Slashdot Mirror
California Class Action Suit Sony Over Rootkit DRM
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."
From the EULA :
:
NO SONY BMG PARTY SHALL BE LIABLE FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE, EITHER DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR OTHERWISE, ARISING OUT OF THE BREACH OF ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY, TERM OR CONDITION, BREACH OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY MISREPRESENTATION, FAILURE OF ANY REMEDY TO ACHIEVE ITS ESSENTIAL PURPOSE OR ANY OTHER LEGAL THEORY ARISING OUT OF, OR RELATED TO, THIS EULA OR YOUR USE OF ANY OF THE LICENSED MATERIALS (SUCH DAMAGES INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, LOSS OF PROFITS, LOSS OF REVENUE, LOSS OF DATA, LOSS OF USE OF THE PRODUCT OR ANY ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT, DOWN TIME AND USER'S TIME), EVEN IF THE SONY BMG PARTY CONCERNED HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. IN ANY CASE, THE ENTIRE LIABILITY OF THE SONY BMG PARTIES, COLLECTIVELY, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS EULA SHALL BE LIMITED TO FIVE US DOLLARS (US $5.00). SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES IN CERTAIN INSTANCES, SO THE ABOVE EXCLUSION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. THIS ARTICLE WILL NOT APPLY ONLY WHEN AND TO THE EXTENT THAT APPLICABLE LAW SPECIFICALLY REQUIRES LIABILITY DESPITE THE FOREGOING DISCLAIMER, EXCLUSION AND LIMITATION.
And this little bit too
Article 10. GOVERNING LAW AND WAIVER OF TRIAL BY JURY 1. THE VALIDITY, INTERPRETATION AND LEGAL EFFECT OF THIS EULA SHALL BE GOVERNED BY, AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPLICABLE TO CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO AND PERFORMED ENTIRELY WITHIN THE STATE OF NEW YORK (WITHOUT GIVING EFFECT TO ANY CONFLICT OF LAW PRINCIPLES UNDER NEW YORK LAW). THE NEW YORK COURTS (STATE AND FEDERAL), SHALL HAVE SOLE JURISDICTION OF ANY CONTROVERSIES REGARDING THIS AGREEMENT; ANY ACTION OR OTHER PROCEEDING WHICH INVOLVES SUCH A CONTROVERSY SHALL BE BROUGHT IN THOSE COURTS IN NEW YORK COUNTY AND NOT ELSEWHERE. THE PARTIES WAIVE ANY AND ALL OBJECTIONS TO VENUE IN THOSE COURTS AND HEREBY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THOSE COURTS. 2. YOU HEREBY WAIVE ALL RIGHTS AND/OR ENTITLEMENT TO TRIAL BY JURY IN CONNECTION WITH ANY DISPUTE THAT ARISES OUT OF OR RELATES IN ANY WAY TO THIS EULA OR THE SOFTWARE.
So yeah, they tried to get out of their corperate liabilities.
Several things are important to point out:
First, right now it isn't "California" as a whole suing Sony. An attorney has filed a class action lawsuit, and California citizens (and the world as a whole) will benefit. It would be nice if the California Attorney General would lend the government's support in an amicus curiae brief, but in media-rich California that isn't likely to happen. The representatives of the people of California haven't really weighed in on the matter yet, sadly.
Second, a New York law firm will be next to join the bandwagon. Things are heating up faster than the article summary indicates
Third, all of these lawsuits are going to hit Sony *hard*, right in the wallet. Any financial benefit they might have gained from their DRM will be lost unless the lawyers involved immediately drop their cases.
Finally, Sony really doesn't have any solid defense against the charge that they violated the Consumer Protection Against Consumer Spyware Act, *unless* the act specifies that spyware can only be classified as such if it submits personally identifiable information back to the authors or a third party. I'm not too clear on that regard- anyone have information they can add on that count?
Yeah, but companies always put that in. Ever go to the hospital and sign a liability waiver saying you won't sue them if the doctor makes a mistake? Malpractice suits still happen (and are won) even though the patient signed that waiver.
I believe the term is "exculpatory", and the way my legal environment professor explained it was this: "If clauses like that worked, we'd all be driving around with signs on the front of our cars that say, 'Not responsible if I hit you'." (IANAL, of course.)
Thomas Hesse, President of Sony BMG's global digital business division, showed up on NPR to try and sweep the entire thing under the rug.
Pathetic
95% of all sigs are made up.
Pestpatrol ad/spyware remover now detects and removes sony's DRM rootkit hats off to eTrust for that.
If you want to see how the 'logic' of Sony works, see this patent;
T O2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/netahtml/search-adv.htm&r=1&p=1 &f=G&l=50&d=ptxt&S1=(Kutaragi.INZZ.+AND+Sony.ASNM. )&OS=in/Kutaragi+AND+an/Sony&RS=(IN/Kutaragi+AND+A N/Sony
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P
For short version, see this story;
http://www.joystiq.com/entry/1234000420067137/
(Sony is patenting a method for games console discs to be tied to the console unit they're first ran on. No second hand game sales or loaning of games...)
IANAL, but I worked for one for more than seven years. I haven't the training or the interest to provide legal advice, but here we go:
i d=360
Exculpatory/Hold Harmless/Indemnity agreement is/are the correct term(s).
Exculpatory agreements are those contracts that attempt to create a pretext of blamelessness when a party might otherwise be typically held liable for damages in the event of some sort of failing on their part.
They're generally challenged at a state level and taken before the state supreme court. Generally speaking, the track record of such agreements is dismal. Wisconsin, for example, has recently heard some six or so cases involving exculpatory agreements, including the one provided along with Atkins. In each case, the court ruled that the agreements were unenforcable. Here's the Supreme Court's overturn of the trial court's finding of indemnity:
http://www.gklaw.com/publication.cfm?publication_
They're not always ruled unenforceable, but because they tend to be so overbroad, they're highly subject to being ruled that way. Generally speaking, this type of agreement is used mainly to frighten people away from lawsuits. The handful of people who will actually challenge them and the cost they create for a company is usually much smaller than if the company actually had to pay out when they did some harm.
I voted for Bob Dole once. That was the smartest thing I ever did since he lost.
When non-lawyers point out that they aren't lawyers, it's for the benefit of the reader so the reader doesn't mistake a layperson's opinion on a legal matter with expert legal advice. In other words, I'm saying above "I'm not an expert on this matter, so don't take what I say here and try to apply it in a court of law or you could be in serious trouble".
Lawyers have to be careful online about giving out legal advice because of ethical standards, so they frequently disclaim their statements (whether it means anything or not) with "this does not constitute legal advice". Providing certain advice could be construed as creating an attorney-client relationship. At that point, you could also be automatically in breach of attorney-client privilege because you would be posting your new client's advice on a public forum.
There's actually a significant amount of debate on the matter. By simply pointing out that you're not providing legal advice, does your advice become any less legal?
Disclaiming is sort of like those statements at the bottom of corporate emails that say if you receive a message by mistake you're obligated to destroy it immediately. Well, of course you're not unless you have a contract with the company that says otherwise. If I get a private email from somebody with damaging corporate details, I'm in no way, shape, or form obligated to destroy it, and I'm entirely free to share it with other people so long as I'm not breaking other laws by doing so (e.g. - committing fraud, espionage, etc.).
I voted for Bob Dole once. That was the smartest thing I ever did since he lost.