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.'"

Comments

Don't pay for CD from these guys

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys

[ScrewMaster]

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.

Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys

[uncoveror]

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.

Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys

[ScrewMaster]

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.

Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys

[Esion Modnar]

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.

Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys

[BrynM]

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.

Re:Don't pay for CD from these guys

[Mistshadow2k4]

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.

Finally!

[Gothic_Walrus]

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.

Re:Finally!

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Re:Finally!

[hackstraw]

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

Re:First Post

[bigman2003]

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.

Misleading Artical

[totuck]

"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.

Re:Misleading Artical

[uncoveror]

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.

Re:Rootkit worse

[Kjella]

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.

Re:SONY's modest proposal

[penix1]

"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.

Re:Sony's engineering arm?

[Simonics Zsolt]

"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...

Reductio ad Absurdum

[fermion]

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.

Refusing to buy sony stuff is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Some of this isn't new...

[shibashaba]

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.

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Parent is correct

[GreyWolf3000]

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.

Re:Sony's engineering arm?

[NCraig]

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!"

Re:SONY's modest proposal

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:SONY's modest proposal

[Compaq_Hater]

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

Ironic but true..

[canuck57]

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.

Re:Ironic but true..

[chronicon]

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...

Re:Ironic but true..

[chronicon]

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...

Re:Ironic but true..

[chronicon]

> 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...

Re:First Post

[NicklessXed]

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.

Re:SONY's modest proposal

[Ahnteis]

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.)

Nope - you added an extra logical negation

[mccalli]

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

Re:Nope - you added an extra logical negation

[KarmaMB84]

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).

Oh, for Crying Out Loud

[n6kuy]

> ... flaws in Digital Rights Management schemes;

DRM stands for Digital Restriction Mechanism!

Rights are inherent. They don't need to be "managed".

Re:Sony, Enforce this IF you have the balls

[KarmaMB84]

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.

Re:SONY's modest proposal

[displaced80]

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

Learn to vote with your dollar!

[WhiteWolf666]

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.

Why buy Sony at all?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Getting away from making things

[HangingChad]

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.

Re:Everybody knows...

[KarmaMB84]

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.

Re:Rootkit worse

[Dolda2000]

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.

Re:Bash.org's funny quote related to Sony rootkit.

[ortholattice]

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.

Re:Sony's engineering arm?

[moosesocks]

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.....

Re:SONY's modest proposal

[nasor]

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.

Re:My parsing of the EULA

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm... you know who Pastor Martin Niemöller was talking about with that quote, don't you?