Slashdot Log In
EFF Pushes Consumers to Claim Rootkit Compensation
Posted by
Zonk
on Sun Mar 12, 2006 03:39 PM
from the you're-on-my-list-sony dept.
from the you're-on-my-list-sony dept.
An anonymous reader writes "'It's time for music fans who bought Sony BMG CDs loaded with harmful XCP or MediaMax copy protection to claim their settlement benefits', says the EFF's Derek Slater in an awareness campaign that is urging those inflicted with one of Sony BMG's rootkit infected CDs to collect what is due to them. The compensation is a DRM-free version of the original CD, $7.50, and album downloads from iTunes, Sony Connect, and others."
Related Stories
[+]
IT: Sony DRM Installs a Rootkit? 801 comments
An anonymous read writes "SysInternals.com guru Mark Russinovich has a detailed investigation of a rootkit from Sony Music. It's installed with a DRM-encumbered music CD, Van Zant's "Get Right with the Man". (Mmmm, delicious irony!) The rootkit introduces several security holes into the system that could be exploited by others, such as hiding any executable file that starts with '$sys$'. Russinovich also identifies several programming bugs in the method it uses to hook system calls, and chronicles the painful steps he had to take to 'exorcise the daemon' from his system." This house is clear.
[+]
Sony Rootkit Settlement Gets Judge's Approval 187 comments
Lewis Clarke wrote to mention a ZDNet story about Monday's final approval of the rootkit settlement in the case brought against Sony BMG Music. From the article: "The agreement covers anyone who bought, received or used CDs containing what was revealed to be flawed digital rights management (DRM) software after Aug. 1, 2003. Those customers can file a claim and receive certain benefits, such as a nonprotected replacement CD, free downloads of music from that CD and additional cash payments ... At least 15 different lawsuits were filed by class action lawyers against the record label, and the New York cases were eventually consolidated into one proceeding. The parties reached a preliminary settlement with Sony BMG in December, leaving it up to a judge in a U.S. District Court in New York to make it official. "
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Summary correction: (Score:5, Interesting)
Should read:
is a DRM-free version of the original CD, $7.50, and DRM-laden album downloads from iTunes, Sony Connect, and others.
I'd also like to know if anyone is going to try for a real settlement - like a company having to audit their network after finding one PC rooted.
Re:Summary correction: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Summary correction: (Score:5, Interesting)
I completely agree with you - but itunes was not the only music service mentioned. From the EFF's site: CONNECT Music, f.y.e., iTunes, or Wal-Mart.
Whilst you might be prepared to trust Apple's DRM (and to be fair, I don't see much wrong with its terms either), read this thread [rokulabs.com] before trusting Wal-mart's. (I don't think I'd have to work hard to convince most people here that putting faith in Sony's DRM is a bad idea as well.)
The ultimate trouble with drm - any drm, is that it restricts your right to do what you want to do with your music. It's like giving a company the keys to your CD cabinet & trusting them to unlock it when you ask them.
Parent
Re:Summary correction: (Score:4, Insightful)
1) Unless otherwise clearly informed of the fact at the time of purchase, I have bought the licence in perpetutiy, not for a limited time - I do not expect to lose access simply because the company goes belly-up and the DRM prevents me from accessing it.
2) If I have bought the right to listen to the music, then I should be allowed to replace it if lost, stolen, destroyed or otherwise unusable to me for a nominal replacement fee. I should not be forced to buy a new CD at full retail simply because my daughter broke the old one.
Parent
Re:Not as bad... up front, maybe. (Score:5, Insightful)
Because people knowing about a fair(er) form of DRM and agreeing with it is SO evil.
iTunes' DRM is very acceptable to most people, as its limits aren't very strict, and it only applies to music. Trusted Computing or whatever bollocks they call it now isn't in the same ballpark.
Parent
Not true. (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple has changed the number of CDs you can burn it to, and the number of computers you can have the music on at the same time. Apple also force upgrades by requiring new software for new model iPods, so not updating iTunes isn't a viable way of escaping changes in the DRM permissions.
If Apple ever decided to build backdoors into iTunes, people would still have no choice but to upgrade and have all the backdoors affect all of their music, if they want iTunes to work with their latest iPod... or if they chose not to buy the latest iPod because of the backdoors, they would lose the ability to play all of their music on-the-go, since the music can't be played on any competing MP3 players.
Parent
Re:Summary correction: (Score:5, Insightful)
That would be a painful settlement. How many thousands/millions? of PCs were hit?
Parent
Apologize (Score:5, Insightful)
Companies who pull this shit need to be punished. Badly. Not a public tounge wagging followed by a pseudo-aplogy. They hire people to do PR and deal with that. When the company's bottom line is hurt, they will be more cautious in the future. And if it takes months or years of cases hanging over their head, the stock will suffer. And when the stock suffers, so do the folks at the top.
Anything else is just the cost of doing business.
Re:Apologize (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Apologize (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Compensation...? (Score:3, Insightful)
There needs to be a clear signal. What we're seeing here is just a buyout.
Very Little Compensation (Score:5, Insightful)
The best thing that may come out of this is that the rules on what companies can and can't do have been clarified.
If I install software on my machine, I expect it to behave itself, providing I believe that the company itself is reputable. Sony have damaged themselves through this.
Friends (Score:5, Interesting)
That doesn't seem fair. One CD could have infected multiple machines, but only the original owner gets "compensated" by Sony.
Re:Friends (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Friends (Score:4, Insightful)
They didn't tell you or the original owner of the malware on the disk, so they are liable because they were aware of its existence.
Parent
Sony get off too lightly by half (Score:5, Interesting)
Thats's the civil liability. Here in the UK what Sony have done is a *criminal* offence under the computer misuse act.
I hope we haven't even started to see the scale of damage this is going to cost Sony. Frankly I hope it bankrupts them.
If some 14 year old kid wrote this rootkit he would be staring at 10 years in jail.
Re:Sony get off too lightly by half (Score:5, Interesting)
It is supposed to be criminal here to under the CFAA (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act) [panix.com]. Of course, you will never see them charged like they are supposed to be.
B.
Parent
who is the ass master (Score:5, Interesting)
No thanks to ANYTHING from Sony (Score:5, Interesting)
And the "real" punishment, as far as I'm concerned, is that I had the opportunity to explain to a lay-person what Sony has done, why they did it and why they shouldn't trust Sony with their dollars ever again. I truly think it's a powerful thing since these people found out first-hand that it wasn't "their fault" and that trusting a big company like Sony to always do the right thing is pretty wrong. The opinion these people, and those they that hear their story, hold of a much lower opinion of Sony than they once did.
May Sony feel the wrath of the consumer!!
Re:No thanks to ANYTHING from Sony (Score:5, Funny)
Explaining it to the end users was probably a waste of time, since THEY didn't have to clean up their machines - they foisted it on you. Its the same as explaining to an IE addict why they should switch to Firefox ... over and over and over and ...
Besides, I see that there's a Celine Dion album on the list. I would argue that the world is a better place if everyone who bought that CD ends up with a non-functional computer.
Parent
Re:No thanks to ANYTHING from Sony (Score:4, Insightful)
That's how I explained it to Joe sickpack, and it worked perfectly. They hated Sony as much as we do and it's the truth.
Remember "Virus" is a scary word for the uninformed, they think it means "everything gone" or "credit card details stolen". It also does it quick enough for them not to get bored, hence perfect solution and the truth in 1.
Parent
My reply from the EFF (Score:5, Interesting)
I just read on your website where the EFF has agreed to settle with Sony BMG.
What a pathetic settlement that does nothing to assist consumers with the costs of removing the rootkit software and in addition, fails to act as any sort of a deterrent to Sony BMG.
Way to knuckle under for the little guy.
Unhappy in California
Hi ,
I'm sorry you feel that way and there may be nothing I can do to
convince you otherwise, since I understand some people want Sony
BMG's head on a pike and nothing less will do. I don't necessarily
disagree, but the law limits what we can get in the context of a
class action settlement. But I hope you'll at least give me a hearing.
First, you understand that the settlement *preserves* the claims of
folks who have hardware damage due to the rootkit, right? They can
still sue to get more and we're happy to help. The scope of the
settlement is for a different harm -- the harm of merely having
bought these bad CDs.
The main reason that we didn't settle those claims is that we haven't
had enough people come forward with proof that the CDs harmed their
computers to constitute a sufficient number for a class action. Class
actions require "numerousity" and "uniformity" of claims. If you
know of such people, please send them our way. They can bring small
claims actions. If we do discover enough folks with a common pattern
of harm, we will consider another class action.
Second, as for whether this will serve as a deterrent to Sony in the
future, I guess we'll see in time. Even if we had taken the case all
the way through to a trial and been completely successful, a court
would not be able to order Sony to cease using all DRM under current
law. So as much as I'd like to see Sony do that, this case alone was
never going to accomplish that goal.
Right now they have stopped pressing *any* CDs with DRM on them,
agreed to independent review of any future DRM (with a report to the
lawyers involved in the case), and agreed to allow non-DRM/non-EULA
versions of all of the music that was affected by the bad DRM. The
cash cost of the settlement is hard to value but Sony says that the
value of album downloads are $10 per album. If the 5 million people
affected by MediaMax get a free album download that's a cost of $50
million to Sony. That's before the $7.50 per album for the 3 million
XCP users and the extra downloads that they get, or the replacement
music for the MediaMax 3 users.
While the settlement terms are the product of negotiation and so
aren't perfect, I do think we got a good deal in the settlement for
purchasers of the CDs. Believe me it was hard fought and there is
much in there now that Sony started out by flatly rejecting. I
certainly understand if you disagree and want to try for more on your
own. You absolutely have the right to opt-out of the settlement and
bring your own action. I'd be very curious to hear how that goes if
you choose to do it.
Most important for us was:
1. stop production of any more CDs with the dangerous DRM on it.
2. get people non-DRM'd/non-EULA'd versions of their music (this was
strongly resisted by Sony)
3. do it quickly
4. get people some free music (or in the case of XCP, money) for
their trouble.
There's much more in the settlement than that, of course, but for the
purchasers these were the core goals.
Again, I appreciate your feedback.
- Show quoted text -
On wrote:
----
---- www.eff.org
Electronic Frontier Foundation
454 Shotwell Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
(415) 436-9333 x
If you want more blood (Score:5, Informative)
from taking them to small claims court and getting what you deserve. Most small claims courts have a very small fee like $10 for filing, 5 minutes in front of a judge and bingo you have got cash!
* damage to a computer or network resulting from interactions between the XCP Software or the MediaMax Software and your computer (e.g., damage to your hard drive);
* damage related to your reasonable efforts to remove the XCP Software or the MediaMax Software; or
* copyright, trademark or other claims arising from the development of the MediaMax Software or the XCP Software, or any uninstallers or updates thereto.
You may still sue Sony BMG for any such claims, whether or not you choose to take advantage of the settlement benefits. As part of the settlement process, Sony BMG agreed to waive its overreaching New York forum selection clause and $5 limit on damages, so you can take them to your local small claims court for your damages.
See here for more information about the small claims process.
Fairness Hearing Scheduled for May 22, 2006 (Score:5, Informative)
Don't forget -- claims MUST BE submitted by December 31, 2006. If you want to be excluded from the settlement, you MUST FILE before May 1, 2006. If you do not exclude yourself, you can attend the fairness hearing, at your own expense, and be heard by yourself or through your attorney.
I run the SonySuit.com website an plan to start collecting messages about the settlement to submit to the court as exhibits to my statement at the fairness hearing. If you have a comment about the settlement, send it to sonysuit@gmail.com [mailto].
The Linked article was bad (Score:4, Informative)
exert...
Why does EFF think the settlement is a good deal for purchasers of the Sony BMG CDs?
EFF agreed to the settlement because we believe it provides a good compensation package for the group of people who purchased the CDs but did not experience any hardware damage as a result. This means purchasers whose claim is primarily based on their purchase of the CDs and experiencing the hassle of having to patch or uninstall their systems, or in the case of MediaMax 3, having had files installed prior to giving you a chance to agree.
EFF's goals for purchasers of the CDs were to :
There's much more in the settlement than that, of course, but for the purchasers these were EFF's core goals and the settlement meets them all. That's why we think the settlement is a good deal and we endorse it.