Slashdot Mirror
Sony DRM Installed Even When EULA Declined
HikingStick writes "News.com is reporting that the Texas attorney general is expanding the allegations against Sony. It seems the software would install even if users declined the EULA. From the article: 'The Texas attorney general said on Wednesday that he added a new claim to a lawsuit charging Sony BMG Music Entertainment with violating the state's laws on deceptive trade practices by hiding 'spyware' on its compact discs ... The new charges brought by Abbott contend that MediaMax software used by Sony BMG to thwart illegal copying of music on CDs violated state laws because it was downloaded even if users rejected a license agreement.'"
This is the original blog that revealed the SunnComm DRM installed despite the user declining the EULA. Whereas the XCP DRM could hide behind the EULA excuse, I don't see how SunnComm has any legal fig leaf here (though IANAL).
Supposedly there is about ten times more SunnComm DRM in the wild than XCP DRM, so maybe Sony felt they couldn't sacrifice holiday sales despite the legal exposure.
Correct, contracts have to be entered into bilaterally not unilaterally. It is a matter for the State as it is then Fraud to execute a contract not agreed to by both parties. Criminal prosecution IS the domain of the State. If the GP poster can think of a civil tort that was committed by Sony the sue them. Find a good lawyer who will get 40% of what you win and go for it. Or you could go to small claims court. If you win, just how do you think you will enforce the penalty?
I think it's just another straw in the pile. This just adds another charge against the company that they will have to defend themselves against. The other charges don't hinge on the EULA issue at all; the rootkit is still illegal. This is simply ANOTHER thing they are adding. So even if the rootkit is found to be legal, they can still be nailed with this charge.
From my law classes, my lawyer professors told me that a favorite trick of lawyers is to allege as many possible crimes/violations as possible so as to make the other side more likely to either plea bargain or settle as well as to raise the chances of successfully arguing at least ONE of the charges/torts.
(Disclaimer: IANAL, just had some law classes)
Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.
I have an RCA Victor (one of Sony/BMG's brands) with MediaMax. It absolutely installs software on your computer, even =before= the EULA response box pops up.
This is easily resolved in court, and anyone who had their contract breached by Sony should go ahead and file an independent lawsuit (not a class action lawsuit).
... will be wealthier.
Why? Class actions are efficient. In this case, everyone would be alleging the same thing against the same defendant. It's far better to have that go to court once, rather than have everyone litigate the same thing, which wastes their time and money and clogs up the courts.
If you have a tortfeasor that harms a lot of people, but where the harm to any one person is slight, you still want to have them cure the harm they caused and to punish them so that they don't do this again in the future. This is not practical if everyone has to sue independently, since many people will not bother (and thus go uncured) and the tortfeasor will not be significantly deterred from doing it again. A class action is an efficient pooling of resources (even if each person harmed is only awarded $1, they only are paying 33 cents for the lawyer -- that's a good deal, really) and can actually deter future tortfeasors.
Wait, it is costly to sue a big company? Might that be due to the laws created in your state? Might that be due to the lawyers in control of the operation of the law?
No. It's costly because, in the interests of justice, you have to do a competent job proving that the company did something wrong. Most people do not know how to do this. Complaining that the system is complicated is as silly as complaining that people can't build moon rockets in their backyards -- some diciplines are inherently complicated. Actual justice is hard.
but a bunch of state lawyers
State lawyers are just employees. They get a fixed salary like other state employees. It's sole practicioners and partners at firms that get shares of the damages. So if the state wins, the money probably ends up in the state's general fund.
The problem is that contract law is too complicated, and you can't fight a contract violation in court without a contract lawyer who likely is part of an organization that wrote the law.
All lawyers get trained in contracts, and since most lawyers deal with contracts no matter what else their specialties are, we all can generally deal with them. Also, most contract law is common law, and has been created by the courts in the US and England over the last thousand years or so. Most of the people who wrote contract law are long dead, and were never particularly organized.
Let us return to the days when the law was simple to read
That's never been true, unless you want to go back to an eye for an eye. Law is inherently complex. There is no magical set of laws -- laws being rules for a good, stable, working society -- that is simple and will function. You're looking for a utopia, and those don't exist.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I take issue with this comment: "used by Sony BMG to thwart illegal copying of music on CDs"
Since when was it illegal to copy a music CD to put it on ones iPod? Doing so with regular music CDs doesn't violate the DMCA since there is no protection circumvention or reverse engineering going on, so this SHOULD still be legal in the US.
Of course, IANAA (I Am Not An American), so I may have it wrong.