California Class Action Suit Sony Over Rootkit DRM 508
carre4 writes "Lawyers in California have filed a class-action lawsuit against Sony and a second one may be filed today in New York. The lawsuit was filed Nov. 1 in Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles by Vernon, CA attorney Alan Himmelfarb. It asks the court to prevent Sony from selling additional CDs protected by the anti-piracy software, and seeks monetary damages for California consumers who purchased them. The suit alleges that Sony's software violates at least three California statutes, including the "Consumer Legal Remedies Act," which governs unfair and/or deceptive trade acts; and the "Consumer Protection against Computer Spyware Act," which prohibits -- among other things -- software that takes control over the user's computer or misrepresents the user's ability or right to uninstall the program. The suit also alleges that Sony's actions violate the California Unfair Competition law,
which allows public prosecutors and private citizens to file lawsuits
to protect businesses and consumers from unfair business practices. EFF has released a list of rootkit affected CD's and Slashdot user xtracto also has a list."
I understand the first two... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Nothing for you to see here. Please move along." (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway, It's good to see this happening. It's important to make sure that the major labels realise that while DRM is legal, there are limits to what people will tolerate - and damaging peoples machines is not something that people are going to tolerate.
Heck, with luck they might even water down Blu-Ray as a result. I can dream
Great, yet another reason ... (Score:5, Insightful)
If only someone would offer a digital download service with CD quality content.
The mp3's have no DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
Boycotting DRM *forever* (Score:2, Insightful)
Serious work issue (Score:3, Insightful)
HELLO SONY! You are making your stuff unusable! Cease & desist, and all that.
Re:I understand the first two... (Score:5, Insightful)
can't the judge throw this one right out?
He probably could throw it out but I hope the opposite happens. Toss a big fine and bad publicity to Sony for this. DRM went too far with a root kit and two wrongs don't make a right. Sony is going to have to learn this. But the worst may yet come for Sony, I for one will no longer buy Sony products.
And of all things, to remove the root kit you have to run an Active-X control from an untrusted site. Just what we in the security business tell people for good reason not to do.
So I support dragging Sony through the mud on this.
DMCA defense? (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
I see stupid people. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I love the fact that Sony wants to sell me a MP3 player and MP3 compatable CD and DVD players, but doesn't want me to actually USE the damn things to listen to thier music.
Go Figure.
The other stupid thing is the simple fact that there is no copy protection that has lasted more than 2 weeks before it was cracked, and at times in the most embarrasing way imaginable.
The one that cost millions to develop and was cracked using a $1.25 Sharpie marker jumps to mind.
Frankly I hope the music industry dies. I'm just so utterly sick to death about the whole goddamn thing I want it gone.
Phoenix
Re:"Nothing for you to see here. Please move along (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not simply a question of tolerance or not; some DRM may be "legal", but (IANAL) installing a root-kit on someone's machine without notification or permission almost certainly isn't. If they get away with this, it'll be because they have better lawyers, not because by any reasonable judgement it is "legal".
Of course, I hope it kicks up a stink for Sony too, but that's beside the point.
Re:Serves them right (Score:4, Insightful)
Now it's safer to Pirate? (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, the new shadowy status of $sys$ prepended files opens the door for all kinds of malware - these programs will use this "hole" to create hidden processes on people's home and workplace computer systems - a serious security threat to all the nations of the world. In essence Sony has facilitated a whole new class of malware, virus and worm propagation by assisting them in denying detection.
Being sued should be the least of Sony's worries.
Re:I understand the first two... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Now they done it. (Score:3, Insightful)
I know you are being funny, but this is just a REALLY bad idea for a company that produces technology driven products. Who do family members turn to when they are considering dropping money on expensive technology products for advice? I know mine turn to me. Guess what I'm going to say from now on when they ask? "Whatever you do, don't buy a Sony product." Mine listen to me implicitly when I give such direct advice especially if I have suggestions to offer.
Sony has made a mistake of epic proportions. Watch their sales numbers. I bet dollars to doughnuts it takes a drammatic drop.
Re:No more DRM discs from Sony! (Score:4, Insightful)
and just in California
Except that CA is so huge that to market a disc in CA that was different than the rest of the US just wouldn't be worth the cost. Especially since CDs are bought online, etc. No, if CA wins, Sony will end up dropping THIS particular DRM method. And others will be less likely to do something like it.
Also, CA isn't the only state with such consumer protections. Others will follow suit if this one works, or even before.
Re:Serves them right (Score:3, Insightful)
Are Sony CDs distinquished by appearing less often on rips?
The end of democracy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Serves them right (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I understand the first two... (Score:5, Insightful)
Howto: Get an apology from Sony.. (Score:2, Insightful)
After their response to my e-mail complaint when this issue first arose it's the only apology anyone can expect from them. Oh well, I use Linux anyway and all the CDs on the blacklist are either utter pish or by people I've never heard of but, still, the whole thing stinks like 3-week old Sushi.
Re:"Nothing for you to see here. Please move along (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I understand the first two... (Score:2, Insightful)
IANAL, if you want legal advice etc. etc..
I never heard anyone say I am not a computer scientist when they happily criticize code?
I am not an american, is this an amercan law or something?
Re:Buying a new computer (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I understand the first two... (Score:3, Insightful)
As far as I know, this is correct.
I've heard of people turning on their headlights (which also lights up the taillights) to scare the person behind them by making them think they're seeing brake lights, without actually slowing down. Personally I always drive with my headlights on, because it makes me more visible to other drivers (even during the day in good weather), and my brake lights are very sensitive (they come on as soon as my foot touches the brake pedal).
However, when someone is following you that closely, the best thing you can do (assuming you're not already in the rightmost lane) is to maintain speed, turn on your right turn signal, wait for a safe opportunity to do so, and change lanes. Remember, it's not a race; you don't get a prize for crossing the finish line before the other guy. Other drivers are idiots - let them be idiots, and stay out of their way.
Cool insightful geeky traffic stuff here [amasci.com]
Re:I understand the first two... (Score:4, Insightful)
First, you may never see the contract. Maybe you are tearing the shrinkwrap off a box of software with some disclaimers hidden somewhere inside. Maybe you're sitting down to use software installed by somebody else along time ago.
Second, the contracts are too long and complicated. It would be impossible for a company to conduct business if every customer who came in to spend $20 had their own unique multiple-page legal document that had to be scrutinized and accepted by a company lawyer. Not because companies are lazy or stupid but because it's economically infeasible. Yet somehow that's what we demand of private individuals (with no legal training) in dealing with dozens of companies every week. It's simply not workable, and gives the upper hand to businesses which conduct all end-customer transactions under the same contract (their own).
Third, even if you know all the jargon and have all the time in the world to read the contracts, you really can't interpret them without knowing the entire legal framework. Which parts are actually enforceable by law, and which are just wishful thinking by a company lawyer? Do you know all the applicable state regulations? How about for all 50 states, or do you never order things from another state?
The enticing ideal of two parties with mutual understanding entering a contract simply isn't very applicable to the myriad of little transactions we carry out on a day to day basis, and yet we pretend it is. That's why its such a mess.