![Sony Sony](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/sony_64.png)
![Government Government](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/government_64.png)
![The Courts The Courts](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/court_64.png)
![News News](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/news_64.png)
Sony to Settle Spyware Suit with Downloads? 187
modemac writes to tell us the Seattle PI is reporting that a judge has 'tentatively' approved a settlement against Sony BMG that would give customers free music downloads as compensation for the recent flawed 'rootkit' software on many new CDs. From the article: 'According to terms of the settlement, Sony BMG will let consumers who bought the CDs receive replacement discs without the anti-piracy technology and will let them choose one of two incentive packages. The first package lets consumers who bought XCP CDs to obtain a cash payment of $7.50 and a promotion code allowing them to download one additional album from a list of more than 200 titles. The second package permits them to download three additional albums from the list. The court papers said Sony BMG would try to offer Apple Computer Inc.'s iTunes as one of the download services available to the consumers.'"
Ah yes, let DRM make up for DRM (Score:5, Funny)
Strangely absent from the list, however... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Strangely absent from the list, however... (Score:3, Funny)
http://ts.searching.com/torrent/502496/Switchfoot_ Nothing_Is_Sound_FLAC_bySpiff [searching.com]
http://ts.searching.com/torrent/8476/Natasha_Bedin gfield_Unwritten_2_4_Pop_www_torrentazos_com [searching.com]
http://ts.searching.com/torrent/273422/Shelly_Fair child_Ride_2005_VBR [searching.com]
http://ts.searching.com/torrent/490112/Neil_Diamon d_12_Songs_2005 [searching.com]
http://ts.searching.com/torrent/254223/Amerie_Touc h_2005 [searching.com]
http://ts.searching.com/torrent/396926/Sarah_McLac hlan_Bloom_Remix_Album_Advan [searching.com]
Re:Strangely absent from the list, however... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Strangely absent from the list, however... (Score:2, Insightful)
Slap on the wrist (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Slap on the wrist (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Slap on the wrist (Score:5, Interesting)
I would guesstimate that this number is too low by about an order of magnitude.
Re:Slap on the wrist (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Slap on the wrist (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:Slap on the wrist (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Slap on the wrist (Score:2)
However, its actually quite easy to make the "no IP" restriction extremely painful. If you merely voided all Sony's current copyrights, Sony CD prices would crash
Re:Slap on the wrist (Score:3, Interesting)
Ideally, the damages should include time spent cleaning their rootkit off windows machines. What would best buy charge for that?
Re:Slap on the wrist (Score:2, Insightful)
I liked my writeup better... (Score:2)
Re:I liked my writeup better... (Score:2, Funny)
since now that it would be a dupe your chances of getting it accepted have just increased ten-fold
Re:I liked my writeup better... (Score:2)
The Value of an Album (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Value of an Album (Score:4, Insightful)
And this doesn't even take into account punitive damages.
Re:The Value of an Album (Score:5, Insightful)
If that's the case, then the music only costs them whatever cut the music store(s) would normally get per track/album.
In iTunes' case, Apple gets 4 pennies per track. The artists get 8%~14%, so even if Sony 'values' each album at $3.75, on iTunes, Sony is never going to payout more than 18% of the value.*
My guess is that Sony tacked on a free album to their $7.50 offer to pull onboard anyone who isn't on the online music gravy train. The 3 album offer is probably cheaper for them.
Either way, Sony doesn't lose much money on this.
*I realize I'm assuming the costs of albums are somehow related to the costs of individual tracks, but the idea is to set a ceiling on Sony's possible losses.
Re:The Value of an Album (Score:2)
In compensation, you either get 3 albums -OR- $7.50 + 1 album. We'll assume the value offered is considered by Sony to be equivalent. Let's do the math in plain English:
So 3 albums = $7.50 + 1 album.
2 albums = $7.50
1 album = $3.75
Thus, the value of 1 album according to the above assumptions is $3.75.
Re:The Value of an Album (Score:2)
Thus, the preview option when commenting.
Odd how the accounting works (Score:5, Insightful)
So when they let you download two additional albums, the combined value is $7.50. When you get them from a friend, they are suddenly worth $75,000.00.
Re:Odd how the accounting works (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Odd how the accounting works (Score:4, Informative)
But first, 1,000 people have to withdraw The post (from the previous article) I found that info in [slashdot.org]
So.... Sony isn't going to see any criminal charges, but you can definitely have a go at trying to get more blood out of them.
Re:Odd how the accounting works (Score:5, Informative)
At first I was unhappy with the settlement, but then I got to the following section:
I am not a lawyer, but I would like a small claims slashdotting of sony for this.
Remove the root kit, for someone that got toasted, send them a bill, attach the small claims form to the bill: Imagine the pain of forty thousand small claims actions against them.
So, if my reading is correct, only if the damage is greater than small claims court do you want to opt out. otherwise we can try for the first small claims slashdotting.
Re:Odd how the accounting works (Score:5, Informative)
For the people who don't know what that means... Sony is not going to be able to enforce those two portions of their EULA.
I'd like to know if "unconscionable" was the EFF's wording, or... because Unconscionable [reference.com] (with regards to a contract) is like asking for someone's first born child.
There is zero (0) chance that they're going to be able to send out lawyers to deal with every single small claims suit filed across the country. The net result is going to be a shit-load of default judgements against Sony (assuming people know to sue).
"unconscionable" (Score:2, Informative)
"Unconscionable" in contract terms is not about morality -- it simply means that the clause doesn't belong there by any stretch of the imagination. In other words, if party A drafted the contract, then it's totally unreasonable to expect party B to have foreseen that clause appearing in it, or to have signed the contract had they known the clause was there. The New York venue clause is an example because, when you're buying a CD, you simply don't expect to have to go to
Re:Odd how the accounting works (Score:3, Informative)
What about my time? (Score:2)
Re:What about my time? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Odd how the accounting works (Score:2)
So death by (forty) thousand small claims courts? I like it!
Re:Odd how the accounting works (Score:2)
I had one person who called me on this when it first came out, and after doing the research on what happens, I told them it would be better off waiting for a clean uninstall option. They chose to pay someone else $120 to reinstall windows for them (I would have done it cheaper). I have since passed this information on to them and advised them to force Sony to pay for it.
H.
I'm not satisfied until... (Score:2)
Yeah, that's great and all, but can you point me to the section where they promise to cooperate with felony computer trespass investigations? No? How about the section where they promise to make available copies of all data/information stolen from their victims' hard drives to the investigating authorities and then purge all such information from their own records? Oh, no section for that either huh? How about the sect
Re:Odd how the accounting works (Score:3, Interesting)
It depends on the state. My father recently sued a company in small-claims in Denver, and when the company rep. brought a lawyer, the lawyer was asked to leave. In many states, the person being sued MUST personally represent themself, or an actual company representative represent the company. There are a LOT of default judgements for failure to appear in small claims court, for this reason-quite often, the company just doesn't bother showing up.
Re:Odd how the accounting works (Score:2)
Well, while I'm not a lawyer myself, my guess is that if the lawyer is -also- the defendant (or are themselves the plaintiff), that status takes precedence. At that point, however, they're not there as someone's lawyer, they're representing themself, just like you are.
Re:Odd how the accounting works (Score:2)
H.
Hmm, Japanese corp, rootkit, digital Pearl Harbor? (Score:2)
You might want to check out MacDork's latest journal entry [slashdot.org] too ;-) (Yes, my write up got beaten by this one... but mine is still pending, so I'm hoping for a dupe at least...)
So.... Sony isn't going to see any criminal charges, but you can definitely have a go at trying to get more blood out of them.
I wouldn't say criminal charges are out of the question... It's just that we can't get any public officials to investigate the fact
Re:Hmm, Japanese corp, rootkit, digital Pearl Harb (Score:2)
Re:Odd how the accounting works (Score:2)
Sony installs a rootkit... (Score:5, Insightful)
^Wrong^ (Score:2)
read this post
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=173284&cid =14418213 [slashdot.org]
There are about a dozen +5 Insightful comments parroting the same thing.
In small claims court, you don't need a lawyer.
Just to cut off the "but the lawyers make all the money" comments.
Is this a safe CD? (Score:2)
It's Something (Score:2, Insightful)
Bad Justice (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish lawsuits could only be settled with cold-hard-cash or *serious*, displayable change in company policy to avoid future indiscretions.
Re:Bad Justice (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bad Justice (Score:2)
Since, you know, Sony BMG didn't lose any customers to this scandal. And they didn't lose any sales to people who are getting a free album or three. And there aren't enough people out there who buy Sony BMG CDs that would multiply up seven dollars to the tens of thousands of dollars range. And they're not losing any money at all to the amount of work they have to put into enforcing this plan they have.
Re:Bad Justice (Score:3, Interesting)
My system is pretty complex. If I had to pay to get it redone, it might run $300-400. The courts telling me that Sony only owes me $7.50 and a crappy album is going to make me start looking for a gun (figuratively).
Its ABSURD and the main reason I hate class-actions, it short changes the individual claimant.
Every single person in the suit should h
Of the corp.s, by the corp.s, and for the corp.s (Score:2)
Re:Bad Justice (Score:2)
Re:Bad Justice (Score:2)
Re:Bad Justice (Score:2)
Remember This: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5226945/ [msn.com]
Unless there's high demand for 'Entertainment Weekly's Greatest Hits of 1971' this is just going to be another inventory clean-out.
Re:Bad Justice (Score:5, Insightful)
Dunno. Why do "we"?
I remember a long time ago when some Americans got pissed at a company and simply raided their supply of products and threw them into a harbor.
Read all about it here [wikipedia.org].
Re:Bad Justice (Score:2)
They didn't like how Analog Rights Management was done - by the british.
Re:GOOD Justice (Score:4, Funny)
Remove the self-promotion option (Score:2)
Re:Bad Justice (Score:2)
Minnesota suit didn't. But, if not shrink-wrap software or a complete PC, it had to be something a clueless user could plug into the box -- no video cards and the like. Massa Gates bought us a refurb '02 scanner, a cheap inkjet and a couple Cheapbytes keyboards with Tux replacing the Microsoft keys.
Hey, it's something.
Re:Bad Justice (Score:5, Insightful)
For installing an exploit onto your system?
Twist the situation around... imagine installing an exploit onto Sony's internal network, without their permission, then get caught. Wanna bet the judge is going to let you off with a $7.50 punishment?
Didn't think so.
Appears to be reported by the *Associated Press* (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't doubt this story is accurate, but AP has had some pretty sensational blunders recently, so important to provide correct attribution and know how it was sourced.
Speaking of that, I'd love to know who originated this sound of freedom story [komar.org] ... and shake their hand ... priceless!
what kind of settlement is this? (Score:4, Interesting)
Second, TFA says more than 20 million CD's with MediaMax were sold. this "tentative" settlement and the $7.50 compensation, is clearly biased since how many of these buyers would go back to the store to claim their compensation?
Lastly, if >20 million CDs were sold, that's a *large* number of affected PC's. Sony might claim it has provided a "one-click" un-install software, the bug would still linger around for a lot longer
Flawed justice, anyone?
Just another in a long line of... (Score:5, Insightful)
I supposed most of you have forgotten that for all those machines infected with this parsite, it will cost the user about $150 per machine to have it removed or the machine reloaded and the equivalent of that in your valuable time if you are doing it yourself.
Where do these bozo's get off with this one is beyond me!!
Settlement bad for plaintifs (Score:5, Interesting)
(or other 'puter's) their ill-thought out DRM may have damaged.
When I buy a CD I want not only the recorded music at the highest quality
available to me, but I want the artwork and other extras that come with that CD.
(This doesn't mean that I don't D/L music from eMusic, Magnatunes, and
iTunes, it just means that when I purchase a CD I do so for a specific
set of reasons.)
I have been to the Sony site and the Sunncomm site several times each, and have
attempted to get any sort of reasonable response from both Sony (no
responses at all) and Sunncomm (one seemingly automated response saying
they will contact me.
I don't need any fancy settlements and I DON'T want an MP3 - the quality of
an MP3 is NOT the same as the quality of a standard CD track.
Personally I would be satisfied with a replacement CD with no added
software on it, and removal software that would leave my machines'
installed software exactly as it was prior to Sony/Sunncomm (with the
possible exception of modified dates and such, of course).
I don't want some 'Sony Surprise' in the months or years down the road that
will cause problems with any use I may wish to make of my computers.
Below is my last e-mail to Sunncomm, and their only response to me:
Their response to me: So far, there has been no further response from Sunncommsince that 09DEC autoresponse saying they would get back to
me shortly.
(I seriously doubt that I have any of the Sony distributed
software on any of my machines, because I do
NOT allow unauthorized installs to take place, but I
would still like to have the information from them to
allow me to verify this is the case.)
Anyway, the "settlement" appears to be simply a way for Sony
to protect themselves from protracted legal hassles at
the cheapest cost to them. It is NOT in the best
interest of any of their customers who may have had
their system software damaged by the software
distributed by Sony.
-- Tomas
Re:Settlement bad for plaintifs (Score:2)
Not if one has an original CD with only Sunncomm DRM code on it - those folks just get to D/L an MP3 copy of it, and nothing else - not even removal of the DRM software installed and running on their machines.
(This is the DRM stuff that installed software even if one clicked Hell No! when asked if the software could be installed on Mac OS X machines...)
--
Tomas
Re:Settlement bad for plaintifs (Score:2)
Yeah! That's it!
The only response I have been able to get from either Sony or Sunncomm is the one automated response from Sunncomm saying they would get right back to me, back in early December.
Personally I'm not that worried, but the "support" from Sony has been considerably less than stellar.
--
Tomas
So in conclusion... (Score:4, Insightful)
Users get to split the rest amongst themselves, giving them a whopping $7.50. Wow... that's almost the price of a large Chicken Lo Mein!
Go Justice System!
Re:So in conclusion... (Score:3, Insightful)
(2) Lawyers who handle these kinds of suits put up a lot of money up front, out of their own pockets. If the suit doesn't get certified as a class action, of if they lose, they are out that money. That happens a lot. In general, class action lawyers do OK, but no
Re:So in conclusion... (Score:2)
Stop complaining (Score:2)
This settlement doesn't affect your right to sue Sony independently and recover your total damages. You can opt out of the settlement and bring your own lawsuit, with your own attorney, before the settlement is approved. Note that this will either require you to pay for your own lawyer (quite expensive when Sony's lawyers are on the other end) or find a lawyer willing to take your case on conting
From the Drug Dealers' Handbook (Score:3, Insightful)
Rule 2: Replace bad product with good product.
The underlying rule would seem to be, keep them coming back for more.
Who gets punished? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who gets punished? (Score:2)
Re:Who gets punished? (Score:3, Insightful)
Possibility 1 : The consumer - not the ones getting the $7.50 each, but all the rest. The price of CD's would just get bumped a bit - done over the next year or so no one would notice much and the corporate budget would balance.
Possibility 2 : The artist - just add a small surcharge to the cost of producing their next albums. The alternative to paying it would probably be to lose the contract, so who would complain.
Possibility 3 : Sony Employees in general - delay raises and bonuses for a b
200 titles (Score:2)
Instead, it's unaltered copies (scratches and all) of 78RPM stuff (in Japanese) from the post-WWII period.
What value root? (Score:3, Interesting)
Well (Score:2)
Justice for managers vs. justice for kids (Score:2)
Too lenient... (Score:5, Insightful)
B) had it been anyone else, they would have been prosecuted for all kinds of computer-invasion-related crimes. Their equipment would be confiscated and they'd probably have to meet bail requirements.
C) the RIAA and MPAA, at the urging of companies like Sony BMG, have been lobbying for harsher treatment of people committing illegal copying. Why should ordinary people be lenient at all when we are told that, should we download music files or copy music, we are guilty of stealing and should owe thousands of dollars of restitution, if not be thrown into jail? Furthermore, there is NO acknowledgement that some kinds of copying (e.g., of a disc I bought and paid for) fall under "fair use" and, therefore, are NOT illegal. I haven't downloaded any music I haven't paid for or that wasn't free with the permission of the people who made it.
D) This whole thing occurred because Sony BMG, while protecting their legitimate copyright interests in this music, didn't care about the implications of destroying consumer's ability to legally exercise their fair use rights, or Sony wouldn't have deployed this stuff in the first place. They were reckless. And it isn't specific to a flaw in this protection method -- other methods degrade the quality of the data, and use all sorts of other stupid tricks. If they don't care about the implications of turning otherwise legal users into criminals if they circumvent these protections, then why should I care that they didn't *mean* to cause this degree of a problem?
E) Comments by Sony management's early in the process were pathetic. Most people don't know what a rootkit is, so why should they care? Right. Most people don't know what DRM is, but they do care when it prevents them from using the product the way they did for every other audio disc they purchased.
Let Sony roast in the legal flames for a while, until they are good and crispy. Until they acknowledge the underlying reasons this fiasco occurred, and commit to not deploying any kind of DRM that stomps on fair use rights or consumer's equipment, I say: NO MERCY. Persecute them to the full extent and penalty the law permits, just like they advocate for others. I don't care about the money or the free tracks, I want to see their policy change, and I want to see establishment of a deterrant that causes other companies to consider the same. It is high time the public stopped the erosion of their side of the bargain that is copyright.
One question: settling for more DRM? (Score:3, Interesting)
I for one would scream bloody murder and write a letter to the judge that it would be intolerable for Sony to "remedy" and "compensate" the victims of Sony's DRM by dumping more DRM crap on them. The class actions lawyers would hardly be acting in the class-member's interests in permitting such a travesty settlement. If neccessary I would opt out of this settlement and push for a second independant lawsuit. And yes, class members specifically have the right to reject any unsatisfactory settlement and to persue a second case.
-
Not Good Enough (Score:5, Funny)
My regime would require samurai honor code for public servants and corporate upper management. You wouldn't be able to weasel out of your responsibilities by donating the bribes you got from someone to charity once he got caught and was going to sing like a canary, either! No sir...
Ultimately, better than "winning" a class action (Score:2)
Most of the big class action suits end up paying the individual members of the suit a pittance once the lawyer fees are paid, and that after years of court battles. This settlement cuts the lawyers out of the equation, replaces the evil CD and gives the damaged person either 3 "free" (probably DRMed) digital albums or a small check and one download. I don't think these people were going to get more from the U.S. justice system -- the damages, while significant to the individuals ($100-150) would have been e
Prosecute (Score:2)
Once the financial harm is erased, someone needs to go to jail for this obvious breach of federal law. No slap on the wrist, no couple dollar fine, no free music. Somebody spends a few years behind bars.
SecurityGuy
SonyBMG deserved to disappear for this. (Score:2)
They deserve to die and have their back catalog turned over to the podsafe music network.
FUCK 'EM...
Open letter to Judge... (Score:3)
Imagine yourself in the following situation. You are the proud owner of a fine specimen of canine pedigree. In fact, to call it a dog would be a great insult. It is the love of your life and you have carefully trained it to be obedient & loving. You want it to live a long life so you feed it some food that is advertised as being very good for the health. Initially your pet loves the new food and everything is great. Then one day your loving pet starts getting violently ill & lethargic. You read that others pets that have eaten the same food are also sick. You contact the company and due to the public outcry they will send out an agent to help your pet. The company agent eventually comes out and after inspecting your sick pet he declares that he knows of a simple fix to get your pet moving again - he then takes a short run and kicks your poor pet in the rear. As your pet goes running off howling he claims the animal is now well and leaves. Soon after, you realize your pet is gravely ill and you must put it down. As you and other pet owners are discussing the outcome, you become outraged at such a heartless and cruel response from the company and start a large lawsuit. After months of talks and discussion you read a Judge will approve a settlement. You are thinking that the painful death of your beloved pet will not be in vain and that the evil company will be punished severely. Then you read the settlement agreement - the company will give you a free feral cat as well as one of two 'incentive' packages. Package one is $5 and 200 pounds of healthy cat food. Package two is your choice of three flavors of large boxes of healthy cat food. Needless to say you are again outraged and wish no end of poxes and plagues on the person and families of the Judge and company CEO.
Now, honorable Judge [insert name here], I ask you to please reconsider the flawed proposed settlement against [insert evil company name here]. The victims of this tragedy deserve so much more compensation, and [insert evil company name here] deserve so much more punishment.
Thank you.
The preceding is a fictional letter that would be sent if my computer(s) had been infected and I lived within the jurisdiction of this Judge.
The company written in the second paragraph of this article is in no manner representative of any company existing, having existed or existing in the future. In fact, the whole second paragraph is just an interesting fictional story inserted into a fictional letter for no reason at all save for extending said letter.
Re:Open letter to Judge... (Score:2)
Re:Open letter to Judge... (Score:2)
Differential Punishment (Score:4, Insightful)
If Sony does it to us, they can mea culpa and smile? Did they buy out the Mentos plant so they could get away with ANYTHING?
Since the rootkit installs even when you decline the EULA, Sony needs to be prosecuted under the same laws we enforce upon script kiddies. All of them. There is no compensation that a 15 year old kid can give Sony (how about a download, Sonycorp?) that would stop them from pursuing civil and criminal lawsuits, and there should be nothing Sony can do to avoid the same discussions in open court. People at Sony made a really bad decision, and they should pay for transgressions in the same way a 15 year old kid would: with hard time.
How will the users download (Score:2)
Sony will try their best! (Score:2)
Whatever. They just don't want to pay full consumer prices for 3 CDs worth of music and Apple won't give them a discount.
OK, who's actually filed? (Score:2, Insightful)
Additional downloads: Simpsons analogy (Score:5, Interesting)
From the episode where Apu gives Homer food poisoning (SNPP):
Homer is carted off to the hospital with food poisoning; he later returns to the Quick-E-Mart for reparations.
Hmm...
Artists? (Score:2)
So a rootkitted system is only worth $7.50? (Score:2)
Printing their own money for settlement (Score:2)
If ever I am found guilty of something like this, I hope I will also be allowed to print my own money with which to make reparations. Who determines the 'value' of said compensatory downloads? Who? The criminal? The Accused?! Damn! And for community service, I would like to insist that my services are so valuable that I should be credited 10 hours for every minute I work.
While "giving away" free downloads, seems lik
they still don't get it (Score:2)
I'd be telling them to get fucked.
This "offer" entirely misses the point - I'd press for criminal charges laid against whoever authorised the use of this invasive software - plus compensation in terms of MONEY (lost time due to machine downtime, plus
We need a special section just for Sony... (Score:2)
Monday: "Sony releases new patch which installs the fix to the the rootkit-uninstaller's rootkit, but makes user's head explode."
Tuesday: "Sony lawyers suggest compensating angry customers with Milkbones - 2 apiece. The Milkbones are stale and infested with wheat weevils."
Wednesday: "Sony CEO attempts offer of soul to Satan in
I thought "coupon" payments were no longer allowed (Score:2)
This problem was not about bad CD's, but about potential or real damage to customers' computers. A more
Remember, this is just one suit, not everything (Score:2)
2) The settlement still leaves room for members of the class to sue for damages to their computer.
Don't think of this as Sony getting off. Think of this as a first payment on what Sony is going to go through.
Registration required? (Score:2)
For this to even BEGIN to be considerable as a reasonable settlement, the 'free download' would need to be provided as a standard http or ftp download, with no proprietary software or reg
Re:Lets see.. (Score:2)
Re:I find it hilarious... (Score:2)