Slashdot Mirror


Sony's EULA Worse Than Its Rootkit?

jaaron writes "If you think the Sony rootkit is bad, check out the accompanying EULA! From the EFF's summary: 'If your house gets burgled, you have to delete all your music from your laptop when you get home. ... 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. ... Forget about using the music as a soundtrack for your latest family photo slideshow, or mash-ups, or sampling.'"

521 comments

  1. Don't pay for CD from these guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    By now I really think it's gotten to the point that it's more unethical to give money to a company like this than to download their music without paying. I'm not anti-copyright in general, but the music industry is just so evil these days.

    1. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by ScrewMaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, if you look at the history of that industry since the invention of the player piano, it has always been an evil enterprise. One could easily argue that they are a parasitic group riding on the backs of our most creative individuals. And perhaps that parasitism (they would call it "symbiosis") was necessary at one time, I don't know.

      The difference between the industry today, and our perception of it in decades past is that modern technology has forced them out into the open. Right there for everyone to see, peer-to-peer lawsuits, corrupt lawmakers, broadcast flags and all. The buying public can begin to understand the nature of the organizations that provide our entertainment, if such knowledge is considered important. I think it is, and obviously you do, but given that sales of CDs and DVDs are on the rise, even now, I tend think that most people simply do not. But from Disney to the RIAA to the MPAA to Sony, we have one of the most corrupt, dissembling groups of corporate thugs in existence anywhere. Well, perhaps they're overshadowed by the oil companies ... hard to say which is more evil. But fortunately I can choose where to spend my entertainment dollars: unfortunately I have to buy gas to get to work.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by ndtechnologies · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The Recording Industry tried to sue radio broadcasting out of existence back in the 1920's, because they feared that people wouldn't buy their records if people could listen to it for free on the radio. They were forced to evolve their business model, and have since learned that radio is their biggest method of getting music out. The internet is much the same. The Recording Industry is trying the internet and it's users out of existence as well. Soon companies like Sony and other labels are going to find out that they can not bite the hand that feeds them. Which is exactly why we created our online music store. It is for independent artists. Check out my sig for more info.

      --
      I have nothing clever to put here...
    3. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by uncoveror · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just boycotting Sony's music products isn't enough to fix this. We need to boycott every Sony product, even Playstation. Any other company that tries these tricks also needs to be smacked down by losing their customers. Continuing to buy things from such racketeers only encourages them to keep up the bad work.

      --
      The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
    4. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by mochan_s · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I trust an anonymous P2P peer more than I trust Sony, Microsoft etc. Everytime Apple releases a iTunes update I start asking myself it this is the release where the iTMS pervades iTunes (before you say anything, it's already half way there; before version 5 you could remove all iTMS items from iTunes, now you can only remove the arrow links from your database) or when they will give me a hard time on loading my MP3s onto the iPod. Each Quicktime or Acroboat or whatever software upgrades just seem to add more ads; more icons; more grabs at system prefs and software from their "partners".

      Now, I never trust myself to put a music CD or DVD into my computer. My reference speakers are connected to my computer and so I listen to my CDs most on my computer. But, who knows that's in the CD and how it was designed to screw with your computer.

      Yeah, even if I disable this and that, I'm sure Media Player keeps an eye out for all the CDs I put in my computer or will in the future and god knows what it will do.

      So, if I want a music, I trust P2P to give me a simple, clean MP3 file. I'm even afraid of downloading from iTMS and WMA files since now, they might be innocious now but, who knows, they could any day change to do nefarious "upgrade". Or maybe have latent tags and all that will one day become active as certain hardware standard enforcemens come into play.

    5. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by bmac83 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I've been fairly moderate about DRM in the past, until I purchased the rootkit-encumbered new Foo Fighters album. I placed it in my CD-ROM drive to encode some MP3's for my portable player, and I noticed a licensing agreement popped up. I hate those "software enhancements" on movie DVD's and audio CD's, and I did what I have always told my girlfriend to do when the InterActual ones come up: I closed the window without accepting the licensing agreement.

      The software was still installed on my computer. The dirtiest thing about all this, in my opinion, is that the "A" in EULA (Agreement) is nothing of the sort. If I had agreed to the EULA and got the rootkit with the garbled audio and everything else, I would say caveat emptor until the laws are changed or lawsuits create a deterrent. Even if the contract is 200 pages long, we should probably be reading them. Or, we should demand a law like what the credit card companies have that requires a standardized matrix that summarizes how we're going to get cheated, monitored, and butt-raped.

      They could have done this legally (we can talk about the ethics another day), but they chose to circumvent their own legal measures: the "yes" and "no" that is supposed to make all this work. Now, I'm glad to see that this will give the world a reason to say caveat venditor.

    6. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1
      Just boycotting Sony's music products isn't enough to fix this.

      Though that's pretty easy to do, given that Sony can hardly be said to be at the forefront when it comes to publishing music of any interest. One might even be tempted to suggest that Sony's rationale might be that if one is inclined towards the lowest common denominator as far as music is concerned, Sony might feel that they are justified in treating that consumer as the lowest common denominator in the marketplace too.

      Out of curiosity, I just had a good prowl through some of my music collection on CDs, and found only one on a Sony BMG label. It was one that was given to me a couple of years ago, and has probably only been played twice in that time.

    7. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by Techno-Hat · · Score: 1
      They've always been corrupt. Here's link to the story of Philo Farnsworth (the inventor of electronic television) and the crap the radio/record companies tried in order to steal and/or squash his invention.

      http://www.farnovision.com/chronicles/tfc-part01.h tml

      Same crap, different technology.

    8. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      unfortunately I have to buy gas to get to work.

      No you don't.

      1. Walk
      2. Bicycle
      3. Bus
      4. Train
      5. Work from home


      Do these not suit you? Maybe you need to move closer to your job. Can't or don't want to? Maybe you need a new job. I do not buy gas. You do not have to buy gas.
    9. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Easier said than done, as you very well know. It's easy to be critical, but given the way the market for engineers is looking nowadays, I'm sticking with my current job. I have a mortgage and all the usual bills and responsibilities. And that means that I drive to work, since the area where my company is located isn't a place that I want to move my family: the gang problem alone is becoming an issue in the residential areas surrounding it. There is no public transportation that will get me there in under three hours (I would have to take a bus to a train into the city, and then another train and a cab out to my job.) I'm glad you're in a situation where you can walk to work, but for the foreseeable future I will not be.

      However, if it's any consolation to you, I ran my own business about fifteen years, working out of my house. I only went on site a few times a month ... I used my van so little than it lasted for twelve years before the transmission finally blew. But times change, and now I commute.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    10. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by CGP314 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Check out my sig for more info.

      Why is your website's mascott a robot with a huge penis?


      -Colin

    11. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They were forced to evolve their business model

      By "they" you mean radio, right? Who ended up forced to only play certain songs at certain times with a myriad of various restrictions?

      I think the RIAA won that war, even if they lost the court battle. Of course, with the radio stations raking in the payola, it's hard to say who's really pulling the strings...

    12. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by idunno2112 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I agree.

      In the Internet age, do we really need the RIAA or MPAA? All any band/movie producer needs creative people and market themselves because the distribution channels, formerly controlled by the RIAA/MPAA, are now open to the common folk because the cost to produce such works is within the budget of anyone willing to work a minimum wage job and live in their parent's basement.

      I can produce, distribute and market my own movies/garage band on the Internet. If people like the product, it turns a profit. If the product sucks, it doesn't profit. Why did Barney the Dinosaur become so huge? Marketing. Do you think a parent who cares about their child would subject their child to the mind numbing antics of a purple dinosaur? Do parents who subject their children to Barney even watch and see what they are showing their children?

      The RIAA/MPAA is not dedicated to quality. Why? Quality is subjective, profits are objective: some business manager OK'ed the Hulk movie because, hey, everybody knows who the Hulk is so at least N people will go see it/buy it, plug that into the profit-o-lator, and bingo, they figure out they should at least break even, which isn't bad business practice because a bunch of people got paid in the process. However, such a scenario does not bode well for the "art".

      Similarly, at its height of popularity, Atari was making a killing with their 2600 console. Alas, they let piles of steaming crappy games get published in quest of more profits. Where are they now?

      Having a work earn its value spurs creativity and innovation rather than remakes and rehash. With hokey television series like Dukes of Hazzard being remade, what's next? The A-Team? Chris Tucker as Murdock, the Rock as Mr. T, Leslie Neilsen as Hannible and Michael Jackson as Face?

    13. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      However, if it's any consolation to you ...

      I don't need consolation. Frankly, I don't care what you do. My point was that if you really wanted to you could avoid buying gas if you wanted to. I'm not being critical of you for burning gas.

      You seem to agree that you could avoid buying gas if you wanted to, but the costs outweigh the benefits, and so you continue to buy gas. So it is not so much that you can't avoid buying gas as it doesn't make sense for at the present time.

      I didn't plan my situation. I'm just lucky that I don't need gas. I think that if you really wanted to you could keep from buying gas.

      I meet a lot of people who say the same as you, that they need to buy gas, and I think people need to realize that they don't need gas. They choose to buy gas because it makes sense. But if it's stuck in one's head that buying gas is necessary, they stop weighing the cost/benefit of gas -- and that is a dangerous situation. And by cost/benefit I don't just mean monetary, there may be environmental/pride/ethical concerns as well.

    14. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget the Pharmaceutical companies in your listing. There is another field where patents should not be allowed given that the best interest of the pharmaceutical companies (a lifelong treatment that doesn't cure, but lets them milk you) goes agains the best interests of the patients and nation (and governments) alike (weather the government pays for part of the drug bill, or hospitalization bill, or the state loses income for loss of productivity of its taxpayer base). Pharmaceutical research is not concerned about cures, and actually medications that show promis of very rapid improvements of some illnesses routinely get abandonned because they would not be economically interesting to the company. As such, patents actually interfere with the development of desirable medication.

      The governments would be better served to collaborate in spending on research directly, as it would prove more cost effective and more effictient for treating disease. Brazil has been find this out about research on medication to treat AIDS patients.

      But of course, patents are not copyright, and I really can't wait for the day both the public and the artists realize that they do not need the music industry for the transaction of artistic products. A well set-up website, which would take minimal comissions for each transaction would allow its maintainers to make money, the customers to pay much less for music, and the artists to make more money out of it to boot. Down with the parasites that serve no purpose any longer.

    15. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not really. The RIAA pretty much has a stranglehold on radio, and radio is not "on-demand". They have absolutely no control over the Internet (aside from trying to sue people) and all music is available all the time and they get no (direct) money from it. Sure, some people will like what they hear and support the artist, but I am not convinced most people will do this when they have near-CD quality mp3s. While I agree that the RIAA could do much more to embrace the Internet (iTunes has been fairly successful), I don't think that the Internet is "much the same" as radio, at least not in its current form.

    16. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by cffrost · · Score: 1

      ... what's next? The A-Team? Chris Tucker as Murdock, the Rock as Mr. T, Leslie Neilsen as Hannible and Michael Jackson as Face?

      Hey, good idea!

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    17. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe we should all do this

    18. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by ScrewMaster · · Score: 0

      Better yet, how about bringing back Lost in Space with Michael Jackson as the Robot.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    19. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by eosp · · Score: 1

      The public agrees with you--you see how artists who are better about "fair use" and allowing redistribution, etc., get more sales?

    20. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by Landshark17 · · Score: 0

      anyone willing to work a minimum wage job and live in their parent's basement.

      So why haven't more /.ers made independent films?

      --
      This sig is false.
    21. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by tylernt · · Score: 1

      Agreed. The vast majority of people just don't live in places where they can walk or bike to work or shop. This is largely due to post-WWII, automobile-centric urban planning. Fortunately, there is a movement back towards walkable lifestyles but right now it's pretty small scale and has a long way to go.

      --
      DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
    22. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Except you forget Sony is a multi-headed beast. Sony (the A/V equipment manufacturer) and Sony Computer Entertainment have absolutely nothing to do with Sony BMG, apart from being under the same group of shareholders.

      Besides, if you wish to tell Sony BMG that their music policies suck, how is not buying a PS3 going to get that message across? If the record sales drop dramatically but everything else stays the same that would be a much clearer message IMO.

      Besides, which up and coming console supports the greater evil? (hint: it's the XBox 360)

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    23. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by xski · · Score: 1

      The buying public can begin to understand the nature of ...

      You give far, FAR too much credit to the buying public. At least in the US.

    24. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by EdHockery · · Score: 1

      I recently bought the new CD from Stevie Wonder in a shop and I actually insisted upon checking the CDA logo on the disk before I handed over my money...

      --
      "Each man has his price Bob, and yours was pretty low...", Roger Waters, Amused To Death.
    25. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 4, Insightful
      modern technology has forced them out into the open

      If it weren't for sites like this and others, and independent researchers who expose these shennanigans, their unethical behavior would go largely unremarked.

      Even as it is, only the few in the world who actually keep up with stuff like this, know anything about it. Sure, CNN has a story on their website, buried deep, but there has been no mention on their headline news channel. (But we can always find out how long that blonde chick has been missing.)

      These people are allowing their journalistic principles (as if they had any) be corrupted by the business interests of their corporate masters. Sure, this is nothing new. But I should would love to see this story spread wide enough so that 95% of the people in the US know about it.

      --

      They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
    26. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      If it weren't for sites like this and others, and independent researchers who expose these shennanigans, their unethical behavior would go largely unremarked.

      And the reverse-engineering provisions of the DMCA make a whole lot of sense now, don't they. I suppose, though, it would be kinda hard for Sony to prosecute someone for reverse-engineering software that's illegal in the first place.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    27. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by drerwk · · Score: 1

      I think it might pay to not call them CDs. If the article at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4406178.stm is correct then they are not CDs. Fortunately, it is possible to avoid buying discs like this. Philips, who defined the CD standard and then made it widely available, has been very clear that these music delivery systems do not count as Compact Discs and cannot use the CD logo. As far back as 2002, Philips representative Klaus Petri told Financial Times Deutschland that "those are silver discs with music data that resemble CDs, but aren't". And online retailers like Amazon will tell you that what you are buying is a copy-protected data disc that may, just may, play properly in your CD player but will not work as expected on your computer.

    28. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 1

      I closed the window without accepting the licensing agreement. The software was still installed on my computer.

      A new trend? What's next: "We don't need to even bother with the EULA, since you don't have to agree to it. We'll just delete any software we think might be illegal..."

    29. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Fantastic Four would be a much better example than The Hulk. If anything the Hulk was too artsy for people.

    30. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by mstromb · · Score: 1

      As much as I dislike a lot of patent law, I think abolishing patents, at least with regard to pharmaceuticals, would be a bad idea. If you remove almost all monetary incentive to keep developing drugs, no one is going to develop them. People will go where the money is - corporations generally don't care about any silly perceived obligation to society. Also keep in mind that the government gets quite a bit of money from taxes on these corporations (even after random tax breaks), and so would have a double burden if all medical researched was to be funded by the government. And, if this trend of moralizing the government continues, certain paths of research that could have been pursued by private corporations will be blocked in state-sponsored research.

    31. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by Robocoastie · · Score: 1

      I hear you but I wonder rather than still fighting against their customers like this why not just finally kill off the CD and be done with it? Seriously, all MP3 players can now get an attachment to stream to our car stereos now. Sony could even start making car stereos that instead of CD slots in them they have a jack instead for your mp3 player. Then the "cd" they sell is actually just a data cd of protected .wma tunes. I hate what their doing and DRM too but its not going to go away so why not just make the shift now? They ain't fooling us anyway, PBS Frontline exposed a while back what the REAl loss of revenue they've had came from - people finally being done switching all their cassette music to CD - it had absolutely nothing to do with "p2p" or so called "piracy". Well this would force everyone to do what they force us to do all the time from lp to 8trac to cassette to cd. This time its from cd to protected digital. But the whole limited number of devices one can play the tunes on has got to go away that's just stupid and it only restricts us especially when you consider how much maintenance freaking Windows takes and ends up taking up an instance everytime we have to do it. Of course what I'd rather they do is make the artists get off their lazy skinny bones (mainly speaking to the pop ones here) and actually work for a living aka concerts instead and let the albums be what they've always been - supplements to the concerts and advertising for it.

    32. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by zCyl · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've been fairly moderate about DRM in the past, until I purchased the rootkit-encumbered new Foo Fighters album. I placed it in my CD-ROM drive to encode some MP3's for my portable player, and I noticed a licensing agreement popped up. I hate those "software enhancements" on movie DVD's and audio CD's, and I did what I have always told my girlfriend to do when the InterActual ones come up: I closed the window without accepting the licensing agreement.

      The software was still installed on my computer. The dirtiest thing about all this, in my opinion, is that the "A" in EULA (Agreement) is nothing of the sort.


      So send them a bill for the computing resources they used without your consent, and for the labor required to remove their unauthorized installation. If they don't pay, get a lawyer.

      If it's illegal for virus writers to distribute trojans, it should be equally illegal for the Foo Fighters.

    33. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Yeah, even if I disable this and that, I'm sure Media Player keeps an eye out for all the CDs I put in my computer or will in the future and god knows what it will do. So, if I want a music, I trust P2P to give me a simple, clean MP3 file. I'm even afraid of downloading from iTMS and WMA files since now, they might be innocious now but, who knows, they could any day change to do nefarious "upgrade". Or maybe have latent tags and all that will one day become active as certain hardware standard enforcemens come into play.
      Well, if you're truly paranoid, there's no reason to believe than an MP3 cannot have 'latent tags' in it either, encoded in a manner similar to (but different from) ID3v2, and perhaps mangled so you cannot see them there. So, as long as you use iTunes, WMP, or any other similar proprietary software, you cannot truly be sure that some DRM scheme won't be activated one day and suddenly apply to all your old files retroactively, MP3 or not. FOSS players are somewhat safer, not only because you can, in theory, check the code for yourself, but also because there's arguably no motivation for the people who write it to introduce such things. Then again, I'd watch out for any open-source media offerings from MS and Apple either way.
    34. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      I suggest we start an organized boycott of sony products. Contact anyone you know, especially people with well known and popular websites, and try to start a boycott! even if it fails, we kust need people to know we tried and maybe cause a bit of a stir at sony.

    35. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by mochan_s · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, if you're truly paranoid, there's no reason to believe than an MP3 cannot have 'latent tags' in it either, encoded in a manner similar to (but different from) ID3v2, and perhaps mangled so you cannot see them there. So, as long as you use iTunes, WMP, or any other similar proprietary software, you cannot truly be sure that some DRM scheme won't be activated one day and suddenly apply to all your old files retroactively, MP3 or not. FOSS players are somewhat safer, not only because you can, in theory, check the code for yourself, but also because there's arguably no motivation for the people who write it to introduce such things. Then again, I'd watch out for any open-source media offerings from MS and Apple either way.

      There IS a reason to believe that MP3 will always be good. The source code for an MP3 decoder is out there and it does not change from version to version of WMP or iTunes or whatever. You get an MP3 file, you can strip the tags or make the headers complaint whatever. You know exactly what's supposed to be there in the file.

      However, there are no source code or formal specification for WMP and iTunes AAC out there. It's totally closed and locked away. So, you get or buy a WMP or an AAC file who knows what's in there.

    36. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1
      There IS a reason to believe that MP3 will always be good. The source code for an MP3 decoder is out there and it does not change from version to version of WMP or iTunes or whatever.
      There is no single MP3 decoder. There is LAME and MAD, and those are open-source, true. But how do you know which one WMP uses? They most likely have their own. Also, you don't really need to replace the encoder - you can first read the file with your custom built-in one which only looks for 'hidden' tags, and once you've got them, redirect the stream to LAME or whatever.

      You get an MP3 file, you can strip the tags or make the headers complaint whatever. You know exactly what's supposed to be there in the file.
      Not really. There are plenty of ways to encode information in an audio stream without adding any visible metadata - ever heard of steganography? Then you can decode it with LAME to your heart's content, and still won't find anything.

      Also, AFAIK, there is a way to insert additional frames with arbitrary data without breaking existing decoders. Isn't this exactly how ID3v2 works?

    37. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, so we boycott Sony, and let Microsoft run the console market? How well do you think Nintendo will do against Microsoft's limitless capital? Not content with the lack of innovation in the browser and OS market, we should let Microsoft stifle innovation on the console market as well!

    38. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No more Sony in my house: computers, electronics, or CD's.

      I bought two Sony laptops a while ago. They looked pretty good, and were speedy fast. Also a bit expensive, but I expected to used them for a while.

      Not. After a while, the LCD died. They replaced, but used an LCD with dead pixels right in the middle of the screen. When I complaining, I was told that I was lucky getting a new LCD panel (even with dead pixels).

      Ended the warranty period, one of them overheats and cannot run for more than a few seconds before rebooting -- the rumor is that Sony used experimental Intel chips instead of the real thing. Anyway, Sony wanted over $300 to fix it -- I can buy a new laptop for a slightly more -- sure not Sony, but why would I wanted Sony after this!

      The second laptop still runs, but gets so hot that the box shows signs of burning out -- the mousepad is partially gone.

      Now, CD's with rootkits -- why is this company still in business?

    39. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by abandonment · · Score: 1

      damn minor chords...always knew they were evil

    40. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by BrynM · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I didn't plan my situation. I'm just lucky that I don't need gas. I think that if you really wanted to you could keep from buying gas.
      I gave my car away over a year ago (really, literally gave it away to someone). I stopped driving about 2 1/2 years ago. What happened? I saved about $700 a month on gas, insurance (another evil) and repairs. I got healthier from riding a bicycle and walking. I learned more about my area by taking public rail (busses still suck most everywhere).

      I did plan my situation and now I don't think I would ever buy another scam-mobile. I laugh openly at people who drive. When they get all purturbed or argue, I ask them how much they spend on insurance/gas every month. It usually adds up that they could have that plasma screen they want in just a month or two. I have my plasma screen and a bunch of other things.

      Want a 360? PS3? Trip to Europe? Park your car for a month or two and re-insure it as parked if you must.

      Want to stop the middle-east/big-oil/politicians from becoming so powerful? Stop handing them your money.

      Good for you for dropping the gas pump syringe. More Americans should.

      --
      US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
    41. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      These people are allowing their journalistic principles (as if they had any) be corrupted by the business interests of their corporate masters. Sure, this is nothing new. But I should would love to see this story spread wide enough so that 95% of the people in the US know about it.

      Well, I'm not so sure that yet-another-non-event in Aruba gets more coverage than RIAA/MPAA legal action because of any other reason than it has got a larger audience. The general public would rather know about a cute blonde than some legalese they don't understand. It's all about ratings. And that's a difficult argument.

      You could say that it's the news' responsibility to prominantly promote issues which could adversely affect the viewing audience, but it's the chicken-egg phenomenon. Does a news service with a large audience have a responsibility to discuss unpopular issues, or does such a service have a large audience precisely because they only cover popular issues. The live, real-life coverage of Congress on C-SPAN, for example, is probably the least viewed cable channel of all time.

    42. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the better to... oh, wait.

    43. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by tagish · · Score: 1

      And spread the word. It's all very well a few thousand geeks boycotting them but for it to really hurt we need to explain it (in suitably gentle terms) to the normals.

      I'm liking these shirts http://www.cafepress.com/mojocrash as a conversation starter - although I give it about two days before Sony have them taken down.

      We need to find a way to communicate just how outrageous this is to the people who form the bulk of Sony's market - i.e. NOT US.

      --
      Andy Armstrong
    44. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by Mistshadow2k4 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This parasitism was never necessary to the point they took it from day one. Why should a recording label have any copyright to music at all? That's not the way the book publishing industry was built. The difference is that the book publishing industry came into being in a different time, when it was considered an extremely unethical business practice for a publisher to try to take the copyright from an author. The music industry made that same practice a matter of course. If that kind of greed had never been allowed in the first place, we wouldn't have many of the copyright problems we do today.

      --
      I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
    45. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by jglen490 · · Score: 1

      While I have no problem with Sony protecting artists and performers (of course for Sony, it's actually their $ that they are protecting), it's their extremely agressive approach plus presumptive guilt on anyone who buys a CD that galls me. For this reason, we don't buy any Sony music CDs and no more Sony products at all. End of story.

    46. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by ndtechnologies · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's not a penis. It is the neck of a guitar. I can't believe I actually had to respond to a comment like this...

      --
      I have nothing clever to put here...
    47. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by StarsAreAlsoFire · · Score: 1

      Average cost to own a car in the US is right around $8500-$9000 a year. Includes gas and highway tax dollars.

      Lil' scary, no?

    48. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by StarsAreAlsoFire · · Score: 1

      I know I'm being a pendantic ass, but it is a point readers need to remember: even if you do not yourself purchase gas directly, you are still using lots and lots of it.

      Everything in the United States gets shipped by truck. EVERYTHING. It may be on a train or a plane for part of the trip, but at some point in time it was on a truck.

      I present /. with the challenge of presenting a counter-example ;~)

      Understand, though, that I do respect those who can and do manage without using a car. I considered living in London, mostly because of the tube. Loved the hell out of the few months I spent there, even though it was winter. No car. Never took a taxi. Tube and a few bus rides. And a lot of walking.

      Good stuff.

    49. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      I'll tell you why we need them, its because movie cost alot of money, and that money has to come from somewhere, if you limit artistic endeavours to people who can afford it, you're going to severely limit the creative pool. If your "art" costs 150 million dollars to produce, you best hope there is a business model in place to pay those bills.

    50. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Can't argue that point ... books have been around a lot longer than recorded music, it's true. Hadn't thought of it that way, but you're right.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    51. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by Digital+Pizza · · Score: 1

      Say, you should meet this guy.

      --
      We apologize for the inconvenience.
    52. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by przemeklach · · Score: 1

      I agree with previous comments that this is just giong to screw the average honest person. Just like with everything in software there is going to be a work-around found; unfortunately the average person is most likely not going to know how to use this work-around. So to summarize: paying public is getting punished while people who download music illegally will continue to do so. I am looking forward to the day when all bands publish their own music online. It doesn't take much money to do this, even if the band isn't computer savy you can hire a computer science student to do it for you. Hell I'll do it for you :-).

    53. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not a penis. It is the neck of a guitar.

      Looks like a penis to me

    54. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I should would love to see this story spread wide enough so that 95% of the people in the US know about it.

      What makes you think 95% of the U.S. *cares* about the issue enough to listen to the story the whole way through?
    55. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      I have my plasma screen and a bunch of other things

      I was with you until you said plasma screen. Ah, the American/Western dream.... to own lots of flashy possessions and die knee deep in credit card debt ;)

      Not that I begrudge you. Just saying that if I had the ability to ditch my car I'd probably bank all of that money I'd be saving. I didn't need it before, so why would I need it now?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    56. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by Suidae · · Score: 1

      Good to see people doing this work, but consider paying someone to customize the Mambo template, the default is a little tacky.

    57. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by mochan_s · · Score: 1
      There is no single MP3 decoder. There is LAME and MAD, and those are open-source, true. But how do you know which one WMP uses? They most likely have their own. Also, you don't really need to replace the encoder - you can first read the file with your custom built-in one which only looks for 'hidden' tags, and once you've got them, redirect the stream to LAME or whatever.

      The LAME and MAD are encoders not decoders. The MP3 decoder is pretty simple and there are a lot of implementations. Even a reference one was put out by Thomson who patented MP3.

      I can play MP3 with any old player. I HAVE to play WMA with a WMP (as a plugin or as a player) and iTMS AAC with iTunes. They can upgrade WMP and iTunes and break all the WMP and AAC files I have. If they do it to MP3, I can use another player on my computer and still play MP3 fine.

    58. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by BrynM · · Score: 1
      Ah, the American/Western dream.... to own lots of flashy possessions and die knee deep in credit card debt ;)
      Not my dream. I've never had a credit card and never will. 15+% interest to spend more money than I have has always seemed like a losing option to me. "Credit" ratings and trying to get a "better" credit score has always seemed a dubious construct to me - a fallacy as well. Sure that attitude has bitten me in the ass at times, but I simply don't trust most credit companies. Especially now that you can't wash it away with going bankrupt.

      I paid cash for my plasma (after lots of shopping for features and capabilities compared to price). I went with an Akai. I wish I had a picture of the salesman's face when . Ironically, it's hooked up to a Fedora based PVR machine.

      And yes, I have a very healthy bank account as well.

      Sadly you are right about most westerners (90+% I would bet). Like I said, not my dream. I plan to live a responsible, fulfilling life instead. Maybe even retire decently.

      --
      US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
    59. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1
      The LAME and MAD are encoders not decoders.
      MAD stands for "MPEG Audio Decoder". As for LAME, have a look at man lame - you might be surprised to find a --decode option there.
      I HAVE to play WMA with a WMP (as a plugin or as a player) and iTMS AAC with iTunes.
      No, you don't have to.
    60. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by misleb · · Score: 1

      I dunno, kinda looks like a penis to me too. Although it is somewhat appropriate seeing as the whole image of the low hanging rock and roll guitar is a bit phallic to begin with.

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    61. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by imdx80 · · Score: 1

      'I wish I had a picture of the salesman's face when.' when what?

    62. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by atari2600 · · Score: 1

      Yep, they killed me :(

    63. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by rjenkins1 · · Score: 1

      No, it's a penis.

    64. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I instead suggest to buy as many PlayStations 3 as possible when they get out, and chip them. It's known that consoles are sold under their manufacturing cost at least in the beginning, so if we can hurt Sony, let's do it.

    65. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by mochan_s · · Score: 1
      No, you don't have to.

      The iTMS AAC is not standard AAC - your standard AAC library will not be able to decode it. The WMA that you buy from Rhapsody, Napster etc or any new WMA is not the old WMA files that those decoder supports.

      Implementations of WMA can be made from patent filing but when it's protected as in the case of iTMS AAC and WMA from Rhapsody, Napster it is actually illegal to create decoders for them because of the DMCA.

      So, even if Microsoft gives me a free album of WMAs (which they did of Coldplay last week), it won't work with the decoder since it's protected.

      But, of course, if I download AAC and WMA files from sources who haven't protected it then it will play fine. Someone could adopt the MP3 file to be protected as well. My point was that I don't trust buying from iTMS and Rhapsody, Napster etc because the files are protected and the decoders not available (and illegal).

    66. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Not my dream. I've never had a credit card and never will. 15+% interest to spend more money than I have has always seemed like a losing option to me.

      Bravo. I've had my own problems with them. Which is to say that I had medical problems and given the choice between screwing over my local not-for-profit hospital and screwing over Capital One I decided to screw Capital One. I still don't really regret that decision.

      "Credit" ratings and trying to get a "better" credit score has always seemed a dubious construct to me

      I completely agree with that too. The only shitty part about living credit-free though is trying to buy a house. I can't say that I will live without a credit card but I can say that there is no way in hell I will ever again do business with the likes of Citi, Capital One and their ilk. I refuse to transact any sort of banking business with anybody other then my local credit union.

      Especially now that you can't wash it away with going bankrupt.

      I knew there was a reason why I filed before Oct 17 ;)

      Sadly you are right about most westerners (90+% I would bet). Like I said, not my dream. I plan to live a responsible, fulfilling life instead. Maybe even retire decently.

      Indeed. I wasn't attacking you personally either -- just the mentality that it's good to borrow/spend money.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    67. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by negative3 · · Score: 1
      This does raise another question: why does music cost that much to produce? I own records recorded and printed for less than $5k that sound infinitely better than the $100k+ albums of pop bands.

      Of course, movies (which you talked about) do cost more and that does make sense because there is a lot more involved in their production. But production costs can still go down. Robert Rodriguez made the Spy Kids movies for less than $100k each - he did the CG, sound editing, set construction, and a lot more himself. It's become a blated process, rife with excess and waste (much like some MS software...).

      --
      "Physics is to math what sex is to masturbation." - Richard Feynman
    68. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      and I have always viewed Robert Rodrigues through a double lens. On one hand he has really made a breakthrough in being able to produce movies on the cheap, but on the other hand, his moviesjust tend to look cheap and uninspired as a consequence. Rodriguez tends to make products not art, and the production quality of his movies are usually related closely to his budget.

    69. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by BrynM · · Score: 1
      'I wish I had a picture of the salesman's face when.' when what?
      Oops. I missed that incomplete sentence. Sorry about that.

      When he tried to talk me into buying the TV by applying for the store's "no interest or payments till ___" credit card, I took him aside and showed him $4,000 in cash. If I remember right, I said somethng like "THAT is my credit card - no interest and I pay you immediately".

      --
      US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
    70. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by BrynM · · Score: 1
      The only shitty part about living credit-free though is trying to buy a house.
      Exactly what I went through too. I eventually sold the house for a decent profit and now have an actual credit rating, but my interest rate sucked and the loan company was always hoping I would default (low end predatry lending). It makes me glad you stuck it to Cap1. I tip my hat to you for that.

      "What's in your wallet?" Nothing you have any rights to! Now stop asking me. ;)

      --
      US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
    71. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      The sad thing is that with nobody using cash these days he probably thought you were into something illegal ;) If you have the discipline to pull it off it can be amusing to take them up on their offer and stick the cash into a CD for the length of time that your loan has no interest and payments. A $4,000 six month CD at 4.33% (from Bankrate) would earn over $80 in interest. Of course this requires the discipline to pay it off right away when that CD matures and you also need to look over the contract and make sure you aren't screwing yourself (early payoff fees and the like).

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    72. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Exactly what I went through too. I eventually sold the house for a decent profit and now have an actual credit rating, but my interest rate sucked and the loan company was always hoping I would default (low end predatry lending). It makes me glad you stuck it to Cap1. I tip my hat to you for that.

      The predatory leading is what irks the hell out of me. You should see how many credit card offers I've gotten since I filed bankruptcy. Why? They know you can't file for another seven (now eight?) years and they will have their hooks into you that entire time. The even more disgusting part is that if you stop paying your bills they won't come after you right away (other then the usual phone calls). They will wait a few years so your account accrues that 24.9% penalty rate and then they will get a judgment against you. If you live in a state that allows wage garnishments then your only real option once they have the judgment is bankruptcy. Don't even try to talk to them -- I couldn't even get my creditors to agree to take the original amounts even if I paid them right now. They all wanted their interest which had accrued to more the original loan amounts by the time I was in a position to pay them. So fuck them. I filed Chapter 7 because I was in a position in my life where I didn't own any non-exempt property. They got nothing because they wouldn't be reasonable. It was the best thing I ever did.

      I don't hate the entire lending industry. I just hate the Capital Ones of the world that have no interest in you other then seeing you run up a massive debt ratio (at 0.75 debt to annual income you will be paying the interest for the rest of your life) so they can live off the interest forever. I do have respect for my local banks (not a lot of them left) and credit union. It's those loans to other members that are paying the dividends on my share certificates now that I've abandoned credit :)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    73. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by idunno2112 · · Score: 1

      If you don't pay actors $20M up front, a movie budget can go from $21M to $1M. Take out free food and have your star bring his/her own sandwich, and your budget goes down to $500K. Making a Hollywood movie is about excess and greed and it not "art".

      You can't predict a movie's profitability based on its cost. There have been many $100M flops.

      The RIAA doesn't fund music production, they set standards and policies and collect the money post-production. A band's website can collect the money, and a band can set their sound and quality of their MP3s. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA)

      The MPAA doesn't fund the movies, they set the policies and standards for distribution and broadcast, as well as fight copywrite infringement. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPAA)

      Based on the wikipedia articles, the MPAA/RIAA's role is to protect "industry" executives and companies, not the artists producing the actual works.

      My point is that a good product virtually sells itself: start small, and grow. The profits of one project funds another. Talented movie makers or musicians can make a living without the RIAA/MPAA.

      BTW, the pr0n industry overshadows the profitability of Hollywood blockbuster. I don't believe there are many $100M budgets per movie to produce that "art", nor do they need the likes of the RIAA/MPAA. pr0n movies are probably pirated more often than any Hollywood blockbuster. Anybody can be a star! ;)

    74. Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys by tedgyz · · Score: 1

      Why did Barney the Dinosaur become so huge? Marketing. Do you think a parent who cares about their child would subject their child to the mind numbing antics of a purple dinosaur? Do parents who subject their children to Barney even watch and see what they are showing their children?

      The funny thing is, I felt the same way as you, until... I saw "The Wiggles". I have 5 kids (youngest is 2 years old), so I have seen just about every kids show out there. The new crop is downright disturbing. It has left be BEGGING for Barney. While Barney is a little creepy, the content of the show is relevant and pragmatic for the target age group.

      In contrast, shows like The Wiggles, Boohbah, and LazyTown demonstrate bizarre, atypical behavior. As a parent, I don't feel comfortable letting my 2 year old watch these shows. They are stupid, disturbing, and vapid of any educational value. It has given me a much better appreciation for Barney.

      --
      "No matter where you go, there you are." -- Buckaroo Banzai
  2. SONY's modest proposal by yagu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Disclaimer: I hate Sony. Hate them, hate them, HATE them!

    That said, I was a little put off by the article and suspected it was a bit hyperbolic, designed to whip the masses into an unwarranted (unwarranteed?) frenzy.

    But, a funny thing happened on my way to show this critique a bit harsh. I read the actual Sony EULA. Wow! I'll still say there is a little hyperbole in the /. article but, on whole, it's true! Holy Shit Batman (probably get a DRM ding for that!).

    It's time to take SONY to the woodshed. Don't purchase anything with any SONY signature (this may require a little research, SONY makes ccd's for lots of digital cameras).

    I am saddened a little more each new DRM'ed day and more thankful each day I was alive early enough to amass a comfortable 1000-CD collection of music I can freely copy, rip, etc.

    I hope only better days for the X, Y, and Z generations. God Bless all of you.

    (Seriously, if there were some visible and concerted effort to boycott one of these leading vendors, maybe there would be some softening of this death march to control content (most consumers, contrary to popular belief, are willing (and DO) to pay for their media, don't abuse fair use priveleges, and are NOT criminals). I can't contribute much more against SONY since I swore them off from the MiniDisk debacle -- sold all of my SONY equipment, won't buy ANY SONY equipment -- my house is as SONY-free as I've been able to make it.)

    1. Re:SONY's modest proposal by PygmySurfer · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Maybe the GP is a PC gamer... or a non-gamer.

    2. Re:SONY's modest proposal by aussie_a · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Did you even read my post? "I hope you don't actually like console games." I already covered that angle. Sheeesh.

    3. Re:SONY's modest proposal by penix1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "It's time to take SONY to the woodshed. Don't purchase anything with any SONY signature (this may require a little research, SONY makes ccd's for lots of digital cameras)."

      No that never works, it is time for people to get off their duff and take Sony to court. Strangly enough for copyright violation! Title 17 allows for archival and educational study use (things commonly known as "fair use"). By instituting DRM in this fashion they have deprived us of those rights. For added measure include a charge of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

      But of course we know that none of that will happen. The media lobbies are too powerful. Let's face it, we have the best legislature money can buy.

      B.

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    4. Re:SONY's modest proposal by yagu · · Score: 1

      Never owned a game box of any kind in my life, never intend to. Never "got" games.

    5. Re:SONY's modest proposal by Berserk+CEO · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's time to take SONY to the woodshed. Don't purchase anything with any SONY signature (this may require a little research, SONY makes ccd's for lots of digital cameras).

      I support you in this fight, but when the PS3 comes out, the battle is most probably lost. Masses don't care about their digital rights, as long as they get their daily shots of soap operas and Final Fantasies. You and I know what's going on, but in the grand scale the corporate brainwashing works.

      How to fight an enemy this big? Some form of consumer guerrilla tactics are needed. Tell all your friends what's going on. Most people won't care. But at least that's a start.

      --
      Not every CEO is a psychopath.
    6. Re:SONY's modest proposal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You know, there are some of us that are really looking forward to the Revolution. You can take your rehashed first person shooters. I'll take my cartoon graphics and good gameplay.

    7. Re:SONY's modest proposal by salvorHardin · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Seriously, if there were some visible and concerted effort to boycott one of these leading vendors...

      Would you like to boycott Sony?

    8. Re:SONY's modest proposal by Compaq_Hater · · Score: 2, Insightful

      with an attitude like that you will not be enjoying those freedoms in the future, thats the point the more people like you just lay down and accept things like what sony was trying to do and what other comapnies are doing you will loose your so called artists that later in a DRM frenzy as more and more things Music,Movies,TV,Radio Ect get DRM Crippling Shoved up thier ass.

      CH

    9. Re:SONY's modest proposal by ThePhilips · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There is unfortunate side-effect.

      Sony Classical is one of the biggest classical recording & CD publishing companies. If you will look into classical guitar (for example) you will find that about 90% of artists are published by Sony Classical.

      I already hate SONY - with just this one little exception...

      P.S. I recently bought a pile of CDs from Sony Classical, expecting to find a lot of (CP) markers, DRM toolkits, root-kits, thousand clause EULAs, etc. To my disappointment there were none included, even with SACDs.

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    10. Re:SONY's modest proposal by maelstrom · · Score: 0, Troll

      Your sig sucks.

      --
      The more you know, the less you understand.
    11. Re:SONY's modest proposal by Varun+Soundararajan · · Score: 1

      writing in a single line: Sony has somewhat lost the trust it enjoyed in millions of its customers.

    12. Re:SONY's modest proposal by Ahnteis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What if I have autoplay turned off and I "abuse" the "CD" by treating it as a normal CD? The EULA never shows up and so I never agree to it.

      What about the person who uses a "normal" CD player? They certainly aren't going to be reading anything.

      (Unless of course this is one of those "by opening this package you agree to the EULA inside" things which I doubt could be enforced.)

    13. Re:SONY's modest proposal by Hurricane78 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > If people want to buy CDs that installs spyware on their computer and allows the company to go in and delete that person's files, what business is it of mine?

      The problem here is: They neither want it, nor do they know about it!

      It's just a big corporate fraud and abuse!

      But what do you expect in a economic feudalism?

      As long as they have that power and we just are a bunch of single poeple, this ain't gonna change!

      So what can we do? We need to organize ourselves so we can create our own powerful organization! (And then beat the living crap out of them! ;)

      Any suggestions how we could reach this goal?
      Remember: Never underestimate the power of stupid poeple in large groups!
      Just learn to guide them in your way instead of the company's one and fight them with their own [obviously successful] weapons.

      And finally - to make em a favour - try to
      1. makine up your own law, that WSMG (weapons of stupid mass guidance) are forbidden.
      2. use your own WSMG to push the law into the lawbooks.
      3. put them in jail!

      This worked fine in the past. Just look at The Iraq-War. (And in this case they even *really* have WSMG!)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    14. Re:SONY's modest proposal by Fafnir43 · · Score: 5, Informative
      Or else you'll be stuck playing Pikachu's.

      Or perhaps RPGs (e.g. Final Fantasy, Baten Kaitos, Harvest Moon), FPSes (Metroid Prime comes to mind), or survival horror games (like Resident Evil and Eternal Darkness). I'm really getting tired of people bashing Nintendo for being 'kiddy' when it is now blatantly false.

      --
      To know recursion, you must first know recursion.
    15. Re:SONY's modest proposal by Mooga · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Without going on and on about this, if you have problems with M$ and SONY, you don't have a choice for next-gen gaming because we all know Nintendo will crash and burn because of their crappy controller.

      --
      ~ Mooga
    16. Re:SONY's modest proposal by blonde+rser · · Score: 1

      Title 17 allows for archival and educational study use (things commonly known as "fair use"). By instituting DRM in this fashion they have deprived us of those rights.

      I'm not at all convinced that is how fair use works. I understand that there is protection that a company can not successfully sue you for copyright infringement if it falls under fair use. However I am unaware of any cases where a company has been sued for making it technically difficult to do activities that fall under fair use.

      Furthermore does this even make sense? And if it does how far does this go. We know that time shifting falls under fair use. But I may find it technically difficult to go buy a tape and VCR (or whatever tool I wish to use). Does this mean that if I demand that a network mail me a recorded copy of a TV show that they must comply?

      Certainly you can still take sony to court over this but if you do you are asking the courts to make new law: or at least reinterpret old law.

    17. Re:SONY's modest proposal by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Masses don't care about their digital rights, as long as they get their daily shots of soap operas and Final Fantasies.

      Actually, Square-Enix mentioned abandoning the PS3 platform. From the rumormill around Memphis, supposedly FFXII will be released on the PS3, *BUT* it's also being released on the 360, and once that's done, Square-Enix is going to drop the PS3 platform altogether and go 360. Relative links here.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    18. Re:SONY's modest proposal by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1
      Sony Classical is one of the biggest classical recording & CD publishing companies. If you will look into classical guitar (for example) you will find that about 90% of artists are published by Sony Classical.

      This is true, at least for a number of "big name" musicians who have had lots of media exposure. However, a huge amount is available under other labels: Naxos, for instance, has bought up a heap of good recordings from many of those same artists, and distributes them at very reasonable prices, while a number of very fine musicians such as Jacob Heringman deal exclusively with labels such as Magnatune, which are quite civilised by anybody's standards. Well, mine, at least.

    19. Re:SONY's modest proposal by displaced80 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      First they came for the Jews
      and I did not speak out
      because I was not a Jew.
      Then they came for the Communists
      and I did not speak out
      because I was not a Communist.
      Then they came for the trade unionists
      and I did not speak out
      because I was not a trade unionist.
      Then they came for me
      and there was no one left
      to speak out for me.

      Pastor Martin Niemöller

      --
      What's the frequency, Kenneth?
    20. Re:SONY's modest proposal by PitaBred · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My dad doesn't "get" computers either, and he has a harder time conducting business with people who do.
      Being proud of your inabilities is something that's quite strange...

    21. Re:SONY's modest proposal by Berserk+CEO · · Score: 1

      Square-Enix is going to drop the PS3 platform altogether and go 360.

      That's just going from bad to worse. Microsoft is no better in this matter. Both Sony and Microsoft have their history of playing ugly. People buying either PS3's or 360's are supporting this sleazy corporate culture.

      --
      Not every CEO is a psychopath.
    22. Re:SONY's modest proposal by czarangelus · · Score: 1

      Square is giving the X-Box 360 Final Fantasy XI, which is already on PC and I think several of the consoles anyway. That's not "abandoning the PS3 and jumping to the 360."

      --
      When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.
    23. Re:SONY's modest proposal by SilverspurG · · Score: 1

      Real gamers are like real cinema fans--they recognize that the popular western market hasn't put out anything new in 10 years.

      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    24. Re:SONY's modest proposal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +3 interesting for someone who thinks that you can only play Pokemon games on a Nintendo platform. Gotta love Slashdot.

    25. Re:SONY's modest proposal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are correct. If your use of copyrighted material is deemeed to be fair use the copyright holder cannot sue you. If you ability to create a copy that you wanted to use which would be able to use under fair use provisions is prevented no act gives you the right to sue the copyright holder. Fair use is a protection, not a right that others can be held to have infringed.

    26. Re:SONY's modest proposal by penix1 · · Score: 1

      "I'm not at all convinced that is how fair use works. I understand that there is protection that a company can not successfully sue you for copyright infringement if it falls under fair use. However I am unaware of any cases where a company has been sued for making it technically difficult to do activities that fall under fair use. "

      Then don't you think it is about time some enterprising young attorney take it up? This is what the courts were setup for. To address greivances that have not been addressed before. I say the Pro **AA side has had their cake for far too long and it is about time someone took it back. Having a section for "fair use" does no good if you can't use it. May as well strike it out (something the **AA would love anyway). Either there is fair use and you have free excersize of those rights or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

      "Certainly you can still take sony to court over this but if you do you are asking the courts to make new law: or at least reinterpret old law."

      Imagine my surprise that I expect the courts to intrepret an old law.

      HINT: That is their job!

      They aren't making new law simply enforcing an existing one.

      B.

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    27. Re:SONY's modest proposal by controlguy · · Score: 1

      Perhaps this will make you feel a bit better: Sony to halt use of controversial CD protection

    28. Re:SONY's modest proposal by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 0, Troll

      It may be a shock to people who are obsessed with their operating systems, but I think Microsoft is a lot cleaner than Sony.

    29. Re:SONY's modest proposal by mblase · · Score: 4, Funny

      Congratulations, you just Godwin'd the entire thread.

    30. Re:SONY's modest proposal by CaptainZapp · · Score: 1
      No that never works, it is time for people to get off their duff and take Sony to court.

      Actually I was thinking more around the lines that the executives in charge oughta be tarred, feathered and carried out of town on a piece of rail.

      The wild west really starts to look good.

      --
      ich bin der musikant

      mit taschenrechner in der hand

      kraftwerk

    31. Re:SONY's modest proposal by nasor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm afraid you're mistaken about this. Title 17 doesn't grant you an inalienable right to fair use; it merely states that it isn't a violation of copyright law for you to engage in fair use. Sony isn't under any obligation to make it easy, or even possible, for you to engage in fair use because of Title 17. They simply can't take you to court over it if you manage to.

    32. Re:SONY's modest proposal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only reason I would buy an xbox360 would be to put linux on it so I can say "Hah!" to microsloth. Besides if you want to actually "play" a first person shooter, you should settle for nothing less than Quakeworld! Errrr... unless you like security that is. However, according to microsloth, we linux users and open source advocates don't care about security. *shrugs*

      Well, I'm a die hard nintendo and sega fan myself, I grew up on their games. I dare say some of their games are pure creative genius. Take the Legend of Zelda series, every new game they have come out with has tried something new and creative along with beautiful music in the game. The plot and story may be the same, but the way it is conducted each time seems masterful to me. Take a look at Smash Brothers, I haven't ever seen a game pull off such a well loved duke-it-out game before, mortal kombat should bow down to the fury of the jiggly puff rest attack!

      And its true, people shun nintendo now because they cater to the children as well as older folks. When you think about why people shun them for this, its typically due to insecurity about being macho and playing "halo" because all the "macho" console geeks play halo! Seriously, these people are in denial that they are secretly a geek at heart. Making up for this sort of thing by playing the cool games where you shred bad guys and civilians apart unmercifully to show just how cool and ruthless you are! Sure dude, try spending some time in Iraq with the soldiers there and ask them how cool that stuff really is.

      My take on all of this is that Xbox and PlayStation are simply there to make money, they'll do whatever they need to in order to get your (hard?) earned money out of your pocket and into their bank accounts. Nintendo seems to me more of the company that actually care about what they provide, sure they still have to make good profit in order to keep up with their competitors, but none-the-less they go far out of their way to keep the market fresh and interesting with innovative design.

    33. Re:SONY's modest proposal by nasor · · Score: 1

      Look closely at Title 17. It doesn't grant you any "rights." It merely says that fair use is not a violation of copyright law. There's a big difference.

    34. Re:SONY's modest proposal by The+NPS · · Score: 1

      Final Fantasy's really gone downhill anyhow. Who cares?

    35. Re:SONY's modest proposal by Koil · · Score: 1

      First off... I am not a *unix fanboi...I am using WinXP right now, but I just have to say that you're crazy if you think MS hasn't tried every trick in the book to be able to glean information from your PC, you're outta your mind.

      With this new entry into the field, I must admit that I am very disappointed in Sony. I have my issues with the **AA's (that I am evidently more passionate about than I thought, according to my friends who are tired of hearing me prattle on about it) and I can't stand to Sony moving in this direction as well.

      I think (and will probably make anohter post about it, but will mention it here) that the article makes a good point in that these types of measures aren't going to stop anyone that really wants to get their hands on the music.

      I was reading somewhere the other day...Hasn't a work around for the new DRM already been done...for the rootkit as well? All they're doing is making life more difficult for those they supposedly want to sell to, while the people that are in the business of pirating en masse are going to figure out a way in (probably less than) days after any new technoolgy comes out.

      God this frustrates the hell outta me...

    36. Re:SONY's modest proposal by darkjedi521 · · Score: 1

      They probably can if you have to violate the DMCA to do so.

    37. Re:SONY's modest proposal by blonde+rser · · Score: 1

      Either there is fair use and you have free excersize(spelling left in tact) of those rights or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

      I'm sorry but isn't this a false dichotomy? I can certainly imagine a world where there is fair use but you aren't technically able to exercise those rights. You might not like that world but that's a job of a congressman to deal with this issue: not a lawyer or judge.

    38. Re:SONY's modest proposal by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      The biggest differences are:

      Microsoft has long been in a position to get the private information of every individual that has ever pirated Microsoft software. Yet their interest in security (admitted making up for deficiencies that they themselves created by going awkwardly from a consumer-grade to a business-grade model), in establishing their global position as a platform, and in general not being "about" private data is such that they haven't gone that route. They are most aggressive against piracy by business and conduct their audits therein.

      Sony's content divisions have been in conflict with their hardware divisions for a while, and they lack the scruples (or the interests that motivate them) that MS has shown.

      Remember, this isn't just about DRM. It is about rootkits, about EULAs that, even if you don't agree to them, act as if you have. It is about breaking computers by design. It is now about creating a launching-pad for trojans that has already been exploited. It is about crippling hardware to protect intellectual property, closing off the use of protected materials from archiving and fair-use applications, and more. MSN has just been about hegemony over the desktop turning into hegemony over the server and services. Their technology has had problems, and they have been aggressive and perhaps even unethical competitors. They have not declared war on their customers. Sony has.

    39. Re:SONY's modest proposal by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Only the big businesses profit from attempting to screw over their customers (well, I don't know if they profit. But only big businesses attempt it anyway). The little guys do profit from not DRMing their content, which is why they don't. And the content some of them produce is better then the crap the "music industry" creates.

      If all the big businesses DRM their stuff up the wazzoo, there'll be plenty of independants to entertain me.

    40. Re:SONY's modest proposal by fireweaver · · Score: 1

      Koil (786141) wrote:

      "I was reading somewhere the other day...Hasn't a work around for the new DRM already been done...for the rootkit as well? All they're doing is making life more difficult for those they supposedly want to sell to, while the people that are in the business of pirating en masse are going to figure out a way in (probably less than) days after any new technoolgy comes out."

      My understanding of how the commercial pirates do it is to make bit-accurate copies of whatever they're trying to clone. This means music, DRM, and all. They don't have to "break" or "crack" anything.

    41. Re:SONY's modest proposal by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Nice try. But this isn't a case of consumers being locked up (in DRM ;)) simply for being consumers. This is a case of consumers willingly buying DRM'd products, and then crying foul. There is no law requiring all content be DRM'd (if there was, THEN you would have a point). The only victims are those who make themselves victims. Surely content providers and publishers should be able to include anything they want in their CDs, as long as it's legal?

      People always talk about fair use rights. Sure, there are fair use rights. But nowhere in those laws does it say content providers aren't allowed to try to stop you (the DMCA being a sticky issue. Feel free to work towards abolishing this. I'd support you there). If you don't like the DRM, don't buy it. There will always be those who benefit and recognize the benefit from not DRMing their content. Go with them. There's no way they can be forced into DRMing their stuff.

      Someone mentioned that there are victims who don't know they're buying DRM'd content. Read your EULA's. If you don't like what the EULA says, either return it and demand a refund (if you're refused THEN you have a case in calling foul) or decide if it's legal, and decide whether or not you want to risk a judge upholding what it says. If you click Agree without reading and understanding it, you have no-one to blame but yourself.

    42. Re:SONY's modest proposal by andy_t_roo · · Score: 1

      It's not a case of 'they have to provide the means' it is that they are deliberately attempting to interfere with and restrict our rights - its the same 'deliberate action' argument that has recently caused trouble for a few P2P networks, but as SONY's legal team has more $$, i doubt they will have any serious penalty

    43. Re:SONY's modest proposal by Kris_J · · Score: 1

      I would like to boycott Sony (and BMG), but it's nearly impossible.

    44. Re:SONY's modest proposal by anocow · · Score: 1

      I've been thinking of the exact thing... when PS3 comes out, will I cave in and buy one or will I stand up and buy the alternative... XBOX 360?!?!? Well that's like jumping from one fire bit into another. Well there's always Nintendo's Revolution...

    45. Re:SONY's modest proposal by blonde+rser · · Score: 1

      It's not a case of 'they have to provide the means' it is that they are deliberately attempting to interfere with and restrict our rights

      You can look up title 17 here http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/u sc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html . But the excerpt I'm interested is "[T]he fair use of a copyrighted work [...] is not an infringement of copyright." Similarly it is also not considered an invasion of privacy for a post office worker to read what is written on a post card since the writing is in plain site. So by your logic of rights it must be illegal for me to write an encrypted message on a post card since the delivery man has a right to read it. Hmm... somewhere a long the way there must have been a flaw.

    46. Re:SONY's modest proposal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just admit it: you're in it only for the pedophilia.

      --anon webmaster of a very popular Nintendo fansite

    47. Re:SONY's modest proposal by Confuzzled · · Score: 1

      > They simply can't take you to court over it if you manage to.

              Actually thanks the DMCA they can. All they have to do is put some really simple "copy protection" (doesn't even have to pretend to work). And as long as you circumvent it, DING! DMCA on you. So when they sue you you wouldn't be liable for making copies for yourself, but you are liable for breaking the encryption and having the tools to do so (both illegal).

      -v

    48. Re:SONY's modest proposal by mirror_ed123 · · Score: 1

      How is it down the hill? From the sales it generate there are still people clammoring for it.

    49. Re:SONY's modest proposal by BronsCon · · Score: 0

      Here's the thing... They will LOSE money on each PS3 sold, in hopes of making money on the GAMES

      So...

      Buy as many of the f*cking things as you can! Desolder the boards and sell components, blow them up, run them over, use them as doorstops, whatever, to increase the net LOSS they take from console sales whilie minimizing the software sales for the console.

      They'll fight back by making more consoles, which will again, sell at a loss.

      Then, they'll get wise (profit-wise) and use cheaper components so they at least break even. Making thier new console a complete piece of shit that breaks down every few months and requires warranty repairs. Which costs them money.

      After warranty, when it breaks it will be discarded and MAYBE another console purchased (at which point they'll probablybe back to using good components after seeing the error of thier ways, if they see them) and take another loss on that sale, with relativeley little chance of gain from software sales for THAT unit, since it's believed to be a piece of sh!t and was only purchased to allow the currently owned games to still be played.

      Make sense?

      Cost them money by BUYING the PS3 and just not buying any software for it. Eh?

      Eh?

      Ok.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    50. Re:SONY's modest proposal by chefren · · Score: 1

      Excellent! We can buy the less evil console from the less evil Microsoft then!

    51. Re:SONY's modest proposal by The+NPS · · Score: 1

      I'm not talking about sales, just my personal opinion.

    52. Re:SONY's modest proposal by nasor · · Score: 1

      I suppose I should have said that they can't take you to court under the Copyright Act, if you want to get pedantic about it.

  3. Rootkit worse by external400kdiskette · · Score: 3, Interesting

    EULA's are just things nobody reads or pays any attention to that basically say the company isn't responsible for anything but that hasn't stopped them from being sued in the past so who cares about it.

    Rootkits on the otherhand are dangerous to your computer and in this Sony case even caused conflicts with other problems and could disable your drive. So it's hard to compare, the rootkit seems infinitely worse to me.

    1. Re:Rootkit worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well holy shit. troll? what the hell?

      nobody's karma is that bad - some idiot actually modded the most on-topic, bland response so far as a troll.

      maybe it's because of the style of your writing

    2. Re:Rootkit worse by external400kdiskette · · Score: 0, Troll

      It's some guy who hates me that mods all my topics troll whenever he happens to be around.

    3. Re:Rootkit worse by Kjella · · Score: 5, Insightful

      EULA's are just things nobody reads or pays any attention to that basically say the company isn't responsible for anything but that hasn't stopped them from being sued in the past so who cares about it.

      For now. In the not so distant future the DRM will basicly stop you from doing anything at all and when you complain "it's in the EULA and has been there for 10 years, our hardware is simply enforcing the agreement". Once they have the means to back up all the ludicrous terms, you won't be ignoring it and you won't be laughing.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:Rootkit worse by external400kdiskette · · Score: 1

      While you are right about some of that, EULA's that say the company is faultless still get sued and a lot of EULA stuff is just plane ignored because it's so ridiculous.

      I mean have you ever met anyone that deleted all their music after being burgled or didn't use their music for their latest family slide-show out of fear of offending sony :)

      That rootkit was technically legal if you go by Sony's EULA but that didn't stop them getting absolutely fried by it from everyone so in many ways the EULA was irrelevant and now you'll probably see class-action suits against Sony despite their EULA.

    5. Re:Rootkit worse by pla · · Score: 1

      Once they have the means to back up all the ludicrous terms, you won't be ignoring it and you won't be laughing.

      True - We'll stop laughing long enough to put Sony's execs up against the wall.

      They can only get away with this precisely because they can't enforce it (physically - legally still hase a lot of uncertaintly, particularly with some of the more bizarre terms).

      As soon as people start coming home and finding their laptops "courtesy-wiped" after a break-in, you can bet the public won't just happily ignore the crap we geeks have known about for years. And THAT counts as the point that really matters... As much as we may understand the dangers of DRM, Joe Sixpack currently does not. As soon as he does, the tide will turn, and it might get ugly(-ier).

    6. Re:Rootkit worse by giorgiofr · · Score: 0

      We'll stop laughing long enough to put Sony's execs up against the wall.

      I hope you realize you're talking about murdering some guys because they happen to distribute *music* in a way you don't like. Now if you think this is normal, then you really have bigger issues to care about.
      Besides, how about critising the ones who are really responsible for this? You know, the so-called ARTISTS who, instead of self-promoting and selling on the web (yeah it's sooooo difficult to do it) just say "OK Sony do as you like and I don't mind when you screw my customers"?

      --
      Global warming is a cube.
    7. Re:Rootkit worse by interiot · · Score: 1
      EULAs in general are still legally binding. Certain clauses of contracts can be declared invalid, eg. "by signing here, you agree to sell your children into slavery to me". Certain clauses are so far out of reasonable concept of justice that they're declared invalid.

      Clauses that are only borderline or are otherwise plainly a legal part of normal contracts though, ARE legal and ARE binding. For example, see the David Zamos case, and all the nitty-gritty of the EULA that he had to work around.

    8. Re:Rootkit worse by pla · · Score: 1

      I hope you realize you're talking about murdering some guys

      Hyperbole? Look it up. ;-)


      Besides, how about critising the ones who are really responsible for this? You know, the so-called ARTISTS

      I disagree. Yes, the artists have some power to self-promote, and the internet has made that far more realistic than ever before. And yes, the artists may have made it easy to victimize themselves, even going willingly to the slaughter (metaphorically, not advocating murder here) with stars in their eyes... But do you blame the terminal cancer victims for actively seeking out snake-oil salesmen, or do you blame the snake-oil salesmen for giving people false hope?


      Anyway, that counts as a different argument altogether than the one I addressed in the previous post. DRM would exist even if every artist chose to self-promote (case in point, iTunes).

      The problem here involves the rights of a "consumer" (ye gods I hate that term) to own and use their own property in any manner they so desire. The right of a computer owner not to have it controlled by Sony just because they bought a CD containing a booby-trap that 99% of the population doesn't even know about, much less understand. The right of the music lover to buy a CD and play it at home, on his computer, or in the car, without two of those not working and one of them actually breaking from the attempt. The right of the reader to not have their books "expire" and go blank after six months.

      Or more fundamentally - The right of social creatures to attempt to share their cultural experience with other social creatures. And yes, that means copying music. It means quoting Monty Python scenes. It means describing the patented plot of a new book or movie. It even means taking pictures at a concert or play (though for the love of Zeus, people, will you please learn that flashes don't work on a subject more than 10 feet away???) to show your friends the next day.

      It does NOT, lest you misunderstand my intentions here, include making your music collection downloadable to thousands of random strangers. It does not include committing "real" crimes (such as B&E, murder, extortion, not even mob-style piracy rings) to gain access to those cultural experiences. I fully encourage the legal (and far more powerful, the peer-group) suppression of those activities. But rooting my machine doesn't break up a prostitution ring in prague. It doesn't stop a HK shop owner from getting beaten up over a copy of The Wedding Singer. It only stops (or rather, makes it slightly harder, since these DRM schemes really do seem laughable thus far) me from enjoying music I legitimately paid for in the manner I so desire.


      I don't advocate murdering anyone. But I also don't run away in fear every morning when, while grazing, the big scary yellow thing comes up over the horizon. And you can't deprive people of access to their own culture without expecting a reaction, quite possibly a violent one.

    9. Re:Rootkit worse by Dolda2000 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Once they have the means to back up all the ludicrous terms, you won't be ignoring it and you won't be laughing.
      And the worst thing about it is the fact that it's only normal, legal customers that won't be laughing. The real pirates will still be able to crack the DRM one way or another and not be put off even the slightest. Remember, it only takes a single rip off of a DRM:d media, and the content is completely loose. It's only the legal people that get screwed, when they can't burn a collection CD for the car stereo or rip it to their MP3 players.
    10. Re:Rootkit worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, they are generally not binding. They're only visible after purchase, and the "agree" button is considered a part of the install process, not an agreement to the "contract" that isn't valid at that point in the install process.

      While a few idiot judges in a few jurisdictions have held otherwise, in the VAST majority of jurisdictions, they're not worth the pixels they're printed on.

      The only way one would be valid in MOST places would be for it to be "signed" - electronically or paper - BEFORE the exchange of money. And of course, even then, the "whacko" clauses would be invalid.

      An "after the fact" contract is almost never legally binding.

    11. Re:Rootkit worse by giorgiofr · · Score: 0

      But do you blame the terminal cancer victims for actively seeking out snake-oil salesmen, or do you blame the snake-oil salesmen for giving people false hope?

      Uhm how about I blame both?
      Suppose a guy has a serious form of cancer. Doctors have told him there is some cure, possibly effective, possibly not. He should try it. Then the snake-oil seller comes along and goes "Sure thing, you'll be up in no time, blah blah". Well if an informed and reasonable patient chooses to go the snake-oil way... then it's his fault as well as the seller's. Now substitute the Internet for the doctors and the labels for the seller. Musicians should be the patients but hey I don't see them suffering that much... Anyway who do we blame?

      --
      Global warming is a cube.
    12. Re:Rootkit worse by turgid · · Score: 1

      Mrs Turgid has a German friend who was visiting recently. We were talking about all the crazy laws being written these days and the subject of music came up.

      In Germany just now, if the police stop you for any reason while you're driving in your car, they peform a "routine search" and if they find any home-made CDs (i.e. not shop-bought ones) they give you the opportunity to invite them to your house to show them the originals (you still have the right to make a personal back-up copy in Germany) before arresting you.

    13. Re:Rootkit worse by btarval · · Score: 1
      And the worst thing about it is the fact that it's only normal, legal customers that won't be laughing. The real pirates will still be able to crack the DRM one way or another and not be put off even the slightest.

      Sadly, I think that must be the best thing about it. The general population might begin to wonder why their media hardware is broken. And that's how it will be viewed, as broken.

      Or they'll have to turn into "pirates" themselves, in order to get things working the way they want it. That would be an interesting twist.

      Either way, it ought to give a boost to independent media which is isn't published with restraints.

      --
      The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Peter Drucker.
    14. Re:Rootkit worse by NeoChaosX · · Score: 1

      Uh, no. People will instead buy a new PC/CD player/DVD player/whatever that they're told will work with their DRM'd disc (because they can't get enough of whatever the fad musician/movie of the moment is) like good little consumers.

      You overestimate people's ability to think for themselves.

      --
      One man's selflessness is another man's annoyance.
    15. Re:Rootkit worse by btarval · · Score: 1
      Not really; I think you miss the point. While the newest gizmo might play the latest song they want, a truly locked DRM device will have to reject the format of the older archives (otherwise it might be playing some ripped version and promoting piracy).

      So, yes, I do think most people might notice it when their old collection of songs no longer works. Especially when they'd have to pay again to hear the songs that they already own.

      The point being is that the cost of supporting DRM formats is more than the cost of the DRM player; it's that of the player and paying again for one's prior collection. Which provides an economic incentive for other options.

      Generally speaking, in high-tech, retaining backwards compatibility is an extremely strong force. So much so, that one has to have an extremely powerful motivation to toss it aside.

      It remains to be seen whether DRM media provides enough of a motivating factor to the market to ignore backwards compatibility. There's no benefit for the consumer; the only benefit is for the manufacturer. I can't think of any product like this in history which has survived for long. Which is why I am sceptical of this one being the first.

      --
      The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Peter Drucker.
    16. Re:Rootkit worse by nahdude812 · · Score: 1

      What if the original was lost, stolen, or destroyed? You're still allowed to have your backup. Wouldn't an affirmative defense be, "All I have left is my backups, my CD case containing all my originals was stolen?"

      If you still have to have your original in order to make use of a backup, then the backup is pointless, no?

  4. Finally! by Gothic_Walrus · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The "I'm going to pirate because the record companies are fucking us over" excuse actually holds water!

    I'm just not going to pay $15 for the right to listen to music in a fixed order in a certain CD player on the second Tuesday of each month between five and eight PM. The things Sony is demanding go against the concept of fair use...and I get the feeling that thi story could do just as much damage as the rootkit one did, if not more.

    --
    Goo goo g'joob.
    1. Re:Finally! by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I suggest not downloading / pirating the media in question. Don't give them any scapegoats, and besides, it shows that you don't have to have the media.

    2. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No it f'n doesn't.

      You don't like the restrictions? Don't buy the music or software. Don't consume it illegally either. If you do the latter, you are just fucking over everyone else buying it legally because you are promoting their products and they will continue with their tactics.

      Face it, Music and Video Games are not necessary for life. As such, there is no legitimate reason to steal it. They do not get you any further in society. And the crap they put out cannot be said to further society and culture therefore should not be considered 'for the public good'.

      What an idiot...

    3. Re:Finally! by hackstraw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm just not going to pay $15 for the right to listen to music in a fixed order in a certain CD player on the second Tuesday of each month between five and eight PM. The things Sony is demanding go against the concept of fair use...and I get the feeling that thi story could do just as much damage as the rootkit one did, if not more.

      Ah, but we all now respect Sony's intellectual rights now, right?

      Fuck these people and their "intellectual" property. Fuck them right in the ear while I "break the law" and smoke pot in my house.

      I've found that its easier to think of large groups of people as one person. It seems to make sense, like a country or a corporation. When countries fight, bicker, or have issues or get along, its just like individuals. The same goes for a corporation.

      If I were to know somebody that sold me a car, I would think they were paranoid and psychotic if they came over and inspected if I were changing the oil regularly and made sure I didn't take the american brand name emblems off of it and rice it up with some V-TEC stickers. Lord fucking forgive me if I wreck the car, it gets stolen, or I sell the thing and buy another one.

      Instead of being psychotic you stupid rich fucking music pimps, and either get out of the way because your doing a shitty job, or sell us a product that we want.

      Apple is close with iPods and iTunes. The downside is that 1) you can only really "properly" get your music from them 2) its a hack at best if you want to do something stupid like listen to your music in your car or home stereo instead of earphones.

      We don't want CDs anymore. Don't you realize that? People throw away the plastic cases that break and take up too much room. They trow them in a CD book, and over time they get scratched because the technology sucks for portability and convenience. Its next to impossible to switch and hear one song from another CD while you are driving in the car, and then listen to another CD. CD changers hold what? Maybe 10 CDs. Whoopty shit.

      We want more music at a reasonable price that is convenient and portable to listen to.

      I repeat.

      We want more music at a reasonable price that is convenient and portable to listen to.

      We don't want stuff that you have to listen to on one piece of equipment (DRMed to hell). We don't want early 80's shiny fragile disks that hold about 45 minutes to an hour of music provided that every song is worth listening to.

      People on average are not unreasonable. Or at least not like you're trying to be.

      Proprietary things like game cartridges are OK, because they work, and its a thing. My large stereo speakers are OK at my house, but suck in my car, or if I'm walking down the street. Your 45 minute at best CD is barely acceptable in a car, barely acceptable when walking, and barely acceptable at home.

      We want playlists, smart shuffling, portability, variety, and are willing to pay for it.

      I mean, what does this stupid company Sony do besides fuck around with music recordings and DRM and rootkits? Oh, I've heard they make electronics for the home, the car, portable audio, and even computers. In fact at one time the word Walkman (didn't even get caught by my spell checker) was as big as the word iPod. In fact, that was about the time the CD came out. If you had your shit together and made electronics to satisfy our needs, you could give the music away and still make money. What the fuck have you done differently since 1982 Sony? Times have changed. People are very willing to pay money for convenience and entertainment. We don't go around stealing shit at every chance we get.

      So finally, fuck you and your DRM, your EULAs, proprietary redundant formats, and everything else.

      The shit you do is stupid, and we simply are demonstrating this fact by the way we spend our money on other goods and services.

      I never, ever though that when I was a kid who liked the songs I heard on the radio and the albums that I had at

    4. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the crap they put out cannot be said to further society and culture therefore should not be considered 'for the public good'.

      Hey fsck you. Brittany Spears has made the world a better place!

    5. Re:Finally! by Tsiangkun · · Score: 1

      Not just Sony music, Sony playstation has equally rediculous terms of use, if the internet rumour mill can be believed.

      This Article, and others, suggest the playstation3 will be released infected with DRM as bad as the music media.

      If the rumours are true, there will be no second hand sales of ps3 games, no playing your games at your friends home, no rentals from the video store, and consumers will be blessed with the pleasure of renewing of content licenses after a fixed number of hours of game play.

      This article presents Sony's position nicely.

    6. Re:Finally! by The+NPS · · Score: 1

      There are many who argue that art is what makes us human. Art, in at least some form, is crucial to life, I would say. Also, I've never stolen any music -- I've just violated copyright many times.

    7. Re:Finally! by PipOC · · Score: 1

      rAmen.

    8. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well spoken my man. Now with a slight intro modification this could be a killer chain letter.

    9. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Violated copyright? To me, as an artist, you have stolen. If art IS what makes us human, then us artists are far more important in the scheme of things than say code pushing...I've pushed a little code in the past, I ran a subdivision that pushed code. And then I got sick of it and went back to that which I said I'd never make any money at, and dealing with the creative arts again.

      So, if art is what makes us human and you have violated copyright, then by this logic, you are the anthesis of a human...as opposed to a creator, you are a consumer that can't even be bothered to compensate the artists.

      This is what pisses me off about Slashdot...they all pretend they are going to die if they don't get their latest popfix from Sony or whomever, yet discount it as if violating copyright is just another technicallity. I'm sorry but I have to disagree. Copyright violation is theft.

    10. Re:Finally! by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      I'd honestly prefer CDs to downloaded media. I get losslessly formatted music, in such a way that I can encode it into whatever format I want, along with cover art, etc. And it's an physical object which cannot be overwritten, so no worries about losing a hard drive.

  5. Sony, Enforce this IF you have the balls by a_greer2005 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I can't wait untill these fuckers try to enforcfe this on some 12 year old after his/her home burns down. I can see the headlines now: "Youngster looses everything in fire; Media companies say (s)he must now erase ipod and laptop backups of her music."

    If you think the rootkit caused a backlash, just wait.

    1. Re:Sony, Enforce this IF you have the balls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Slashduh story, and I'm sorry to say EFF, are wrong. If your property is destroyed in a fire, you still own it.
      The EULA and your licensing of your CD's contents have fuck all to do with losing CDs in a fire or otherwise.

      Next story, please.

    2. Re:Sony, Enforce this IF you have the balls by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No, if the EULA is enforcable and the CD is destroyed in a fire, then you no longer possess the CD and according to the EULA, you lose all rights to the music. It's doubtful that it could be enforced, but that is what the EULA indicates.

    3. Re:Sony, Enforce this IF you have the balls by NVP_Radical_Dreamer · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I'd sure hate to see someone LOOSE everything

      --
      The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

      - Winston Churchill
    4. Re:Sony, Enforce this IF you have the balls by 6OOOOO · · Score: 0

      Looses doesn't mean loosens. Irony abounds.

    5. Re:Sony, Enforce this IF you have the balls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh please.. stop being pathetic. And who modded that insightful??

    6. Re:Sony, Enforce this IF you have the balls by lordofthechia · · Score: 3, Interesting

      " I can't wait untill these fuckers try to enforcfe this on some 12 year old"

      I want to see them enforce it on our troops abroad. I know many a troop that travels not with dozens/hundreds of cds but instead with a compact mp3 player that's more out of the way. Why would Sony care? Well check out this tidbit:

      From TFA: "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."

      From TFEULA: "(e) You may not export the LICENSED MATERIALS outside of the country where you reside."

      That's what I'd like to see. Sony starts suing the troops abroad over EULA violations. And why can't we travel out of the country with our music, seriously. If the were ever a time...

      --
      Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
    7. Re:Sony, Enforce this IF you have the balls by Cliff.Braun · · Score: 1

      Isn't that the point, or at least part of it, of the fair use clause? You need to be able to make backups in case the original is no longer in a condition to be used. Maybe she'll have to produce a receipt to show that the copy on the ipod was actually paid for? We could have IRS style audits, but of our entire lives! Can you prove that you paid for those toothpicks?

    8. Re:Sony, Enforce this IF you have the balls by Joe123456 · · Score: 0

      If thay are in a base thay are still in the us?

    9. Re:Sony, Enforce this IF you have the balls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually "looses" isn't a word at all, how you like that, bitch?!?

    10. Re:Sony, Enforce this IF you have the balls by superflyguy · · Score: 1

      arbitrary example using china.

      So either I can't take my cds with me when I move to china (country where you reside referring to the country where you resided at the time you accepted the EULA), or I can take them as long as I begin to reside in china (country where you reside at any given time you own the CD's) and then sell them in china before moving back to the us, having not violated the eula because the CD's stayed exactly where they were before I returned.

      Amazing...

    11. Re:Sony, Enforce this IF you have the balls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you really want to be bitchy about it, then you should know that it is a word. You can "loose" a captive (human or animal), meaning to set it loose. So in the present tense, "he looses the dog form the pen" is an unusual but correct sentence.

      That said, I too am sick to death of people spelling "lose" as "loose".

    12. Re:Sony, Enforce this IF you have the balls by spot35 · · Score: 1
      "he looses the dog form the pen
      Oh, the delicious irony...
  6. Sony's engineering arm? by irote · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Has anything been heard from employees of Sony's consumer products arm? By and large, they manufacture high-quality kit - they have high standards, and one assumes they can't be happy to see this coming from their music arm. Not to mention the fact that, AFAIK, Sony BMG is essentially a US company, steeped in copyright culture, whereas the consumer electronics arm remains largely Japanese and engineering-led.

    do we know about the relative profitability of the two arms? Is this likely to bring forward the day when the two companies go their separate ways?

    1. Re:Sony's engineering arm? by Simonics+Zsolt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "By and large, they manufacture high-quality kit - they have high standards" Do you, by any chance, still live in the 80's? Maybe their professional gear are still high quality, but their consumer stuff is not that "it's a sony" anymore...

    2. Re:Sony's engineering arm? by rvw · · Score: 1

      The Japanese are known not to publicly criticize their colleagues or employer. It's their culture and it's deeply rooted. So don't expect much there, unless it's coming from the top.

    3. Re:Sony's engineering arm? by NCraig · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are, I assume, referring to the same "Japanese" electronics arm that is behind Blu-ray DRM?

      Judging by the tricks Sony is developing for consumer electronics, I'd assume their "engineering-led" arm is saying "Hell yeah, BMG, lead the way!"

    4. Re:Sony's engineering arm? by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      I can't find a link, but iirc the entertainment arm is essentially carrying the electronics arm at the moment in terms of profitability.

      Oh, and it's been a long, long time since I automatically considered Sony-made electronics kit to be high quality. The last few Walkmans I had especially fell apart within about 6 months... (Meanwhile, my iRiver is still going strong 18 months of daily use later)

    5. Re:Sony's engineering arm? by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 1

      Hear hear!

      I've stopped buy Sony electronics, cause in my experience that crap just falls apart now.

      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    6. Re:Sony's engineering arm? by jack_csk · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ya, last time I checked, the slogan becomes "It's a sorry".

    7. Re:Sony's engineering arm? by moosesocks · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is true. I know of a friend who worked for sony back in the day who confirmed this observation. For all practical intents and purposes, sony's various divisions are completely separate companies with little more in common then their name.

      When the various divisions begin to interact, it has always ended in disaster. Betamax. Atrac8. Minidisc. DRM. Blu-Ray.....

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    8. Re:Sony's engineering arm? by Johnno74 · · Score: 1

      Minidisk isn't a total disaster, apart from the marketing side of things.

      Technically, it was ahead of its time. If they opened up the format and released PC drives for them they would have completely replaced floppy disks, and also owned the portable music player market long before apple came out with the ipod.

      I've got a minidisk player that I use every day. I get 5 hours of music on one minidisk, the player is smaller than an ipod and the battery lasts about 40 hours.

      The only problem with it is I can't connect it to my PC.

    9. Re:Sony's engineering arm? by Al+Dimond · · Score: 1

      Don't most MD players allow downloads to the player through USB or some such thing? The thing that sucks is uploading to a computer; on a typical "consumer" model the only way to do it is at 1x speed through the line-out port. "Professional" models aimed at musicians allow bi-directional fast digital transfer. I actually don't own one, I just know some music majors at my University that use them to record their practice sessions for later listening and sometimes archiving. If they have a good microphone they use them to record recitals. Unfortunately they usually buy the models that don't have fast digital upload, because those ones are too expensive. But of course IANAM and this is all secondhand knowledge.

      I wouldn't be surprised if more people used MD for this type of thing than for music playback, at least where I'm at that's the case.

    10. Re:Sony's engineering arm? by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Very true. I recall that there was a scuffle in the late 1990s as Consumer Electronics attempted to design a portable games console and Computer Entertainment was having none of it. This apparently led to some unspoken ill-feeling between the divisions, which makes me wonder about Ken "PlayStation" Kuturagi's "Walkman of the 21st Century" comments regarding the PSP.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  7. EULAs are not legal by abigsmurf · · Score: 2, Interesting

    especially outside the US in places like the UK where they try and take away rights from the consumer rights act which are illegal to sign away. Also they're 'legally binding' contracts that almost always never once ask for an adult to agree. Guess what, contracts aren't valid if only signed by a minor. It's about time someone sued these companies for illegal EULAs

    1. Re:EULAs are not legal by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      like the UK where they try and take away rights from the consumer rights act which are illegal to sign away.

      Do they send you to jail for attempting to sign away your consumer rights? "Yes sir, I know it isn't possible for me to sign my rights away. But they had such a shiny pen I wanted to use it. Please don't send me to jail, I promise not to sign my consumer rights away again."

      Sorry, it just seemed an odd way to word what you meant.

    2. Re:EULAs are not legal by Ashe+Tyrael · · Score: 1

      It's great. There's a nice little bit that UK consumer law requires. "Your statutory rights are not affected."

      I'd like to see the whole business tested, to be honest.

      --
      "How fine you look when dressed in rage."
    3. Re:EULAs are not legal by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Actually I like your logic. I used it myself many years ago: "What if attempted murder was punishable by death? Then all you'd have to do is attempt suicide, and society would help you guarantee your result..."

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    4. Re:EULAs are not legal by abigsmurf · · Score: 1

      attempted suicide was punishable by hanging at one time in the UK

    5. Re:EULAs are not legal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you argued that the attempted suicide was in self-defense.

  8. Re:First Post by bigman2003 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Heh is right.

    Sony is the WORST company out there for overly tight protection and DRM.

    The Minidisc NetMD could have been a fantastic product. I bought three of them (one for me, my wife, and my daughter). Too bad the software was so horrible that it became unusable.

    I have had similar problems with memory stick. I have had two devices which ONLY accepted memory stick. I ended up with a camera that I could not get pictures from...thanks Sony.

    The amazing thing is that people consider Microsoft to be THE 'bad' company in the console wars. I disagree...I would say that Sony is much worse.

    --
    No reason to lie.
  9. Misleading Artical by totuck · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "If your house gets burgled, you have to delete all your music from your laptop when you get home." That's quite a misleading interpretation of what the EULA actually says. Now, I want to make it clear that I'm no fan of Sony, but that is merely someone's interpretation, not an actual part of the EULA. The EULA actually says "In the event that you no longer possess or have the right under such license to use the original CD product, your rights hereunder to use the DIGITAL CONTENT shall expire immediately." To me, it seems that if your CD is really stolen, you can still use the back-up you have. That's part of fair use, isn't it? Backups in case of fire or theft or hurricanes, etc. What the EULA is saying is that you can't rip the CD to your hard drive and then sell it on eBay, all the while keeping the ripped version. Basically, it's the idea of trying to prevent users from going to Blockbuster, renting a DVD, and then making a copy.

    1. Re:Misleading Artical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
      To me, it seems that if your CD is really stolen, you can still use the back-up you have. That's part of fair use, isn't it?


      That IS part of fair use and thats why there is a problem. The EULA stating that you lose rights to the "digital content" means that if you don't have the physical CD, then you're not allowed to have the music it contained. The original authors statement is an extreme case, but his interpretation of the license agreement is correct.
    2. Re:Misleading Artical by uncoveror · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That is exactly what the EULA stipulates. If you nolonger have the original CD, you nolonger have a license to use copies of it. You must delete them. Maybe the EULA would not stand up in court due to "fair use", but the matter here is only what the EULA says, not whether it is enforceable. The EFF is correctly translating what it says into english. The truth is not sensationalism.

      --
      The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
    3. Re:Misleading Artical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "If your house gets burgled, you have to delete all your music from your laptop when you get home." That's quite a misleading interpretation of what the EULA actually says.

      Not, it's a rather straightforward interpretation.

      The EULA actually says "In the event that you no longer possess or have the right under such license to use the original CD product, your rights hereunder to use the DIGITAL CONTENT shall expire immediately." To me, it seems that if your CD is really stolen, you can still use the back-up you have.

      That doesn't make any sense at all. If your CD is stolen, then you "no longer possess the original CD product," and your rights to use the digital content "shall expire immediately" (and just so that there is no doubt about it: "digital content" is defined in the first part of the EULA to encompass digital music files extracted from the CD and stored on your computer or a portable device). The result is obvious: CD stolen -> rights expired.

      I would even go so far to say that this is exactly what Sony/BMG intended, seeing that their licence is apparently geared towards recreating the situation that existed in the old days when being in the actual physical possession of the CD was a precondition to enjoying the music. Back when few people had the means to get the digital content from the CD, if two people wanted to listen to the CD at the same time, they had to buy two. Granted, tape copies abounded, but they were relatively inconvenient and had lower quality. Of course, back then, if you lost your CD or it was somehow destroyed or stolen or whatever, that meant that you had to buy another one, or you couldn't listen to the music anymore.

      Now, while Sony/BMG probably doesn't have much interest in sales that result from such cases - they're more afraid, I suspect, of people who quickly resell or give away the CD after ripping the audio files - their licence goes for the simple solution that doesn't include any pesky differentiation between intentional and unintentional loss of a CD. Instead, it ties the right to enjoy the content directly to possession of the CD - thus eleminating one of the benefits of buying music on a digital storage medium.

    4. Re:Misleading Artical by BobPaul · · Score: 1

      To me, it seems that if your CD is really stolen, you can still use the back-up you have. That's part of fair use, isn't it? Backups in case of fire or theft or hurricanes, etc

      I was about to modify you insightful, but I have to comment on this. The above quote is false. If you loose the origional, you loose all rights. If you are going to make backup copies, you should store the origionals in a safe location.

      I used to have all my Backup CDs in the car. That way if they got stolen, no big deal. I can make more. Now if the origionals were in my car and were stolen, neither I nor the theif would techincally have rights to the songs (since I don't have the origional, and he stole them)

      Replacement Insurnance is for fire, theft, flood, etc. Backups are so you don't have to put the origionals in situations where they can get damaged or stolen.

  10. same thing applies to bankruptcy by Ankou · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yet another stupid requirement to the EULA is according to this article here: "You must delete your songs if you move out of the country or if you file for bankruptcy."

    1. Re:same thing applies to bankruptcy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      strangely I buy a lot music when I periodically visit the US, don't usually get a chance to rip it into my mp3 player 'till I get home ... assuming I ever saw a EULA (I haven't) what the hell does it mean? I can't take the CDs with me? I have to wipe my MP3 player at the airport before the 12 hour flight (sob!)? don't they know people buy this stuff and expect it to work in other countries?

    2. Re:same thing applies to bankruptcy by spot35 · · Score: 1

      Two words for you - "Region Encoding"
      They do know that people want media to work in other countries, but they actively try to stop it. Also, look at the sheer number of multi region DVD players out there to see how completely futile this attempt is.

  11. Screw their license and software: use Linux by acroyear · · Score: 5, Informative

    I realize this comment is now making /. violate the DMCA, so if they feel like deleting it for legal reasons, fine.

    The CDs "protected" by this scheme are very easy to copy and have no "skip-gap" style protections that break normal cd-copy mechanisms and theoretically work "fine" on normal cd players (experience has shown otherwise).

    cdrdao can read the cds just fine (I used it on the G3 Live in Tokyo release that just came out last week), and quickly identifies the data/file-system tracks from the main. rip with cdrdao, edit the toc file to remove the data tracks, and burn away. the resultant cdrom can load anywhere and is easily ripped into mp3s for your *legal* right to listen to music you purchase your way.

    in fact, the most rediculous thing about their "protection" of the G3 cds is that for the 2-cd set, the second cd isn't even "protected" with that filesystem. protecting the 2nd disk relies directly on the root-kit hack that detects and analysis when sony cds are inserted, that SONY expects you would have installed by sticking the cd-1 in first.

    --
    "But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
    -- Joe
    1. Re:Screw their license and software: use Linux by HalAtWork · · Score: 1

      I don't want to have to buy blanks, buy a CD-R, and rip, edit, and burn the shit just so that I get what I wanted to buy in the first place, and what the product should be. They're selling crap, not music CDs.

    2. Re:Screw their license and software: use Linux by acroyear · · Score: 1

      I dup (rip and burn) every cd I get, as I've gotten too damned tired of scratches making my cd's unusable. Especially in my car; I simply won't put an original cd in my (or any) car anymore.

      In addition, I only bring duplicated CDs with me on long trips involving airplanes. My cd case was stolen one time (yes, partially my fault for not paying attention; i left it behind @ security and someone else took it). I only lost 3 cds out of it because all of the others were copies where my masters were at home. And from now on, I won't bring any original CDs with me unless I bought them on the trip.

      Had I known that the G3 cds were hit with that garbage, I wouldn't have bought them, as I already have the tools necessary to rip the soundtrack of the matching DVD.

      --
      "But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
      -- Joe
    3. Re:Screw their license and software: use Linux by leadfoot · · Score: 0

      Or OS X if you have access to a Mac. iTunes can rip the cd to mp3 or aac without any DRM. You can than burn a CD to use on your PC if need be or just use the original in standard cd players.

      --
      "We're gonna need a bigger boat"
    4. Re:Screw their license and software: use Linux by lars_boegild_thomsen · · Score: 1

      Well, there's hope even for Windows users :)

      Of course it's great that Linux can easily read the music tracks, but you still gave Sony money in the first place. Personally I would have thrown a couple of bucks in this direction:

      http://music.allofmp3.com/r2/G3/Live_In_Tokyo_(Sat riani__Vai__Petrucci)/group_3696/album_2/mcatalog. shtml?albref=14

      No EULA, No software installed on my computer - and more important - absolutely zero money to Sony - only to the artists.

      The record companies will wake up eventually or they die - it's as simple as that. Meanwhile I am happily buying more music than I have bought in many years.

    5. Re:Screw their license and software: use Linux by acroyear · · Score: 1

      Excuse me while I say the artists aren't getting a dime out of that. That Russian company has no intention of paying the artists, as their only means for reaching the artists would require going through the labels.

      When it comes to something like G3, given that its not just the 3 guitarists, but also their respective bands, how will they find them all?

      That site may be legal under some obscure Russian law that ignores American copyrights, but it is not ethical.

      The fact that there is King Crimson's material, particularly that owned by King Crimson and distributed through Discipline Global Mobile, makes that obvious. Robert Fripp has not, under any terms whatsoever, given any company the rights to distribute his music (or Crimson music) online in any form.

      --
      "But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
      -- Joe
  12. Everybody knows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everybody knows EULAs are not binding.

    1. Re:Everybody knows... by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's okay, but it does give them cause to take you to court and squeeze a settlement out of you long before a judge gets to tell them the EULA isn't binding.

  13. Some of this isn't new... by sfurious · · Score: 0
    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.

    Look, Sony are jerks. That's a given. But what right did you have before the EULA to keep copies of the CD after you no longer possessed it?

    1. Re:Some of this isn't new... by Kaemaril · · Score: 1

      If you accidentally left a CD at a relative's house you're no longer in possession of it but I think legally you might still be entitled to listen to it on your ipod, even if you can't get it back for a couple of week's 'cos he/she's on holiday...

    2. Re:Some of this isn't new... by shibashaba · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The whole point of fair use laws is so that you can make backup copies in case something happens to the original. You have every legal right to make a copy of a cd and microwave the original if you so wish.

      --
      ---------- Open Source is capitalism applied to IP.
    3. Re:Some of this isn't new... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A CD being stolen and the act of giving or selling the CD to someone is two different things.
      A person can steal a CD but they can't take your right of ownership with it. Only you can give up your right to the ownership.

      Think of it this way. If the police catch the person that robbed you, your CD would be used as evidence against that guy in court. When that is over, the police will ask if you want your CD back. It is at that time you can either take the CD back since you still own it, or you can then give up your rights to the police.

    4. Re:Some of this isn't new... by schon · · Score: 1

      what right did you have before the EULA to keep copies of the CD after you no longer possessed it?

      In Canada, this is expressly coded into copyright law. If you make a copy, then give (or even sell!) the original, you are legally entitled to keep the copy (although you are not allowed to make a copy of the copy.)

  14. Sony rootkit uses GPL code (LAME) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
    1. Re:Sony rootkit uses GPL code (LAME) by yfkar · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, it's LGPL but static linking is still forbidden iirc.

  15. It gets worse... by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Sony uninstaller is an ActiveX object marked safe for scripting (which means any website can use it in their code)

    Its got some wonderful entries which still leave holes in your system (like rebooting your computer, and a method called "ExecuteCode")
    The guys has only just started work, but has an expliotable test together which will reboot your machine.

    Look here for more info about Sony uninstallation fun.

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
    1. Re:It gets worse... by lurch84 · · Score: 1
      Wow, first4internet's coding quality is really showing through in this whole debacle. There's further evidence of just how badly this thing was put together here and here.

      This has turned into quite a piece of work on their behalf.

    2. Re:It gets worse... by grimJester · · Score: 1

      Ok, does this mean what I think it means? Any website can force the poor Sony customer's Windows machine to reboot now? This is getting so out of hand it's not even funny.

    3. Re:It gets worse... by interiot · · Score: 1

      Is anyone else starting to get the feeling that an infinite number of drunk monkeys have taken over parts of Sony? Cripes, you keep thinking this is the worst that it can possibly get, and then they outdo themselves yet again on the same product!

  16. In that case... by TooMuchEspressoGuy · · Score: 5, Funny
    ...perhaps I should force Sony to sign the following when I purchase their CD's...

    I, the undersigned, agree to the following terms of the use of TooMuchEspressoGuy's money (hereafter referred to as "my money") as it has been spent on Sony music products:

    1) If Sony HQ, any factories, or any other property owned by employees of Sony gets burgled, you must give me back my money.

    2) You cannot keep my money in your pocket at work, or in any bank or online service such as Paypal.

    3) If you move out of the country, you must give me back my money.

    4) You must install any and all software that I decide should be on the computers of any Sony employee, or else give me back my money.

    5) I reserve the right to install any backdoors on said computers stipulated in (4) in order to enforce my rights as proper holder of my money.

    6) I will never be liable to you for more than exactly $5.00 for damages to you or your property through the use of any of the rights granted to me in this EULA.

    7) If you file for bankruptcy, you must give me back my money.

    8) You have no right to transfer (i.e. spend) my money, even along with the original coins, dollar bills, etc.

    9) You may not use my money for personal use, including but not limited to: origami; flipping coins; lighting expensive Cuban cigars; et al.

    As soon as Sony agrees to this EULA, or gets rid of its own, I will begin buying Sony music again.

    --
    Many Bothans died to bring you this sig.
    1. Re:In that case... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      6) I will never be liable to you for more than exactly $5.00 for damages to you or your property through the use of any of the rights granted to me in this EULA.
      You are far too generous.
    2. Re:In that case... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      You're being too generous to them. Treat them in the same way they treat you. Send a copy of the agreement to some out of the way offshoot of Sony saying that by selling you a copy of the CD they are bound by your terms and conditions, that these terms and conditions supplant any and all other terms and conditions without further notice, and that if the would like to refuse to meet these reasonable terms in specific cases they must refuse to sell you the CD. Any sale of the CD implies acceptance.

      After all, if they don't need to get your signature on the EULA before the sale in complete, neither do you. Its their job to be aware.

      Oh, and add in that you reserve the right to audit their finances and charges at any point to determine that costs are 'fair and reasonable'. A penalty clause should they be found to be price gouging equal to twice the fee seems reasonable.

    3. Re:In that case... by Daneurysm · · Score: 1

      somebody mod this up as informative or insightful... it might be rather funny to read, but it's exactly what they expect from us.

    4. Re:In that case... by fossa · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's actually a good idea... wrap your money and a copy of your EULA in plastic, slap a sticker on the front "by opening this you agree to the enclosed", and pay with that. If you ever get sued for "violating" their EULA, then the same legal reasoning would surely enforce your EULA.

    5. Re:In that case... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best bit? You don't even have to get them to sign it, just put "by selling me this CD you agree to..." at the top of your Retailer License Agreement, and shove it in their face after they sell you the CD. After all, it's exactly what they are doing to us with their EULA, isn't it?

  17. Microsoft Anti-Spyware to remove rootkit by RonnyJ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    On a related note, it looks like Microsoft have decided to add detection/removal of the Sony rootkit to Anti-Spyware (details here - though it sounds like the non-rootkit DRM part won't be touched).

  18. legitimate purchasing by coredump-0x00001 · · Score: 1

    the reason to legitimately purchase music is getting smaller and smaller with every one of these offenses. Sony, I will not honor your rights if you refuse to honor mine!

  19. Re:I stopped using SONY 2 years ago by Xemu · · Score: 1
    "let me repeat, on MY computer ?"


    Ownership is only for the rich. Are you rich? You will soon only be allowed to pay for a time-limited license to use a computer. Even the "my computer" icon has been the renamed in the next windows. Guess why?

    --
    Tell your friends about xenu.net
  20. Will Sony accept my "VULA"? by adnonsense · · Score: 5, Funny

    I haven't got the full text back from my lawyer, but in future all of my transactions with Sony will be accompanied by a "vendor user license agreement":

    ...

    IMPORTANT-READ CAREFULLY: By accepting my (hereafter: "CONSUMER") purchase of your product, you (hereafter: "VENDOR") will need to review and agree to be bound by an vendor user license agreement or "VULA", the terms and conditions of which are set forth below.

    As soon as you have agreed to be bound by the terms and conditions of the VULA, this transaction will automatically install a small proprietary software program (the "SOFTWARE") into YOUR BOOKKEEPING SYSTEM.

    ...

    From time to time CONSUMER will use the SOFTWARE to enforce his statutory rights, including checking the validity of any data held on him and updating it as he deems fit and in accordance with relevant privacy and data protection laws.

    ...

    1. Re:Will Sony accept my "VULA"? by jb.hl.com · · Score: 1

      How about Vendor User Licensing Volume Agreement? Better acronym, IMHO.

      --
      By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
    2. Re:Will Sony accept my "VULA"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since most EULAs seem to be about fucking the customer, it seems more appropriate, IMHO.

    3. Re:Will Sony accept my "VULA"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Makes me think of this quote.

  21. Parent is correct by everphilski · · Score: 0

    If your house was broken in to you would still have legal right to your CD's they would just not be in your posession for the time being. Note the "or" in "In the event that you no longer possess or have the right under such license to use the original CD product..."

    Quite frankly I'm dissapointed in the EFF for being so sensational.

    -everphilski-

    1. Re:Parent is correct by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The "or" seems to imply that either one of those cases could be true, and the revokation would take place.

      So, if you no longer possess the CD (house burns down), then you lose the right to use the original "content," and if you lose the right under such license, you also lose the right (very redundant).

      I think what they are doing is covering the "well my CD got stolen, so I just downloaded it off of edonkey and burned it onto a blank CD" excuse.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    2. Re:Parent is correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think what they are doing is covering the "well my CD got stolen, ...

      No, they aren't. If they're trying to do that, they have obviously failed. The EULA has nothing to do with theft or otherwise losing your CDs against your will. You do not agree to legally transfer your possession, licence and rights to a fire or to a thief.

      However, if you choose to sell your CDs (transfer right of possession and licence), then you must also delete your MP3s.

      It's sad. EFF have gone from standing up for the little guy to spewing sensationalist garbage and half-truths. What will happen the next time EFF's actions are actually needed to eg. raise awareness about something important?
      "EFF? Oh yeah, that's the nutty hippies who thought Sony wanted to steal from victims of arson and theft! The people behind 'DMCA Version 2' seem so much more sensible! Go DMCA2!!!11"

  22. No juries allowed... by rworne · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Article 10. GOVERNING LAW AND WAIVER OF TRIAL BY JURY
    ...

    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.


    Wow, no jury trials, eh? They are really covering their bases here if they cannot count on the "common person" to agree with them in a jury trial.

     
    --
    I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    1. Re:No juries allowed... by ghoti · · Score: 1

      That's a joke, right? This can never be legally binding. Why don't they take away your right to any kind of independent jurisdiction, while they're at it?

      --
      EagerEyes.org: Visualization and Visual Communication
    2. Re:No juries allowed... by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      I seriously have a problem with allowing some non-related act count as signing or accepting a contract. I think we need to go back to contracts not being accepted or signed unless done so on paper with a pen. In the digital realm, maybe we need to use gpg signatures, so it's at least clear that you are
      a) Actively accepting and actually doing something non-normal to sign a document

      and

      b) future people can see you have signed the document.

      So you don't have this "I never read or agreed to anything" issues as with EULAs.

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
    3. Re:No juries allowed... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      And you will either see a. sales plummet or b. EULAs in their current form disappear. Either would be fine from my perspective.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    4. Re:No juries allowed... by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 1

      Or just waive your right to a trial.

      And also accept that you aren't permitted to talk about their DRM.

      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    5. Re:No juries allowed... by CashCarSTAR · · Score: 1

      In a proper legal system, them trying this sort of BS would result in the entire package..copyright to the music and all..null and void.

    6. Re:No juries allowed... by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1
      I seriously have a problem with allowing some non-related act count as signing or accepting a contract. I think we need to go back to contracts not being accepted or signed unless done so on paper with a pen
      Contracts have never needed to be written down to be enforcable. It just makes it easier to determine and prove what the actual terms are. And you don't have to sign your name either. Hell, shaving an X onto a cow has been found to be a legally binding signature.
    7. Re:No juries allowed... by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      I guess. I just think there is a problem when you don't know if you are "signing" a contract. I mean, at this point, getting up from the left side of the bed in the morning could be construed as agreeing to some contract. And that's the problem.

      I'm not a lawyer, but the act of reading a contract, or opening the box/envelope to read the contract *should not* mean I agree to the contract. But that seems to be the case, or at least what many companies are promoting.

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
    8. Re:No juries allowed... by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1

      IANAL The strongest argument against EULAs being contracts is the fact that there is no consideration on both sides. Basically, you are agreeing to give up a bunch more rights in exchange for... nothing. You already own the copy of the software (otherwise the contract you made with the store in which you bought the software would be similarly invalid). Basically, you have to get something in exchange, or it's not a contract. It's why you sometimes hear about a deal going down where somebody buys some property for $1.

    9. Re:No juries allowed... by EngMedic · · Score: 1


      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.

       
        if that reads the way i think it does, then the EULA is ... depriving you of constitutional rights? bwhaa?

      --
      filter: +3. Hey, look! all the trolls went away!
    10. Re:No juries allowed... by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      I think we need to go back to contracts not being accepted or signed unless done so on paper with a pen.

      As others have pointed out, that has never been the case. For centuries before the common folk could read or write, they were entering into contracts with one another based on a word and a handshake. Even now, verbal contracts are binding if you can prove they were formed.

    11. Re:No juries allowed... by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      Ok, but at least I'm aware I'm making an agreement, and I'd suppose I have some idea of the terms of the agreement prior to shaking hands in a verbal contract.

      These EULAS are hidden inside a box(often not even in the box, but online or on the DISC, where getting to the contract (if I even guess there would be one) makes me agree to it *prior to reading it*!

      And while most people are used to EULAs on software, who would figure there would be a EULA on a MUSIC CD?

      There is no attempt to make us aware of such a thing prior to or during purchasing of the CD.

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
    12. Re:No juries allowed... by rworne · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well look at it this way:

      If you open the box on said piece of software, break the seal on the disc, read the EULA and don't agree with the terms, what do you do?

      The store you bought it from isn't going to take opened software back at all. I'm also pretty sure the software company's response to a phone call would be "Just return it to the retailer." I do suppose you could put the screws to a retailer if the EULA says to return it to the place of purchase for a refund, but even that is asking for a hassle.

      Then again Sony's license says the maximum they are liable for in any case is $5.00. So I guess if you pester them enough they'll send you a check for five bucks.

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    13. Re:No juries allowed... by rworne · · Score: 1

      No. I think it is only regarding civil trials. That way they get rid of juries and their expensive verdicts. Just including this clause in their license tells me they are full of shit - and they know they are full of it too.

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    14. Re:No juries allowed... by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      "If you open the box on said piece of software, break the seal on the disc, read the EULA and don't agree with the terms, what do you do?"

      You walk away with the understanding that you have just donated a certain amount of money to a corporation, more or less. That's pretty much what the outcome will be at the end of the day, no matter who or how much you complain. As a consumer you made a poor purchasing decision.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    15. Re:No juries allowed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "WAIVER OF TRIAL BY JURY."

      A corporation declares that it is excluding itself from the law, in a way that persons are not able to?

      That's simply insane.

      Can you send this piece to your political representative, please and ask for explanation.

    16. Re:No juries allowed... by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1

      $5.00

      I wonder if this can be used as a defence nest time the RIAA sues some PFU for Copywrite violations? Sony's EULA says their stuff is only worth $5.00, so that's what the PFU who is getting sued should pay.

      --
      If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
  23. Consumer response by Stiletto · · Score: 4, Funny

    Music Label: We grant ourselves the authority to do anything we want inside or outside your house, to you and your family, with or without notice, including but not limited to: erasing your wedding photos, replacing all your music with Milli Vanilli's Greatest hits, recording you singing in the shower, ruining your kid's christmas, getting you fired from your job, anally raping your poodle with a steel toothbrush, and force-feeding you your own dead grandmother's ashes. You hereby agree to hold Music Label harmless and you expressly waive all rights to damages, compensatory and punitive, arising from Music Label's actions.

    Joe Consumer: What is a rootkit? Is it dangero---WHOA NEW ALBUM ADVERTISED AT ME! MUST BUY IT NOW!!! MUST BUY IT NOW!!!

    1. Re:Consumer response by No+Such+Agency · · Score: 1

      Man, they still had me until that bit about the poodle. That's just wrong.

      --
      Freedom: "I won't!"
  24. I don't buy Sony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Period

  25. Reductio ad Absurdum by fermion · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I don't like to reduce these things to the absurd, but these EULA are silly, and the music EULAs doubly so. Typcially in software they had some justification as they, at least at first, limited the liability of the producer, although in an extremely clumsy way. As time went on, these things have gotten more insane, and frankly make software of so little value that I tend to limit what I use and buy.

    But at least most software producers understands the relationship between the paying customer and the company that depends on those customers. Even MS has gotten some sense by allowing copies of software to be stored on multiple devices. This is in sharp constrast to the music industry that seems to belive they could exist without customers. I mean deleting music off a harddisk is not that big a deal, but why force the situation. I mean, sure, if one sells a CD one should delete all copies, but why make a victim pay twice? I mean if you just lost all your possesions, except for the few items that were with you, is the music industry going to begrudge you a few copies. If all your money it tied up rebuilding a life after being violated, are they really going to sue you for damages?

    It is so absurd, it is hard to properly reduce. Perhaps asking a women who raped at a dance to pay for the repairs for the dress she rented. Which might happen, but it would be a pretty heartless company.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  26. Also in the news... by SillySnake · · Score: 1

    Sony: Worse than Microsoft?

    1. Re:Also in the news... by rdoger6424 · · Score: 2, Funny

      They don't have a laughable chair-throwing exec!

      a chair flies in from japan

      INCOMING!!!!

      --
      "Hello 911? I just tried to toast some bread, and the toaster grew an arm and stabbed me in the face!"
  27. Bash.org's funny quote related to Sony rootkit... by antdude · · Score: 5, Funny

    My friend sent me this bash.org quote link.

    I would had copy and pasted in here, but /. didn't like the uppercase: "Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
    Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING." and I am lazy to lowercase them manually, and EULA is all CAPS. :(

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  28. Refusing to buy sony stuff is stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    As much as you lot, I agree and I really hate Sony for the rootkit nonsense, and their business practices when it comes to music. However you need to remember that sony have several devisions - including several hardware devisions (etc). Just because the music devision sucks, it doesn't mean that the entire company sucks.

    I understand why people want to boycott sony and refuse to go near them, good for them - but im going to keep enjoying my Sony Ericsson phones, and my PSP when I get around to buying one. I just wont touch sony music CDs.

  29. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You are wrong, if someone steals your CD you must delete the copy. If you read the statement you will notice it uses OR, not AND like you seem to think. The use of OR actually makes that one statement two seperate ones. The statement "In the event that you no longer possess or have the right under such license to use the original CD product." can be rewritten as two seperate statements, "In the event that you no longer possess the original CD product." and "In the event that you no longer have the right under such license to use the original CD product." If the CD is stolen you no longer possess the original CD product therefore that clause is triggered.

  30. Sony sucks, but they're not alone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Welcome to the era of corporate rule.
    It is unjust, it is cruel, it is anti-democratic.

    http://malfeasance.50megs.com/

  31. Re:I stopped using SONY 2 years ago by UtucXul · · Score: 1
    Even the "my computer" icon has been the renamed in the next windows. Guess why?
    I thought they were going to change it because it was a stupid and confusing way to label things that totally falls apart in any networked setting.
  32. mod parent up as funny!! by nomadic · · Score: 1

    Has anything been heard from employees of Sony's consumer products arm? By and large, they manufacture high-quality kit - they have high standards

    Good one!

  33. BWhaa!!?!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So you are allowed to make backups of your CD's for safety (traditional fair use),
    but now if you ever actually need to use those backups because you sat on your original CD, Sony says you must destroy them too. Nice.

    1. Re:BWhaa!!?!! by jack_csk · · Score: 5, Funny

      My brain stores a copy of the music, shall I destroy it?

    2. Re:BWhaa!!?!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yes, that is required!
      <FNORD>
      It's one of our marketing strategies, nothin' personal.
      We just figure that the brainless will buy even more of our ***fertilizer***.

      -The Management
  34. Info-feudalism by tbuckner · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Get used to using the word "info-feudalism", for that is what the corporations are creating. Think about it: under feudalism, the lord owned the land, the serfs worked on the land, and the serfs were not allowed to move away if they didn't like the deal.
    Under info-feudalism:
    Large corporations bribe legislatures to expand "intellectual property" to include many, many things that used to be open to all;
    Government spends your money on basic drug research, but drug companies patent the results;
    Copyright gets extended again and again so that works no longer pass into the public domain after the creator dies;
    Your DNA gets patented by someone else without your say-so; authors patent story lines (!), corporations apply for ridiculously broad patents in an attempt to control what others can and cannot invent;
    Police arrest scientists who publish papers on flaws in Digital Rights Management schemes;
    You buy a song or a movie but never really own it;
    Fair Use quotations are legally doubtful;
    Crooked churches sue their critics because their 'bibles' are copyrighted;
    Governments tell lies such as "piracy helps the terrorists;
    News media are corrupted by their connection to cash-cow entertainment conglomerates;
    And it's not like any of them truly invented the ideas all by themselves; all of society indirectly helped; yet they rob all of society by seeking monopoly. Oh, I could go on and on.
    See this demolition of the whole idea of "Intellectual Property":
    http://deoxy.org/aip.htm

  35. Kind of a cudgel when a rapier will do, no? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, your zeal is admirable, but I think your approach may not accomplish a whole lot while causing a good deal of collateral damage in the process.

    Sony is a huge company with a jillion people working for dozens of divisions in several countries. Maybe if you limit your boycott to just the Sony-BMG music publishing division? I could get behind that.

    But as for Sony in general... I have an all-Sony stereo system, a Sony compact notebook computer, a Sony MP3 player, a Sony HDTV, etc... I consider all to be the best in their class and don't care to deprive myself of the brand, or hurt the people who make these products, because of some dweeb lawyers in the music division.

  36. Re:I stopped using SONY 2 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even the "my computer" icon has been the renamed in the next windows. Guess why?

    Because the operating system publisher no longer thinks of your computer as "My computer"? So things are improving. :)

    Since it wasn't me who named that icon "My computer", but the OS vendor, I always figured it was because the OS vendor thought it was his computer. That would fit in with the general feeling I get whenever I use Windows.

  37. Three elements to a contract by whoppers · · Score: 1

    http://law.freeadvice.com/general_practice/contrac t_law/binding_contract.htm

    From the above link to confirm what I recall in a college Business Law course, a contract such as this EULA would require three elements; (1) Competent Parties, (2) Consideration and (3) Mutual Assent or Meeting of the Minds.

    So, for item (1), most of us technically inclined individuals would believe they are not competent since they have written up such an insulting agreement. (2) I'm stretching here, but suppose someone bought me a CD of music, then there would be consideration between the original purchaser and Sony so that's been met, but for (3), there's a snowballs chance in hell that anyone who reads and understands that EULA would agree to it.

    For me, I'll just substitute my own reality for theirs should I be interested in any musician they try and push down my throat.

  38. My parsing of the EULA by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Interesting
    From the preamble to the EULA
    Before you can play the audio files on YOUR COMPUTER or create and/or transfer the DIGITAL CONTENT to YOUR COMPUTER, you will need to review and agree to be bound by an end user license agreement or "EULA"
    I need to agree?
    Please keep in mind, however, that if you do not agree to be bound by these terms and conditions, you will not be able to utilize the audio files or the DIGITAL CONTENT on YOUR COMPUTER.
    O RLY?

    As far as i can tell, these are merely statements with no force of law.

    I think they're mixing two things together
    1. The DRM software on the CD
    2. The audio tracks on the CD

    There is no EULA that applies to the audio tracks on any CD. If I disagree with their EULA, all it means is that I disagree to use their software to manage my experience. Unless I'm way off base* my reading of the EULA doesn't suggest otherwise.

    They use CAPITAL LETTERS to make sure we know that the license we're being 'granted' is to
    1(a). "install one (1) copy of software"
    1(b). "install one (1) copy of any approved media player(s) contained on this CD"
    1(c). use the software and any approved media player(s)

    *I know the collective genius of /. will correct me if I am wrong
    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
    1. Re:My parsing of the EULA by acroyear · · Score: 1

      Ah, but that's because the software and its installation onto your PC constitutes a Digital Rights Protection Scheme. As such, it is already covered by the DMCA. Any attempt to bypass the "security" that the CD is protected with by somehow avoiding having the software installed on your PC was a violation of the DMCA and you weren't legally allowed to do it in the first place.

      Thus, their software's EULA didn't have to cover that aspect.

      --
      "But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
      -- Joe
    2. Re:My parsing of the EULA by PGC · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The DMCA is only valid in the US of A ... and as far as I am aware, these cd's are distributed world-wide.

      --
      The Dutch will inherit the earth. If not, we'll settle for a bit of ocean. Beta delenda est!
    3. Re:My parsing of the EULA by acroyear · · Score: 1

      when did little details like THAT ever stop a u.s. company from acting like a bunch of mindless jerks? :)

      --
      "But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
      -- Joe
    4. Re:My parsing of the EULA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is no EULA that applies to the audio tracks on any CD. If I disagree with their EULA, all it means is that I disagree to use their software to manage my experience.

      You're not off base, that's exactly right, and I'll give a good (although possibly tedious) example.

      You can connect a stereo to your computer via digital audio cable. You insert the CD into the stereo, and play and record the music through your computer. In the end, you are left with audio tracks on your computer. At no point in the process was any DRM circumvented, and no EULA was either presented or agreed to. The DRM was not circumvented because using the stereo you played the music, which is exactly the point of the stereo, and using the computer you recorded the input stream, which is exactly the point of audio recording software, including that which ships with Windows. Therefore, the tracks you have on your system at that point are unencumbered by both DRM and the EULA. You didn't agree to anything when you did that.

      I cannot consider any contract to be valid where the contractee accepts the contract passively. In my view, in order for any contract to be valid, the contractee has to specifically and actively accept the contract, through signature or otherwise. Simply performing an action without having the contract presented is not a valid way of bringing the contract into force.

      The bash.org quote about writing an EULA on a brick (beginning with 'By accepting this brick into your window') and then hurling the brick through Sony's window is a good illustration of that.

    5. Re:My parsing of the EULA by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      I refer you to this AC post, which gives a perfectly valid example of how the EULA can be bypassed without either accepting or rejecting it. Summary: Record it from a stereo to your computer

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    6. Re:My parsing of the EULA by acroyear · · Score: 1

      i proposed the "analog escape" (which by going through an analog phase, bypasses ANY DMCA restrictions, though adds a lossy layer to it) a couple of years ago and got thoroughly chewed out for it.

      --
      "But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
      -- Joe
    7. Re:My parsing of the EULA by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that the **AA are quite busy these days trying to plug the analog hole As for /. flaming you for the idea. /. is fickle and will turn on anybody, but i doubt you need to be told that.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    8. Re:My parsing of the EULA by acroyear · · Score: 1

      actually, it wasn't /. as much as someone griping about it in a pre-"radar" blog @ o'reilly.

      --
      "But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
      -- Joe
  39. Boycott Sony... by tjclancy · · Score: 1

    Certainly if you don't care for the EULA then you ought to stop purchasing their CDs. But you can also stop purchasing their hardware as well. Stop buying their DVD players, CD players, Computers, Camcorders, Digital Cameras, etc. There are better alternatives. Just hit them where it hurts, essentially. This is, of course, just a suggestion.

  40. What if you don't agree? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I haven't bought one of the CDs (nor will I). If you don't consent to the EULA terms (assuming you can click No in a dialog), does the CD still install the rootkit or DRM crud?

    Also, does holding the shift key as the disc mounts bypass the auto-run code?

  41. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Nonsense. If your property (the physical CDs, or your licence to their contents) is stolen it's still yours, legally you still possess it. A thief's possession of your property is illegal, and you haven't entered an agreement with the thief to transfer "the right under such licence" to him.

    EFF has apparently become the new Slashduh, and I'm disappointed in them.

  42. I am glad I don't have any DRMed Music... by losslesshead · · Score: 1

    I am so glad that I don't have any DRMed music (used to use itunes to donwload songs, but I used JHymn to convert the protected files to unprotected MP3's) because it seems like the music industry is trying to screw all fo the consumers (like us) over!

  43. Spread this meme: INFECTED WITH DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Consumers don't realize how bad for them all this DRM and "Trusted" Computing stuff is. They don't realize that it will take away their fair use rights, and their freedom to use the stuff they bought and paid for however they want, and give those rights and freedoms directly to large corporations that treat consumers as the enemy.

    Spread this meme: INFECTED WITH DRM.

    Those three words carry *exactly* the connotation we want: DRM is bad, consumers need protection from DRM, and if DRM is not stopped it will eventually spread to all our consumer devices like a plague and then we are fucked.

    We have to make consumers CARE about this issue before they will stop giving their entertainment dollars to Sony and the RIAA and the Disneys of the world. So spread this meme. It's a loaded phrase, which is good--we must provoke an emotional response from consumers who are otherwise indifferent about this issue, even though it will affect them greatly if they don't oppose it.

    I don't want to wake up 10 years from now and be living in a technological dark-age. So spread this meme.

  44. MOD PARENT UP!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interesting, if true

  45. Ironic but true.. by canuck57 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    By now I really think it's gotten to the point that it's more unethical to give money to a company like this than to download their music without paying.

    It is ironic but true that your computer is now safer to download pirate copys of entertainment than to buy the authentic thing. WTF was Sony/BMG thinking? Most of us are honest!!

    Do keep in mind this tech can also be delivered on DVDs. Although I don't believe it has been done to the masses yet, there is no reason why it couldn't be on a DVD.

    And I for one would have never thought to read the EULA verbose legal microprint to see if it would rootkit my PC. Fortunately I never put the BMG ones I have in my PC.

    Which makes me think this industry just shot itself in the foot.

    1. Re:Ironic but true.. by chronicon · · Score: 5, Insightful
      It is ironic but true that your computer is now safer to download pirate copys of entertainment than to buy the authentic thing. WTF was Sony/BMG thinking? Most of us are honest!!

      That is such a solid point. The whole issue is out of control. What if Sony-BMG is allowed to get away with this? What kind of precedent does it set? Will we now have to worry about every release from every media company that may follow the Sony model and employ their own variant of spy/malware-type Digital Restriction software on their CD or DVD?

      An EULA for CD audio?! When I first read this stuff I could NOT believe what I was seeing! We saw the writing on the wall with CueCat (remember that nonsense?). Do we just get to expect that everything we buy will now include "instructions" on what we can & cannot do with the things that we purchase? This goes beyond killing innovation--heck, instead of selling us merchandise it seems as if we're just paying a leasing fee: the manufacturer still owns the product and gets to tell us how we can use it. Licensed audio CDs, subscription software. I think it is only the beginning. Can't wait until I am forced to buy only certain brands of gasoline for my car based on the EULA I signed when I purchase my next vehicle...

      This all ties in with the honesty factor you mention. Sony (and others) simply use piracy as an excuse for this kind of awful behavior on their part. Please don't swap non-redistributable copyrighted files, if you do, you're ruining it for the rest of us!

      As you can see from the links, I've been stewing over these disturbing trends for days. Years actually. Any excuse to control the consumer seems to be grabbed up immediately by the powers that be...

    2. Re:Ironic but true.. by Fordiman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Unfortunately, there are enough of us who don't see anything wrong with swapping coprighted materials that uncontrolled P2P filesharing is not going to wink out of existance any time soon.

      And, regardless of what you think, you _can not_ ask or order a significant portion of a population to change their habits. It doesn't work, never has. So the recording industry tries to fight it, but it just reinforces these habits - incites them towards more and more anti-DMCA activities - until someone with a brain over there figures out what's going on.

      *shrug* not my job to make an industry change direction, and they've enough inertia in the wrong direction to make this ... unpleasant. But keep in mind that it's not the public's fault. What the public does in general is due to the nature of humanity. The fact that you may feel above that nature is irrelevant; not everyone has your 'superior' ethics. I put superior in quotes, as I question the ethicality comparison between copyright infringement on a personal level, and supporting a business that engages in questionable practices in a desperate effort to 'protect' their copyright - something this rootkit doesn't actually do.

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    3. Re:Ironic but true.. by 615 · · Score: 1

      I don't buy a lot of movies (don't watch a lot either), but I'm seriously considering going back to VHS for all future purchases. The only problem I've ever had with VHS cassettes is the tracking. DVDs, however, have inaudible vocal tracks, forced previews, sluggish and/or buggy interfaces, and a host of restrictions on what features you can use and when. Many is the time I've just wanted to WATCH THE FRIGGEN MOVIE, but I can't, because I have to sit through piracy warnings in 8 languages (I'm only slightly exagerating) and obnoxiously long introductions to the MAIN MENU. Ripping, editing, and reburning offending DVDs is one solution, but it's time consuming and, oh yeah, ILLEGAL. Argh!

    4. Re:Ironic but true.. by chronicon · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Unfortunately, there are enough of us who don't see anything wrong with swapping coprighted materials... regardless of what you think, you _can not_ ask or order a significant portion of a population to change their habits.

      Sure I can ask (who said anything about "order"?). Why not? Your actions are going to have a negative impact on technology I use for legitimate purposes. Why can't I point this out? I don't agree with the current state of copyright law, I think it is massive overkill with its term of life+75 years, etc. I think it is an affront to creativity and it is robbing the culture, is that ethical? I don't think so, not by a long shot...

      Regardless, it does not matter what I think of copyright law. Do I get to break it just because I disagree with it? Your answer seems to be yes. For a lot of us, that answer is no. I'm not trying to advance my supposed sense of morality on you, I just want you guys to recogonize that your actions will have a negative impact on what we (legally) get to do with products we own. Slowly but surely this is the case, and this Sony rootkit & EULA issue is a prime example. Step back for a moment and disregard the ethical issues (which you've already done according to your comments) and just look at it from the chilling effects this disregard is going to have on technology & innovation. That affects all of us, no matter where you stand on fileswapping as an ethical issue. That was my point.

      You can make the assertion that nobody is going to stop you, that you are going to do what you want with what you own no matter what anybody says (even the law). "You can pry my computer from my cold dead fingers", but that cuts the other way too: "When P2P is outlawed, only outlaws will have P2P." How is that right? How is that fair?

      'superior ethics'? You obviously have a sense of entitlement & superiority over the rest of us, that somehow you have a right to take (for yourself) & post (for others to take) non-redistributable copyrighted software/music/movies. If you really enjoy these products so much, why can't you pay for them like the rest of us?

      Umm, tell us again who has a sense of superiority?

      So yeah, I am asking you guys to play by the rules and not even because "it's the right thing to do." I'm asking because I want to keep my toys and my (current/threatened) rights to (legitimately) do with them what I will...

    5. Re:Ironic but true.. by Xugumad · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, there are enough of us who don't see anything wrong with swapping coprighted materials that uncontrolled P2P filesharing is not going to wink out of existance any time soon.

      How not, exactly? Let me just run through the options I can think of:

      1. It's unfair how much of the money the label gets.
      Well, sure, but that doesn't make it any fairer to not pay the artist. While we're on the subject; how much does the label to produce the music for a CD? How much do they make back from a hit album? How does this relate to albums that don't do so well? At the end of the day, are they actually raking in money hand over fist, or is most of the massive profits on successful albums wiped out by the failures?

      2. All the music made today is just rubbish.
      So, why did you want a copy again?

      3. Current copyright laws are too long.
      Are you copying music is actually all that old? If you're downloading Elvis tracks, I'm willing to give a little here, but I'd tend to suggest you're not.

      4. Music is overpriced.
      So don't buy it. Encourage your friends not to buy it. Encourage random people on /. not to buy it. But don't pirate it, because that just makes the labels more convinced they're missing out on sales they'd get if only they used stronger DRM.

      5. I'm not hurting anyone by copying music.
      Not directly, no, but that doesn't make it right. If you can afford the music, why aren't you buying it, and ensuring the people involved get paid. If you can't, consider that you don't need music to live, and nothing like a drop of sales and piracy would get the message across to the labels better.

      Anything I've missed? Probably a few...
    6. Re:Ironic but true.. by Twanfox · · Score: 1

      In terms of element #4, it doesn't matter if you tell people not to buy it and they don't buy it and don't pirate it. Sony and the other labels do not comprehend market feedback very well, it seems. If sales drop, it must be pirating. If we can't figure out where the pirating is happening, it must be underground where we can't find it. We need more DRM! They seem to consider us criminals no matter what feedback we give with our wallets. And, what are we left with at the end of the day? A lot of memories of our culture, but once we're dead, our children won't know because we didn't buy any of the things we actually liked.

    7. Re:Ironic but true.. by lubricated · · Score: 1

      > If you really enjoy these products so much, why can't you pay for them like the rest of us?

      I think the answer to that question is in just about every other post. Because you are worse off after buying these products.

      Tell me where I can buy a copy of a movie that will play on my linux system from my hardrive. Furthermore, if I'm paying for such a copy I want the codec that it's in and the file format to be documented and don't want to relly on one company to support it.

      You can't buy such a thing. Hell you can't even buy such a thing that will go on a windows system.

      Don't give me any such crap about stealing, I don't do p2p. I can see where people are getting quite frustrated. All I do is buy easily scratchable shiny plastic discs that I can't backup in overly bulky containers. It's no wonder people are sharing this stuff, I may go that route myself in the future.

      --
      It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
    8. Re:Ironic but true.. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1
      I'm not trying to advance my supposed sense of morality on you, I just want you guys to recogonize that your actions will have a negative impact on what we (legally) get to do with products we own.
      If I choose to ignore any copyright legislation outright, how do any additional laws change the picture for me?
      So yeah, I am asking you guys to play by the rules and not even because "it's the right thing to do." I'm asking because I want to keep my toys and my (current/threatened) rights to (legitimately) do with them what I will...
      In other words, you want to stay safe and within the system, and ask the rest to do the same for the sake of your safety.

      I think the short answer to this would be, "why should I care?".

    9. Re:Ironic but true.. by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 1

      If you're downloading Elvis tracks, I'm willing to give a little here,
       
      The stuff that I download tends to be MP3's of old time radio. (Box 13, Gunsmoke, Phillip Marlowe, Sam Spade, etc.)
       
        but I'd tend to suggest you're not.
       
      And you would be wrong. Well ok, it's not Elvis.
       
      Point is, though, that there are some of us out here.

      --
      If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
    10. Re:Ironic but true.. by chronicon · · Score: 1
      So yeah, I am asking you guys to play by the rules and not even because "it's the right thing to do." I'm asking because I want to keep my toys and my (current/threatened) rights to (legitimately) do with them what I will...

      In other words, you want to stay safe and within the system, and ask the rest to do the same for the sake of your safety.

      I think the short answer to this would be, "why should I care?".

      LOL

      Good shot, except the point is: eventually it will affect you too, particularly when Digital Restrictions makes it way into the hardware levels. Then where will we be?

    11. Re:Ironic but true.. by chronicon · · Score: 3, Insightful
      > If you really enjoy these products so much, why can't you pay for them like the rest of us?

      I think the answer to that question is in just about every other post. Because you are worse off after buying these products.

      Tell me where I can buy a copy of a movie that will play on my linux system from my hardrive. Furthermore, if I'm paying for such a copy I want the codec that it's in and the file format to be documented and don't want to relly on one company to support it.

      You can't buy such a thing. Hell you can't even buy such a thing that will go on a windows system.

      Sure you can, Linspire sells a licensed DVD player for Linux. And, as far as Windows, there's PowerDVD among other software players that come bundled with the purchase of a system w/DVD drive or an OEM drive. I've never purchased either where a Windows player didn't come with the DVD drive. I must be missing your point on that...

      Don't give me any such crap about stealing, I don't do p2p. I can see where people are getting quite frustrated. All I do is buy easily scratchable shiny plastic discs that I can't backup in overly bulky containers. It's no wonder people are sharing this stuff, I may go that route myself in the future.

      I can see where they are getting frustrated too, but possibly for different reasons (DRM, EULA, stupid excessive copyright restrictions, etc.). Why aren't you allowed to backup DVDs? That is within your rights under fair use as I understand it (INL). Does the DMCA trump fair use in this regard? If so, why? I don't think I'm dishing out "crap" by asking these questions, or by pointing out the obvious conclusions of the "us vs. them" mentality in the P2P arena. Look, if you aren't using P2P for illegal purposes now, it is an easy bet that you wouldn't walk into a store and abscond out the door with a stack of discs, right? Then why would you want to "go that route" yourself someday via P2P? Ethically, what is the difference? Is it really a load of crap? No, it's just harder to catch and prosecute...at the moment.

      Show me where folks like Orrin Hatch and the big media companies are advancing the arguments for further controlling OUR usage of OUR property without invoking copyright infringing P2P transactions. I don't think you'll find many instances where that isn't in the equation. My point is valid. They will continue to use this against all of us and the technologies that we freely employ today (for whatever purpose), who doubts that? It is the catch all excuse for taking more of our rights from us. Those who argue against this concept today (because they aren't getting caught...yet) are simply adding fuel to the power-grabbing fire. Like it or not.

      Frogs in the cooks pot, he slowly turns up the heat and we don't even notice until we're collectively cooked...

    12. Re:Ironic but true.. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      If it can be played, it can be copied, period. I'm rather confident in my ability to find a way to counter a hardware encoding scheme one way or another, so as far as I'm concerned, the threat is only legal, not technical.

    13. Re:Ironic but true.. by chronicon · · Score: 1
      If it can be played, it can be copied, period. I'm rather confident in my ability to find a way to counter a hardware encoding scheme one way or another, so as far as I'm concerned, the threat is only legal, not technical.

      But what about the rest of those who may not be as technically adept? Their fair use rights slowly eroded to nothing, their hardware controlled by the media or (worse) the government. Technical, legal, it makes no difference. The usefulness of the equipment and media they own becomes...useless.

      See, I think that's where the problem lies. Everybody is just looking out for themselves. "Well I don't give a **** cuz I know how to crack anything." vs. the MPAA/RIAA & legislators like Orrin Hatch who thinks it is OK to destroy the hardware of so-called infringers.

      There has to be some middle ground that can be reached where WE as consumers get to legally & technically retain control of the products we own and the ability of the content producer to maintain their rights (as in copyright).

      I am a big supporter of Creative Commons licensing, but even that concept can't exist without copyright law. If your sole source of income is via the sale of the media you create where is your incentive if everybody takes without compensating you? Should everything automatically become the province of the Public Domain? Isn't that what's happening when movies or music is released on the internet before it even makes it to the market? Well, if that's the case then let's simply rid ourselves of copyright law, Creative Commons, and all the rest entirely. What is the point? If that happens, let's see how much worthwhile content is created afterwards...

      Where is the balance here? Hopefully it can be found before the common man finds his gear DRM'd into the ground...

    14. Re:Ironic but true.. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1
      But what about the rest of those who may not be as technically adept? Their fair use rights slowly eroded to nothing, their hardware controlled by the media or (worse) the government. Technical, legal, it makes no difference. The usefulness of the equipment and media they own becomes...useless.
      If you want to fight it from within the system, you have the legal means to do so. Vote the people who make those decisions out of office, replace them with those who'll introduce sane legislation, and if you ever happen to be in the jury on a copyright violation case, exercise your power of jury nullification. I'll wholeheartedly support any such initiative - sadly, I do not think even then it will get us anywhere, hence my rather cynical stance on the issue.
      your sole source of income is via the sale of the media you create where is your incentive if everybody takes without compensating you? Should everything automatically become the province of the Public Domain? Isn't that what's happening when movies or music is released on the internet before it even makes it to the market? Well, if that's the case then let's simply rid ourselves of copyright law, Creative Commons, and all the rest entirely. What is the point? If that happens, let's see how much worthwhile content is created afterwards...
      I'm not quite sure how it is relevant, but it has been dicussed numerous times before, and I believe pretty much everyone out there has their opinion on it already. Google will get you hundreds of pages information and disputes on the topic: economical theories, ethical and philosophical issues, explanations - it's all there if you care to look for it. Myself, I was convinced enough that I am firmly in the anti-copyright camp now. On that point, we disagree with you; let's just leave it at that.
    15. Re:Ironic but true.. by Scarletdown · · Score: 3, Informative
      An EULA for CD audio?!


      And for years, I was under the impression that this... http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/us c_sup_01_17.html was the EULA for music and other copyrighted works.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    16. Re:Ironic but true.. by chronicon · · Score: 1
      If you want to fight it from within the system, you have the legal means to do so... sadly, I do not think even then it will get us anywhere, hence my rather cynical stance on the issue.

      I am trying, for whatever it's worth. I just don't think it is an issue that has attained critical mass yet. Not enough people are affected yet or care enough to rein in those that want control of all the media, all the time, at all levels. Someday though. By then I hope it is not too late...

      your sole source of income is via the sale of the media you create where is your incentive if everybody takes without compensating you? Should everything automatically become the province of the Public Domain? Isn't that what's happening when movies or music is released on the internet before it even makes it to the market? Well, if that's the case then let's simply rid ourselves of copyright law, Creative Commons, and all the rest entirely. What is the point? If that happens, let's see how much worthwhile content is created afterwards...

      I'm not quite sure how it is relevant, but it has been dicussed numerous times before, and I believe pretty much everyone out there has their opinion on it already... Myself, I was convinced enough that I am firmly in the anti-copyright camp now. On that point, we disagree with you; let's just leave it at that.

      I thought the point relevant because content producers should have some controls over the works they produce. There is no control when it becomes (literally) a free-for-all via P2P. At that point it is virtually Public Domain. I firmly believe however that copyright laws should be almost completely rewritten at this point, they are so far out of balance they've become a cultural burden now, IMO.

      Well, I appreciate your time in discussing these issues with me today. It's been interesting, certainly. I guess if I could wish for one thing it would be increased awareness of these issues outside of the /. realm. I wish more people cared about the power-grabbing attempts by media companies and their cronies in government. Nothing is really going to change until then it seems.

    17. Re:Ironic but true.. by chronicon · · Score: 1
      And for years, I was under the impression that this... http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/us c_sup_01_17.html was the EULA for music and other copyrighted works.

      Nice link, Mod Informative!

      Apparently Sony would like to expand their "rights". If you move out of the country, don't forget to delete that music...

    18. Re:Ironic but true.. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1
      I thought the point relevant because content producers should have some controls over the works they produce. There is no control when it becomes (literally) a free-for-all via P2P. At that point it is virtually Public Domain.
      I would think what you really want in this case is for content producers to be compensated for their work; that you give them certain additional rights is just a mean to achieve that. Now, it might not be the only one: even within the existing economic system based solely on money exchange, there's Street Performer Protocol at the very least. It might not be perfect, but at least it shows that there are other ways to provide compensation than giving people artificial rights to limit the distribution of information.

      Also have a look at a few other Wikipedia articles.

    19. Re:Ironic but true.. by StarsAreAlsoFire · · Score: 1

      Your response is actually the one bound to fail. History has many examples.

      I will suffice it to say that submission has never won the day.

      If the RIAA bothered to employ behavioral psychologists for anything other than predicting the next pop hit, I doubt we would see much of what has happened.

      America has long paid lip service to democracy, but in reality it is very hard to 'do anything' through channels. As citizens, we've a long and flowing history of passivly ignoring laws we thing are bullshit. Think 'prohibition'. Think 'pot'. Prostitution. Etc.

      If we *really* wanted to end prostitution, it would stop. Same with pot-smoking. The reality is that most people just don't care enough _either way_ to get actively involved in politics. Or, honestly, to even understand the issues.

      When people who DO care get involved, they see a large body of ignorant people being led around by corrupt polititions who, in turn, are being led around by large sacks of money held by 'corporate sponsors'.

      If we were to sit back and say 'oh! Shit! Our bad! You're right guys, what we were doing was wrong!', then you people who are happy to sit back and ignore politics would and up having digital restrictions managment that makes this shit look friendly.

      When Big Music takes a little lesson from history, they will figure out that a middle ground option will be significantly more effective than any draconian measures. Tagging songs with individual IDs and occasionally prosocuting the hell out of large distributers would raise few hackles.

      bah. Big Music will never get it. They are like the rapist that sues the victom for giving them an STD.

    20. Re:Ironic but true.. by arminw · · Score: 1

      .....based on the EULA I signed ....

      If you actually SIGNED a EULA, then you can be identified and held to its terms, even if you never read it. It's just like any other document you sign, such as a lease or loan. However ripping open a package or clicking a mouse does not identify anybody, nor does it determine if you are not a minor. Since many, if not most purchasers of some of these CDs are minors and/or cannot be identified as having participated in a legal agreement, all such EULA are not worth the paper they are printed on or the price of the electrons to display them. Furthermore, laws take precedence ofer private contracts. Copyright law gives you certain rights as well as restrictions and that supercedes any private "agreeements".

      Media companies will try to get consumers to believe that such "agreements" are binding, but they all know that they are not unless each CD comes with a piece of paper you SIGN just like a sales contract for a car might. Therefore standard copyright law is all that applies to these CDs as it does to other CDs that don't have that crap "agreement". Making copies for others of *any* copyrighted work is illegal whether there exists a EULA or not.

      --
      All theory is gray
    21. Re:Ironic but true.. by arminw · · Score: 1

      ......is only legal, not technical....

      In order to play music or watch a movie, no matter how it is scrambled or encrypted, at some point you have to have the key. If there is a key, it can *always* be found and used to unlock the content. It doesn't matter, whether it is in hardware or software. At some point the key must be used. Encryption ONLY works against third parties. If I send an encrypted message to you and expect YOU to read it, then you must also have the key. A third party will not be able to read a well encrypted message unless they also have that key. In the movie DVDs the decryption key is in the licensed player. Once that key is known, the DVD can be viewed. No matter where and how deep they try to bury that key, at some point it has to be put into the lock and that's when it will *always* be grabbed by someone.

      For purely theoretical, mathemetical reasons DRM can never work to prevent the intended recipient of a message or content from doing whatever they want with that once the message is in a plain unencrypted format. Maybe once the content creators figure out that DRM is theoretically impossible they'll stop using it.

      --
      All theory is gray
    22. Re:Ironic but true.. by arminw · · Score: 1

      .....But what about the rest of those who may not be as technically adept.....

      That's easy! They just download a non encrypted version from the internet put there by a very technically adept person. No laws, rules or draconican punishments have ever prevented people from getting what they want. Prohibition and the failed war on drugs are two examples.

      If the content providers make their stuff available for reasonable prices and in a convenient format, they will find out that most peole are willing to pay for it. The iTunes music service is a showcase for my point. Since Apple was forced to provide some DRM for the content, they chose to do one that is not too intrusive. However, I think that if there were NO DRM whatsoever on the iTunes music store, the number of downloads therefrom would not be significantly less.

      --
      All theory is gray
    23. Re:Ironic but true.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be walking into a store, making a copy of the stuff inside without damaging anything, then walking out.

      Bit different, no?

      And I agree, I enjoy having things EASILY accessed on my computer than in DVD form. Make it a better goddamned product and I'm likely to buy it. I get more (even ignoring price) from downloaded things. Hell, I downloaded a CD once because I forgot the original one at home without ripping it. I suppose that's horribly wrong too.

    24. Re:Ironic but true.. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1
      In order to play music or watch a movie, no matter how it is scrambled or encrypted, at some point you have to have the key.
      Nah, it's even simpler than that.

      In order to play a music or a movie, you have to ... well ... play it, you know? As in, display the picture in such a way that human eye can see it. In which case any camera can see it as well, and therefore, record it. Same thing with audio. So, unless they start putting DRM implants into our heads (which would access the "encoded" signal from the optical nerve, decode it, and feed it to the brain), we're safe.

      As for DRM being inherently breakable... this is true, but only, as you say, "theoretically". Practically, hardware DRM can be designed in such a way that it is simply too expensive to break. Then again, it only has to be done once, and then the DRM-free content can be distributed, so why not?

    25. Re:Ironic but true.. by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      I don't think that licencing in itself is intrinsically bad. Look at the sorts of rights we're entitled to with "Licenced, not sold" videogames from the 1990s: you're licencing the right to use the game, so you're permitted to make a backup to permit you to use that licence in the event the original is destroyed, you can obtain a replacement for a nominal disk-creating charge from the manufacturer, and so on.

      Imagine being licenced a song in that sense- actually buying, with the CD, the right to listen to Rob Dougan's Furious Angels, no matter what you do to the original media, no matter what format you change it into, no matter where you acquire a CD or MP3 or WMA or OGG of it. That's what intellectual property should mean in this day and age - not some physical object but the IP in all its abstractness. With the DRM systems that exist, it should be entirely possible to track the usage "Rights" of the customer.

      There's real potential there, but the reality we get is that we're licenced the limited right to listen to the music on the specific physical media which we purchased, and nothing more. Want to listen to it on your MP3 player? Pay for it again. CDs stolen? Pay for it again. We don't actually have Digital Rights to Manage, we're just buying a single, intractable commodity item when we buy a CD.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    26. Re:Ironic but true.. by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I think that the DMCA probably *does* trump "fair use", since the DMCA was passed AFTER the idea of fair use was created by the courts. IANAL, but that's the way I think the law works.

      This says NOTHING about right or wrong, merely about the nearly orthogonal concept of lawful or unlawful. Read that carefully. Legal doesn't mean right. Illegal doesn't mean wrong. OTOH, illegal is a bit dangerous, and should generally be avoided for that reason. I don't find that I'm interested enough in the latest music to break a law to listen to it. So I just don't buy CDs or watch movies anymore. Because I do find it wrong to give money to the MPAA or the RIAA, even indirectly. (If I do decide to watch a movie, I give twice the ticket price to the EFF...and count that as a part of the cost of seeing the movie.)

      The bit about Sony's EULA, though, is quite interesting. The EULA is the reason I originally switched from MSWind to Linux, and I would never be willing to agree to such an EULA. It's worse than a rootkit, because I can get rid of a rootkit, but if I agree to an EULA, I can never get rid of having agreed to it.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    27. Re:Ironic but true.. by chronicon · · Score: 1
      Thank you for the links, I will definitely look further into the concepts mentioned in those articles. I recall reading about the SPP on previous occasions. Stephen King tried that approach with an on-line book once, I wonder how it worked out (because at the moment I do not recall).

      Compensation in monetary form is not always necessary (which is why I am a big fan of Creative Commons--it should NOT be an all or nothing game [ALL rights reserved or Public Domain]. I don't like extremes in this arena. Creative Commons provides the middle ground between the polar opposites here.) Now, I will say yes, I currently hold that if you're sustained by your work as an artist or performer then of course some methodology needs to be in place to make it worth your while to give you incentive to continue. Copyrights can provide that, but clearly you demonstrate that they may be viable alternatives to this approach...

    28. Re:Ironic but true.. by chronicon · · Score: 1
      Media companies will try to get consumers to believe that such "agreements" are binding, but they all know that they are not unless each CD comes with a piece of paper you SIGN just like a sales contract for a car might. Therefore standard copyright law is all that applies to these CDs as it does to other CDs that don't have that crap "agreement". Making copies for others of *any* copyrighted work is illegal whether there exists a EULA or not.

      Arguments such as the above have been postulated previously. Are there references that can be provided to demonstrate that EULA are of no effect? What does that do to Creative Commons licensing of copyrighted works? No one signs anything in those instances. Could a content producer come back and sue someone for remixing a work even though he or she had distributed the work with a CC license initially?

      With regards to copying copyrighted works as always being illegal: that can't be right. Timeshifting has not been outlawed yet, and fair use lets me make back up copies among other things, AFAIK.

    29. Re:Ironic but true.. by chronicon · · Score: 1
      .....But what about the rest of those who may not be as technically adept.....

      That's easy! They just download a non encrypted version from the internet put there by a very technically adept person. No laws, rules or draconican punishments have ever prevented people from getting what they want. Prohibition and the failed war on drugs are two examples.

      Certainly true, but just because you can do a thing does not necessarily mean you should do it.

      If the content providers make their stuff available for reasonable prices and in a convenient format, they will find out that most peole are willing to pay for it. The iTunes music service is a showcase for my point. Since Apple was forced to provide some DRM for the content, they chose to do one that is not too intrusive. However, I think that if there were NO DRM whatsoever on the iTunes music store, the number of downloads therefrom would not be significantly less.

      This I fully agree with. Supply & demand. RIAA/MPAA have missed that boat for certain...

    30. Re:Ironic but true.. by arminw · · Score: 1

      ....Are there references that can be provided to demonstrate that EULA are of no effect? ......

      It's very simple actually. You don't have to be a Harvard lawyer. The "A" stands for agreement or a contract. There can be NO agreement unless both parties agree, can be identified, certified and are qualified to enter such legal agreements. When your ten year old rips open a box or clicks a mouse, that does NOT constitute any agreement, because ALL laws in all states don't allow children to enter into legal agreements. For adults, an UNAMBIUOUS evidence, such as at LEAST a signature is needed to provide proof of any agreements. That's why a SIGNATURE is required on any supposed agreement by BOTH parties. When you apply for a loan, you and the bank officer both sign the terms of the loan. When you rent an apartment, BOTH you and the landlord SIGN a legally enforceable agreement, subject to the applicable laws.

      For many important agreements, an official witness, such as a notary is needed to provide evidence that BOTH parties are who they say they are and are indeed agreeing to the terms of the contract thus entered into. These laws have been on the books for ages and are still in effect. Because an EULA is one sided, it is NOT an agreement, regardless of the wishful thinking of media and software companies. When they start requiring you to sign an official document that they also sign, concering the terms under which you may use their crap, you are NOT bound by whatever legalese they may print or display. By opening a box or clicking a mouse, you have made NO promise to ANYBODY. Those "agreements" are as worthless as an unsigned check.

      --
      All theory is gray
    31. Re:Ironic but true.. by chronicon · · Score: 1
      I don't think that licencing in itself is intrinsically bad. Look at the sorts of rights we're entitled to with "Licenced, not sold" videogames from the 1990s: you're licencing the right to use the game, so you're permitted to make a backup to permit you to use that licence in the event the original is destroyed, you can obtain a replacement for a nominal disk-creating charge from the manufacturer, and so on.

      Agreed. Licensing is not always evil. Creative Commons being my favorite example.

      Imagine being licenced a song in that sense- actually buying, with the CD, the right to listen to Rob Dougan's Furious Angels, no matter what you do to the original media, no matter what format you change it into, no matter where you acquire a CD or MP3 or WMA or OGG of it. That's what intellectual property should mean in this day and age - not some physical object but the IP in all its abstractness. With the DRM systems that exist, it should be entirely possible to track the usage "Rights" of the customer.

      I don't want to be tracked, thanks.

      There's real potential there, but the reality we get is that we're licenced the limited right to listen to the music on the specific physical media which we purchased, and nothing more. Want to listen to it on your MP3 player? Pay for it again. CDs stolen? Pay for it again. We don't actually have Digital Rights to Manage, we're just buying a single, intractable commodity item when we buy a CD.

      And that is why this recent example of attaching an EULA to an Audio CD is such a dangerous precedent. Previously, you bought a CD and you pretty much could do whatever the heck you wanted to with it.

      Now, I see folks here saying that this Sony EULA for CD audio is basically smoke & mirrors but is it? Where's an intellectual property lawyer when you need one? As for me, I'm not buying any CD with an EULA attached to it. If by accident I do, it's going back to the store. I posed the question earlier, does the DMCA trump fair use? Now I ask, can EULA that impose restrictions beyond the scope of copyright (see the link above) trump fair use too? I don't think so, but I don't know...

    32. Re:Ironic but true.. by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Agree on all points. I think the shorter version of what I was trying to say would be "We're getting all the downsides of licencing, with none of the potential benefits".

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    33. Re:Ironic but true.. by arminw · · Score: 1

      ....because you can do a thing does not necessarily mean you should do it.....

      When a person buys something they expect to be able to use it as they want. A car maker has no right to specifiy where I drive the car I bought from them or what brand of gas I use. In the same way, when I BUY a CD or DVD I want to be able to watch or listen whenever, wherever and on whatever playback device I like. The maker of the disk has NO rights to tell me otherwise, any more than the maker of a coffee brewer has the right to tell me that all coffee has to be made before 8 am only in my own house. So yes, I CAN do these things and I WILL do them, regardless of the fervent dreams of the content providers to use the laws and courts to control how I use their products. I will however not provide copies of their wares to to others.

      --
      All theory is gray
    34. Re:Ironic but true.. by chronicon · · Score: 1
      That would be walking into a store, making a copy of the stuff inside without damaging anything, then walking out.

      Bit different, no?

      Ethically or technically? Technically, of course not but ethically you are still taking a production produced by an artist who expects to be compensated. No difference, right?

      At any rate, my issue with infringing P2P use isn't about ethics (although the conversations tend to slide that way most of the time). My repeated point on the matter is that the powers that be (RIAA/MPAA/Legislators) use this action to add fuel to their power-grabbing fire. They point to this and punish all of us for it. There is no denying this--and the Sony EULA & audio CD rootkit issues are prime examples. They want to force us to do what they want us to do with what we own, and are doing so in reckless disregard for their customers. This is a terrible trend that needs to be questioned and dealt with, IMO.

      And I agree, I enjoy having things EASILY accessed on my computer than in DVD form. Make it a better goddamned product and I'm likely to buy it. I get more (even ignoring price) from downloaded things. Hell, I downloaded a CD once because I forgot the original one at home without ripping it. I suppose that's horribly wrong too.

      No, I personally don't think that is 'horribly wrong' at all. The individual that you are downloading it from is of course breaking the law by distributing the copyrighted material, however you already own the original & media-shifting is applicable under fair use, AFAIK (INL). How would you be wrong in downloading what you already paid for? Ethically & technically I don't think you would. What is the difference between say downloading it (media-shifting it) from your own server or from somewhere else? You paid for the original right? You're not downloading something that you don't already have the right to use, correct? I guess the worst that you would be doing is encouraging the infringing individual to keep posting non-redistributable copyrighted materials.

      I agree that the media companies should respond to the wishes of their customers. Customers who are aware of how easy technology has made their lives. They should develop methodologies of distribution that capitalize on these advantages and then most of this bickering over P2P filesharing would probably end. Generally, I believe you are correct. The majority of us aren't freeloaders and will pay for the productions that we enjoy. Supply & demand... The demand is not being met. The backlash from some consumers is infringing P2P useage. The response to that from the media folks so far has been to attempt to gain power over the consumer instead of trying to provide them with the product they want. This is a mistake on their part, but they won a large chunk of power with the DMCA and that fuels their desire for more. Infringing P2P use by consumers is the excuse they use to further their efforts...

    35. Re:Ironic but true.. by chronicon · · Score: 1
      There can be NO agreement unless both parties agree, can be identified, certified and are qualified to enter such legal agreements.

      Your view certainly sounds reasonable to me. I hope you are right. However in a different light a company such as Microsoft certainly seems to put a lot of stock in the whole EULA thing. What do they know that we don't? Or are they just blowing smoke too?

    36. Re:Ironic but true.. by chronicon · · Score: 1
      ....because you can do a thing does not necessarily mean you should do it.....

      When a person buys something they expect to be able to use it as they want. A car maker has no right to specifiy where I drive the car I bought from them or what brand of gas I use. In the same way, when I BUY a CD or DVD I want to be able to watch or listen whenever, wherever and on whatever playback device I like. The maker of the disk has NO rights to tell me otherwise, any more than the maker of a coffee brewer has the right to tell me that all coffee has to be made before 8 am only in my own house. So yes, I CAN do these things and I WILL do them, regardless of the fervent dreams of the content providers to use the laws and courts to control how I use their products. I will however not provide copies of their wares to to others.

      I absolutely and wholeheartedly agree with you on this position! In fact, that has been the whole point from the beginning (as sidetracked as I may have gotten once in a while)--I do not want anyone telling me what I can do with the things I bought and own, and I do not want the freedoms I now (legally) enjoy taken away from me (or anyone else here) by power-hungry special interests.

    37. Re:Ironic but true.. by chronicon · · Score: 1
      I think that the DMCA probably *does* trump "fair use", since the DMCA was passed AFTER the idea of fair use was created by the courts. IANAL, but that's the way I think the law works.

      Hmm, I hope not but I'm (gladly) not a lawyer either--I think IP law is interesting but it's quite the mess, isn't it?

      This says NOTHING about right or wrong, merely about the nearly orthogonal concept of lawful or unlawful. Read that carefully. Legal doesn't mean right. Illegal doesn't mean wrong. OTOH, illegal is a bit dangerous, and should generally be avoided for that reason...

      Absolutely! I very much agree on that point. Legal does not necessarily equal right in a moral/ethical sense. I have tried to avoid all this as an ethical issue from the beginning but haven't done a very good job it seems (or why else does ethics keep coming up?) Breaking copyright law is simply breaking copyright law, whether or not I think it's right or wrong does not matter a bit. I've been attempting to focus on the fact that companies & government use infringing P2P as an excuse to further their control over the consumer--a legal club they're using to beat us all over the head with...

      The bit about Sony's EULA, though, is quite interesting. The EULA is the reason I originally switched from MSWind to Linux, and I would never be willing to agree to such an EULA. It's worse than a rootkit, because I can get rid of a rootkit, but if I agree to an EULA, I can never get rid of having agreed to it.

      Some here believe that EULA have no real enforcability. I think the BSA would disagree with that position...

    38. Re:Ironic but true.. by Amorya · · Score: 1

      So, unless they start putting DRM implants into our heads (which would access the "encoded" signal from the optical nerve, decode it, and feed it to the brain), we're safe.

      Shhhhhhh! You'll give them ideas!

    39. Re:Ironic but true.. by arminw · · Score: 1

      .....What do they know that we don't?....

      They know that most consumers don't know the law. Contract law has been around for a long time and applies to tangible and intangible goods and services. IP differs fom other goods and services by being covered by copyright law.

      Of course if you get sued by a big rich corporation, such as Microsoft or the **AA, you'll have to decide whether all their army of high powered lawyers can overwhelm your puny resources. However, if the law is on your side you will likely prevail, if you have a good strong stomach and are otherwise healthy and are willing to go to trial. If you really did violate the LAW, (such as downloading copyrighted stuff without paying the owner) not the so called EULA, you might as well take your licks right away and settle. Be sure that you do not let others copy someone's copyrighted material that you have legally obtained. Copy it only for your OWN uses and there is not likely to be a case made against you that will stand up in court.

      --
      All theory is gray
    40. Re:Ironic but true.. by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      "Do I get to break [a law] just because I disagree with it?"

      Let me clear this up for you. "Yes."

      Just because a law exists does not mean it must be obeyed. For example, I don't know of anyone who obeys "blue laws", which are about the same level of draconian.

      Read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", very specifically about Professor Bernardo De La Paz's description of "Rational Anarchy". There's a very good segment about laws and when they are obeyed.

      Very specifically, I do, in fact, get to break laws that impinge on rights I've already been lawfully given.

      "I just want you guys to recogonize that your actions will have a negative impact on what we (legally) get to do with products we own."

      Ok. I recognize that my actions will result in media companies shooting themselves in the foot concerning matters of public opinion, will lose money on the increasingly poor products they put out, and eventually either die in a pool of their own vomit - or wise up and take advantage of the concept of free distribution. And I recognize that, in the process, these media companies will go so far as to place illegally subversive software into their products that will affect only their most inept - and most suggestable - customers.

      "When P2P is outlawed, only outlaws will have P2P."

      Common slashdot mistake. It's not P2P, it's filesharing. P2P is as opposed to Client-Server, is nothing "new" (as in generated within the last 20-or-so years), and can't exactly be outlawed.

      Meanwhile, yeah. Only outlaws DO have filesharing. I mean, it's not like iTunes uses a P2P-based file transfer system. Or any of the others. Sorry, but we were outlaws the moment the Napster case was settled.

      "You obviously have a sense of entitlement & superiority over the rest of us, that somehow you have a right to take (for yourself) & post (for others to take) non-redistributable copyrighted software/music/movies."

      Nonredistributable? Seems pretty redistributable to me. Just copythe data and send it off. Easy peasy. Oh, and you're forgetting books.

      Post, by the way, is a misnomer. Most FS clients don't bother with that step. If you're downloading it, the portions you have are available to others.

      "I'm asking because I want to keep my toys and my (current/threatened) rights to (legitimately) do with them what I will"

      Your rights are already broken. Happened when the DMCA passed. Meanwhile, your toys (I'm assuming you're referring to BitTorrent for the purpose of downloading large open source projects) will always exist in one form or another. Programmers are like that. See, they're THEIR toys, too, and a programmer, denied one toy, will simply write another, harder to deny toy.

      Which, of course, is the crux of the matter. In order to deny the situation that filesharing has produced for copyright holders, they must veenture to control every programmer in every part of the world, lock down the internet, and destory open source. Nothing short of that will stop unrestricted filesharing. (Well, when Napster went down, everything was a bit limbo-y for a while, but soon enough, WinMX, Kazaa, and later eMule, Kademlia, and BitTorrent took the reins, so yeah, they can stop it, but nothing like permanently.)

      And even if all piracy stopped today, who do you think that would stop? The threat would still be there, and the target of total control would still be attempted.

      You're afraid for your rights as a consumer? I'm afraid for mine as a open source freelance programmer.

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    41. Re:Ironic but true.. by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      You misread me. Let me write it in simple terms.

      What I'm describing is a concept known as "nonmarket pressure". Basically it goes like this:

      Fact: There is a growing population of people who have no problem with filesharing
      Fact: The recording industry is weakening their own public image with lawsuits against everyday citizens and with stunts like this rootkit.
      Fact: Unrestricted filesharing software is difficult to exterminate before a new species has a chance to promulgate.
      Fact: Record companies have been posting massive profits every year dating all the way back to the first download of Napster.
      Fact (opinion?): The population has been statistically dissatisfied with the quality of product from both the RIAA and MPAA in recent years.
      Fact: Prices of CDs, DVDs, and movie tickets have sharply increased in the last few years.

      Now, this information suggests that something's wrong with these companies' existing business model. They post a profit, yet claim they are losing money. They act with no accord to public opinion. They use legislation to support their business practices. THEY ARE BEHAVING LIKE THE COMPANIES THAT _CAUSED_ THE ANTITRUST LAWS TO EXIST, except they can get away with it - copyrights give them an unlimited monopoly on each copyrighted material for more than 95 years (and growing - we're about due for another extension).

      If these companies don't wise up, eventually, they will so enrage the public that massive boycotts will shut them all down. Why not? The primary impediment of a mass boycott is cost of switching, and filesharing carries that cost in negative. It's free while CDs aren't. It's free while DVDs aren't.

      The media companies are in a very BAD position, and they know it. It's why they're grasping at legal straws to keep their monopolies, even though the public will obviously not stand for it.

      You know what? I think I forgot my point. Fact is, you didn't really have much of one either; you essentially stated that there is no logical motive for filesharing, despite the empirical evidence to the contrary.

      Oh, and for reference, I pey the artists I like by going to their concerts and buying the T-shirt. Better that way - the record company doesn't get much for shows and merch.

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    42. Re:Ironic but true.. by chronicon · · Score: 1
      Wow! This conversation is still running. Nothing like touching off a firestorm. ;-)

      "Do I get to break [a law] just because I disagree with it?"

      Let me clear this up for you. "Yes."... Very specifically, I do, in fact, get to break laws that impinge on rights I've already been lawfully given.

      I should have phrased it this way, "Do I get to break it just because I disagree with it, without any regard for the consequences of my actions?" The answer of course is still yes. You can always choose your course of action--however you don't get to choose the consequences. Or by so choosing a particular course of action you may be able to reasonably guess the outcome in some situations. In any event, the consequences follow the choice whether you like it or not...

      Ok. I recognize that my actions will result in media companies shooting themselves in the foot concerning matters of public opinion, will lose money on the increasingly poor products they put out, and eventually either die in a pool of their own vomit...

      See, now there is a paradox that often arises in these conversations--you guys (infringing filesharers) complain as loudly as the rest of us about the pathetic artistic quality of music & movies today, but you still swap them?! What gives? If it is such tripe why do you do it?

      ...[Content producers will] wise up and take advantage of the concept of free distribution. And if they do, will you pay for this convenience? How do you propose that they make money off of the content they produce if they suddenly become so enlightened and embrace your concept of 'free'? Where is the balance in this discussion? Are you seriously suggesting that the majority of file-swappers would suddenly start paying for the content they are enjoying now by infringing on the legal rights of others? If that is the case, stop downloading and start purchasing now. iTunes? Oh but that is locked away, can't have that. Besides the quality isn't perfect (as opposed to the MP3s that are generally encoded at 128k bitrate I suppose?). CDs? DVDs? Until the recent Sony debacle, CDs were generally not encumbered with DRM, what is the excuse for NOT buying them and choosing instead to infringe and download the works for free? DVDs? Oh, you can't play them on your linux boxen? Sure you can. Linspire offers a licensed player, that argument doesn't hold up any more. Asserting your moral superiority over unjust laws? Fine, but there are always consequences to such actions--they make not affect you directly but why should you care in that case?

      And I recognize that, in the process, these media companies will go so far as to place illegally subversive software into their products that will affect only their most inept - and most suggestable - customers.

      Nice display of arrogance. It simply bolsters my previous point--as long as it doesn't affect you, why should you care? Right?

      "You obviously have a sense of entitlement & superiority over the rest of us, that somehow you have a right to take (for yourself) & post (for others to take) non-redistributable copyrighted software/music/movies."

      Nonredistributable? Seems pretty redistributable to me. Just copythe data and send it off. Easy peasy. Oh, and you're forgetting books.

      Legally non-redistributable. So many rational discussions break down into petty arguments over semantics--what is the point of that? You seem reasonable enough to have known what I meant. You simply chose to ignore the point in favor of being fractious.

      Post, by the way, is a misnomer. Most FS clients don't bother with that step. If you're downloading it, the portions you have are available to others.

      Again, you avoid the actual subject of the discussion with semantics. Post, host, distribu

    43. Re:Ironic but true.. by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      So, bow down to laws that don't help anyone?

      I know how artists get payed; I go to shows. I donate to PBS. I pay for cable. I buy open source on disc.

      I just refuse to let the middle men get any cash.

      And if I seem arrogant, superior, or any of that other shite, it's because day-in and day-out, I see the levels of denial people will go to to convince themselves that everything's alright and they shouldn't make any trouble.

      Screw that.

      Seriously, do what you like, bitch and whine about how it's the other guy's fault that your rights and toys are being removed. Me? I'll write to my congressman, practice civil disobedience, and you know what? When I finally do get taken to court, I'll fight tooth and nail for your rights and my own.

      But one thing I will not do is acqueice to a law that I don't believe should exist.

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    44. Re:Ironic but true.. by chronicon · · Score: 1
      Wow... did you read anything I wrote in my response? I never suggested anyone roll over and pretend everything is all right with the current "intellectual property" laws. Quite the opposite.

      Basically your response to all my questions is simply "screw that", huh? No wonder this situation continues to get worse--no one really wants to discuss these things and come to a fair and balanced compromise.

      The RIAA says the Sony DRM rootkit is "OK", and you say "the law sucks so I'm going to download whatever I please" (even if all the stuff the media companies put out is crap, still, you'll show them).

      If the voice of reason does not prevail, extremists on both sides of this debate will (YES!) ruin it for the all of us. Put it this way, I don't believe either extreme has the answer, on the one hand you have anarchy, and on the other the police-state. No thanks!

      Enjoy your warez while they last.

  46. Sony is doing us a favor! REALLY! by Danathar · · Score: 1

    IANAL but it would seem...

    By putting in such goofy restrictions in their EULA, and people suing Sony for the damage they've caused it will force the issue of how lawful EULA's are.

    It's a lose lose situation. If they WIN because a judge upholds the EULA then there will be an outcry about EULAs.

    If they lose then basically the idea that you can put any restriction or clause that you want into an EULA will be proven bogus.

    1. Re:Sony is doing us a favor! REALLY! by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      The more you tighten your grip, Sony, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.

      The more ridiculous they make the EULA the more likely the whole thing will will get chucked out in court.

  47. No Software Patents... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What actual value does a CD have after all? Anyway, Is there any organisation against DRM/unfair EULAs/foo like nosftwarepatents for patents? Maybe they could ecourage breaking Sony's EULA and then challenge them in court. I would gladly donate money to such a cause... I really don't buys CD's anyway because of today's shitty productions, but corporate greed is annoying.

  48. agreement by PGC · · Score: 1

    Isn't it so that you have to actually agree to an EULA for it to have actual value ?

    When you buy the cd, do you sign an EULA ? No. You buy it. The transaction has been made (andf the store claims to sell you a cd, not the right to listen it, no, at that point in time you have made an agreement with the store owner that you OWN that cd ) . Then you get home and find a little peace of paper in the cd cover that claims to be an EULA... how can that possibly be valid ? Nowhere in the transaction of the cd have you made ANY arrangement with the record company. Heck, they aren't even involved in the whole transaction.

    --
    The Dutch will inherit the earth. If not, we'll settle for a bit of ocean. Beta delenda est!
  49. Re:First Post by NicklessXed · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I was with you until that last sentence. I dont think you can judge the console division based on what the rest of the company (or part of it) is doing. Sony is huge, one part probably doesn't have the slightest idea what the others are doing at any given time. The same goes for Microsoft.

  50. big loss by DA_Chef · · Score: 1

    This is funny, Sony Music is trying hard to make it difficult for consumers to use Sony Electronics minidisc, mp3-players, laptops etc to listen to music.

    Let's see what Sony Pictures will come up with hurting Sony Electronics sales of dvd-burners, laptops etc.

    1. Re:big loss by RGRistroph · · Score: 1

      Sony is such a big comglomerate, that in one of the big industry suits over mp3 players a few years back they actually sued themselves -- sony music division joined an industry suit against a number of producers of mp3 players, including Sony's consumer electronics division.

  51. Mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... or throw him in jail, depending on which side you're on.

  52. Why not? by KGBear · · Score: 1

    OK, maybe this is a stupid question, maybe it's been asked before and discussed ad nauseam. I don't know if it has. But why don't we simply stop buying CDs from these guys? Even better - why don't we buy only from recording companies/distributors/artists who put it in writing that they will respect our basic rights as we see them? We could use the web or even peer-to-peer to spread the word around about who's "music lover friendly" and who isn't. Thoughts?

  53. Nope - you added an extra logical negation by mccalli · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Sad is it is be writing this out in pseudo-code...

    if( ! (user.hasCD() || user.hasRightToMusic()) {
    deleteCopies = true;
    }
    else {
    deleteCopies = false;
    }

    Implications:

    • If user.hasCD() is false but user.hasRightToMusic() is true, then the if fails and you don't need to delete the copies.
    • If the user has the CD but does not have the right to the music, you still don't have to delete the copies. Must be covered under burglary laws by that stage....
    • If the user does not have the CD and has no more rights to the music (eg. CD has been sold on), then all copies must be deleted

    Sony's statement does make sense.

    Cheers,
    Ian

    1. Re:Nope - you added an extra logical negation by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

      The English "or" is an exclusive OR. The boolean OR is an inclusive OR.

      When you ask somebody if they'd like to have their cake or eat it, you're not implying that both is an option. If both were an option, you'd say "and/or", or you would provide "both" as a third option.

    2. Re:Nope - you added an extra logical negation by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, you distributed the NOT across the logical operations incorrectly. The original statement would've been ( !user.hasCD || !user.hasRightToMusic() ) to combine them, you would use DeMorgan's and come out with ( !(user.hasCD() && user.hasRightToMusic()) ) which says that unless you have the CD and have the right to the music, you must delete the digital copies. If someone steals the disc, they don't have the right to the music and would be in violation of the EULA if they made digital copies AND the original owner would have to delete their digital copies because they'd be in violation without the physical disc. This is probably exactly what Sony intended. If they caught you with digital copies and you don't have the original media, they could sue you for either pirating (you stole it) or violating the EULA (you were robbed and failed to delete).

    3. Re:Nope - you added an extra logical negation by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 1

      You have a different situation in your example. Here, we have 'if A is true OR if B is true, then C.' In that case, if A and B are true, it only makes sense for C to hold, even in English, not mathematics. In order to avoid ambiguity, an 'either' would likely reinforce that the OR is inclusive, and if an exclusive OR were intended, than an 'either, but not both' would definitely avoid ambiguity.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
  54. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Parent needs to be modded down. Not only do you still have the right to use the CD even though you no longer have the capability because the CD was stolen, it is also quite legal to make a copy of unprotected AV data for personal use and transfer the right to use the CD without destroying your copy.

  55. Thats well and good, except for.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    ...the 4th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits revoking the right of a trial by jury....

    "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State"

    hmmmm, I guess if that part of the EULA is invaled, is the rest of it really enforceable?

    1. Re:Thats well and good, except for.... by geo.georgi · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is.
      Only this (invalid) part will not be enforced.

    2. Re:Thats well and good, except for.... by rworne · · Score: 1

      Personally, I think this is for civil trials. I didn't consider the possibility of a criminal trial.

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
  56. Oh, for Crying Out Loud by n6kuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > ... flaws in Digital Rights Management schemes;

    DRM stands for Digital Restriction Mechanism!

    Rights are inherent. They don't need to be "managed".

    --
    If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
  57. List of CD's Infected (via Amazon.com) by droptone · · Score: 1
    --
    Every post I make begins with the assumption P=~P.
    1. Re:List of CD's Infected (via Amazon.com) by fyrie · · Score: 1

      I always new Neil Diamond was.... infected.

  58. Look on the bright side by DulcetTone · · Score: 4, Funny

    At least they don't say that you have to move out of the country if you delete the songs from your computer.

    tone

    --
    tone
  59. EULAs are becomming USELESS by erroneus · · Score: 1

    It has been shown in too many occasions that where the EULA has been an issue in a court case, that court opinion and/or law often makes the terms and conditions somewhat irrelevant especially since no one reads them and it's quite understood that the average consumer simply doesn't. The only way around it is to have someone come to you and have you actually SIGN a contract before you use software. That isn't going to happen.

    And with the recent government response to the Sony rootkit, I think it's fairly obvious where the lines are being drawn.

    So now, more than ever before, EULA content is becoming irrelevant. So now I wonder what will become the instrument of change to get rid of the EULA?

    1. Re:EULAs are becomming USELESS by pe1chl · · Score: 1

      I think we (as consumers) must draft some "consumer contract agreement" that explicitly states that we are not bound by any contracts other than those signed after mutual agreement.
      This text can explicitly state that the user is not bound by agreements that come into action by clicking on some "I agree" button in a browser or software installation program.

      Then we can put this agreement on our own homepage and state that anyone who is selling us something or is trying to enforce such an EULA on us is bound by this agreement.
      Any party trying to enforce an EULA can simply be referred to this text that states it is null and void.
      If they don't agree with the text they should not have tried to enforce the EULA on us.

      I think such a construct is just as valid as an EULA (i.e. not a mutual agreement and thus no contract) and they would cancel out.

      Maybe some legal expert can draft up such a text? When it appears on many personal pages, maybe someone sees the light...

  60. Re:Bash.org's funny quote related to Sony rootkit. by danheretic · · Score: 1, Informative

    Quick and easy solution for you:
    (1) Copy and Paste into OpenOffice Writer.
    (2) Highlight the text.
    (3) From the Format menu, choose Change Case, then Lowercase.
    Voila!

  61. Derivative Works by Carcass666 · · Score: 2, Informative

    From TFA:

    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.

    My wife is a figure skating coach and it is common for us to create short cuts of tracks (usually between 1:30 and 4:00) for use in skating programs. I'm wondering if Sony truly wants to kill the use of its music for performances such as skating, dance, etc. At any rate, it seems based on this language that her students may not be able to skate to music released under such a license. If Disney were to release such a license for its soundtracks, it would kill about 80% of the programs in lower level competitions!

  62. a way to contact someone and have it matter? by tlacuache · · Score: 1

    I've looked around Sony-BMG's site for a while (although not really extensively) I haven't actually seen anything indicating that they care what the customer thinks, let alone a way to provide feedback. I'd make complaining part of my morning routine if they had some sort of "tell us what you think" form or forum and if I thought it'd actually do any good. Not that I think it would. They've proved what their priorities are. It's sad that the music industry have gotten so far from "the customer is always right." Now it's "the consumer is a peice of crap and is not to be trusted." Oh well, at least I've got allofmp3.com.

  63. Maybe you can help me out here. by StarKruzr · · Score: 2, Informative

    Because I refuse to fund the RIAA but still want to ensure the artists I like are compensated for their work, I buy merch and boycott CDs off of Big 5 labels. As I understand it the RIAA does not get a cut of that money, instead it all goes to the artist (less production costs). Any idea whether or not that's true?

    --

    +++ATH0
    1. Re:Maybe you can help me out here. by c_forq · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I know merch you buy at shows and such all money goes to the artist, but I've heard this isn't always the case when buying from merch from stores (but since stores will mark up prices to make a profit you are always better off buying at the shows in my experiance). Also all the money from the shows should be split between artist, venue, and oragizer (with no cut to the record industry unless they are the orginzer). I've always gone by going to shows of artists I like, buying there merch if I really like them, and only buying CDs if they are not on a major label.

      --
      Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
  64. This is a Distraction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sony's current DRM is a distraction. While we waste time discussing, reverse engineering, and fighting with the current generation of DRM, SONY and all of the other big media companies are already negotiating with Microsoft to make sure that future versions of windows(Vista and beyond) come out of the of box with DRM laden device drivers that we can't disable.

  65. Not quite interpreted properly by the EFF by spectasaurus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From the EFF:

    "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.

    If I move outside one to a another country, I am now residing in the new country. I don't have to delete my music as I never exported the music outside the country which I reside. I always have to reside somewhere.

    1. Re:Not quite interpreted properly by the EFF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess a better example is that you can't take your music on a vacation outside your country or residence.

  66. Re:Wrong by vagabond_gr · · Score: 1
    The statement "In the event that you no longer possess or have the right under such license to use the original CD product." can be rewritten as two seperate statements, "In the event that you no longer possess the original CD product." and "In the event that you no longer have the right under such license to use the original CD product."

    I dissagree, I think you missed a parenthesis in your interpretation of the text (of course I can't be sure, I don't speak legaleese). The phrase "In the event" is not repeated so if we put parentheses it would probably be "In the event that you (no longer( possess [the cd] or have the right under such license to use the original CD product))."

    Formally this should be written
    event( NOT (possess OR have_right) )
    which is equivalent to
    event( (NOT possess) AND (NOT have_right) )
    If the cd is stolen then possess is false but have_right is still true (I guess). So the hole formula is false, no clause is triggered!

    But that's a fine exampe why EULAs should not stand in any court. They are very ambiguous texts and no individual should be required to understand them. And of course the whole sony story is just ridiculus, we don't need fine interpretations of EULA clauses to understand that.
  67. What does it take? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What does it take for you people to say 'enough' and stop buying products from these abusive corps?

    Well?

    When do you stop consuming the products of RIAA and MPAA members? When do you decide to buy electronics from firms that are less abusive to their customers?

  68. By reading this post... by NVP_Radical_Dreamer · · Score: 1

    By reading this post you agree to send me (NVP_Radical_Dreamer) funds in the amount of $10.00 USD. If you do not like this, too bad you have already read it and it cannot be returned.

    --
    The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

    - Winston Churchill
    1. Re:By reading this post... by wafty_cranker · · Score: 1

      Where would you like the cheque sent?

  69. EULAs by orcwog · · Score: 2, Funny

    People (even some /.ers) are somehow getting the idea that EULAs are contractual obligations. They're NOT. Once you've paid for an item, clicking "I Agree" doesn't do a single thing except let you continue using what you've paid for. This means you can do ANYTHING you want with the software/hardware provided it doesn't break existing laws (eg. copywrite).

    If it weren't so, we'd have bigger issues at hand.

  70. SOLUTION by Rick+and+Roll · · Score: 1
    PART 1

    a) pirate

    or

    b) rip CD's by using Linux, Mac OS X, or Windows with autorun turned off

    PART 2

    When CD's are obsolete be switched over to independent music for almost all new stuff. Good artists don't need the RIAA anymore.

  71. Learn to vote with your dollar! by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you disagree with Sony's policies, don't buy anything from them.

    It's _that_ simple.

    Until Sony is a monopoly, and you cannot buy alternative products, its really easy to get around this kind of thing. Don't buy from them.

    Don't buy Sony Computers.
    Don't buy Sony Electronics.
    Don't buy Sony Music.
    Don't buy Sony anything.

    *shrug*

    If you buy Sony products after they pull crap like this, quite frankly, you are part of the problem, not the solution, no matter how loudly you complain.

    You don't have to get your music through Sony. You don't have to get your laptop through Sony. You don't have to get your stereo through Sony.

    It's really not that hard; and sure, other people might continue to buy their stuff. That's not your problem; after all, there is _competition_ in these marketplaces, so you can safely stray away from Sony.

    --
    WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    1. Re:Learn to vote with your dollar! by merc · · Score: 1


      Thanks, I'm glad others are thinking the same way I am now. I *have* actually decided that I will make a conscious effort never to buy Sony products again (adds to list).

      Another reason not to buy a Sony VAIO laptop running SCO Xenix, pre-bundled with Adobe software...

      *blinks*

      Oh, the URL...

      http://boycottsony.us/

      --
      It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
    2. Re:Learn to vote with your dollar! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's funny: everytime I read another story about RIAA, Sony and other scoundrels trying to take away our rights and rip us off, I just hop over to http://magnatune.com/ and buy another CD under a Creative Commons license which means I truly OWN what I buy. What's more, I can listen to all the Music in full before buying, I can download the Music again later, I have a choice of formats, and 50% of what I pay goes directly to the artist.

      Who needs Sony, BMG, EMI and the other gangsters?

    3. Re:Learn to vote with your dollar! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thank god sony isn't one of those companies who produce hardware that gets put into another companies product, because then I would never be able to keep up with what had sony in it or not.

  72. Any EULA over 3k words by Martix · · Score: 1

    Any EULA filled with newspeak lawerease and babble
    Including excessive wording 300 words or above.

    Is not consummer friendly.

    they should just say...

    "IF YOU AGGREE TO THIS EULA WE OWN YOU AND YOUR SOUL"

    why not keep it simple and to the point

  73. Why buy Sony at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Stealing music still doesn't make this right. Why would you continue to purchase ANY products from a company with a EULA of this type?

  74. Getting away from making things by HangingChad · · Score: 5, Insightful
    When our society started getting away from making things with intrinsic value and started depending on brain share products for revenue growth this was bound to happen. Since the cost of making copies of a digital work is, essentially, zero, companies trying to squeeze more revenue out of the same entertainment products had only one place to try and mine for extra income. I don't blame them for trying to go after that pool, but do blame them for the tactics they employed.

    I think the shocker for most people is waking up to find how much the playing field has been tilted in favor of the corporation against the individual. All the laws are on their side, Congress has played along with whatever draconian measures they want to dump on common people including pulling the FBI away from terror investigations to go after copyright violators, and instead of throwing out click-through EULA's the courts have tended to back them up. There is no inherent fairness in your relationship with service providers anymore, it's an uphill battle for equity. That's not limited to the entertainment industry, it's an issue here because Sony went far enough over the line. But this same unfairness is woven through all our service provider relationships.

    I am doing something besides complaining. I'm working with the leader or our state house of representatives on a couple initiatives to even out the playing field a little. One is setting a higher standard for binding arbitration. The poster child I'm using for that one is car dealers trying to skirt consumer protection laws by legislating via contract, but that would also impact click-through EULA's. The other is making it more difficult to change the state venue of laws for products and services sold and delivered in this state. That got a surprisingly warm, almost enthusiastic, reception. My presentation line was asking why we were letting North Dakota dictate how we were going to do business. That provoked the legislative equivalent of a "Hell, yeah!" But there are legal issues associated with that one I didn't know about. It's not going to be as easy to change. The good news is I didn't get laughed at.

    What surprises me is companies taking a hard line with their customers. That just seems like such a no-win proposition, even for a large, diverse company like Sony. You're looking at DVD players and like the Panasonic and Sony. What's going to make the difference? You think back on this incident and buy the Panasonic. You're making a choice between a Sony and Canon video camera, even though Sony makes the CCD's for many of the Canon models, you might go with the other brand. This small segment of that giant company taints everything they do. It can't be worth it.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  75. What's your definition of "software"? by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

    IIRC, for several years now, Sony seems to have been trying to stretch the meaning of this word to include any entertainment content they sell, on any medium.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  76. service pack #1 by deong · · Score: 1

    if (! (user.hasCD() || user.hasRightToMusic())

    should be

    if (!(user.hasCD() && user.hasRightToMusic()))

    This is an application De Morgan's Laws. The EULA states if NOT A or NOT B (i.e., if you do NOT have the CD or do NOT have the right to listen to the CD, then you must delete the copies. De Morgan tells us that NOT A || NOT B is equivalent to NOT(A && B) instead of NOT(A OR B).

  77. Strategy. by Bezben · · Score: 1

    Given that we nerds as a group have next to no power against the dollars Sony could throw against us, I propose something a little different: we egg them on. People who play music on PC are a fringe group really. The average joe music listener is never going to listen to what we say, they'll keep buying music from Sony. So if we crank up the pirating a notch, Sony will squeeze out more and more restrictive DRM crap. The goal is to get it to such an extent that average joe suddenly notices that they can't play their new cds without a net connected Sony player that connects to drm.sony.com each track you play...

    While I can understand the need for drm in theory, in practice it should be utterly transparent to the consumer, not pervasive and restricting.

  78. if you work for the DOD read this by eadint · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If you work for the DOD pleae read this.
    I will be talking to the director of IT for the base and this is what I will be discussing. Sonys installation of a root kit on home or work computers poses a serios security violation to military and DOD property. This root kit can compromise computers that may contain sensitive government data. Also most people will not place the cd in TS rated computers but they may play the cds in home computers or non TS computers where sensitive derivative works may reside. Sony is indirectly installing software on dod computers that may constitute compromising DOD clasified and sensitive information. This may be a form of treason and subversion, and because of this we should exclude and prohibit the use of all Sony CD's in their work and personall computers.

    1. Re:if you work for the DOD read this by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >This may be a form of treason

      Oh? Levying war against the United States? Adhering to their enemies? Giving them aid and comfort? All of the above?

      Good luck with that.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    2. Re:if you work for the DOD read this by GnarlyNome · · Score: 1

      Hey it can't hurt..and it might help

      --
      Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
    3. Re:if you work for the DOD read this by strikethree · · Score: 1

      I do work for the DoD and I did read what you had to say. I think you are way out in left field about linking the rootkit to treason, especially since Sony is not even an American company. Furthermore, there should be no classified or sensitive information on non-DoD computers. On the other hand, non-writable media is allowed to be transferred between networks, so you could play the same Sony cd on, NIPR and SIPR connected computers. I do not think the software could "phone home" from the Secret network though.

      strike

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    4. Re:if you work for the DOD read this by eadint · · Score: 1

      OK so treason may be too strong of a word. but i think that this poses a severe risc to DOD security, although most of the top secret work is on niper and siper nets and people wouldnt be using these systems to play music on, you have to agree that two elements that are not classified when put together become classified. because of this people who will be using non classified or sensitive information (FOUO) would be suceptible to this rootkit. this is a possible security threat, and needs to be addressed in the dod arena.

  79. Spyware Sony seems to breach copyright by anandpur · · Score: 1

    The spyware that Sony installs on the computers of music fans does not even seem to be correct in terms of copyright law.

    It turns out that the rootkit contains pieces of code that are identical to LAME, an open source mp3-encoder, and thereby breach the license

    http://dewinter.com/modules.php?name=News&file=art icle&sid=215.

  80. Very Depressing :-( by DoctorPepper · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I must agree with the poster that said he had amassed a 1,000+ CD library before copy protection and DRM started to come into play. While I don't have that many, I have quite a few. My wife and I just bought matching iPods yesterday (the 30 GB iPod Video unit), and I am currently going through this large library of CD's we OWN and am ripping them and uploading them to my iPod.

    What does this mean for Sony and other music companies? Well, I can't speak for everyone out there, but my wife and I are being very selective about the CD's we buy. If there is any copy protection what so ever, we will not buy the CD. Since it is just the two of us, I doubt if it is going to hurt any of the record companies bottom line much, but at least we have made the conscious decision to not purchase DRM'd content.

    I do feel for the younger generations that enjoy the new music. They are the ones that are going to have to fight the good fight with the record companies. My hat is off to you, and we will do what we can to help.

    --

    No matter where you go... there you are.
    1. Re:Very Depressing :-( by nasta · · Score: 1

      Well, I and my wife are also very selective on what CD:s we buy, any cd with copy protection stays in the shop. Small streams do make a flood.

      --
      This space 4 rent

  81. Different forms of the same.. by .Chndru · · Score: 0
  82. Be nice to Sony, promoting Open Source by Flying+pig · · Score: 1
    The publicity from all of this could have one benefit: CIOs and suits suddenly starting to get the whole thing about Open Source. The links need to be made, as publicly as possible, between what Sony has tried to do and what certain enterprise software companies might like to do.

    What follows of course has no legal standing and is only the absurd ranting of a completely unimportant and unidentified person who has no power to influence, in any way, anybody who might affect Sony financially.

    . This is a clear case where a large company has deliberately attempted to get people to install software on their computers which reduces, however trivially, their control over their computers. They have attempted to back this up with a licence agreement which places absurd restrictions on the end user, such as appearing to transfer the right to use of CD content to a thief. And they have done this in an effort to prevent the normal flow of technological progress. This is the smoking gun for FOSS advocates: evidence to support the idea that a large corporation may not be merely clumsy and incompetent in its relations with its customers but actually malicious in its desire to gain control over them. A thoughtful CIO might see this as making the case for adopting solutions that involve a real degree of mutuality between supplier and customer.

    --
    Pining for the fjords
  83. Nintendo by Uukrul · · Score: 1
    I support you in this fight, but when the PS3 comes out, the battle is most probably lost. Masses don't care about their digital rights,
    Kids (and not so young) wants to play alone and with his friends with a console. So what are they going to buy?
    a) PS 3
    b) Xbox 360
    c) Nintendo

    Nintendo is the best for children. But kids wants to play GTA San Adreas and ground ups didn't have a clue about video games. So they are going to buy Sony PS3 or Microsoft XBox 360.
    So masses are going to buy the worst option available.
    --
    My city: Barcelona.
  84. are they serious by wesw02 · · Score: 1

    ARE THEY SERIOUS??? why not install a trojan and give them complete control of what we do? or Better yet lets call and ask for permission to install 3rd party software.

  85. Product Review Wiki by fossa · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Question: Is there a wiki or something that has product reviews, product maker reviews (e.g. Sony == evil, in a somewhat more impartial way), product component manufactures, etc.?

    Or some easy way to research a particular product before buying it? Ideally, it'd be set up in a way that could allow searching like "DVD player that (not Sony) (ignores Macrovision) (lets me ff whenever I want) (plays PAL and NTSC) (region free)", but that sounds pretty difficult if the wiki/database covers a wide range of products.

    If done well, something like this might be able to have an impact. Nah, who am I kidding...

  86. American Industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Don't buy Sony Computers. Don't buy Sony Electronics. Don't buy Sony Music. Don't buy Sony anything.
    Why I have never seen on slashdot?:
    Don't buy Microsoft Games.
    Don't buy Microsoft Software.
    Don't buy Microsoft Hardware.

    I thik that it's because Microsoft is an merican company, while Sony is Japanese.
    There are a lot of advertisements from Microsoft ( MSSQL 2005 Finally Released, Microsoft Unveils New Design Studio,...), althought they seems to be the Evil.
    You may think this is a troll, but it's only an idea about why every body is saying "not to buy Sony products", but you don't see the same enthusiasm on close Microsoft.

    1. Re:American Industry by orkysoft · · Score: 1

      You're new here, aren't you?

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
    2. Re:American Industry by Puff+Daddy · · Score: 1

      You forgot the sarcasm tag, or maybe you just haven't read anything on /. except this thread. I'll assume the latter is true so I'll spell it out for you: Don't buy Microsoft Games. Don't buy Microsoft Software. Don't buy Microsoft Hardware. This has been a message from the /. hive mind, thank you for your time.

  87. Incorrect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The RIAA was formed in 1952 because the industry needed a standard for technology...remember the "RIAA equalization curve" for vinyl? All they did was set technical standards and certify record sales...wikipedia it for more info. That's the issue and that's why we dislike them.

    Disclaimer: I'm a broadcast professional.

  88. Conflict of Interest... by vhogemann · · Score: 1

    How can Sony Music forbid MP3 ripping, when Sony Electronics sells MP3 players?

    Insane.

    --
    ---- You know how some doctors have the Messiah complex - they need to save the world? You've got the "Rubik's" complex
  89. Sony America is evil. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Blame congress on this one. Sony BMG is focused on American musicians only.

    Other sony divisions are less evil then this one. This is American corporate greed to the nth degree

  90. What's this deal with LAME then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read from EFFI (Electronic Frontier Finland) that this Sony software uses LAME (the open source MP3 encoder). Has anyone heard more of this? Is it mentioned in the EULA (or somewhere else)? What does it use it for?

  91. The EULA has two interpretations. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "In the event that you no longer possess or have the right under such license to use the original CD product,..."

    could mean

    In the event that you no longer
        possess the right under such license to use
    or
        have the right under such license to use
    the original CD product,...

    or it could mean

    In the event that you no longer
        possess the original CD product
    or
        have the right under such license to use the original CD product

    There's no way to tell which they meant, so the entire clause is probably unenforceable.

    The second interpretation is the evil one, but they probably intended the first. I say this only beacuse it sounds more like legalese: using two synonymous words ("have" and "possess") when one would do.

  92. Sony Backs Down. by salvorHardin · · Score: 1

    It appears that Sony have suspended production of the CDs infected with DRM:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4430608.stm.

  93. BOYCOT !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The only way to stop this type of control is to hit them where it hurts, the bottom line.

    BOYCOT !!! BOYCOT !!!

    Lets make them pay for there actions. Don't buy sony music, pass this information on to all friends and family.

  94. Information about Sony by gone.fishing · · Score: 3, Informative

    From their Web Site "Contact Us" page:

    General SONY BMG: 212-833-8000
    Arista Records: 646-840-5600
    SONY BMG U.S. Latin: 305-695-3600
    J Records: 646-840-5600
    Jive Records: 212-727-0016
    RCA Label Group Nashville: 615-301-4300
    RCA Records: 212-930-4000
    SONY BMG Corporate Press: 212-833-5047

    WHOIS INFORMATION:
    Registrant:
    Sony Music Entertainment Corporation
    Sony Music Entertainment Corporation
    550 Madison Avenue, Sixth Floor .
    New York, NY 10022
    US
    Email: mis_online@SONYMUSIC.COM

    Registrar Name....: REGISTER.COM, INC.
    Registrar Whois...: whois.register.com
    Registrar Homepage: www.register.com

    Domain Name: sonybmg.com

    Created on..............: Tue, Jan 25, 2000
    Expires on..............: Sun, Jan 25, 2009
    Record last updated on..: Fri, Aug 19, 2005

    Administrative Contact:
    Sony Music Entertainment Corporation
    Sony Music Entertainment Corporation
    550 Madison Avenue, Sixth Floor .
    New York, NY 10022
    US
    Phone: +1.2128337305
    Email: mis_online@SONYMUSIC.COM

    Technical Contact:
    Sony Music Entertainment Corporation
    Sony Music Entertainment Corporation
    550 Madison Avenue, Sixth Floor .
    New York, NY 10022
    GB
    Phone: +1.2128337305
    Email: mis_online@SONYMUSIC.COM

    DNS Servers:

    udns1.ultradns.net
    udns2.ultradns.net

    Execuitives:

    ANDREW LACK
    CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
    SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT

    Andrew Lack is the founding Chief Executive Officer of Sony BMG Music Entertainment, a post he assumed in August of 2004. Sony BMG Music Entertainment is a joint venture between Sony Corporation of America and Bertelsmann AG, comprising the recorded music businesses of both companies. From January of 2003 to August of 2004, Mr. Lack served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Sony Music Entertainment.

    As CEO of Sony BMG Mr. Lack oversees all operations of the global recorded music company, which is a leading producer and marketer of pre-recorded music and video.

    Previously, Andrew Lack served as President and Chief Operating Officer for NBC since June of 2001. During his tenure with NBC he oversaw the operations of most of NBC's divisions, including Entertainment, News and MSNBC, Network, Stations, CNBC, Sales, and Broadcast & Network Operations

    From 1993 to 2001 Mr. Lack was the president of NBC News, where he transformed the News division into the most-watched news organization in the world. Today, NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw, and Meet the Press are each No. 1 in their time periods, and the primetime franchise Dateline NBC is the top newsmagazine in key sales demographic categories and a significant part of NBC's primetime program

    1. Re:Information about Sony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are their officers really called Lack, Smellie and Kelleher?
      Or did you just make those up to have a little fun?

    2. Re:Information about Sony by Alderin1 · · Score: 1

      Just Google the names, the truth is out there, and it scares me.

      --
      No conformist ever made history.
    3. Re:Information about Sony by The+Vaxorcist · · Score: 1

      This is perfect, we get to know where to mail letters describing in great detail how we think sony sucks. Seriously, though, Snail-mail them, It will (hopefully) mean more to them. After all, a stamp costs 34 cents. Imagine if everyone on slashdot mails them a letter...

      --
      Murphy's law is recursive, washing your car to make it rain doesn't work.
    4. Re:Information about Sony by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      "After all, a stamp costs 34 cents."

      Do certified mail. Costs a little more. You get a receipt, and a much better idea that the addressee actually opened it.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  95. Simple plan by trintron · · Score: 1

    Just let the music industry die.. They deserve it.

  96. Totally pointless by adrianbaugh · · Score: 1

    If thieves are going to go to the trouble of copying mp3s from your laptop, why wouldn't they just steal the laptop itself?

    --
    "'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
    - JRR Tolkien.
  97. Meh.. screw EULAs by Transmogrify_UK · · Score: 1

    This is all well and good getting upset about the Sony EULA, however, personally speaking I ignore those. How exactly are they going to enforce it? Should I buy a Sony BMG label CD (which I'd hope would be a rare occasion anyway), then I'm going to damn well use it exactly how I choose to. And that means ripping it to MP3 and taking it to work, taking it with me to whichever country I plan to reside in or whatever else the EULA says I can't do, should I need or wish to. So tell me, how are Sony going to stop me doing so?

    1. Re:Meh.. screw EULAs by SlimFlem · · Score: 1

      They can't. You bought the CD with your money, so you can do whatever you want, that's my opinion. However, I don't buy media of any kind anymore. Too expensive, it supports evil corporations, and helps to further the efforts such as this sony spyware.

      Speak with your wallet.

  98. Desonyfying the market by Venik · · Score: 1

    The primary purpose of this EULA is to protect Sony from being sued by the artists. As was already noted, this agreement pertains to the use of Sony software included on the CD. If you don't like the EULA terms, then don't use the software - its spyware-infested crap anyway.

    Nevertheless, this EULA is a blatant attempt by Sony to rob consumers of their legal rights. Something should be done by all of us on an individual basis. Boycotting Sony products is a good idea, but such a boycott does not need to be all-inclusive. Face it; you can only buy PlayStation from Sony. The whole point is to make Sony suffer - not you. So buy the PS3 when it comes out, if you really must; but you certainly don't need to buy Sony laptops, DVD players, TVs, etc. There are alternatives and in many cases - better alternatives.

    1. Re:Desonyfying the market by GnarlyNome · · Score: 1

      Playing games means that much to you?
      [some people need to get a life before the thermonecular Cluebat 40000 {reg US pat off}
      hits you

      --
      Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
  99. Re:Bash.org's funny quote related to Sony rootkit. by ortholattice · · Score: 3, Insightful
    From the Format menu, choose Change Case, then Lowercase.

    Yeah, but then it loses its satire impact.

    I mean, what is it with lawyers and the ALL CAPS sections of EULAs? What is the criterion for making a section all caps? Does it mean the other sections really aren't that important? Does whether or not a section is in all caps affect its enforceability in court? I HAVE NEVER UNDERSTOOD THIS, AND IT SEEMS NOT ONLY RUDE BUT MAKES THEM SOUND LIKE THE WEBTV IDIOTS WHO POST TO USENET.

  100. Live CD to protect yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use either Ubuntu or Knoppix live CD's when I do online banking, stock trading or account stuff where one of my good name/passwords are required. I can't say I examined the code of these two distros but I guess I blindly trust them. If I shouldn't please someone tell me.

    So, now think about playing your music on a dual cd machine. Boot knoppix play Sony. Might be able to rip to a thumb drive. It seems my list of reasons to use the live cd's keeps growing.

    1. Re:Live CD to protect yourself by RGRistroph · · Score: 1

      Or you could just install and run linux on your harddrive.

  101. ditto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The "modern life" is complicated enough, I don't have to wonder what the hell the DRM is going to do to my computer. I just like to buy music and listen to it with the minimum fuss, move it from device to device, or just stick it in my CD player and push play.

    I mostly listen to indie electronic music (the kind of stuff they sell at bleep.com) and jazz and classical. It's pretty easy for me to avoid buying from big labels. In fact, jazz and classical is in plentiful supply at my local library and occasionally I see it live.

    I'm not buying another Sony CD ever again, that's for sure.

  102. Boycott EVERYTHING SONY!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As the titlte says. Make it your mantra and tell your friends and have em tell their friends.
            If you are about to buy Sony change your mind! Instead write them.
    "Dear Sony, I was gong to buy xxxx but because of your offensive copy bullshit
    I didnt"
      Give them a few weeks of no one buying Sony!

  103. Cancelled my order by anand78 · · Score: 1

    Sony, I had ordered a Camcorder from them after a lot of research. Going by their shitty attitude I just cancelled the order.

    1. Re:Cancelled my order by SlimFlem · · Score: 1

      good for you.

  104. Parental advisory? by zlogic · · Score: 1

    They have a parental advisory notice at the bottom-right corner of the page:
    http://www.riaa.com/default.asp
    Yes, kids can go unhappy after reading how many years they'll have to spend in jail after trading a Britney Spears CD for a box of bubble-gum.

  105. To Hell with Sony by icepick72 · · Score: 1

    Why should Sony expect us to respect their EULAs when they disrespect consumers by secretly installing root kits on unknowning user's computers!

    1. Re:To Hell with Sony by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      "Why should Sony expect us to respect their EULAs when they disrespect consumers by secretly installing root kits on [unknowing] user's computers!"

      They've just had their ass handed to them on that one -- it got the kind of press coverage that even laypeople see and understand. It may be a small thing in the big picture, but Sony has taken a credibility hit on this, and a lot of people noticed.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  106. Stop trying to sound smart - you're too stupid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Insightful? Hmm...maybe "utterly stupid". The EULA applies to digital copies of the music on the CD, not the CD itself - as the article and the EULA itself clearly says. But this being /., you've shown yourself to be one of the teeming masses of lemmings who can't be bothered to read the article and actually come up with an independent thought. Well done, lemming-boy. You're now a proud member of the knee-jerk brigade.

    So, to address your points:

    What if I have autoplay turned off and I "abuse" the "CD" by treating it as a normal CD? The EULA never shows up and so I never agree to it.

    I guess that you answered your own question. Please stop thinking out loud.

    What about the person who uses a "normal" CD player? They certainly aren't going to be reading anything.

    Is a "normal" CD player a computer that makes digital copies?

    If you want to be truely "insightful", perhaps you could read the article and come up with a relevant comment that actually adds a new twist to the discussion, rather than just pop up with an anti-EULA fanboy rant that doesn't even apply to the topic under discussion!

    1. Re:Stop trying to sound smart - you're too stupid! by EuroChild · · Score: 0, Troll

      Also, in true /. fashion, your response - which actually challenges the above post and may spur discussion - is of course posted as an Anonymous Coward.

      --
      Does this make my brain look big?
  107. My Own EULA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wrote this right above my credit card on my wallet
    "When you the seller agree to the use of this card
    the shit you're selling belongs to the owner of this card."
    Any Sony Exec is welcome to read my eula or not so f'em!

  108. Illegal Contract by illumina+us · · Score: 1

    Does't this EULA violate fair-use laws and other state/federal laws making at the very least those clauses void?

    --
    -illumina+us "I put on my robe and wizard hat..."
  109. Sony Boycott??? by Nogahide · · Score: 1

    OK, so, to boycott Sony I'm assuming Sony or BMG is written on the CD we are trying to buy? Is there any other name or subsidiary I need to be aware of?

    1. Re:Sony Boycott??? by PHPfanboy · · Score: 2, Informative
      How's abouts these: (from http://www.sonybmg.com/labels.html)
      • Arista Records
      • BMG Classics
      • BMG Heritage
      • BMG International Companies
      • Columbia Records
      • Epic Records
      • J Records
      • Jive Records
      • LaFace Records
      • Legacy Recordings
      • Provident Music Group
      • RCA Records
      • RCA Victor Group
      • RLG - Nashville
      • Sony Classical
      • Sony Music International
      • Sony Music Nashville
      • Sony Wonder
      • Sony Urban Music
      • So So Def Records
      • Verity Records


      Next time, you can use this great new site I found called Google. Those guys are great, they seem to know everything...
      --
      29 mpg. YMMV.
    2. Re:Sony Boycott??? by Nogahide · · Score: 1

      Thanks dude,
      How about hardware....any other names but sony?

      So google huh...I'll have to check that out :-)

  110. a-team movie by Dog135 · · Score: 1
    Hey, good idea!

    Oh for the love of sanity, PLEASE, NO!

    That show was a steaming pile of crap back when my step-brother use to watch it on TV. There's no way they're going to make it any better. I'd rather watch Britney try to sing the blues. (If somebody provides a link of Britney singing the blues, I'm deleting my slashdot account)
    --
    "That's so plausible, I can't believe it!" - Leela
    1. Re:a-team movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If somebody provides a link of Britney singing the blues, I'm deleting my slashdot account
      Here you go ;-)

  111. One good thing. by Coleco · · Score: 1

    Most of the arguments here seemed based on the pretense that EULAs are binding contracts, which legal precedent seems to indicate they are not.

    "By using this product you agree to..." is a generic moniker that could be attached to any product. I mean why not? In that case the EULA would supersede and trump all other laws, which is obviously absurd. EULAs can be safely ignored and disregarded, provided you follow existing laws, ie, in Canada, if I crack DRM to rip a CD to mp3s, that's Sony's Problem (tm).

  112. Or, as Shodan would put it: by Kristoffer+Lunden · · Score: 1

    "Look at you, Consumer. A pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting and sweating as you buy what I tell you. How can you challenge a perfect, immortal machine?" ;-)

  113. Evil! by nz17 · · Score: 1

    **** THE PROOF THAT RIAA/MPAA IS EVIL ****

          R I A A M P A A
        18 9 1 1 13 16 1 1 - as numbers
          9 9 1 1 4 7 1 1 - digits added
        \_____/ \_____/ \_____/ \_____/
          9 2 2 2 - digits added

    Thus, "RIAAMPAA" is 9222.

    Add 1995, the year O J Simpson was acquitted for double murder - the result is 11217.

    Add 661 to it - this is the year Roman Empire was devastated by a plague, written backwards - you will get 11878.

    Subtract 6861 from the number - this is the year Newton published wildly misunderstood "Principia", written backwards. It gives 5017.

    Subtract 1351 from the number - this is the year Richard Roose was conveniently boiled to death for trying to poison an archbishop, written backwards. It gives 3666.

    Subtract 1876, the year first crematorium in the United States opened. The result will be 1790.

    The number 1790 is the year US patent system was established (eevil).

    This clearly proves how evil the subject is. QED.

    Courtesy of Evilfinder:
    http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/evilfinder/ef.shtml

    --
    Most men are not thought unwise until they speak.
  114. Yeah by StarKruzr · · Score: 1

    This sounds like a good system. I bought a t-shirt from England for $35 USD because of shipping and the exchange rate, but it was worth it to have a t-shirt hardly anyone here will have for an awesome band hardly anyone knows about :D

    If this makes me an indie fuck, fine, then I will fuck bravely onward.

    --

    +++ATH0
  115. illegal contracts by netcrusher88 · · Score: 1

    IANAL, but it seems as if this contract (EULA) is null and void as soon as you agree to it. This EULA, in the interest of "enforcing" the DMCA and "protecting" $ony, removes from the purchaser rights like "fair use" guaranteed in old copyright law and reaffirmed in the DMCA! IMHO, as the contract represented by the EULA is in violation of the law, it therefore voids itself, does it not? Perhaps someone else could weigh in on this, who knows more about this than me.

    --
    There's an old saying that says pretty much whatever you want it to.
  116. CHAIN LETTER TIME by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why doesn't someone start a short, simple chain letter, in plain text to avoid people thinking its a trojan, with a plain text link to a more informative website on Sony's evilness?

  117. Wastepaper EULAs by Markus+Registrada · · Score: 2, Informative

    I don't understand why anybody acts as if these EULA things mean anything. Under U.S. law they have no force at all. If they sold you a product that damaged your computer or data, sue them. The judge won't even let them enter the EULA in evidence.

    If you didn't get to read the EULA before you paid for the disc, it's just wastepaper. Even a button presented on-screen, "I Agree", is meaningless. (You can click those without reading them.) Under the Uniform Commercial Code, Sony has no right to place extra conditions on your use of a product you have already paid for. So, EULAs may be discarded unread, and you may click "I Agree" anywhere without actually committing yourself to anything. What remains is whatever was on the *outside* of the box that you could read before paying, and your state's implied warranty laws. Note that under many states' warranty laws, many disclaimers there are void, also.

    Caveats: (1) I'm no lawyer; (2) If you didn't pay (e.g., for a web download), then the UCC doesn't apply, and you'd better read the license carefully; (3) Maryland has rescinded its Uniform Commercial Code; and (4) The U.S. Federal 2nd Circuit's court of appeals (covering NY, CT, VT) has upheld shrink-wrap licensing in those states. If you live in MD or the 2nd Circuit then you're screwed until (in MD) you fix the law or (2nd circuit) you get the decision overturned.

  118. Recover Optical Drives From SONY RootKit!!! by maydaycomputers · · Score: 1

    I found a way to get my optical drives back after removing the SONY rootkit without reinstalling the OS! You are going to kick yourselves after I tell you. Reinstall the CDROM drivers and check the Device Manager to make sure the IDE Channel dosen't have an error tag. If it does let Windows reinstall the driver for you and viola your optical drives are yours again!

    1. Re:Recover Optical Drives From SONY RootKit!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      viola

      It's "voila". Why do people continue to misspell this word?

      I sincerely apologize for the OT spelling troll, but it had to be said.

  119. Before we lynch Sony by Trogre · · Score: 1

    spare a thought for us living in countries where copying music from any form to another is prohibited by law.

    Sony are trying to say that they permit copying (they have to in the US, under Fair Use), but you'd better keep your masters in a really safe place.

    Restrictive and archaic? Yes.

    Unreasonable? Not necessarily.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  120. about time DRM gets negative attention by SlimFlem · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have to say it's about time some big corp gets uber bad attention about some f'ed up DRM scheme. Who better than Sony. What Sony did was nothing more than spyware and should be prosecuted. I don't buy cd's or dvd's anymore because of this type of crap.

  121. Can you Decline? by Malacon · · Score: 1

    Now, if I understand correctly, there is little to no way to tell if one of these CDs are the Fun DRM'd, rootkit, privacy-killing variety by simply looking at the packaging.

    So my question is, if I buy the CD, get this Crap-tastic EULA, and decide I do not want to accept it, can I simply click no, or decline or whatever, and return the CD?

    I would imagine that there has to be SOME way to get your money back if you decide to not accept the terms. Any lawyers, or people who fancy them selves as such who can answer this question?

  122. Re:Bash.org's funny quote related to Sony rootkit. by antdude · · Score: 1

    Agreed. EULA is meant to have those crazy CAPS! There was a reason why it was like that.

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  123. "I have to buy gas" *laughs* by Moofar · · Score: 0

    "Unfortunately I have to buy gas to get to work."

    Most of the people in the world are living proof that walking, biking or riding a bus, train or trolley are really not fatal deseases and seem to provide great means of transportation for the majority of the world.

  124. Re:Bash.org's funny quote related to Sony rootkit. by motivator_bob · · Score: 1

    ...I am lazy to lowercase them manually...

    Copy and paste it into Word, select the text and press shift+F3.

  125. Weirdos by euxneks · · Score: 1

    How can they expect these sorts of things to hold up in court when it is _largely_ ineffective?

    I doubt that average Joe is going to even read all that crap, let alone do as he is told in the EULA. Can they really expect that people could be held liable if noone pays attention to it?

    --
    in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
  126. Re:Bash.org's funny quote related to Sony rootkit. by antdude · · Score: 1

    Thanks. Isn't there a menu item for this? There's no way I can remember all these hot keys. ;)

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  127. Use the analog filter, Luke by falken0905 · · Score: 0

    Everyone seems to miss the obvious solution these days. Everything has to be fast, easy and above all, *digital*. Bah. You don't want to corrupt your computer with a root kit? You don't want to agree to a nasty EULA? Then hook a wire between the output of your cd player and the Line Input of your computer sound card. Play cd on player, record audio on computer. Squish it to whatever compressed and less than original quality format you desire. Done. With even average quality sound card and player i defy you to hear a difference in audio quality. Yes, you youngsters, that little blue hole on the back of your computer is indeed good for something. I'm not so sure about the red hole.

  128. EULA is not enforcable by Peaker · · Score: 1

    Its being repeated again and again, and people are actually taking it seriously.
    Calm down, people, the EULA is just a piece of paper, or a dialog box, void of any legal meaning.

  129. Maybe not... by tkrotchko · · Score: 1

    "So they are going to buy Sony PS3 or Microsoft XBox 360."

    They might try, but when they see $400 for either of those, they might think twice.

    --
    You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
  130. Reminds me of hotmail back in the days.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't their disclaimer say someting about "All stuff transfered thru us is ours and we will obtain copyright to it" or something ?
    So that if you, say, sent a movie-manuscript via hotmail to a friend, then MS would own that :)

    I always write "I own your firstborn" in my disclaimers ;)

  131. Boycott *ALL* Sony, even PSP, PS3, TVs, Cameras... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yup. If you want the music, **cough** limewire **cough**. But please don't give Sony another cent. That includes TV, DVD players, DVR-R drives, consoles, digital cameras, etc.

  132. Re:Bash.org's funny quote related to Sony rootkit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Format | Change case | sentence case

  133. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Ummm... you know who Pastor Martin Niemöller was talking about with that quote, don't you?

  134. SonyBMG contacts info - let them know!!! by grolschie · · Score: 1

    General SONY BMG: 212-833-8000

    Arista Records: 646-840-5600
    SONY BMG U.S. Latin: 305-695-3600
    J Records: 646-840-5600
    Jive Records: 212-727-0016
    RCA Label Group Nashville: 615-301-4300
    RCA Records: 212-930-4000
    SONY BMG Corporate Press: 212-833-5047

    London: 020 7384 7500 and 020 7835 5344
    Ireland: + 353 (0)1 647 3400

    Online feedback forms:
    Sony Canada
    Sony Australia
    Sony New Zealand

    Find a Sony site in your country

    BTW, the SonyMusicAsia domain has now expired. LOL. :-)

  135. Online UNINSTALL REQUEST FORM at Sony/BMG by grolschie · · Score: 1
  136. Close by shufler · · Score: 1

    I'd rather watch Britney try to sing the blues. (If somebody provides a link of Britney singing the blues, I'm deleting my slashdot account)

    Not truly part of the blues genre, but getting there: Oops I Did It Again

  137. Free music by bahgheera · · Score: 0

    Ah.. there's too much free (legal!) music on the internet nowadays to warrant shelling out cash for 'pop' music from the big dogs.

    http://freealbums.blogsome.com/
    http://www.archive.org/audio/netlabels.php
    http://www.magnatune.com/

    Laters...

  138. it runs but does not install on close by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative


    When you run the application that shows the EULA, it also runs the copy protection. If you accept the EULA the software is installed, otherwise it only remains running until you reboot.

    Reboot and it will be gone.

    Please mod this up. It doesn't install unless you say yes. I would never have implemented it if it worked the way the parent post describes.

    --
    ex sunncomm developer

    1. Re:it runs but does not install on close by Pofy · · Score: 1

      >Reboot and it will be gone.

      Why should you have to reboot? If you don't agree to anything and don't want to istall anything, there is no need for a reboot and they should not start running programs to start with.

    2. Re:it runs but does not install on close by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reboot and it will be gone.

      you are an EX-employee. where is the guarantee that the current employees did not, uhm, 'improve' upon your work?

    3. Re:it runs but does not install on close by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They didn't start running the program that runs the copy protection; you did. Also, you must be administrator to even run the copy protection. Autorun + default admin rights is just asking for trouble, don't ya think? Make a normal user account for your windows box already :)

      I agree though. If you hit close or cancel, the copy protection *should* unload.

      The reason it even loads in the first place is because you could rip the disc while the EULA was displayed. Legally, you could then decline the EULA after ripping and the record labels would have no recourse. As a solution, the old DOS term "terminate and stay resident" was thrown around to the record labels, and thats what ended up on the CDs.

    4. Re:it runs but does not install on close by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative


      you are an EX-employee. where is the guarantee that the current employees did not, uhm, 'improve' upon your work?


      The company was going in that direction. That's when I quit.

      I don't have a garantee, but I know FooFighters was released with mediamax, rev 3, (the same described in the halderman document). There is no 'download/update' code in rev 3, so if you have that CD, rev 3 is all you have.

    5. Re:it runs but does not install on close by Pofy · · Score: 1

      >They didn't start running the program that runs the copy protection; you did.

      No, you did not start to run any copy protection, you inserted a music CD and for the typical person it autorun some install program (alternatively you clicked install).

      >I agree though. If you hit close or cancel, the copy protection *should* unload.

      It shouldn't be running to start with since you never proceeded to install it. Sure, one can argue that it could start up as part of installation, but at the very least, it should completely stop running if you cancel.

  139. Re:Wrong by superflyguy · · Score: 1

    It is worded as 'possess' not 'own'. The thief posesses the cd, despite the fact that you own the cd. And even if that wasn't thier intent, it's legalese, and therefore interpereted by the courts as meaning EXACTLY what it says. It might be nonsense, but only because the eula is nonsense, not because it was incorrectly interpereted.

  140. The article is from Sony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you follow the links, the guy who submitted this is from Sony Electronics. Looks like not every Sony employee is happy about the current direction.

  141. Re:Wrong by barefootgenius · · Score: 1

    No, that doesn't work. If someone steals something from you then it is still yours, I doesn't matter who has it or what they do with it, legally it is still yours so even if you don't have physical possesion, you still have the rights to the possesion.

    --
    /. bug #926803 - Why I can post.
  142. Monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They have monopoly on the artist.

  143. Cracked Out by twistedcain · · Score: 1

    Back when I first got into computer gaming I bought this terrible cd case to hold my games. Inevatably this crappy case cracked my new Age of Empires cd I had just paid $50 for. Without the cd I could no longer play the game. I tried taking it back to the store but they said my 15-day return window had passed. I thought about buying another one and putting the broken disc in the new box and returning it, but found out you can't return computer software. Their was an email address that came with the cd if you had problems. So I emailed them (microsoft) and told them what happened. I told them I had the reciept and the cracked cd and would gladly send them both if I could get a replacement disc. I sent them multiple emails but they only sent auto-generated replies of no help at all. I discovered the only way to fix my crack problem was with a crack. I was just a joe public consumer until this happened. If it wasn't for their lack of help to a paying customer I would have never even known about cracks. Like Princess Leia said, "The more they tighten their grip, the more consumers slip throught their fingers"

  144. you are still burning gas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gas or diesel, I would be willing to wager a years pay you are living in a manner that directly benefits from burning gasoline and diesel. Where do you get your gadgets, your food, your structure you live in? No gas or diesel involved? Really? You "telecommute" and work from home and order all your stuff online? OK, swell, does Fed Ex and UPS show up on horseback? You walk to the grocery story, where all the food is delivered by conestoga wagon? And all the conestoga wagon delivered food got shipped across country with no burning fuel, and raised on farms with no tractors, right?? No? Whoops! YOU BURN FUEL

    If you are part of technological society and not living in a cave drinking glacier water and existing on prana, you ARE BURNING FUEL, directly or merely one single step removed, in mass quantities.

    Yes, it is useful for some people to not drive, but in the overall energy scheme of things it is more a minor problem, as society as a whole is set up and revolves around oil and coal primarily. It just is. Humans need to move themselves and their stuff from point A to B, just reality. We are GOING TO DRIVE, so just get over it and move on. And rural and suburban people who drive more than urbanites are also WAY ahead in using the alternative energy options out there. Very few urbanites living in a rented apartments put up solar panels. Very, very few. Very few urbanites grow a large amount of their own food organically. Very, very few. Very few walking urbanites put up one megawatt wind generators on their property, whereas rural folks who drive vehicles can and do, providing greener energy for themselves and others. Yes, still plenty of room for improvement, but just because you walk doesn't make you some massive energy conservation person, you most likely consume as much energy in the aggregate as a lot of SUV driving people. Shipping your computer to you for example, follow all the energy chains. Your clothing, where does that come from? Every place you go in "green walking urban land", it's heated or AC living, artifically lit up, artificially sound enhanced, MUCH more than any suburban or rural areas. All your 'stuff" has to be shipped in to you, ALL of it, at great burning expense. And all of it would come to an immediate halt if there was no gas or diesel tomorrow. YOU are burning gas and diesel.

    Yes, nukes and hydro enter the picture, but no place is totally dependent on one form of energy only, and don't forget how you are able to actually live in your little smug greener from youur narrow point of view "walking world". a lot of people just do NOT want to live like termites in giant hives. They live elsewhere, so they drive.

    Encourage saner driving and better tech, don't just dump on people because they drive. We all try to do what we can, 'K?

    AC because you were. Some solar power running because it works. Organic because it's better, tastes better and I "make it myself" in my large gardens, no shipping required except walk from garden to kitchen. Bicycle when I can, drive when I must, walk several miles a day just working outside. Sitting by a woodstove right this second using "stored solar" renewable energy for heat.

    Who's greener?

  145. IANAL, but..... by barefootgenius · · Score: 1

    If sonys drma cd's contain GPL material(from Lame). Then haven't they been very nice to us and GPL'd the entire cd. They seem to make no distinction between the audio of the cd and the program ( You were sold an audio cd not a peice of software ). But without paying for a licence agreement to use the LGPL with Lame, then it would seem to me that the whole cd is able to be used without restriction as long as these rights are passed on.
    Can someone get back to me on this, I need some humor today and this would make me rofl!

    --
    /. bug #926803 - Why I can post.
  146. MOD PARENT UP by bmac83 · · Score: 1

    This is interesting information. The machine I own that was rootkitted is a media center PC and is not often rebooted. It will be back from repairs tomorrow and I will test this out. I never would have thought that a reboot would remedy a problem like garbled CD rips. Such is Windows and DRM.

    Thanks to the parent AC for clearing this up. We'll see how it goes tomorrow.

  147. Buy a Apple Macintosh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The software does not install itself in Apple Macintosh.

    Go on, go get one.

    Its time to fight microsoft and its bad practices. If your going to get taken advantage of at least do it with a system that runs like a champ.

  148. Update to DRM/Rootkit affecting Windows. by Khyber · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I bought (yea, bite me) the DRMed Switchfoot CD for fun, and threw it into my Windows98SE machine. Upon install, the first thing it does is look for the XP registry, which it doesn't find, and edits the 98 registry. Upon rebooting, the computer totally died, going into a BSOD boot loop. Apparently, you try using this CD on anything windows except XP/2K and you're asking for a massive system failure. So now my question has become "What will happen when all those Windows 9x/ME users plug one of these discs in, and their computers all collectively get screwed?" Are we looking at potentially 90% of the computer world (or whatever percentage that runs Windows) turning around and suing Sony into absolute oblivion?

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  149. Something important at the end there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Article 11 of the EULA states:

    If any provision of this EULA is subsequently held to be invalid or unenforceable by any court or other authority, such invalidity or unenforceability shall in no way affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision of this EULA.
    They are trying to make it so that courts finding the EULA unenforcable, unconstitutional or otherwise invalid can only negate offensive portions of the "agreement". IANAL, but I personally would find such bullcrap invalid and null the whole EULA in one stroke before examining it further.
  150. What are we paying for by mrsaggy · · Score: 1

    The $10+ we pay for a CD isn't for the media cost. The cost of a mass produced CD is below $1. We are paying for the right to listen to the music. The problem is that the physical CD is seen as the embodyment of this right, If the physical CD is taken we can't prove we have a right to play the music. Now if the thief was charged with the violation, that would be justice. If we payed for the vinal, what can't we just pay a media cost for the upgrade to CD, and if the CD gets scratch, can't we just pay for media replacement

    1. Re:What are we paying for by Pofy · · Score: 1

      >We are paying for the right to listen to the music.

      Sorry, that is just rubish. There is no such "right to listen" since there is nothing that restricts listenikng to start with. There is nothing that forbids you to listen to the music, hence you don't need any right to do it either.

  151. Oh please by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

    How will they control sales of used games?

  152. The Point? by Gja · · Score: 1

    I thought the DEFINITION of having a backup is that you are allowed to use it when the original gets fscked.

    So if the original CD is lost, or stolen (ex: stolen from your car), then you SHOULD be able to use your copies. That is why it is called a BACKUP

  153. Makes no difference to me. by cwsulliv · · Score: 1

    As far as I'm concerned, Sony is Sony and all divisions thereof are tarred with the same brush. I refuse to buy Sony CDs or anything else with the Sony name on it until they come to their senses. For one thing, who knows what malware may be concealed in the firmware of any of their hardware products.

  154. DO NOT read the posted EULA !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WARNING!!! The public posting of the entire Sony CD EULA on an Internet website without authorization infringes Sony's copyright in this material. The EFF is contributing to the infringement by linking to this website, and by pulling it up in your browser you're also an infringer. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!!

  155. what happens if... by t0ny747 · · Score: 0

    What happens if you run the cd under Linux?

    Do you break the eula because the rootkit is mac and windows only?

    Will it just run as a normal cd?

    Will it run as a normal cd under windows before the rootkit?

    Why is Sony just a BIG ass hole?

    Why is the sky blue?

    Why is the '?' the question mark?

    Help me I can't stop...

    Please...

    I need to pee.

    --
    Taco?
  156. Re:First Post by utnow · · Score: 1

    I agree... and at the same time disagree. Both Sony and Microsoft are huge companies... in most companies this size they would have disjointed projects with disjointed agendas. But both of these particular companies have such a huge push for integration... if you look at any sony product, they honestly leverage every one of their technologies (all proprietary of course) in every new product. The consoles use technologies developed in the same sony DRM lab that the music and/or video departments are using. I really don't think you can pull the "hand doesn't know what the feet are doing" argument. But then I'm just talking out of my ass so don't mind me. ;o)

  157. Dear Sony by clr211 · · Score: 1


    I don't buy CD's, so this "DRM/rootkit" does not affect me. However, I have been a longtime customer of Sony electronics, especially of the console variety. I currently own 2 PS1's and a PS2 (along with a GameCube, XBox, GameBoy, SNES, NES, Genesis, Master System, Game Gear, etc, etc). Over the course of their (the Sony consoles) combined lifetimes, I have easily purchased 100+ games. I have been seriously considering purchasing a PSP, and I definitely planned on purchasing a PS3.

    After watching this story develop, I have decided that I do not want to support your company. Not only do you assume that all of your customers are criminals, you also assume that they are all brainwashed idiots (http://www.theregister.com/2005/11/09/sony_drm_wh o_cares/).

    I am not a criminal, and I am not an idiot. And I have a message for you:

        I WILL NOT purchase a PSP.
        I WILL NOT purchase a PS3.
        I WILL NOT purchase anymore PS1 or PS2 games or periphials.

    In fact, if a product says "Sony" on it, or if my research into a product (and, yes, I research before I buy) reveals a connection to Sony, I WILL NOT BUY IT. I am making a concerted effort to convince friends and family to do likewise.

    I honestly don't care if you issue a public apology. I don't care if you recall all DRM CD's and pony up for repair bills. I don't care if you release a full featured uninstaller. You have shown throughout this whole ordeal that you do not care about us.
    </polite>

    <rant>
    WTF Sony??? Do you really think that we were all just gonna sit and take this bullshit??? FSCK you, FSCK your "anti-piracy" rootkit, and FSCK your attitude towards consumers. Hey, we pay your fsckin bills!!!! Why the fsck would you want to piss us off???
    </rant>

    unfortunately, they will probably get away with it. oh, they may make a token apology, or may be forced to pay a few out-of-court settlements, but then this will go away and it'll be back to the same ol' bullshit. the mass media is studiously ignoring this story, and joe sixpack aint got a clue. the security industry is up in arms, and there are a few lawsuits cropping up here and there, but lets face facts. until the average consumer gets pissed off and decides they've had enough, we're not gonna have enough leverage to change any of sony's policies. i honestly hope sony gets this drm/eula thing shoved up their ass and they go bankrupt, but i guess we'll just have to wait and see.

  158. Code and Speech by Squideye · · Score: 1

    Thereby demonstrating that Code and Speech do need some slightly different approaches to enforcement and/or regulation.

    Because the EULA is clearly a bunch of bullshit that I can ignore. Oh, they can write it, and waste a lot of money trying to enforce that I delete all of my laptop's files when someone borrows my CD and accidentally uses it as a toilet paper stand, but ultimately it's a work of madness.

    Their rootkit, on the other hand, can f**k up my computer, and allow it to be used as a tool for spam, for DoS attacks, for general mayhem and chaos. It's beyond quixotic and it's beyond petulant (which their EULA is): it's destructive.

    I'm not saying they can't just write stupid EULAs all they want. They should be able to, and the law should continue to laugh at their deranged pseudolegal ravings. But they shouldn't be allowed to put that kind of code on their CDs. They should be punished, and criminally.

  159. MS AntiSpyware will have removal built in by evenSong · · Score: 0

    Mircosoft is also planning to remove the DRM through their MS AntiSpyware.
    http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1886122,00.as p?kc=EWRSS03129TX1K0000614

    THAT, is why I use and actually trust MS AntiSpyware over other competing scanners. However, using two doesn't hurt.

    1. Re:MS AntiSpyware will have removal built in by grolschie · · Score: 1

      > Mircosoft is also planning to remove the DRM through their MS AntiSpyware

      Yeah, but will it remove their own DRM? ;-)

  160. It's time to send corporate lawyers to jail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A major corporation dares to sell products with the same technology that lends hanckers jail term, they sell their product, which destroys your private property, which send criminals to jail, they sell their products with legal contracts, that denies the buyers constitutional rights and places the corporation above law.

    Isn't it time to send corporate lawyers and corporate executives of these corporations to jail?

  161. Product Recall will co$t $ony - If LGPL within by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Enforce the LGPL. That could mean Bony paying some outrageous amount per violation plus a pile of money, donated to EFF? and have all evil code released (That will wreck the rookkit IP of the co. that claims ownership, and make new reborn rootkit/crippled driver startups very nervous). Also add permanent injunctions to the demands. Anyone checked the Apple code?

  162. Previously happy sony customer by Exter-C · · Score: 1

    I have been a very happy sony customer in the past for a long time I had purchased sony goods as they suited the budget and more often than not they where very good quality for the price I was prepared to pay. Having bought a sony digital camera (DSC-F505V) when it was new and having owned two trinitron televisions and the list goes on. What has always been great about sony goods is that they have been easy to use, functional, and good quality at a reasonable price. That was enough after research to buy the goods and be happy with them. Taking that on board when I went to replace my sony camera I was so disappointed by the fact that sony didnt have a camera that had any reliable after market batteries etc and the life span for the digital cameras was woeful. I have since purchased a Canon EOS 350D which is a much more professional camera although somewhat harder to manage than the sony ever was. Over time my dislike for sony consumer goods has become greater and greater, and seeing the company do such stupid stuff like the DRM and putting out stupid EULAs just makes me wonder what stupid lawyers have gotten into bed with what was once such a great company. When will they get the hint that all the publicity they are getting over these issues is not good for business, especially when the company has not been doing so well over recent years (see profit warnings). Once I would have said long live sony, now I am wondering if they should even be in business.

    1. Re:Previously happy sony customer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >I went to replace my sony camera I was so disappointed by
      >the fact that sony didnt have a camera that had any reliable
      >after market batteries etc and the life span for the digital
      >cameras was woeful.

      How about using standard AA, rechargeable, alkalyne or any other ?
      http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/w5.htm l

    2. Re:Previously happy sony customer by Exter-C · · Score: 1

      The camera batteries that I had with the F505V previously where rechargeable and still can hold a charge even if its for only half an hour or so. The issue was that the batteries are very bespoke which resulted in high cost accessories and they went end of life a long time ago. Plus that camera is not really in the same league as the cameras Ive been looking at/talking about.

  163. Re: Everything Gets Shipped by Truck by some+guy+I+know · · Score: 1
    Everything in the United States gets shipped by truck. EVERYTHING. It may be on a train or a plane for part of the trip, but at some point in time it was on a truck.

    I present /. with the challenge of presenting a counter-example ;~)
    I used to occasionally buy stuff from an Amish collective.
    They would ship their goods to market by horsecart.
    --
    Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
  164. Re: Everything Gets Shipped by Truck by StarsAreAlsoFire · · Score: 1

    hmmmmm. I rate that highly, but will raise the question of how they get the raw materials ;~)

    I know that much of the furniture that is 'Amish Made' does indeed come from trees they farm and fall themselves, so I guess that would be a true winner -- hand fallen trees, hand hewn furnishings and a horse cart to market.

    Nifty.

    Boy, if society collapses the Amish are going to be swamped with people trying to learn from them ;~)

  165. Cake and so by Tom · · Score: 1

    The really funny thing is: The last batch of blank CD-Rs I bought are from - Sony.

    Having the cake and eating it, too? These guys are funny. If they should succeed in curbing music copying, I'm sure the next thing they cry about is losses in the blank CD-R department. It'll be interesting to see what kind of law they push to get that fixed.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  166. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It does seem stoopid to allow these sorts of practices on sensitive equipment

  167. Re:Bash.org's funny quote related to Sony rootkit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I mean, what is it with lawyers and the ALL CAPS sections of EULAs? What is the criterion for making a section all caps? Does it mean the other sections really aren't that important?

    The real reason is that the company's don't want you to read them; so they try whatever legal means are avalable to make them hard to read.

    This includes "fine print" to prevent disabled people from reading them; as well as all-caps and a bunch of useless clauses to hide the actual clauses.

    There should be a law that says that if 50% of people don't read a section of a EULA it's not enforcable.

    That would make companies not only write more clearly understandable eulas, but also ones that their customers won't object to.

  168. Punish SONY Retailers - Spread the WORD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How to get Sony products dropped:

    1. Go to Retail Store
            (Make sure they don't have a restocking fee - before you buy.)
    2. Buy some Sony CDs.
    3. Take them out to the parking lot.
    4. Wait 4 minutes.
    5. Walk back into the store.
    6. Return the products you just bought for a full refund.
    7. Complain that you Read someplace that Sony CDs infect and destroy TVs, Computers, small pets, children, churches, the American Flag,
    moms and apple pie.

    - Their EULA seems Unconstitutional - give up your rights to a trial by Jury? WTF?

  169. if only it was that way... by namekuseijin · · Score: 1

    "One could easily argue that they are a parasitic group riding on the backs of our most creative individuals."

    Perhaps it was like that before the recording industry appeared. Today, there are no "most creative individuals", just puppets-with-an-attitude spit out by the evil corps to sell all kinds of merchandising except good music.

    --
    I don't feel like it...
  170. Re: Everything Gets Shipped by Truck by KermitJunior · · Score: 1

    So did you have to drive to the collective? Was it dirt roads the whole way there from your house?

    --
    There is a Universal Life Value Check it
  171. WWGD: What Would Ghandi Do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ghandi's solution to British domination of the Indian economy was "home spun" (there were no tweakers then so I doubt it was about them!) He meant make your own, and boycott British brands.

    Stop buying music and products.

  172. how I love your chocolatey chew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like a penis to me

    The world must look mighty good to you: you say that about whatever it is you think you see.

  173. Sony DRM Controversy - Like Lawsuit from 2001 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently Sony did not learn from past music CD DRM lessons - one of its vendors (Sunncomm) was sued, in a consumer protection case, for alleged DRM abuses back in September 2001 the lawsuit can be found here: http://techfirm.typepad.com/clickrights/2005/11/in dex.html#a0007468925 The lawsuit against Sunncomm, with a few changes for the new "root kit" methods, looks very much like allegations one could make in the Sony case. The settlement agreement in the above case could be found here: http://techfirm.typepad.com/clickrights/2005/11/in dex.html#a0007349270 Like (apparently) Sony - the defendants in the Sunncomm case stopped the DRM after litigation was filed.

  174. Re:Bash.org's funny quote related to Sony rootkit. by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1

    I don't want to put the brick through a Sony exec's window.
    See www.goatse.cx for example.

    --
    If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
  175. Equal protection? by Incensed · · Score: 1

    Bravo for taking action instead of just ranting like most.

    (IANAL)

    I wonder if there's an equal protection thing here. I hear that the affected CD's only contain Win32 malware, nothing Mac or *nix compatible.

    It's a bit of a twisted argument, but why shouldn't those platforms get the same..."management" assistance as Windows?

    Said differently...the Redbook data is on the disc, in addition to whichever book supports the data track's presence.

    A standard, CD-logo-only, standalone CD player does nothing but Redbook. It directly access the Redbook data. Seems like Macs and *nix boxes can do the same, with no EULA to contend with.

    Is there some legal thing that says the policy is unequally applied across the marketplace?

    Dunno...

  176. I'm Dreaming of a Sony-Free Christmas by zerofret · · Score: 1

    I think that the most effective solution to this whole DRM rootkit issue would be for everyone to celebrate a Sony-Free Christmas this year. Don't purchase Sony products as gifts for others, and return & exchange any Sony products received as gifts for non-Sony products. We can't count on the politicians or the courts to bring justice Sony's way, but I bet if we ruin Sony's Christmas sales the stockholders will be screaming for the appropriate heads to roll.

  177. Re: Everything Gets Shipped by Truck by some+guy+I+know · · Score: 1
    So did you have to drive to the collective?
    Yes, by car.
    (Note that the O.P. claimed that everything was shipped by truck.
    My car is not a truck.)
    Was it dirt roads the whole way there from your house?
    No, but the condition of the roads is irrelevant.
    I assume that you are trying to make the point that the materials to make the road were shipped by truck, but that is not that same thing as the goods themselves being shipped by truck.
    Similarly, the fact that my car was shipped to the dealership by truck is also irrelevant, as is the fact that the money that I used to buy the merchandise was probably shipped by (armored) truck to the bank/ATM from which I withdrew it.
    The claim was that the merchandise itself was shipped by truck somewhere along the line, not that systems that facilitated the construction/distribution/purchasing/etc. of the merchandise were shipped by truck.
    --
    Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
  178. Re: Everything Gets Shipped by Truck by some+guy+I+know · · Score: 1

    Actually, what I used to buy was usually farm produce.
    Also, I may have bought some from the farmers themselves, right outside their fields, but it was so long ago that I can't recall exactly.

    For people that don't have Amish living nearby (such as where I live now), if you buy farm produce from roadside stands right outside the farmer's fields (which was probably "shipped" there by a tractor, not a truck), or strawberries, pumpkins or other fruits/vegetables from "pick your own" farms, or Christams trees from "cut your own" tree farms, and take the stuff home in your car (as opposed to in your pickup truck), then you are most likely getting produce that was not shipped by truck anywhere along the line.

    --
    Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
  179. Two things: by some+guy+I+know · · Score: 1
    1. I realize that your original point had to do with using gas, and I drove in a gasoline-powered car to where I bought these things, so, even though a truck wasn't used, gasoline was.
    2. I do know how "Christmas" is spelled.
      I previewed twice before I posted, but somehow I missed it.
    --
    Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
  180. A Must-Read - Sony's Rootkit in violation of LGPL by NetRAVEN5000 · · Score: 1
    I just replied to parent to get this at the top of the list. . . but check this out - according to ZeroPaid.com Sony's rootkit is in violation of the GNU LGPL! I guess they used LAME code in the rootkit without redistributing the code or putting in the copyright info that they used it!

    What do you think would be the repercussions? Is it possible that Sony will be forced to open-source their rootkit - and that we'll see more rootkits like this, based on that source?

    Man, MS is screwed now - an open-source Windows rootkit, freely available for all to see MS's security holes!

    Although I sure hope it doesn't give open-source software a bad rap. . .

  181. Re: Everything Gets Shipped by Truck by StarsAreAlsoFire · · Score: 1

    I actually meant 'Semi' for the most part.

    The amish part wins, because _some_ Amish communities are ALL natural; they don't buy anything at all and essentially live directly of the land.

    All commercial farms get massive amounts of stuff delivered to them via truck, and couldn't survive without it. At least not without changing a LOT.

    Gas for tractors, fertalizers, mulches, seeds, lye etc.