Slashdot Mirror
Sony Rootkit Allegedly Contains LGPL Software
Deaths Hand writes "According to this Dutch article the Sony DRM software (or rootkit, if you may prefer) contains code from the LAME MP3 encoder project, which is licensed under the LGPL. However, the source code has not also been distrbuted, hence breaching the license. Here is an english translation of the page." So apparently Sony violates your privacy to create a backdoor onto your machine using code that violates an Open Source license. This story just keeps getting stranger.
now I feel more and more justified for not buying any music until the music industry stops suing their customers.
I read about this story days ago. I was hoping it wouldn't get lost. In a way this is even bigger than the root-kit story. You've got to love the irony of stealing code to create a DRM infested ripper!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
they linked it statically (apparently the rootkit consists of a single exe), so no.
No. You can link LGPLed software with proprietary software, but you must still distribute the sources of at least the free software (free as in RMS).
There's a hidden treasure in Python 3.x: __prepare__()
According to the EFF.
This software is licensed under the so called Lesser Gnu Public License (LGPL). According to this license Sony must comply with a couple of demands. Amongst others, they have to indicate in a copyright notice that they make use of the software. The company must also deliver the source code to the open-source libraries or otherwise make these available. And finally, they must deliver or otherwise make available the in between form between source code and executable code, the so called objectfiles, with which others can make comparable software.
IANAL, but I think this is no-case. The code isn't included as executable, but as metadata usable in identifying LAME. Same as antivirus vendors shouldn't be kept liable for installing millions of viruses and copyrighted code from multiple spyware programs, just because the antivirus contains sniplets of the original code used in identifying the threats. They don't link the code against the program, but include pieces of it as non-executable data for the database. It's fair use. Same as you'd sue Google for copyright infringement because they include a sniplet of text from your website in their search results, or a thumbnail of your copyrighted image in image search.
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
Someone should send a takedown notice to the Sony corporation.
That being said, from what I've read it appears that the Sony DRM code may be looking for LAME on the system (to block it from working on their 'protected' stuff) but doesn't appear to actually contain LAME code.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Small clarification - you're not freed from the requirement to make the code for the lgpl portion available. You don't have to make the source code for the program that links against the LGPL code available.
No, Sony would have been ok if they had installed a README with their rootkit explaining that their digital rights management solution contained code distributed under the LGPL license, and direct users of the software to a website containing the source code.
Inconceivable!
If they'd gone Open Source from the start with their rootkit, the community could have contributed bug fixes and improvements. Even their competitors could have gotten involved, resulting in a truely powerful bug-free rootkit for use by everyone.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Its beautiful. I've always thought that the corporate war on their customers over intellectual property would turn when someone went too far. All of a sudden the main stream media would wake up and finally get it. Well, now its happened. The media is all over the story and Sony, bless their hollow little heads, just keep digging. I'm sure I'm not the only one who was shocked but not suprised at the news Sony or Level 4 have broken the LGPL. They are staggering around like a pummled prizefighter, bleeding on everything. There's going to be more blood before this is over. Besides the $billion or so it will cost Sony to clean up the mess, others will have some 'splainin to do. Like the anti-virus companies, like Microsoft, like the other music companies.
I knew something was up when I saw that Aibo perched at my keyboard when I woke up this morning.
Next thing you know, they'll be after our precious bodily fluids.
The GO.EXE doesn't appear to contain LAME code even though it has been linked against it, however at least ECDPlayerControl.ocx on the CD (packed in XCP.DAT, installed along DRM) does contain code from LAME. It also uses Id3lib and mpglib, without attribution or any licenses shipped along. I spotted bladeenc dll there as well.
Check the bottom of my research page for info, http://hack.fi/~muzzy/sony-drm/
There's not much there at the moment but I'll be adding information as soon as everything can be properly confirmed and evidence gathered.
-- Matti Nikki
You have to redistribute source of these libraries and enough hooks/API so anyone could replace them with whatever they like in your program. So either link dynamically (and include just the lib sources) or if you link statically, include source of the libraries and .o objects of your binary so they can be re-linked.
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
Next thing you know they'll buy SCO.
"Open the pod by doors, Hal" > "I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave" sudo "Open the pod bay doors, Hal" > alright
If you statically link in LGPL code (i.e. part of the binary), then the whole thing must be LGPL.
.o files (also the closed ones). AFAIK, Loki did this for statically linked, closed-source, SDL-based games.
Not necessarily. The only requirement is that the end-user can recreate the end result by modifying the LGPL part. This can also be met by distibuting statically linked binaries and all
- Sony rootkit eats kittens?
- Sony rootkit throws momma from the train?
- Sony rootkit spawns Darth Vader?
- Sony rootkit deflates tires of soccer moms?
- Sony rootkit steals cookies from girl scouts?
- Sony rootkit cheats at final exams?
- Sony rootkit pours hot grits down Natalie Portman's pants?
So it is not only LPGL, but also the more strict GPL. This is of coarse all meaningless if nobody from the mpg123 project steps out and tells sony to go with the license.
Baz
[1] in some lawyers opinion.... see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAME for info.
You still can statically link as long as the user is able to replace the LGPL parts of the code. So, say, you distribute object format binaries of your proprietary code, or you release your own code on other open-source non-GPL license (like the new one from Microsoft, "you can read, you can compile, you're not allowed to edit"). Generally the gist is that the LGPL part of your code must remain Free to anyone you give/sell your software to, and the proprietary part must not stand in the way to that Freedom.
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
<sarcasm>Thus explaining why every single open source project includes the full GCC source tree with it?</sarcasm>
The GNU General Public License and the GNU Lesser General Public License have an operating system exemption. The exact wording of the exemption in both licenses is as follows:
True, the corner cases of this exemption have not been tested in a court of law, especially in conjunction with the "mere aggregation" exemption.
...not its CDs. They have done more to damage their image and profits with this story than they would have saved by installing its spyware.
I also feel sorry for the poor chap who buys Ricky Martin, Neil Diamond or Celine Dion CDs, I really do.
Sony should have some kind of disclaimer about installing its bad software, maybe a 'Spyware Advisory' sticker? It is only fair.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
This is all so ridiculous. It's not like Sony even asks the user if they want this crap installed. Where would they even put the copyright notice? Of all the underhanded nonsense...
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
That only concerns GO.EXE, and while the analysis is correct for that executable, I checked for LAME references against every binary in the compressed XCP.DAT file after I managed to unpack it (thanks to freedom-to-tinker.com guys for providing description of the format). Turns out, there's more binaries including references to LAME, and this time there's actually code that uses the data as well. And not just LAME, there's also Id3lib included in one dll, and bladeenc and mpglib distributed along with the DRM. All of this is LGPL, it's code, and it's being used.
-- Matti Nikki
Regarding GO.EXE, it's a cockup. I've posted a few other posts here explaining the real situation. LAME along with some other LGPL code is being used in other binaries on the DRM, I couldn't initially find them since they're compressed in XCP.DAT on the cd but they get installed on the system.
-- Matti Nikki
The more I think about it, it really smells of dissention from within.
Either that or it looks to me like this is a mix of business people not understanding their market, customers, or technology and sloppy code work. I mean, what asshat would grab some open source code and not adhere to the license? It is either a tremendous faux pas on Sony's part, or there was some intentional act here to make this as reprehensible as possible.
Sort of like watching the music industry test the waters on this sort of thing and finding them extremely chilly.
This article has recently been linked from Slashdot. Please keep an eye on the page history for errors or vandalism.
http://bash.org/?577451
I was confused and under that impression too, so I read the LGPL license. It doesn't require you to submit the source code, but it does require the machine readable object code to be released so that people can link it with the library themselves. It also requires that the fact the library is being used be clearly stated, and the LGPL license text included with the distribution.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
First of all it seems that there is more than just LAME in there: http://hack.fi/~muzzy/sony-drm/
Second of all, am I the only one who finds it ironic that a DRM program designed to protect someone's copyrighted information is itself infringing on someone's copyright? I guess if Sony wants to fight those evil copyright violators they should start by putting themselves in jail.
IANAL, but judging from the RIAA's press releases when they sue grannies and kids, it's per copy and per work. So let's do the math. 20CD * 1 million copies each * $150,000/copy = $3 trillion dollars. That's if there's only 1 work on each copy. If they also infringed on several other projects, then you would have to multiply the damages accordingly.
$sys$README ?
FYI. BoingBoing have compiled a comprehensive timeline of events surrounding this: http://www.boingboing.net/2005/11/14/sony_anticust omer_te.html
Incite ICT - IT Support London
I know it causes me significant pain ...
I talk about stuff.
LGPL requires access to the source code. The only difference with GPL is that LGPL allows linking with non-free (non-?GPL) components.
MOD THE CHILD UP!
I believe you should shut up, stop relying on hearsay and read the license. Section 4 most clearly states:
Sony may claim to be looking for LAME. If so, they are using copyrighted samples to do it.
Since Sony already argues against fair use of samples, one need only supply the court
with Sony's own arguments against fair use.
1. It seems that Sony has not actually included any executable code from LAME, only some data, which is likely used as a signature, to determine if you have LAME installed and are using it to rip MP3s. This is likely fair use, not wholesale copyright violation, as far as LAME and the LGPL are concerned.
So the interesting question is: what does the rootkit do when it detects LAME on your hard drive? Does it disable or corrupt LAME? Does it phone home? Does it automatically initiate an RIAA lawsuit?
*This* is what I think the next Sony class-action lawsuit should be about. I doubt there is enough grounds to get them on an LGPL copyright infringement suit.
2. Muzzy points out that the Sony uninstaller installs a "safe for scripting" Active-X control with remotely exploitable entry points for rebooting your machine and possibly for installing arbitrary code on your machine. More fuel for the tasty class action suits that are starting up.
3. Sony has done so many evil things with the rootkit fiasco (and we haven't discovered them all yet); the outrage is spreading, and it may lead to a major backlash against the whole industry practice of distributing corrupted CDs in the name of DRM. Here's hoping for a brighter tomorrow.
Doug Moen.
I have written a truly remarkable program which this sig is too small to contain.
Disclaimer: I'm a Sony employee, and I strongly disapprove of the rootkit DRM stuff in a completely unofficial not-representative-of-the-company way ;)
But it's worth mentioning at this point that Sony didn't develop the software in question here - the XCP software was developed by First4Internet.
Not being a lawyer, or particularly knowledgable about (L)GPL terms, who could be held liable when a piece of software is developed by one party, but distributed by another? Is ignorance a defence, for instance if Sony said "We didn't know it had unlicensed code!", how would that affect things?
Game dev and music blog
Not that it lessens their tresspass, but Sony is apparently pulling the "infected" CDs:y /2005-11-14-sony-cds_x.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/computersecurit
Jerry
http://www.cyvin.org/
That's outdated. mpglib was relicensed under LGPL some years ago already, check www.mpg123.de
-- Matti Nikki
I'll try that one when the RIAA call
Oh sure I have 10G of unlicensed mp3s, but I've never listened to them.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
So is the Slashdot crowd going to complain and moan about Sony being a servant of the devil, and then happily go to Best Buy and get ther shiny new PS3?
Suppose the case settles for 10% and the lawyers take 90%. That leaves $750 per CD-ROM for the mpg123 developers. Now think about how many CD-ROMs have been produced.
Oh, what I'd give to have Sony infringe my open source project! The mpg123 developers are some lucky bastards for sure. I need to learn how to write Windows multimedia software instead of just Linux system software.
Here's the link to comments of LAME developer tt at Slashdot Japan.
When Interware violation incident occurs,I feel like as if my own son/doughter were raped by them.But I soon realized I can't have enough power to change the situation.I prefer coding,listening music,cooking to legal action.
Similar comment was written on Journal entry.
tt also comments on tables,as more hint for searching copyleft infringement seeking;t16_5l[]@table.c & enwindow[]@newmdct.c
>Anyone have any ideas?
:-)
Well, according to some people who have had to exorcise the demon from their windows PC, what happened after installing the rootkit is that MP3 files ripped from other CDs came back worse to wear, with noise, loss of quality and whatnot.
If that is true, you can probably connect the dots easily and see what Sony was after
---- Take the Space Quiz!
forget it, my last comment I mean ...
... why should *I* distribute code that can be downloaded from sourceforge? Or other GNU distributing sites for that matter.
I see that modern versions of LGPL want that the source of the library is included with the distributed binary.
Another reason not to use LGPL code
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
"to a website" WRONG WRONG WRONG.
t eWithSourceOnInternete AndBinaryOnDifferentSites
.spec file, or the dev-src equivalant.
If Sony don't provide the source they must make THE source available to all third parties for at least 3 years.
This is an obligation they must fulfil.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#Distribu
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCSourc
Merely pointing to "a website" or "the website we got it from" is not enough.
You have to make-sure-it-stays-there. And thats not enough.
You also have to let people request it by mail charging only a minimal fee.
You have to track your releases and make sure you keep the source of each release seperately so you can give people the source to the version they had.
Too many people consider only casually the obligation that the GPL puts on them. GPL is not an easy way out.
It's easy to receive GPL software because the burden is on the distributor, but you must understand and fulfil the burden when you are the distributor.
With most commercial software you pay some money before you receive it but you still have to follow the license guidelines.
Is it too often for me to say again that too many people distibute binary packages to open source software and distribute the source they compile to make the binary package but do not distribute the source to making the binary package; i.e. the
Sam
blog.sam.liddicott.com
I am seeing two issues here that are becoming clearer in the Open Source arena. One is that when there is a violation, there is not currently anyone willing to spend the huge dollars needed to litigate the issue. With Comercialware, there has always been someone with fairly deep pockets to pay an attorney to pursue the violators in court. Who is that going to be in the Open Source community? Who is making money on this stuf so that they can pay the expense of litigation when necessary? Is the 'free' trajectory shooting itself in the foot that way?
Another interesting point I see is that someone, sooner or later is going to challenge the legality of Open Source under the 'free' standard and litigate that it is tantamount to price fixing, i.e. antitrust. How long before someone challenges that the contractual language that forces someone to provide code at no cost is the same as being forced to sell it at an inflated price. The price is still fixed, whether at zero or at some other number.
These are a couple of major challenges that await open source. I hope someone gets their ducks in a row before these things come to fruition. Open Source has driven the industry in a very good direction. I would hate to see it fall because it can't support itself, financially, when and where it is needed. Justice is NOT free, in fact the costs are enormous to obtain justice. Somehow that has to be worked into the Open SOurce equation in a way that works for us all or the likes of Sony are going to kill it off.
The thing that people don't seem to realize is that if the GPL doesn't hold any water (and it may not), then the whole thing just collapses back to plain old copyright law. In that case, they can't copy and sell the code at all without permission from the writer.
If I write a book and release it on the internet for everybody to download for free, you still can't copy and sell it without my permission. The fact that the code is offered for free doesn't mean that the writer has given up his rights to the work. In fact it is the GPL that gives people the right to copy and sell the work, if they follow the rules outlined in it. Breaking the GPL means you don't have permission to copy and sell the works at all. It is the GPL itself that makes it legal for people to copy and sell GPLed work. Without the GPL it's just plain ol' copyright infringement.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
Isn't the LAME encoder an MP3 encoder that still needs to be licensed from Thompson?
In short, No!
Longer version: According to Dave Arland, a U.S. spokesman for Thomson Multimedia - 'its policy has always been to allow free use of the company's MP3 patents in "freely distributable software"'
Newsforge Article
-- Andy Jeffries Scramdisk for Linux (Change the orgy to org to reply)
This seems like a pretty good GPL test case. The irony of copyright infringement being used to develop a copyright protecting program would likely go over will with the court!
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
Isn't the minimum way to comply with the GPL's (and I assume also the LGPL's) source code distribution terms to make the source code available upon request? (IE you don't necessarily have to distribute source to those users who don't want it.) So has anybody tried requesting? It's worth a shot. I don't think we've ever had open source DRM crap before.
Have you ever wondered How to Take Over
let's not forget that the rootkit would have to distribute the source code with it!
...hmmmm Nah.
Hmmm I wonder...
$sys$rootkit.cpp
$sys$rootkit.h
$sys$drm.cpp
$sys$drm.h
$sys$lgpl.txt
Any of you LAME developers reading? Please PLEASE! don't settle!
Just once, I'd like to see a major corporation wiped off the face of the earth because it violated the law. It would send a nice message to the other megacorporations. If you're going to use the law as a weapon against us, we can use it right back.
So please, talk to the EFF. I'll donate whatever I can to the legal fund.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Ummm, does anyone know how many programmers (also know as copyright holders) have code in LAME?
Because each copyright holder can sue independantly.
Oh, and in case anyone forgot the RIAA sued a college student for $97.8 Billion. SO they have absolutely no right to bitch about how supid-huge copyright infringments can get to be. Their own lawyers participated in drafting the law the stupid-ass damages.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Two hours research on various Windows Developer mailing lists will reveal all the answers needed to homebrew your own rootkit, if you have a little bit of savvy. My point is that concealing Windows' numerous design flaws in the hopes of obscuring the many ways to exploit them is not security. Besides, if you think Windows rootkit source isn't already being traded on IRC by many, you are truly naive.
Even the methodology used by the sysinternals dude, of analyzing the kernel call vector to find the rootkit (by locating addresses pointing outside of the kernel) is nowhere near bulletproof. We're coming up on the 5th inning of the apocalypse of Windows. Soon a Mac will look cheap when you compare it to the time consuming weekly reformat/reinstall cycles that lie just beyond the horizon.
cat