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."
Before this gets /.ed, here's the text.
/.er's take on this vast DRM-wing conspiracy?
Quoth the EFF :
Now the Legalese Rootkit: Sony-BMG's EULA
November 09, 2005
If you thought XCP "rootkit" copy-protection on Sony-BMG CDs was bad, perhaps you'd better read the 3,000 word (!) end-user license agreement (aka "EULA") that comes with all these CDs.
First, a baseline. When you buy a regular CD, you own it. You do not "license" it. You own it outright. You're allowed to do anything with it you like, so long as you don't violate one of the exclusive rights reserved to the copyright owner. So you can play the CD at your next dinner party (copyright owners get no rights over private performances), you can loan it to a friend (thanks to the "first sale" doctrine), or make a copy for use on your iPod (thanks to "fair use"). Every use that falls outside the limited exclusive rights of the copyright owner belongs to you, the owner of the CD.
Now compare that baseline with the world according to the Sony-BMG EULA, which applies to any digital copies you make of the music on the CD:
1. If your house gets burgled, you have to delete all your music from your laptop when you get home. That's because the EULA says that your rights to any copies terminate as soon as you no longer possess the original CD.
2. You can't keep your music on any computers at work. The EULA only gives you the right to put copies on a "personal home computer system owned by you."
3. If you move out of the country, you have to delete all your music. The EULA specifically forbids "export" outside the country where you reside.
4. You must install any and all updates, or else lose the music on your computer. The EULA immediately terminates if you fail to install any update. No more holding out on those hobble-ware downgrades masquerading as updates.
5. Sony-BMG can install and use backdoors in the copy protection software or media player to "enforce their rights" against you, at any time, without notice. And Sony-BMG disclaims any liability if this "self help" crashes your computer, exposes you to security risks, or any other harm.
6. The EULA says Sony-BMG will never be liable to you for more than $5.00. That's right, no matter what happens, you can't even get back what you paid for the CD.
7. If you file for bankruptcy, you have to delete all the music on your computer. Seriously.
8. You have no right to transfer the music on your computer, even along with the original CD.
9. Forget about using the music as a soundtrack for your latest family photo slideshow, or mash-ups, or sampling. The EULA forbids changing, altering, or make derivative works from the music on your computer.
So this is what Sony-BMG thinks we should be allowed to do with the music on the CDs that we purchase from them? No word yet about whether Sony-BMG will be offering a "patch" for this legalese rootkit. I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by Fred von Lohmann at 12:24 PM | Permalink | Technorati
Endquote. It's interesting to see just how far Sony will go to alienate the tech-savvy user base. It's been a few years since I religiously started forbidding people to buy Sony products, because I wouldn't be assed to "fix my vaio, please" or to "take a look at my LCD screen, there are, like black dots and stuff on it", but my brother-in-law still got himself a Sony DAP.
The first thing I thought was, "Wow! The salesman actually managed to sell him something that isn't an iPod.", but come on. What's you
I know that Sony's actions here will make me think twice about buying a Vaio. I'm getting ready to buy a new laptop, and Sony does have some decent ones out there. However, I have no way of knowing that they're not gonna install this crap on the machine at the factory. Well done Sony. The actions of one arm are negatively affecting sales of another...
Be a real patriot: Question authority. Think for yourself. Formulate your own conclusions.
I'm not sure how Sony arrived at the decision to take over people's computers, but I can't see the morality of it. "People are stealing from us, so let's damage their property."
In meatspace, this would be called "vigilante justice," but I'm not sure that large corporations qualify for that label.
This opens another plan of attack which I think will have more chance of succeeding (at least for public mind-share. I can't judge the legal value of the argument).
Rubies and Pearls are not what you think.
According to this article (Dutch) on the CD Get Right With The Man of Van Zant there are strings from the library version.c of Lame. The following strings are found: "http://www.mp3dev.org/", "0.90", "LAME3.95", "3.95", "3.95 ".
Also in the program go.exe their is an array called "largetbl", which is part of tables.c of libmp3lame. Can anyone confirm these findings?
LAME is licenced under the LGPL. Could this mean more trouble for Sony because of a license violation?
IANAL, but I would love to be the one kicking the shit of out this EULA.
Suppose you sign a contract with me in which for $100 I promise to fix things so your neighbors stop complaining about your dog barking at night. We agree in our contract that you will limit my liability from anything resulting from my attempts to stop Fido from barking to $50. I then drive up to your house and put a bullet through Fido's head.
Now, does any person reasonably believe that you authorized me to shoot your dog, even if it's the most convenient way to accomplish what I said I'd do? Does any person reasonably beleive that consumers authorized Sony to completely undermine the security of their systems?
Or how about this: I agreed to limit any damage due to my use of Sony's software, but my system crashed as a result of my placing a Deustche Grammaphone CD in the drive. That wasn't my use of Sony's software, that was Sony's use of Sony's software to check up on me. Or my system is compromised by a hacker. That wasn't my use of Sony's software, that was the hacker's use of Sony's software. And don't say I promised not to hold you responsible for negligence. This isn't negligence it's misrepresentation. This is not "YOUR USE OF ANY OF THE LICENSED MATERIALS"; nor is it "THIS EULA" (see point above).
Sony should just own up to the fact this was incredibly stupid and irresponsible rather than bulling ahead and piling up liability for itself. Even at $5.00 a CD, it's going to hurt when the hammer drops. They should offer to replace all existing CDs with this software and provide technical support for one year to users who are affected by it.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.