EFF Pushes Consumers to Claim Rootkit Compensation

An anonymous reader writes "'It's time for music fans who bought Sony BMG CDs loaded with harmful XCP or MediaMax copy protection to claim their settlement benefits', says the EFF's Derek Slater in an awareness campaign that is urging those inflicted with one of Sony BMG's rootkit infected CDs to collect what is due to them. The compensation is a DRM-free version of the original CD, $7.50, and album downloads from iTunes, Sony Connect, and others."

Comments

Re:Apologize

[mrchaotica]

Companies who pull this shit need to be punished. Badly.

Yeah, they need to be barred from doing business for a period of time, and have their board of directors and CxOs jailed.

If you want more blood

[codepunk]

If you want more blood out of sony here you go.... Nothing at all stopping you
from taking them to small claims court and getting what you deserve. Most small claims courts have a very small fee like $10 for filing, 5 minutes in front of a judge and bingo you have got cash!

        * damage to a computer or network resulting from interactions between the XCP Software or the MediaMax Software and your computer (e.g., damage to your hard drive);
        * damage related to your reasonable efforts to remove the XCP Software or the MediaMax Software; or
        * copyright, trademark or other claims arising from the development of the MediaMax Software or the XCP Software, or any uninstallers or updates thereto.

You may still sue Sony BMG for any such claims, whether or not you choose to take advantage of the settlement benefits. As part of the settlement process, Sony BMG agreed to waive its overreaching New York forum selection clause and $5 limit on damages, so you can take them to your local small claims court for your damages.

See here for more information about the small claims process.

Re:If you want more blood

[Stevyn]

I think that people who feel they are not justly compensated by this lawsuit, going to a small claims court might be a good idea. However, they still need to show damages. They have to have evidence that Sony cost them money. Maybe that could be hiring some geek squad guy to come over and fix it. Maybe it could simply be their time.

It would be great if Sony was treated the same as some punk kid who hacks into a computer owned by MegaCorp and is fined thousands and given jailtime, but that's unlikely in this environment. I'd love to see people win their case in small claims courts, but they have to understand that they still need to show real damages. Punitive damages will be too difficult to get in small claims courts.

only the bad publicity harmed Sony

[Lazy Jones]

The settlement was a joke (sorry EFF). What kind of message is that - the typical guy who installs malware/spyware on a computer is fined heavily and sometimes goes to jail, while a big corporation Sony gets away with a ridiculous amount of cash per malevolent action? Where's the justice in that?

Re:Very Little Compensation

[CuriousKangaroo]

Please read the EFF FAQ regarding the settlement.

If you participate in this, you are NOT giving up your right to sue for damage to a computer or network!

Even if you get the small amount from this claim, you can still go on to sue for actual damages, should you have them.

http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM/Sony-BMG/settlement_faq. php#8

Fairness Hearing Scheduled for May 22, 2006

[marklyon]

SonySuit.com has information about the fairness hearing on May 22, 2006 at 9:15 am at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse for the Southern District of New York at 500 Pearl Street, Room 2270, New York, NY.

Don't forget -- claims MUST BE submitted by December 31, 2006. If you want to be excluded from the settlement, you MUST FILE before May 1, 2006. If you do not exclude yourself, you can attend the fairness hearing, at your own expense, and be heard by yourself or through your attorney.

I run the SonySuit.com website an plan to start collecting messages about the settlement to submit to the court as exhibits to my statement at the fairness hearing. If you have a comment about the settlement, send it to sonysuit@gmail.com.

Re:Very Little Compensation

[jimicus]

Sony should allow people to claim actual damages if people can show that damage has been done.

Allow? Allow?! Surely the whole point of a lawsuit is that Sony don't get any say in what's allowed - that's down to the court.

The Linked article was bad

[sgent]

this is a claim merely for having bought the CD's in question -- it IS NOT COMPENSATION for damages that may have result from your network or computer. See http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM/Sony-BMG/settlement_faq. php for full information on the settlement.

exert...

Why does EFF think the settlement is a good deal for purchasers of the Sony BMG CDs?

EFF agreed to the settlement because we believe it provides a good compensation package for the group of people who purchased the CDs but did not experience any hardware damage as a result. This means purchasers whose claim is primarily based on their purchase of the CDs and experiencing the hassle of having to patch or uninstall their systems, or in the case of MediaMax 3, having had files installed prior to giving you a chance to agree.

EFF's goals for purchasers of the CDs were to :

1. Stop production of any more CDs by Sony BMG with the bad DRM on them.
2. Get people non-DRM'd/non-EULA'd versions of their music.
3. Get this relief to people quickly, rather than after years of legal wrangling. This is in part why some of things in the settlement, like uninstallers, were available before the settlement itself was announced.
4. Get people some free music, or in the case of those who were at risk from the XCP rootkit, a choice of some money for their trouble.
5. Ensure that people get notice. Sony BMG has agreed to use the banner functionality on some of its CDs to give individual notice to purchasers at the time they put the CD into their computers, as well as put notices on many artists websites and purchasing adwords giving notice more broadly. We're still working with Sony about what these will look like, but EFF believes that taking extra steps to give people notice of the need to patch their systems, and of the settlement, is important.
6. Ensure independent security testing and pre-launch EULA review of any future DRM, with a report to the lawyers involved in the case of at least the security testing.
7. Agree to a quick process for response by Sony BMG, involving independent security reviewers and enforced by the court, in the event of any future discovery of a security flaw in their DRM.

There's much more in the settlement than that, of course, but for the purchasers these were EFF's core goals and the settlement meets them all. That's why we think the settlement is a good deal and we endorse it.

Re:Summary correction:

[mrchaotica]

Yeah, but Apple could turn that chicken wire into Cheyenne Mountain at any time, simply by releasing an iTunes update that disables that ability. And you wouldn't be able to do a damn thing about it, especially if they neglected to mention it in the patch changelog.

Seriously, that "just burn a CD" argument is tired, old, and most importantly, invalid. Stop using it already!

Re:Not as bad... up front, maybe.

[mrchaotica]

Sorry, doesn't work. First of all, because the music is compressed, selling a CD of it is not the same as selling the AAC itself, and is inferior because when the buyer goes to make an AAC again he'll end up with lower quality.

Second, you can't transfer ownership of the AAC itself:

iTunes Music Store Terms of Service, section 9c:

You agree that your purchase of Products constitutes your acceptance of and agreement to use such Products solely in accordance with the Usage Rules, and that any other use of the Products may constitute a copyright infringement. The security technology is an inseparable part of the Products. The Usage Rules shall govern your rights with respect to the Products, in addition to any other terms or rules that may have been established between you and another party. Apple reserves the right to modify the Usage Rules at any time.

Resale is not explicitly allowed by the "Usage Rules," therefore it is prohibited.

Apperantly

[Giometrix]

Any time spent removing the rootkit, your privacy, risk of viruses, accidental data loss due to having to format your PC is worth 7 and half bucks and a few shitty songs that costs them next to nothing to distribute digitally. Gotta love lobbyists.

Re:Summary correction:

[SlimFastForYou]

Because the record companies (rightfully) justify the high cd prices, monopoly on selling a song, and lawsuits against the general public by saying that you're buying the right to listen to the music.

Parent is pointing out that the record companies shouldn't have it both ways. If the record companies cause you to lose your ability to listen to the music (by preventing you from backing it up for instance), they should have to provide you a free replacement. Or at most a cd at cost but I personally think that if they make the customer "suffer" a little, they should have to "suffer" a little as well and provide replacements for free. After all, they are placing artificial limitations and making the customer go through extra work and a period of deprival.

I've seen a couple of gas stations do something similar with their fountain drinks. One time, I needed a large cup of water for my car. They charged the full price of a fountain drink and justified it with the supposed expense of the cup. Yet if you took your own cup in and gave yourself a refill, you can bet they'd charge for that too. Though at least in this case, I could always go to a different store and if I found a way to make a copy of a friend's Pepsi they wouldn't be suing me over it.

Re:Summary correction:

[Pofy]

>Except that it's not your music at all.

Not sure if you speak of a specific rental service (I have no idea about itunes or any of the others mentioned in the post you replied to) or about buying music in general. If we stick to music in general, yes it is yours, those specific copies of the music are. No idea why you have some other idea.

>The only thing you get by buying a movie, music, or game is the right to
>watch/listen/play.

No, if you buy it, you buy it, that is covered by normal sales laws, copyright does not in anyway interfer or deal with that. The fact that what you buy is a copy of a work that someone holds the copyright to is irellevant in that aspect. Also note that owning (or buying) the copyright to a work is of course different from owning (or buying) a copy of thw work and one does not imply the other. Here is, by the way, a good link to a copy of the US copyright law that deals with such differences and one that defines "copies" (which are material by the way and includes the work as well):

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/us c_sec_17_00000101----000-.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/us c_sec_17_00000202----000-.html

Feel free to review other parts of the copyright law as well if you feel you don't know how it works. If you prefer some the law of some other country, I am sure we can find links to that as well.

You may also see that "watch/listen/play" or any other similar activity is NOT one that is exclusive to the copyright holder. Hence it is free for anyone to do without any sort of permision or liecense. Copyright does not deal with those activities at all.

>Purchasing copyrighted material is nothing more than a "lifetime rental
>fee".

Are you making up sentences and pulling them out of a hat as you type along? No idea why you have got such an idea as this (which is of course wrong). Feel free to try to find ANY basis for this in for example the copyright law.

Purchasing copyrighted material is NOT any different from purchasing any other material, works just the same way.