Sony Settlement Start of DRM Protection Act?

An anonymous reader writes "Sony BMG and a group of class action lawyers have reached a provisional settlement in the U.S. Sony rootkit class actions. Sony will pay cash compensation and give away free downloads from a choice of music download services including Apple iTunes as part of the deal. The settlement includes a host of restrictions on future Sony DRM use, which Michael Geist argues provides the starting point for a future Digital Rights Management Protection Act."

Comments

Absurd

[dbucowboy]

Once again the big company gets a slap on the wrist and everyone effected gets the peace of mind of knowing that the cd they bought still has the DRM on it and will still act the same way the next time they put it in a computer. Thanks for the great customer service Sony.

Punishing the Meek

[Paladin144]

From the Geist blog, is a list of 10 things that Sony has provisionally agreed to do, at least until 2008:

1. No further use of XCP or Media Max
2. Ensure that the DRM will not be installed on users' computers until the user accepts the end-user license agreement
3. Ensure that an uninstaller for the copy-protection software is made readily available to consumers
4. Fully disclose any updates to the copy-protection software
5. Ensure that the EULA accurately discloses the nature and function of the software in plain English
6. Obtain comments about the EULA from an independent oversight person
7. Obtain an expert opinion that the copy-protection software does not create security vulnerabilities
8. Only collect limited personal information necessary to provide enhanced CD functionality
9. Include full disclosures of the copy-protection software on the CD jewel case
10. Fix any software vulnerabilities that may arise from the copy-protection software

Number 3 probably interests me most. Anybody in the know will be able to download the uninstaller at any time and get that filth off their hard drive (or likely: not put it on there to be begin with). But what about those who are not tech-savvy at all?

It seems to me that the main result of copy protection so far has been to punish the honest and control the meek. Smarter, savvier people get around it and are privy to software and music unencumbered by the DRM that works quite well against those foolish enough to uniwittingly install it. So what's the point? Are the DRM-proponents trying to drive a wedge between power users and the techno-illterate? Do they plan to blame the foul side-effects of DRM on the pirates who are not encumbered by it? "We only put DRM on our products because pirates like Joe Blow download it. Blame him!"

I'd bet that 90% of the population doesn't know what the heck DRM is. We'd better be damn sure to educate the masses or the cartels will do it for us - by smearing the savvy.

Hopping mad... for a while

[rewt66]

Sony now has to release "clean" CDs with NO content protection...which means that they are effectly out of the DRM business for at least two years. That's going to make their music execs hopping mad.

Maybe by the end of the two years, they will have figured out that non-DRMed music sells better than DRMed music. Maybe this settlement forces them to run the experiment that shows them that they can make more money if they don't act like the other music companies.

Think they're bright enough to see the trend in their data?

Re:Outrage!

[bblboy54]

My dad told me of a story of back in the 60's and 70's when he used to work for Howard Johnsons. When you were hired you were specifically told that you would not be paid overtime as the law states. Yes, this was illegal, and yes, they got fined.... but the reality of the situation was that it was cheaper for them to pay their fine every month than to pay overtime to all of their employees.

The only way to show them that you dont agree is to quit.... The same rule applies here.

Match copyright infringement penalties

[mcubed]

Shouldn't Sony at least have to compensate purchasers with the amount those purchasers would have to pay if an infringement judgement was issued against them? The maximum penalty for copyright infringement is, I believe, $150,000 per song. If someone buys a rootkit CD with 10 songs on it, that person should be entitled to a maximum of $150,000 per song, for a total of $1,500,000.

I mean, isn't the crime Sony has committed at least as serious as infringement? Why should the penalty be any less?