Slashdot Mirror
Sony to Settle Spyware Suit with Downloads?
modemac writes to tell us the Seattle PI is reporting that a judge has 'tentatively' approved a settlement against Sony BMG that would give customers free music downloads as compensation for the recent flawed 'rootkit' software on many new CDs. From the article: 'According to terms of the settlement, Sony BMG will let consumers who bought the CDs receive replacement discs without the anti-piracy technology and will let them choose one of two incentive packages. The first package lets consumers who bought XCP CDs to obtain a cash payment of $7.50 and a promotion code allowing them to download one additional album from a list of more than 200 titles. The second package permits them to download three additional albums from the list. The court papers said Sony BMG would try to offer Apple Computer Inc.'s iTunes as one of the download services available to the consumers.'"
First of all, I don't understand what a "tentative" agreement to settlement means.
Second, TFA says more than 20 million CD's with MediaMax were sold. this "tentative" settlement and the $7.50 compensation, is clearly biased since how many of these buyers would go back to the store to claim their compensation?
Lastly, if >20 million CDs were sold, that's a *large* number of affected PC's. Sony might claim it has provided a "one-click" un-install software, the bug would still linger around for a lot longer
Flawed justice, anyone?
http://efil.blogspot.com/
(or other 'puter's) their ill-thought out DRM may have damaged.
When I buy a CD I want not only the recorded music at the highest quality
available to me, but I want the artwork and other extras that come with that CD.
(This doesn't mean that I don't D/L music from eMusic, Magnatunes, and
iTunes, it just means that when I purchase a CD I do so for a specific
set of reasons.)
I have been to the Sony site and the Sunncomm site several times each, and have
attempted to get any sort of reasonable response from both Sony (no
responses at all) and Sunncomm (one seemingly automated response saying
they will contact me.
I don't need any fancy settlements and I DON'T want an MP3 - the quality of
an MP3 is NOT the same as the quality of a standard CD track.
Personally I would be satisfied with a replacement CD with no added
software on it, and removal software that would leave my machines'
installed software exactly as it was prior to Sony/Sunncomm (with the
possible exception of modified dates and such, of course).
I don't want some 'Sony Surprise' in the months or years down the road that
will cause problems with any use I may wish to make of my computers.
Below is my last e-mail to Sunncomm, and their only response to me:
Their response to me: So far, there has been no further response from Sunncommsince that 09DEC autoresponse saying they would get back to
me shortly.
(I seriously doubt that I have any of the Sony distributed
software on any of my machines, because I do
NOT allow unauthorized installs to take place, but I
would still like to have the information from them to
allow me to verify this is the case.)
Anyway, the "settlement" appears to be simply a way for Sony
to protect themselves from protracted legal hassles at
the cheapest cost to them. It is NOT in the best
interest of any of their customers who may have had
their system software damaged by the software
distributed by Sony.
-- Tomas
Agreed, 7.50 is baffling. Average expected cleanup costs alone are higher than that. Then there should be cash returned for the CD's origianl value. And there should be a punitive amount paid to an appropriate charity organization (like EFF, for example) of roughly an equal order of magnitude to set an example that an experienced music and technology company should know better.
I would guesstimate that this number is too low by about an order of magnitude.
People who've had their identity stolen because of a rootkit exploit installed by sony will no doubt be very happy to hear that all their woes can be solved by downloading sony's crapmedia.
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
I have one question. People are getting un-DRM-restricted versions of the music that they bought, but... Sony is to offer people one to three additional album downloads. Under the terms of this settlement is Sony permitted to supply more DRM crippled crap for these? There is discussion of making them iTunes album downloads, which does seem to indicate that is their plan.
I for one would scream bloody murder and write a letter to the judge that it would be intolerable for Sony to "remedy" and "compensate" the victims of Sony's DRM by dumping more DRM crap on them. The class actions lawyers would hardly be acting in the class-member's interests in permitting such a travesty settlement. If neccessary I would opt out of this settlement and push for a second independant lawsuit. And yes, class members specifically have the right to reject any unsatisfactory settlement and to persue a second case.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
What you say is true, but the point is the average person who had to pay to get thier system rebuilt should be adequately copensated since it was Sony BMG's fault.
My system is pretty complex. If I had to pay to get it redone, it might run $300-400. The courts telling me that Sony only owes me $7.50 and a crappy album is going to make me start looking for a gun (figuratively).
Its ABSURD and the main reason I hate class-actions, it short changes the individual claimant.
Every single person in the suit should have just filed a small claims case for cleanup costs and a little more for time and trouble. It would really hurt song BMG more than this stupid settlement.
From the episode where Apu gives Homer food poisoning (SNPP):
Homer is carted off to the hospital with food poisoning; he later returns to the Quick-E-Mart for reparations.
Hmm...
It depends on the state. My father recently sued a company in small-claims in Denver, and when the company rep. brought a lawyer, the lawyer was asked to leave. In many states, the person being sued MUST personally represent themself, or an actual company representative represent the company. There are a LOT of default judgements for failure to appear in small claims court, for this reason-quite often, the company just doesn't bother showing up.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
I like the idea, but how would you go about enforcing it? What's to stop Sony from just licensing all of their IP from "Sony R&D" (hypothetical), an otherwise unrelated corporation? Then Sony wouldn't actually own any IP, but the overall effect would remain unchanged. When sentencing a corporation, you have to remember that the corporation isn't actually a real person; if the punishment is too stringent, then the owners will simply disband and you'll be left with nothing to enforce the sentence against. I'd personally rather that they made the sentence binding on the corporation's shareholders, as they are part-owners in the corporation and direct its operation to an extent determined by the number of shares they each own.
Example: Company A has 1000k shares of stock outstanding, owned by persons B (200k shares), C (300k shares), and D (500k shares). A has assets worth $13.2m. The stock (par) value is thus ($13.2m / 1000k) or $13.20 / share. As is, if a court order against A requires payment of $13.2m or higher, then all the shares devalue to $0.00 and at most $13.2m can be paid in damages before the corporation goes bankrupt. However, if the shareholders are held directly responsible, then the difference between the damages and the $13.2m in assets would be held against the shareholders directly, as an outstanding debt. If the company does $30m in damages to customers, then the balance of $16.8m ($16.80 / share) would be paid by the owners and directors of the company. As it is, if the company is crippled, or bankrupted, then those shareholders can always take their money elsewhere, starting the cycle all over again.
So much for making monetary damages work. Regarding your proposal: if you really wanted to ban Sony from owning IP, you'd have to ban their current shareholders (the owners of Sony) from holding stock in any corporation that controls or licenses IP, and from holding/licensing it themselves. Only then could you be sure that the company wouldn't just be re-created under a new name.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Lets face it, lawyers who get caught up in big class-settlement types are more of the ambulance chsing kind. They can't negotiate well and most members of the settlement group will settle for anything. So they just work with Sony for the least expensive settlement the judge will allow. And here it is! The lawyers get paid, the plaintiffs get some token crap, and everyone wins.
Ideally, the damages should include time spent cleaning their rootkit off windows machines. What would best buy charge for that? Or the local computer shop?
Also, American legislators really need to take a look at the Sony company. If this was a US company it probably would have been found guilty of various antitrust actions. A content company which also makes players, which also makes DRM, which also makes CDs, which also signs artists, which also makes game systems, game systems with blu ray players, etc. I don't usually tow the "big buisness sucks" line, but Sony tends to make Microsoft look like Richard Stallman, yet there is little to no outrage.