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.'"
In other news. Sony's HMO offered to make up for HIV tainted blood with a new cure that only causes cancer.
...was Bittorrent...
If a guy gets a 11 billion fine for sending spam, Sony ought to get a bit more for dangering its customers' computers.
$7.50 + 1 album, or 3 albums Where X is an album: $7.50 + (1 * X) = 3 * X $7.50 = 2 * X X = $7.50 / 2 = $3.75 Value of a full-length album according to Sony: $3.75
So when they let you download two additional albums, the combined value is $7.50. When you get them from a friend, they are suddenly worth $75,000.00.
when someone just plays a CD the user bought, and the user gets just about nothing in compensation? More importantly, this is not a deterrent for other/same company to pull the same stunt again.
Well it's something but what about people who are on dial-up or have no Internet access at all? Not everyone out there who owns a computer has screaming-fast broadband. I didn't RTFA (I know, shocking) but I hope they plan on offering the content some other way for those people.
"Armed forces abroad are of little value unless there is prudent counsel at home" - Cicero
Why do we continually let wrong-doing companies settle lawsuits by giving away advertising? This same thing happened with Microsoft back when their "punishment" was to give several school districts copies of Windows and other MS Software. This action isn't reprimanding the company at fault, but giving them more customers instead.
I wish lawsuits could only be settled with cold-hard-cash or *serious*, displayable change in company policy to avoid future indiscretions.
I don't doubt this story is accurate, but AP has had some pretty sensational blunders recently, so important to provide correct attribution and know how it was sourced.
Speaking of that, I'd love to know who originated this sound of freedom story ... and shake their hand ... priceless!
Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
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/
This really is just another in a long line of crap being pushed on the consumers by the lawyers who are the ones making the "real" money.
I supposed most of you have forgotten that for all those machines infected with this parsite, it will cost the user about $150 per machine to have it removed or the machine reloaded and the equivalent of that in your valuable time if you are doing it yourself.
Where do these bozo's get off with this one is beyond me!!
All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.
(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
Users get to split the rest amongst themselves, giving them a whopping $7.50. Wow... that's almost the price of a large Chicken Lo Mein!
Go Justice System!
Rule 2: Replace bad product with good product.
The underlying rule would seem to be, keep them coming back for more.
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
I haven't seen it written anywhere yet, but one question I've seen raised is who pays for this blunder? Let's say that I'm an artist who had that DRM on my CDs. My cut of the CD sales is already tiny, but now what they're saying is that I not only have to give back the money I earned from the original sales, but I'm also going to have to give away another CD's worth of money, too. A proper punishment for Sony would be to need to guarantee payments to the artists for every copy of every CD, even if it was called back because of DRM. Otherwise they're just passing the hurt on to the artists.
The world's only surviving livewriter.
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
A) this fiasco borders on fraud -- most people thought they were buying an ordinary audio CD that would work like any other, not something that would infect their computer permanently. Most people wouldn't even consider the possibility. These discs are a look-alike that have less features (e.g., you *can't* copy it onto your iPod) for the same price. They are a pseudo-Red Book Audio CD knock-off that Sony sold with the hope people wouldn't know or care about the difference.
B) had it been anyone else, they would have been prosecuted for all kinds of computer-invasion-related crimes. Their equipment would be confiscated and they'd probably have to meet bail requirements.
C) the RIAA and MPAA, at the urging of companies like Sony BMG, have been lobbying for harsher treatment of people committing illegal copying. Why should ordinary people be lenient at all when we are told that, should we download music files or copy music, we are guilty of stealing and should owe thousands of dollars of restitution, if not be thrown into jail? Furthermore, there is NO acknowledgement that some kinds of copying (e.g., of a disc I bought and paid for) fall under "fair use" and, therefore, are NOT illegal. I haven't downloaded any music I haven't paid for or that wasn't free with the permission of the people who made it.
D) This whole thing occurred because Sony BMG, while protecting their legitimate copyright interests in this music, didn't care about the implications of destroying consumer's ability to legally exercise their fair use rights, or Sony wouldn't have deployed this stuff in the first place. They were reckless. And it isn't specific to a flaw in this protection method -- other methods degrade the quality of the data, and use all sorts of other stupid tricks. If they don't care about the implications of turning otherwise legal users into criminals if they circumvent these protections, then why should I care that they didn't *mean* to cause this degree of a problem?
E) Comments by Sony management's early in the process were pathetic. Most people don't know what a rootkit is, so why should they care? Right. Most people don't know what DRM is, but they do care when it prevents them from using the product the way they did for every other audio disc they purchased.
Let Sony roast in the legal flames for a while, until they are good and crispy. Until they acknowledge the underlying reasons this fiasco occurred, and commit to not deploying any kind of DRM that stomps on fair use rights or consumer's equipment, I say: NO MERCY. Persecute them to the full extent and penalty the law permits, just like they advocate for others. I don't care about the money or the free tracks, I want to see their policy change, and I want to see establishment of a deterrant that causes other companies to consider the same. It is high time the public stopped the erosion of their side of the bargain that is copyright.
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.
My regime would require samurai honor code for public servants and corporate upper management. You wouldn't be able to weasel out of your responsibilities by donating the bribes you got from someone to charity once he got caught and was going to sing like a canary, either! No sir...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Dear Judge [insert name here]. I have read that you have tentatively approved a settlement for lawsuits against [insert evil company name here]. The proposed settlement has struck me as being very generous to [insert evil company name here] for the infection of millions of computers with software that causes numerous security and stability issues. So I thought I would write this letter to try to convince you to increase fines & fees against [insert evil company name here] as well as produce actual useful compensation for the owners of computers that have been infected.
Imagine yourself in the following situation. You are the proud owner of a fine specimen of canine pedigree. In fact, to call it a dog would be a great insult. It is the love of your life and you have carefully trained it to be obedient & loving. You want it to live a long life so you feed it some food that is advertised as being very good for the health. Initially your pet loves the new food and everything is great. Then one day your loving pet starts getting violently ill & lethargic. You read that others pets that have eaten the same food are also sick. You contact the company and due to the public outcry they will send out an agent to help your pet. The company agent eventually comes out and after inspecting your sick pet he declares that he knows of a simple fix to get your pet moving again - he then takes a short run and kicks your poor pet in the rear. As your pet goes running off howling he claims the animal is now well and leaves. Soon after, you realize your pet is gravely ill and you must put it down. As you and other pet owners are discussing the outcome, you become outraged at such a heartless and cruel response from the company and start a large lawsuit. After months of talks and discussion you read a Judge will approve a settlement. You are thinking that the painful death of your beloved pet will not be in vain and that the evil company will be punished severely. Then you read the settlement agreement - the company will give you a free feral cat as well as one of two 'incentive' packages. Package one is $5 and 200 pounds of healthy cat food. Package two is your choice of three flavors of large boxes of healthy cat food. Needless to say you are again outraged and wish no end of poxes and plagues on the person and families of the Judge and company CEO.
Now, honorable Judge [insert name here], I ask you to please reconsider the flawed proposed settlement against [insert evil company name here]. The victims of this tragedy deserve so much more compensation, and [insert evil company name here] deserve so much more punishment.
Thank you.
The preceding is a fictional letter that would be sent if my computer(s) had been infected and I lived within the jurisdiction of this Judge.
The company written in the second paragraph of this article is in no manner representative of any company existing, having existed or existing in the future. In fact, the whole second paragraph is just an interesting fictional story inserted into a fictional letter for no reason at all save for extending said letter.
If one of us dropped a rootkit on Sony's computers, we'd go to jail.
If Sony does it to us, they can mea culpa and smile? Did they buy out the Mentos plant so they could get away with ANYTHING?
Since the rootkit installs even when you decline the EULA, Sony needs to be prosecuted under the same laws we enforce upon script kiddies. All of them. There is no compensation that a 15 year old kid can give Sony (how about a download, Sonycorp?) that would stop them from pursuing civil and criminal lawsuits, and there should be nothing Sony can do to avoid the same discussions in open court. People at Sony made a really bad decision, and they should pay for transgressions in the same way a 15 year old kid would: with hard time.
[Error 407: No signature found]
Who has actually followed through with their "outrage" and made the effort to file in small claims court, or try to push for an actual criminal charge for computer hacking? The rootkit qualifies as malicious hacking, so there's an angle to explore, but you'd have to convince your local prosecutor to actually make the charges. Who's going to spend the time explaining this to some flatfoot prosecutor? How long before he laughs you out of his office? What judge is even going to understand this if you file in small claims?
My prediction, way less than 1% of the potential claimants will do jack squat about this. I'd be real surprised if more than a dozen slashdotters followed through, and if two of them succeed. General public, they aren't even aware of it. Most people can't name their senator, one supreme court judge, don't know what DRM is, are quite happy to use windows malware because that's all that exists in their world, and pay folding money for it, think their computer hardware is "broken" when something doesn't work, so they certainly aren't aware of anything Sony did. They aren't being told about it, and even if they were they wouldn't care if it involves doing more than one thing that takes longer than thirty seconds and doesn't require them to take away any quality time from listening to other so called music or playing a vido game or watching a movie or pro sports. People by and large don't even care when they are used, abused and ripped off anymore.
In short, this settlement is beyond a joke. Until they start breaking up corporations immediately once it has been found they engaged in criminal acts, and making the stockholders eat it, lose everything, and throwing the managers and decision makers in jail, corporate malfeasance is how modern globalist business is done. It's "the system". So called "fines" are window dressings for the soap opera that passes for the justice system now. It's just a publicity stunt bone they throw out at the less than 1% of the public that is left who really care about things. Follow the clue trail, all fines imposed on any large corporation will be made up with their next crap they sell. YOU are paying Sony's fines, directly or indirectly, whether you bought a bogus CD or not. They'll cook their books or just raise prices on something else, it won't matter to them, they will just pass along the cost of doing business. They EXPECT to pay bribes-fines- once in awhile to various "legal" entities. They budget for it in advance.
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...
Well, write up yourself a bill. Don't hide that this is your billing yourself for professional services, but make it clear that this is what you would charge others. Be reasonable. Add an addendum billing yourself for the time it takes you to prepare the case for small claims court. Then take it to small claims court, ask for reimbursement for time spent, and see what happens. At worst you'll be out a bit more time. It seems quite likely that you'll get at least part of it awarded as a default judgement. And if they DO defend, you'll have cost Sony more than they've saved.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Its hard to think about 4000000 s0ny rootkit cd's thrown in the harbour, and not gain erection !
It's still pending, but since now that it would be a dupe.... :-/
since now that it would be a dupe your chances of getting it accepted have just increased ten-fold
"Unconscionable" in contract terms is not about morality -- it simply means that the clause doesn't belong there by any stretch of the imagination. In other words, if party A drafted the contract, then it's totally unreasonable to expect party B to have foreseen that clause appearing in it, or to have signed the contract had they known the clause was there. The New York venue clause is an example because, when you're buying a CD, you simply don't expect to have to go to another state for justice if it blows up your computer. In other words, if a reasonable person knew about that little detail in advance, they would never buy the CD. (For the sake of argument, I'm making the rather large assumption that purchasing a CD constitutes acceptance of any sort of contract other than a simple sale.)
Courts generally will not enforce unconscionable terms. But note that this doesn't excuse you from reading what you sign, or from being held to what you sign (given that the other side can show that you gave willing and informed consent). Generally, the more of a clue you seem to have, the less likely a judge will be to let you use this kind of defense. And if you're a lawyer yourself, forget it! This aspect of contract law can seem really unfair to smart people, but there you go.