Sony DRM Installed Even When EULA Declined

Criminal Tresspass by Renraku · 2005-12-22 04:58 · Score: 5, Interesting

"Can I come into your house?"

"Nope."

"Ok."

Man turns around to find the stranger at the door has already moved his shit into his house. Does this not constitute tresspassing?

--
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?

Re:Criminal Tresspass by Alistar · 2005-12-22 05:27 · Score: 3, Interesting

Yea, but you are not told what the software does until you run it. It would be more analagous to seeing girl guides at your door, you let them in, they offer to sell you cookies, you say you aren't interested and they leave a paint bomb in your lobby on their way out.
Re:Criminal Tresspass by vmerc · 2005-12-22 06:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

Well, technically you could eat the cookies, or you could analyze the cookies and "reverse engineer" them to get the recipe. Really, if you decline the EULA, and the software installs, then what they are doing is giving you a free pass to do ANYTHING you want with the software. It becomes YOURS free and clear with all rights persuant with posession just like any other non-IP product. The installer was designed to give you the software with or without the contract, so it's your choice whether you want to bind yourself to it or not.

Can anyone here see a problem? by dada21 · 2005-12-22 04:58 · Score: 4, Interesting

Let's look at 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

Oh, so the state was hurt, and they're the ones who have to go after Sony?

The way I see it, Sony breached a contract. 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). You can hire a local attorney and move forward.

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 matter how often you lose, you will continue to lose. The system isn't by the People for the People any more. We're living in a country where the system is so powerful, only the powerful have rights. Let's ignore the state's concerns in this situation -- they're only going to find themselves stronger. They're going to fight Sony with millions of taxpayer dollars, and if they win, the taxpayers won't see a cent, but a bunch of state lawyers and Sony lawyers will be wealthier.

Step back. Look at the problem. 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. Ignore Sony, ignore all terribly written contracts. We need to get to the source of the problem and fix it. Let us return to the days when the law was simple to read, and simple to enforce. Let us return to the days when we could walk up to a court clerk, file a grievance and sue the people who violated the contract, just them and us.

Who is with me in asking for an amendment limiting all laws to one topic, 200 words or less, and only can pass with a signature of the President and a signature of a random person with a 3rd grade education who agrees that even they understand the law?

What Sony did was bad, but if contract law was written clearly and concisely, we'd have ways to defend ourselves cheaply and efficiently. The law is a mockery of justice today, and there is ZERO way for any individual or small group to win in the long run.

FYI, for other anarchocapitalists out there, my solution is true moderated arbitration mechanisms in a free market, not the law or the courts.

Re:Can anyone here see a problem? by dada21 · 2005-12-22 05:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

Just for the record, I agree with the rest of your post. However, this isn't a mere violation of contract. You see, a contract was never made. In this case, the user refused to "sign" the "contract" (although I'm not really agreeing that a EULA is a valid contract...). Despite the fact that the user did not enter into a contract, Sony still "trespassed" on their system. Honestly, this case could be prosecuted in a myriad of ways in a criminal court. It could be considered trespassing, vandalism, espionage, deceptive trade practices, and several more outlandish violations of the law.

I had about 5 similar replies, but I'll only reply to one (for now).

I believe, fully, that the contract between a consumer and a manufacturer should actually be created through the retail outlet. I'm not talking about a "de facto" type agreement that is binding always and every time. I mean a contract that basically stipulates that what I am buying will do no harm without warning me, unless I am at fault for using the item incorrectly. If it does, we have the retailer to go after.

I've spoken with 5 free market law groups (one being http://www.ij.org/ ) and from what I can tell, we should be suing the retailer, not Sony. The retailer has sold a product that was unsafe for the purchasing party, and the retailer should be responsible.

The reason? Retailers (I own 2 stores) should check their product before selling it -- IF the contract with the purchaser stipulates this. In a free market, I believe we'd see such stipulations. In a heavily regulated one, government has allowed everyone to be protected EXCEPT the consumer. In cses where the consumers are hurt in large numbers, they have almost no ability to find restitution.
Re:Can anyone here see a problem? by thebdj · 2005-12-22 05:26 · Score: 2, Interesting

Blaming retailers is a bit like shooting the messenger. Why should we have to go after the middle man when in reality the company who performed the harmful act was the distributor (in this case Sony)?

Based on your slightly thawed theory, if I purchased item X. Now it is possible that 1 out of every 1,000,000 has a defect that might be potentially harmful. So, if I am the unfortunate individual who gets that one and suffer serious injury the blame is on the retailer not the manufacturer? This makes no sense at all. You, as a retailer, cannot be responsible for testing every unit you sale and you would actually be more likely to get in trouble if people found out because they would say you are selling used merchandise as new.

Now, the case of Sony is a bit different; however, it should not be the responsibility of the retailer to police the manufacturers and none of the majors ones will do it, because they will probably be threatened with having their supply of future products cut off. My example is what happens when you start down the slippery slope by moving blame away from companies like Sony. If you seriously do believe this policy you mention, then please tell me what stores you own so we can have this conversation again after someone sues you for selling that harmful product.

--
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
Re:Can anyone here see a problem? by Guppy06 · 2005-12-22 05:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

"Oh, so the state was hurt, and they're the ones who have to go after Sony?"

Ignoring for the moment the potential harm done to computers owned and operated by the state government, the state, as a republic, is required to represent the interests of the people.

"The way I see it, Sony breached a contract."

With whom? The people who declined?

"This is easily resolved in court, and anyone who had their contract breached by Sony should go ahead and file an independent lawsuit"

So then you are in favor of Sony playing the odds. Unless enough individuals come forward and (successfully) sue Sony for this, Sony will see a net gain from their illicit efforts, and others will likely follow suit.

This is exactly the same mechanic that perpetuates spam. How's your inbox looking?

"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."

Without law on what may or may not be included in a contract, what do you propose to do to keep contracts from being "too complicated?"

"Who is with me in asking for an amendment limiting all laws to one topic, 200 words or less,"

I challenege you to, in 200 words or less, write a law that defines murder in such a way that includes things like murder-for-hire, and differentiates it from accidental death, unless that death was through criminal negligence (and defining "criminal negligence"), differentiate between classifications of murder by how heinous they are (e. g. was there rape involved?), and specify different punishments for each classification while allowing the judge leeway for sentencing.

"my solution is true moderated arbitration mechanisms in a free market,"

So he who has the money to buy favorable arbitration wins?
Re:Can anyone here see a problem? by Politburo · 2005-12-22 05:36 · Score: 3, Interesting

Who is with me in asking for an amendment limiting all laws to one topic, 200 words or less, and only can pass with a signature of the President and a signature of a random person with a 3rd grade education who agrees that even they understand the law?

I smacked you yesterday about these ridiculously stupid legislative ideas.. and here you are again. The system in place has worked for 200+ years. That's practically an eternity in government terms (excluding Iceland).

Why do you think a rule or amendment limiting bill length will do anything? What cannot be done with one bill will simply be done with two, three, or a hundred. Germanity rules are way too difficult to enforce, especially when you get into spending bills.

Now, as to your ridiculous statement regarding a random person with a 3rd grade education.. how exactly does that method fit in with the idea of a Representative elected government? That's right, it doesn't, because it's a fucking stupid idea.
Re:Can anyone here see a problem? by dada21 · 2005-12-22 05:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

Based on your slightly thawed theory, if I purchased item X. Now it is possible that 1 out of every 1,000,000 has a defect that might be potentially harmful. So, if I am the unfortunate individual who gets that one and suffer serious injury the blame is on the retailer not the manufacturer? This makes no sense at all. You, as a retailer, cannot be responsible for testing every unit you sale and you would actually be more likely to get in trouble if people found out because they would say you are selling used merchandise as new.

Actually, my retail stores sell paintball markers ("guns") and skateboards. We have a very strong liability insurance policy (300% more than standard) and we test EVERY ITEM. We sell our products for almost 15-20% more than more retailers and 25% more than online merchants. Our customers know we sell a quality product and back it up as safe.

Amazon doesn't want to see themselves liable for bad product, but if the retailer doesn't care, why should the manufacturer? If I, as a retailer, receive many bad products of the same SKU, I sue the manufacturer. I've sued 3 (or threatened to) and received due compensation. Other stores just took the loss. Retail is moving into the toilet because no one is accepting responsibility for what they carry and sell -- not the manufacturers, not the distributors, not the retailers.

Yes, I am more expensive, and yes, we care more. I also expect to outlast many dotcoms and retailers who only care for the ONE sale -- I want a lifetime of sales from my customers, and I will fight hard to get it.

I believe Sony IS responsible but so is the retailer for not setting a standard with their suppliers. I used to sell CDs to my customers but stopped -- not because of dwindling profits but because of dwindling quality. The minute I received punk rock CDs without the CD logo stamped on them, I knew the market was over. I didn't want to support badly made products.

Any retailer can buy liability insurance fairly cheaply. I think we pay maybe $5000 or $6000 a year for a multi-million dollar policy. Sony can also do the same. The insurers then can take the brunt of the reparations, and if a company has many claims, they'll lose the policy and they'll lose the ability to sell products. It seems to me that the free market solutions are better than the legal regulations and mandates.
Re:Can anyone here see a problem? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-22 05:47 · Score: 3, Interesting

>>A contract is, by definition, a bilateral agreement.

Just a slight aside, but California and Michigan courts have actually recognised unilateral contracts, even ones without consideration for the terms. Scares the crap out of me. Guess what states I never want to practice law in?

-- Third year law student
Re:Can anyone here see a problem? by monkeydo · 2005-12-22 06:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

I hope that as a third year law student, you recognize that unilateral contracts are actually very common.

"I will give you $5 if you mow my lawn," may be interepreted as a unilateral contract, where I am bound to give you $5 if you mow my lawn, but you are not obligated to anything.

--
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
Re:Can anyone here see a problem? by arminw · 2005-12-22 13:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

...There's no way to prove that the user actually accepted the license....

Even more importantly, there is no way to prove WHO clicked the mouse. There is no wy to prove that the person who clicked is even eligible to enter into a legally binding agreement. It might be a 12 year old kid.

--
All theory is gray

While I'm pleased I suppose... by Concern · 2005-12-22 04:59 · Score: 5, Interesting

...this is a bit ridiculous on its face. Sure the spyware is illegal in about a dozen different ways (depending on your state) but... this all hinges on whether or not we accept or decline a EULA? How does that make sense?

That kind of reasoning by implication gives EULAs legitimacy which THEY DO NOT HAVE.

Since when under common law do we have such outrageously elaborate and suprising binding legal agreements by parties without equal representation?

Since when can agreement be given by pressing a mouse button or removing shrinkwrap?

The EULA itself is an ugly audacious legal fiction... this is why they needed UCITA to attempt to legitimize them after the fact.

--
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!

Re:While I'm pleased I suppose... by TubeSteak · 2005-12-22 05:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

Yes, in some cases the lawyers like to throw as many possible crimes at the defendant to make them cry uncle.

On the other hand, it isn't always a good idea.

If you have to go before a jury, you don't want them to have to sift through a dozen charges, some of which may be of marginal merit.

In this case, throw the book at them and it won't bother anyone, but in criminal cases involving a living breathing defendant, it isn't always the best idea.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!

Indie Music by jhouserizer · 2005-12-22 05:01 · Score: 4, Interesting

Sure am glad I've only purchased indie cd's in the last few years! Apparently not only do the big companies cram crappy music down your ears, but they also cram crappy software into your computer.

This is probably hurting Sony in sales from nerds by EvilMonkeySlayer · 2005-12-22 05:02 · Score: 4, Interesting

For example, I was planning on buying a new widescreen tv and a psp, but because of the rootkit etc I decided against a Sony tv and i'm probably going to buy either a Nintendo DS or the GPX2.

I wonder, if Sony has lost any sales because of this. Just how much in cash it has cost them?

Copyright infringment! by Zebadias · 2005-12-22 05:29 · Score: 3, Interesting

What I want to know - when is someone going to go after Sony for the infringment of the GPL! That is the greater offence in my mind!

Sony pwnage by Mulletproof · 2005-12-22 05:35 · Score: 3, Interesting

"'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"

Anybody else making the connection between this DRM tactic and those of the PSP, where Sony has plans to continuously update the DRM of the PSP with every new game release whether you like it or not. I'm sensing a disturbing trend- actually, it's been going on for quite some time now -in Sony's insistance on reguulating the hardware you already own contrary to your wishes.

Thankfully, their foothold on the PC industry is far less pervasive than it is in the console industry.

--
You need a FREE iPod Nano

Re:If only... by afidel · 2005-12-22 06:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

Actually there is a legal remedy which is commonly refered to as the corporate death penalty. The specifics are a revocation of the companies charter and a forced disolution of its assets. It is very infrequently applied, especially in the last half century, which is probably a reason that you see so much white collar crime, there is little or no penalty for it, either to the individual or the company.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.

Speaking of Conspiracy Theories by TooOldForIT · 2005-12-22 06:29 · Score: 4, Interesting

John McCormick makes some interesting observations at the following Tech Republic link:

http://techrepublic.com.com/5100-1009_11-5991769.h tml?tag=nl.e101

Quoting from his article:

---- Begin Quote ---
"The latest Sony debacle shows once again that you can't be too paranoid. A month ago, I personally would have never given a second thought to playing a new brand-name music CD in an office computer--now I wouldn't even duplicate one for personal backup.

And isn't that interesting? Could it be that Sony planned this whole thing just to stop people from making backups of their favorite CDs by scaring them out of even putting CDs in their PCs?

Even those users who only made backups and ignored DRM threats will now be extremely cautious about putting any Sony CD in their PC. Could there be something even more sinister to this story than mere incompetence?"
--- End of Quote ---

Hmmmm....... sort of makes one think, eh?

This whole situation with DRM, RIAA, big record companies is really starting to bug me. I just happen to believe that if I pay good money for a CD, a vinyl record, or any piece of music, that I should be allowed to convert it and play it on whatever technology is available to me, as long as I don't give it away to everyone else in the world!

A couple of points... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-22 06:40 · Score: 1, Interesting

First... you can sue anyone you want without a lawyer. It will take time and effort on your part to learn the appropriate forms and notifications... but how complicated can it be? I mean if lawyers can do it... (also... your goal is not to win... but to suck up Sony's legal budget). Heck if even a few hundred people filed suit independantly that would be enough paperwork to freak the Sony legal team out in a big way.

Second... if Sony installs software without you agreing to the EULA... doesn't that mean I can do what ever I want with the software. Reverse engineer it, run it on as many computers as I want, etc etc. Having they're root kit without an EULA could be an advantage if you're into root kits.

Lastly... if Sony installs software on my computer without my authorization... isn't that illegal use of a computer? They arrested that guy in Florida for using an open wifi network... surely something like installing software without authorization must be a felony somewhere.

Regards,

Rob

FUCK SONY. by millennial · 2005-12-22 14:03 · Score: 3, Interesting

When my dad discovered he had the Sony DRM on his computer, he asked me to remove it. Knowing that using Sony's tool to do so would simply open more security holes (turning on automatic program installation in IE, for one), I decided to go through and remove it manually.

After uninstalling the services, deleting the hidden $sys$ files, and removing the related registry entries, my parents' computer refuses to boot. I get a very uninforative BSOD. If I go into Safe Mode, the boot process halts after loading mup.sys (thus telling me the problem is with the next driver, whatever that is), then gives me a BSOD. They have an HP Pavilion, which came with an on-disk recovery tool. Unfortunately, all that is is the Windows Recovery Console, like the one on the installation CD. The CD we do not own, because HP did not give us one. Yes, that's right - we paid for a Windows license, and received no form of installation utility whatsoever.

Before I could even GET to the Recovery Console, I had another problem to figure out. When I tried to boot it, I got the good ol' "NTLDR is compressed" error. I checked - it was not compressed.

To boot into the Recovery Console, I had to boot BartPE, copy the NTLDR file from the Windows partition to the recovery partition, and reboot.

I've done everything I can think of to fix this. I've reset the BIOS and CMOS, cleared the ESCD, disconnected every piece of hardware other than hard drive, processor, and memory, changed various settings in the BIOS... to no avail.

Now we had to pay $24 for HP to ship us a recovery CD so we can get the damn machine working again. Not only that, but everything I've read on the Web says that reinstalling XP does not fix this issue, and that it's hardware-related.

Before this problem showed up, I couldn't burn CDs at all. Before the DRM was installed, I had no trouble doing this. I'm beginning to wonder if the DRM altered my burner's firmware.

Here's a big fuck you to Sony, and a slightly smaller one to HP. You are completely inept.

--
I am scientifically inaccurate.

Slashdot Mirror

Sony DRM Installed Even When EULA Declined

22 of 433 comments (clear)