Canadian Sony Rootkit Settlement Stirs Controversy

An anonymous reader writes "Canadian law professor Michael Geist is reporting that Sony BMG Canada has quietly kept a key legal document secret as part of its class action settlement over last year's rootkit case. The document, which is not on the Sony settlement site but has now been posted on Geist's site (pdf), contains a series of bogus arguments about why Canadians are receiving far less than U.S. consumers."

Thanks for the root Sony

It was nice of them to throw that on their discs in some shabby attempt at DRM. I remember when I first found it installed on my computer. Needless to say, you're not going to find me purchasing anything else that contains a DRM anything akin to that.

Customers need to stand up and show media organizations that ther are limits to what we are willing to deal with.

Re:Thanks for the root Sony

Er, in regards to the article though, it is too bad that Canada didn't seem to push more than it did. The reason the US got more is because it seems they asked for more.

Re:

Actually, it would be because the *lawyers* asked for more.

Re:Thanks for the root Sony

but the Canadians should haved asked for much more... they already give their record industry per-cd and other media stipends as compensation for "piracy". Sony taking extra, invasive, illegal, restrictions in addition to the consideration they already get is gross contempt for the Canadian People, eh.

Re:Thanks for the root Sony

but the Canadians should haved asked for much more... they already give their record industry per-cd and other media stipends as compensation for "piracy". Sony taking extra, invasive, illegal, restrictions in addition to the consideration they already get is gross contempt for the Canadian People, eh.

Well, to be fair, how much respect would you have for someone who pays you tribute ?

Re:

Customers do need to stand up.. however most customers don't know what DRM is, and this is where the problem resides.

What customers need is to educate themselves, or be educated about such things so they can make an educated decision.

Re:

I'll go one better, I haven't, and won't by a sony *anything* after the DRM bit..

Re:

I was already boycotting Sony before the DRM, just because I'm annoyed at them for coming up with stupid proprietary formats. All this stuff (not to mention the PS3 debacle) did was deepen my conviction...

Nowadays, my opinion of Sony is about equal to my

Re:

Heh, well, I still use MS stuff, because 1) I'm stuck with it, 2) their development tools are pretty nice, and 3) they keep me employed.. ;)

Re:

I'm a student, and I had a summer job writing Microsoft-centric software. When this semester started, I had a choice to either continue working there part time, or to work on related software written by my university. I chose the latter, in large part beca

Re:

However, because it's a university setting, I'm free to basically do what I want with it (my job is to "make it work with a modern compiler (i.e., without Watcom since they're out of business)")... so I'm porting it back to UNIX as I go! : )

Wouldn't it be

Re:

I'm aware that Watcom has been open-sourced, but I'm still a bit leery about relying on it because it might die out due to GCC being so much more popular. And how good is it compared to GCC anyway?

Besides, the less compiler-dependent this code is, the bet

Re:

The difference is that it is easy to avoid Sony. At that in 45 yrs I've never given Sony any of my money and don't own one Sony product with the possible exception of a used CD or 2.
Whereas Microsoft has gotten too much of my money over the years even thou

Re:

It IS the year of the Linux desktop if Sony can install DRM on Linux without you knowing it, because with your hatred of Microsoft, you couldn't be running Windows.

P2P time

So far as I can tell, with the CD-copying levy etc and various other factors, there have been no cases of somebody being sued for downloading music in Canada. That being said, perhaps that's the best way to get a song distributed by sony without getting th

Proud to be a fart

Thanks, I'll keep beating my chest. Just 'cause the average person doesn't bother to protect rights X,Y, and Z doesn't require that I surrender them.

Re:Proud to be a fart

Just 'cause the average person doesn't bother to protect rights X,Y, and Z doesn't require that I surrender them.

It does if you live in the United States. If you don't think this is true, there's some men in Guantanamo Bay that would like their speedy trial.

~Rebecca

Re:

Big Brother? Check. Evening News 2 Minute Hate? Check. Telescreens? Check. We have always been at war with Terrorism.

Callaghan, RK-858110! You forgot the part where they dressed Emmanuel Goldstein up in a turban and renamed him "Osama".

Oops, I almos

Re:

I love George Bush.

Hmm? Are you gay or something? If not, then why do you have to explicitly state that you love him? Isn't that implied that you love our great leader? Do you want to hide something by pretending you support the worthy cause?

Why do I feel

Re:

If you've already read "1984", go re-read the last paragraph [buffalo.edu]. It'll make sense then.

If you haven't read the book, take a couple of hours. It's short, a quick read, and I promise it's worth it. The full text [buffalo.edu] is even online, if you have no money. But y

Re:Proud to be a fart

The people in Guantanamo aren't US citizens, they're enemy combatants. There's a huge difference. It's not like we can just release them back to the government they fought for, given that they didn't fight for any government. Until we finish the War on Terror, there's really no where to send them, so it's safer to temporarily keep them in Guantanamo.

It's a sad state of affairs that you felt it necessary to AC to say that.

Mr. Coward, you mentioned that the people in Guantanamo Bay aren't US Citizens. Considering that the designation "enemy combatant" strips you of your US citizenship (if you have it); I regretfully must concede that this is correct. However, in the past and in all previous wars, or peacetime; enemy combatants have still recieved the right to a trial, albeit in a military tribunal. Thus far, we have seen no such indication with regards to the Guantanamo Bay prisoners. In addition, anyone who has visited there or been allowed to inspect the facility (such as Amnesty International [amnesty.org]) have reported that they believe the prisoners are unlawfully detained and being tortured.

Being that it is highly unlikely that the military would want to show Amnesty International a worse picture of what is going on down there; the conclusion remains then it is either being presented honestly, or conditions are actually worse than we know. Unfortunately, none of the options (including the unlikely "conditions are better than reported") constitutes a retention of all rights that the average man doesn't care to protect.

In your own words, there's "really no where to send them" until we finish the "War on Terror". I consider myself to be reasonably intelligent, and this discussion has occurred more than once in the last few years. Still, I am at a loss as to how you would determine the end of a war against an emotion. Perhaps you would be willing to shed some light on the situation?

If there remains no definition for the end of said war; We can extract from that that in your eyes it is acceptable for a foriegn government to:

1) enter any country it so desires, without permission or declaration of war against said country AND
2) extract and detain indefinitely anyone living in said country without trial or even so much as a criminal charge.

Unless you'd rather we release them to attack the United States.

Please review False Dilemma [wikipedia.org]; then consider that a median ground option -- A fair trial by jury, without torture or multi-year delays -- is also available. If they are so guilty as to deserve the treatment in Guantanamo Bay, they would surely be found so by a trial. As it stands however, they're not even allowed council.

~Rebecca

Re:

It's worse than you say: Bushco is claiming that these aren't military prisoners - POWs - but then trying to put them through a tribunal. In addition, it looks like we aren't terribly selective about who goes there. From what I've heard, a lot of people in

Re:

IANAML but, As your parent posted, and I will expand, they aren't POWs. Prisoners of war are uniformed soldiers of an enemy nation, unlawful combatents the designation that most people, for whatever reason, just assume Bush made up to be a facist, is for

Re:

...enemy combatants have still recieved the right to a trial...

Yeah, look how fair we were to the German High Command after WW2...

You must surrender your rights

Thanks, I'll keep beating my chest. Just 'cause the average person doesn't bother to protect rights X,Y, and Z doesn't require that I surrender them.

Well, if majority is like the "average person" that doesn't bother, guess what!??

Government, by the People.

No, actually I mustn't

There's probably a Diet Godwin law I can invoke when we're talking about CDs and the digression is all about Guantanamo. But anyway...

Fair use etc. is the current law; it's not a sweeping change I'd like to bring about in the copyright system. It is Sony

Simple answer

Well it would improper to ask for more. We wouldn't want to feel we were being to pushy.

What a funny story

At the beginning of their statement, Sony BMG Canada says that Sony BMG Canada sources all their material from Sony BMG USA. Then at the end, they say that Sony BMG Canada will not use the specific technology that was the trigger for the injunctions in the USA - this is like saying, "we buy our apples from the USA ... we will make sure all the apples that we make will not have fruit fly in them."

I wish people would read these arguments before accepting them in their court hearings...

"Bogus" Reasons

The reasons include -

-The fact that the US called for investigation into the Sony DRM debacle and dragged Sony USA into court. Cananda did not, and to date has not.

-A large percentage of Canadian business with Sony goes through Sony USA instead of through Sony Canada.

Sony has essentially offered to not infect Canadian computers with their software. I am no fan of Sony, but if Canada doesn't want to go through the procedures of taking Sony through Canadian courts, they shouldn't get to reap the benefits of the results that such an action might produce.

Re:

So, as usual, the victim is expected to work their ass off (and likely pay through the nose for lawyers) in order to obtain any sort of justice. And in the end, it's just the lawyers who win anyways.

Is it any wonder so many people have lost all respect for

totally bogus!

An anonymous reader writes: the document, which is not on the Sony settlement site but has now been posted on Geist's site (pdf), contains a series of bogus arguments

Is it not completely obvious that this "anonymous reader" is either Bill S. Preston, Esquire, or Ted Theodore Logan?

Trusting Sony

The exchange of XCP CDs for identical CDs without XCP.

How about: The exchange of XCP CDs for identical CDs with other soul-sucking DRM you haven't caught onto yet. That's what I'd expect Sony to attempt first.

Trusting Sony to be good about this? Ha!

I'm a Canadian and I went shopping...

...for a laptop and I didn't buy a Sony. ...for a digital camera and I didn't buy a Sony.

I am going shopping for a flat-screen TV and a fancy sound system. Guess what - I'm not buying a Sony. I have only negative things to say about Sony to my friends and family.

Here is a big clue to the suits: If you're going to try to sneak (DRM or any) software onto *MY* computers, then you won't be selling me anything. Period.

Funny thing is, back in the '80s I lusted after Sony products and bought them almost exclusively. Funny thing, indeed.

Re:

looking at price and product quality, the premium of the Sony brand is usually not worth it.

My 32" LCD TV was $900 ($1300 MSRP) and has recently sold as low as $800. It includes an ATSC/QAM HD tuner.

A lower end 32" Sony LCD TV without HD tuner would cost

Don't tell us, tell them

If you're boycotting Sony because of their nasty DRM, try writing them a letter telling them, otherwise they won't notice a handful of hackers boycotting them, it'll get lost in the noise of economics. Maybe if enough people tell them why their sales are s

Re:

...And sadly, it doesn't matter. Many CCD and CMOS chips (sensors used in digital cameras) are manufactured by Sony, regardless of whether it's a Panasonic or a Nikon. I can't speak directly to computing components, but I'll bet Sony has a death-grip on

Re:

See I don't think boycott is the way forward. I think the way forward is to get a government with some balls so that whenever any limited liability company does anything even slightly wrong they are utterly destroyed in the courts. We fine them sums that t

Re:

My guess is he's going to get it from here [nintendo.com]. Personally I'm just going to ignore it. They significantly dropped PS2 prices over here, and I'm still not going to get one.

Exibit C *NOT* Missing from Sony settlement site

It's labeled Exhibit C to Settlement Agreement [sonybmg.ca]

Mod Parent Up

This fact combined with the fact that Sony has a somewhat legitimate point make this a non-story.

I look forward to the dupe.

Re:Exibit C *NOT* Missing from Sony settlement sit

That should be "no longer missing". It was missing when the EFF and Geist articles were originally posted. Right now, you can still see the version without it in the Google cache if you search for "Consolidated Amended Statement of Claim in Quebec" [72.14.205.104]. Goo

I don't see why this is interesting...

For those that haven't RTFDocument, it basically says two things:

1) Sony BMG Canada will not accept any binding injuction based on legal proceedings from a different country with a different set of laws, but...

2) Practically speaking, the actions of Sony BMG Canada will be the same as those of Sony BMG US (for technical/logistical reasons). That is, Sony BMG Canada will unofficially follow the terms of the injunction.

What more do you expect? I'm no fan of lawyers, but certainly no company is going let a precedent be set that their operations in one country will be bound by the legal system of a different country. The document is just saying to Canadian consumers "Look, we can't legally submit to this injunction, but we'll be playing by its rules anyway."

The whole Sony rootkit affair reeks, but this just looks like standard legal procedure - CYA of a fairly inoffensive variety.

Isn't what Sony did a _crime_ in most countries?

Unauthorized access and modification of computer systems?

Does that mean if I spread malware/trojans using CDs I don't risk any jail time?

Or it's only because a big company is involved that's why nobody is going to jail, whereas silly amateurs vandalizing stuff get in big trouble?

My suggestion to all you "hackers" out there, if you want to hack millions of computers and get away with it- work for Sony.

The spyware people seem to be getting away with it too. But it seems that Sony is a safer bet - guilty of everything lots of publicity, but nothing much happens to the people responsible.

Re:Isn't what Sony did a _crime_ in most countries

It might be [justice.gc.ca] in Canada. The trick is proving beyond a reasonable doubt that they did so "fraudulently and without colour of right".

Re:Isn't what Sony did a _crime_ in most countries

Or it's only because a big company is involved that's why nobody is going to jail, whereas silly amateurs vandalizing stuff get in big trouble?

Most silly amateurs don't have a legal department that could populate a small town.

Re:

OK so who in XCP is going to jail?

Or because XCP just made it and didn't distribute it so they are innocent in the eyes of the law?
And Sony didn't make it but distributed it so they too are innocent in the eyes of the law?

Ah, the benefits of outsourcing.

"W

Fair is fair I guess

They give us a crappy settlement, I won't buy their crappy products.

I have owned sony products, that has ended. The XCP fiasco is just the latest in a series of blunders on their part. The sony name used to be synonymous with quality. Now they are truly a clueless company that has deserved the beating their stock has taken. Anything I can do to drive it down more as a consumer, I will do and No.1 is buying someone else's products (which now are better anyway).

Sony sucks

Sony used to be synonymous with high quality cutting edge products. Now errr... they have a nice game console. The high-end audio is totally out of thier reach. They push overpriced middle market products which are often inferior. Depending on where you bu

Re:

Which is laughable considering PayPal have offices and premises in Australia. Fuckers.

Re:

Does that me us Euros should get more 'cause our s are worth more than the US$s?