OS. Intel and AMD make the CPUs which executed the ugly code. Then I suppose they'll sue God next for making bits? This is silly. If Sony knew that a rootkit was being distributed, then they are as responsible as the company which made the rootkit -- IMO, more so because they
    • Re:Responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)

      by toleraen (831634) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @09:49AM (#19837221)
      It was Sony's responsibility. Hence they were sued by the consumers for it. However, if the company provided Sony with software that was not fully functional (overly functional?) without disclosing it, it's definitely court time. The PR certainly doesn't hurt though.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jbreckman (917963)

      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.

    • by mwvdlee (775178)
      It really depends on whether the producer of the copy-protection was upfront about how their product worked. If Sony has been properly informed of how it worked or if such information was readily available to them (i.e. whitepapers), they haven't got a chance in hell. Either way I'd expect a company of Sony's scale to put in the due diligence to ensure the products they buy are without legal issues.
      • Re:Responsibility (Score:4, Insightful)

        by badasscat (563442) <basscadet75.yahoo@com> on Thursday July 12, 2007 @10:54AM (#19837939)
        Either way I'd expect a company of Sony's scale to put in the due diligence to ensure the products they buy are without legal issues.

        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: (Score:2, Informative)

      by LintMan (515149)
      Sony is more than the distributor here. They are not Walmart selling the rootkit DRM to customers. Sony *contracted* those guys to create the DRM to their specifications, which almost certainly included requirements along the lines of "prevent users from disabling or removing the DRM or working around it". Surest solution: rootkit. It was probably pitched to Sony as "security features being embedded in the Windows kernel to prevent user tampering".

      And I sincerely doubt, based on Sony's comments at the t
  • by jjeffrey (558890) * <slash@@@jamesjeffrey...co...uk> on Thursday July 12, 2007 @09:38AM (#19837071) Homepage
    I'd be prepared to put money on Sony losing this case. I'm sure we've all seen this sort of thing before. Media Max will have warned Sony that the approach had problems, they will have a mail chain demonstrating that, but Sony's management will have bullishly insisted on the security features it offered while ignoring or not bothering to understand the warnings it contained about the risks. What are the chances even their own technical advisors internally warned against it?
    • by that IT girl (864406) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @09:48AM (#19837211) Journal
      That's the first thing that came to my mind--it's ridiculous for Sony to claim that they had no idea what it was going to do or that they actually thought nobody would care. Remember what Sony president Tony Hesse said about it back in late 2005?

      http://www.betanews.com/article/Sony_President_Roo tkit_of_No_Concern/1131475197 [betanews.com]

      Suuuuuure, Tony. That kind of flip attitude about it will not be exactly convincing.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by trudyscousin (258684) *
        Though I like your link, I like this one [rinkworks.com] more, just because Hesse's infamous remark is now enshrined in a fitting place (bottom of page).
    • Meh. Who here hasn't dealt with a vendor salesperson claiming their product is the best product ever, and that it has no side effects, whitens teeth, takes out the trash, clears up your skin, etc? Saying that Sony should have been completely aware of the software specifics of a piece of code they brought from a third party, a piece of code that they were almost certainly not even allowed to review, is disingenuous.

      Remember that Sony music is completely separate from the software part of the company...There
      • by jrumney (197329)

        Saying that Sony should have been completely aware of the software specifics of a piece of code they brought from a third party, a piece of code that they were almost certainly not even allowed to review.

        I've never worked for a company that would purchase an unknown product without first reviewing it. Especially when it is a large company like Sony doing the buying, and building it into products that they are selling under their own brand there is no way I can see that happening.

        • Oh sure, you look at it. You check to make sure it works, and isn't too hard to install. I've worked for a lot of companies; if you buy software, and it works, you just assume it's doing what it's supposed to be doing, and doesn't have a massive glaring security flaw.

          The whole point of buying it, is so you don't have to develop it yourself.
  • Watching this will be like watching a celebrity deathmatch between Kim Jong Il & George W Bush.

    You're hoping there's some way both will lose.
  • by Dan East (318230) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @09:39AM (#19837091) Homepage Journal
    The enemy of our enemy is still our enemy. In this case let them fight it out, and hopefully in the future all parties involved (content producers, technology developers, etc) will be too scared of financial damages to do something this stupid again.

    This is actually a very good thing, because no-one involved will be immune to the consequences.

    Dan East
    • The politicians will pass a law that holds these companies blameless, just like they pass laws that hold themselves blameless.
  • Why stop there? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by elrous0 (869638) * on Thursday July 12, 2007 @09:40AM (#19837095)
    To bad they can't sue the guys who made AACS [wikipedia.org] (since they're part of the consortium). I wonder if they'll be able to sue the people who developed BD+ [cryptography.com], once that gets owned.
  • by 140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @09:40AM (#19837099) Journal
    In a recent development the lawyers of Sony were bewildered. None of the documents they had on their computers relating to the contract and negotiations with MediaMax could be found in their computers. The lawyes were muttering, "cant believe it. I know I saved those emails and pdfs right in the hard disk. Where the hell could they be hiding?".
    • “Most people, I think, don’t even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?” — Thomas Hesse, President, Global Digital Business, Sony BMG Music Entertainment

      Well, Tom, I think you’re about to find out. Have a nice day, now!

    • by elrous0 (869638) *

      Where the hell could they be hiding?

      Next to Carl Rove's email folder on the rnc.org mail server?

  • I fully believe Sony knew what they were getting in to with this company. Sony also knew that if anything went wrong (like it did), they'd be able to easily sue this company which is a fraction of it's size.

    Sony isn't earning any points back with me on this one..
  • by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @09:41AM (#19837107)
    I want both Sony and MediaMax to suffer greatly. (It's ok for Sony to survive imho, but MediaMax should probably die and have its fields salted.)

    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.
    • by Barny (103770)
      The most important thing about it, how many more such companies will ever sign a contract with Sony again, fearing that if the big S find their work lacking "IT'S LITIGATION TIME!".
      • how many more such companies will ever sign a contract with Sony again

        Wow! Excellent point. Maybe NO company will ever want to put undisclosed root-kits in software for bigger companies (like Sony) because they'll fear litigation. Maybe Sony will never be able to get that kind of software from an outside company again!

        Oh, wait, you didn't mean that you thought putting the fear of litigation into companies selling evil software was a bad thing did you?

  • There's an idea! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rob T Firefly (844560) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @09:42AM (#19837127) Homepage Journal
    All those landmines I buried in my front lawn made me look like a total psychopath when they blew up all those postal carriers, girl scouts, and neighborhood cats. Apparently, I can restore my status as a fine upstanding member of the community by simply suing the manufacturer of said landmines!
    • All those landmines I buried in my front lawn made me look like a total psychopath

      You must be living in some sort of weird neighbourhood. It is considered normal around here, in the Anwar province of Iraq

    • by king-manic (409855) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @11:15AM (#19838181)
      All those landmines I buried in my front lawn made me look like a total psychopath when they blew up all those postal carriers, girl scouts, and neighborhood cats. Apparently, I can restore my status as a fine upstanding member of the community by simply suing the manufacturer of said landmines!

      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.
  • Worms. vs Birds (Score:3, Interesting)

    by neoshroom (324937) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @09:42AM (#19837137)
    New York-based Sony BMG, a joint venture of Sony Corp. and Bertelsmann AG, declined to elaborate on the suit. Sony BMG is home to names such as Bruce Springsteen, Carrie Underwood and Modest Mouse.

    Modest Mouse
    Worms. vs Birds


    Self pity me, it's so pitiful
    You can see that birds and worms don't get along
    Self-righteous me, it's so wrong and
    You can see that we don't have to get along
    Self pity me, it's so pitifull
    You can see that birds and worms do not agree
    And we will crawl
    (Will crawl)
  • What a pleasure to watch a fight between two assholes: in either case, you win!

    • What a pleasure to watch a fight between two assholes: in either case, you win!
      Yes, because it's the banana that loses. It ends up all squishy...
  • Blood Suckers (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Last fall, the company agreed to pay a total of $5.75 million to settle the litigation and resolve investigations by officials in several states.

    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 million > $5.75 million

    Will the real victims here (the customers) see this extra cash?

    The Sony Corporation
    Making cash off of their customer misfortunes since 1946

  • Defective by Design (Score:5, Informative)

    by Synchis (191050) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @09:44AM (#19837157) Homepage Journal
    Yet another great example of a Product with DRM being Defective by Design! Join the movement: Defective By Design [defectivebydesign.org]
  • by erroneus (253617) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @09:45AM (#19837169) Homepage
    ...that they do not warrant nor guarantee this software to be suitable for any function or use, especially for that which it was designed? That they agree to indemnify (love that word, it means you can't sue or hold responsible) the seller or maker of the software for any reason at all?
  • by CastrTroy (595695) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @09:45AM (#19837181) Homepage
    Let me be the first to say that this is completely stupid. Nobody forced Sony to put that software on the CDs, and I wouldn't doubt that Sony knew exactly what they were doing when they put that software on the CDs. If they didn't, well then, it's their own fault. Having them pass the blame on to the company that made this software just make me hate Sony even more. Sony has done so many braindead things in the past couple of years that it's no wonder that Nintendo stock rose above theirs, if only for a short while. From rootkits, to $600+ consoles, to sueing the people who sold them the rootkit, I just can't imagine what they'll do next.

    Disclaimer: I'm not saying I hate them because they released a $600+ console ( + because it's even more expensive once you buy a game and a second controller) but what I'm saying is that it's a really boneheaded idea, and I don't know how they ever thought it would have mass appeal, no matter how good the graphics are.
    • Regardless of our biases, Sony has a good cause of action here. The company sold Sony a lock, and Sony sold the lock relying on the company's representations that it worked, and was safe to use. Then the lock exploded and blew the customer's houses up. Sony paid up, and now it's suing the provider for product liability.

      The interesting angle here is that a software manufacturer is being held responsible for the failures of its software. It would be interesting if this suit was allowed.
      • by CastrTroy (595695)
        The question is whether or not Sony knew the lock was going to blow up before they sold it to their customers. The software didn't fail. It worked exactly as intended. And Sony knew how it was going to work. They decided to use it anyway.
  • So Sony is going to court and admitting that whoever set up this scheme from their end never asked, and was never told in writing that there might be some issues with this security scheme? All it's going to take is one document from the rootkit folks to sink this lawsuit. I'm assuming there's a paragraph somewhere saying "Our system is superb, but it has a few implementation details that might piss off every consumer"
  • No matter the outcome of the court case, this is probably a GoodThing(TM). The fact that DRM cost Sony millions of dollars and goodwill being splashed across the headlines will only make other companies more cautious when they consider taking similar steps.

  • by sjs132 (631745) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @09:54AM (#19837289) Homepage Journal

    "Section 938.334 Sub W.

    By agreeing to use this product to proctect your music CD's from piracy you also agree to hold us immune from any lawsuits, incurred directly or indirectly, due to your customers not liking this product."


    oops... Guess they should read those EULA's VERY CAREFULLY...

    At least that is what these companies would say to us...

    ":{ Grr...
  • IT'S DEFECTIVE (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Opportunist (166417) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @10:05AM (#19837399)
    I think Sony has a case there. It was supposed to be a rootkit, and rootkits are usually impossible to find. Some "hackers" found it, so it obviously has to be defective. If it was working as advised, nobody would've found it.

    Wait, did anyone here think Sony complained that it was a rootkit, and that this was the defect? Get real.
  • There may be some good to come out of this.

    If they sue MediaMax, this starts a ripple wave throughout the industry that scares off companies considering the DRM business only to discover the liability of your customer(s) suing you.

    So this hampers development of DRM technology. What sane company would go into business with a mega-corp that ligitates their suppliers?

    With DRM hampered, this reduces the effectiveness of copyright. Go Sony!

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by The Cisco Kid (31490) *
      Only one slight nitpick - hampering DRM isn't about reducing the effectiveness of copyright. Its about preventing distributors from overstepping the rights they have with copyright, and taking rights away from recipients of the distributed materials that copyright says they are allowed to have.
  • This is why as a general rule I don't approve, seek, or enjoy working on DRM related tasks. Fortunately, my job [sw developer at a crypto firm] rarely involves me working on DRM at all.

    In 10 years we won't even have DRM anymore as more and more of the public wakes up and turns against DRM [especially DRM that makes their lives harder than they need to be].

    Tom
  • by Micah (278) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @10:28AM (#19837621) Homepage Journal
    Just a question I've been wanting to ask for a while. How much has this whole rootkit debacle caused you to avoid Sony products?

    Shortly after it happened, I promised myself I would buy nothing with a Sony brand for at least a year. To my knowledge, I complied with that (though they do have tentacles in more things than you think, so who knows). I figured I need to end the boycott after a year, or else there wouldn't be any incentive for them to change anyway. I still haven't bought anything major from Sony -- the very name SONY screams to me "infected millions of PCs with rootkits, and tries to take away my Freedom!" But enough time has passed that I would probably consider buying a Sony product if it really were the right one for me.

    How about you?
    • Yes, I excluded Sony Ericsson phones from consideration, even though they have the best camera. I also ignore them for hifi, projectors, etc.
      I did buy a clock radio from them :D
    • by Tmack (593755)
      Personally, I havent found anything of theirs that has interested me enough to purchase. Granted, I havent made many purchases of the type of products they make (electronics, music, movies mainly) anyway, but I am in the market for a new DVD player (current one was a cheap-o, and it now overheats and stops playing unless I take the case off). While looking around for such a thing with ATSC tuner, every time I get to the sony one the thoughts of what that company has done in the past come flooding back into
  • The company that made the technoogy cant be held responsible for Sony's willingness to distribute the technology to the masses. Sony knew exactly what it was, and this company will prove it.
  • 1. The court finds that the software was indeed defective, etcetera etcetera, and awards Sony $12M, plus attorney's fees.
    2. The court also finds that the company sued was acting as the agent of another company, named Sony, and that it is that company, and not the one originally sued, which is liable.

    Sony pays Sony $12M. Everybody wins!
  • Works for me (Score:3, Informative)

    by phorm (591458) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @11:28AM (#19838387) Journal
    I really doubt it will help Sony's PR any to do this. Those that actually know about the rootkits will know that Sony is at fault. Those that don't will remain clueless. A rootkit maker will either be sued out of existence or tied up in court. Finally, it will probably make many think twice about doing business with Sony in the future, since nobody wants to end up as their new scapegoat.

    Sounds like a good plan to me, take careful aim at that foot, Sony!
  • by bigbigbison (104532) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @11:34AM (#19838475) Homepage
    The results of the class action lawsuit against Sony was that you could either get $7.50 and download an album or download 3 albums. Like every class action lawsuit I've ever been a part of from Sony all the way back to when Kodak brought out their own version of a Polaroid-style camera, the only people that ever benefit are the lawyers. The rest of us just get coupons for more crap from the company that caused the problem in the first place.

    If there is any justice then Sony will just get a coupon for more rootkits from the company and not any actual money.

Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurence of the improbable. - H. L. Mencken

Working...