Slashdot Mirror


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."

56 of 189 comments (clear)

  1. Summary correction: by tpgp · · Score: 5, Interesting

    is a DRM-free version of the original CD, $7.50, and album downloads from iTunes, Sony Connect, and others.

    Should read:

    is a DRM-free version of the original CD, $7.50, and DRM-laden album downloads from iTunes, Sony Connect, and others.

    I'd also like to know if anyone is going to try for a real settlement - like a company having to audit their network after finding one PC rooted.

    --
    My pics.
    1. Re:Summary correction: by Tim+C · · Score: 3, Insightful

      To be fair, the DRM on iTunes songs isn't even in the same league as the DRM on the Sony CD in question, let alone the same ballpark - at least it only affects the affected song, and doesn't open the entire PC up to compromise.

    2. Re:Summary correction: by Grant29 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      True, and at least most everyone knows the iTunes DRM before buying. It's not as bad as someone sneaking some software onto your PC without you knowing.
      --
      Find the lowest price at PriceAge. Comparison Shopping with online coupons.

    3. Re:Summary correction: by tpgp · · Score: 4, Interesting

      To be fair, the DRM on iTunes songs isn't even in the same league as the DRM on the Sony CD in question, let alone the same ballpark - at least it only affects the affected song, and doesn't open the entire PC up to compromise.

      I completely agree with you - but itunes was not the only music service mentioned. From the EFF's site: CONNECT Music, f.y.e., iTunes, or Wal-Mart.

      Whilst you might be prepared to trust Apple's DRM (and to be fair, I don't see much wrong with its terms either), read this thread before trusting Wal-mart's. (I don't think I'd have to work hard to convince most people here that putting faith in Sony's DRM is a bad idea as well.)

      The ultimate trouble with drm - any drm, is that it restricts your right to do what you want to do with your music. It's like giving a company the keys to your CD cabinet & trusting them to unlock it when you ask them.

      --
      My pics.
    4. Re:Summary correction: by Helios1182 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      2 Hours of PC repair at $100/hr. per computer affected. It seems reasonable. The average user doesn't have the tools/knowledge to un-root their system, so lets assume they had to pay someone to do it. Time is money anyway, having to spend an afternoon to fix it is worth something.

      That would be a painful settlement. How many thousands/millions? of PCs were hit?

    5. Re:Summary correction: by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Informative

      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!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    6. Re:Summary correction: by Tim+C · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As you say, I have merely bought the right to listen to the music, not the music itself. That raises two points:

      1) Unless otherwise clearly informed of the fact at the time of purchase, I have bought the licence in perpetutiy, not for a limited time - I do not expect to lose access simply because the company goes belly-up and the DRM prevents me from accessing it.

      2) If I have bought the right to listen to the music, then I should be allowed to replace it if lost, stolen, destroyed or otherwise unusable to me for a nominal replacement fee. I should not be forced to buy a new CD at full retail simply because my daughter broke the old one.

    7. Re:Summary correction: by SlimFastForYou · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    8. Re:Summary correction: by Pofy · · Score: 2, Informative

      >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.

    9. Re:Summary correction: by plumby · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If we stick to music in general, yes it is yours, those specific copies of the music are.

      Not as far as I can tell it isn't. Most CDs say somewhere on the case something along the lines of "no unauthorised copying, hiring, lending, reproduction, public performance or broadcasting of the work". If I was the actual owner of the music that I'd just purchased, why is anyone else able to put those restrictions on what I do with it?

      If I buy a bottle of Coke, I'm not told that I wouldn't be allowed to serve it at a public gathering, or let my friends have some of it, would I? In that instance I own the Coke in that bottle to do with pretty much as I see fit.

  2. Apologize by MyLongNickName · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They don't mention it here, but in A civil action, one of the quotes (paraphrasing) is "Corporations say they are sorry by paying money". If a corporation gets away with crap like this without a significant blood letting (law suits), they will try it again soon. It will be a more refined approach, you can be sure. But it will happen again.

    Companies who pull this shit need to be punished. Badly. Not a public tounge wagging followed by a pseudo-aplogy. They hire people to do PR and deal with that. When the company's bottom line is hurt, they will be more cautious in the future. And if it takes months or years of cases hanging over their head, the stock will suffer. And when the stock suffers, so do the folks at the top.

    Anything else is just the cost of doing business.

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    1. Re:Apologize by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Informative
      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.
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    2. Re:Apologize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      What about the guy who put the worm into GCC? Should he be jailed? What about the guy who got the rootkit code into the linux kernel, should he be jailed? What about all the members of the cDc? Should they be jailed?

      Pot. Kettle.

    3. Re:Apologize by MyLongNickName · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I disagree. This only puts people out of business, putting people out of work. Like rats, CEO's find another place to make their millions. It only punishes the bottom -- much like our wonderful international sanctions. Ever notice how the dictators are the only ones who don't seem to suffer?

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    4. Re:Apologize by joeljkp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This wasn't a criminal case, it was a civil settlement.

      --
      WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
  3. Compensation...? by Omaze · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Typically the EFF seems to be on the right course but, in this case, the EFF is promoting the idea that a major corporation can force its will on the consumers preemptively and then, when the consumers revolt, all they have to do is say,"Oh. Sorry 'bout that. Here's a lollipop. No go away."

    There needs to be a clear signal. What we're seeing here is just a buyout.

    --
    The government itself is not stealing your liberties. Their new programs are enabling criminals who will.
    1. Re:Compensation...? by Omaze · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The point is that advice like this encourages two patterns of behavior:

      1) Like mail-in rebates a good portion of the tactic relies on the fact that many people will simply not find it worth their time/trouble to bother pursuing the claim. A good portion of people will take the first couple of steps and then find that other things in life demand more attention. Eventually the claim period expires or the person simply doesn't feel like devoting effort to it. This is unacceptable. It allows corporate criminals to get away by doing little more than using their superior economic position to make the retribution process tedious. Creating tedium is the best defense against someone seeking compensation for wrongdoing. Time passes, people move on. With this type of system the criminal is allowed to endlessly continue on with their pursuits.

      2) It sets a precedent for future infractions. Today it's system monitoring software on a CD, tomorrow it's the black box monitor in the car, the next day it's mandatory spy cams in subsidized housing, the next day it's a legal right for property owners to install spy cams in their rental properties. Every step of the way there will be consumer backlash, and every step of the way the courts are supporting a system which allows the violators to say,"Oh. Sorry about that. Just give us a minute to assess your arguments and figure out how we can pass legislation to get around them."

      The criminals are being allowed to pass laws by which their particular crimes can be argued to be legal while at the same time passing laws which legally criminalize people who are doing nothing wrong.

      --
      The government itself is not stealing your liberties. Their new programs are enabling criminals who will.
    2. Re:Compensation...? by babbling · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The EFF explain their decision in this lecture at Google.

      Basically, they sent a letter to Sony before suing them outlining the steps that they should take to correct their mistake. Sony ignored the letter, and the EFF sued them. They came to a settlement that achieved most of the suggestions outlined in the original EFF letter.

      The settlement wasn't too bad. Sure, they didn't hit Sony as hard as they could have, but everyone is getting replacement CDs and a small amount of compensation money. Anyone whose computer was severely damaged should probably sue Sony separately.

  4. Very Little Compensation by kabz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is very small compensation for machines that may have been damaged by this rootkit. Sony should allow people to claim actual damages if people can show that damage has been done.

    The best thing that may come out of this is that the rules on what companies can and can't do have been clarified.

    If I install software on my machine, I expect it to behave itself, providing I believe that the company itself is reputable. Sony have damaged themselves through this.

    --
    -- "It's not stalking if you're married!" My Wife.
    1. Re:Very Little Compensation by CuriousKangaroo · · Score: 3, Informative

      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

    2. Re:Very Little Compensation by jimicus · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:Very Little Compensation by Scarletdown · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If I install software on my machine, I expect it to behave itself, providing I believe that the company itself is reputable.


      And even more importantly, if you put what you were led to believe is an audio CD in your computer's CD-ROM drive, you should expect it to behave itself by simply playing the music encoded on it and nothing more.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
  5. Friends by quokkapox · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I guess if I foolishly allowed a friend to stick one of their DRM rootkit-infected CD into my drive, I don't get a share of the settlement, because I can't provide the required proof-of-purchase documentation.

    That doesn't seem fair. One CD could have infected multiple machines, but only the original owner gets "compensated" by Sony.

    --
    it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
    1. Re:Friends by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How many owners keep proof-of-purchase beyond maybe the CD and the little plastic thing it came in? I mean, most of these people could have paid cash, and not kept the receipet.

    2. Re:Friends by eMartin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If it were up to them, you wouldn't be allowed to listen to your friend's CD in the first place.

    3. Re:Friends by wo1verin3 · · Score: 2, Funny

      So you made unauthorized copies of their rootkit? I'm sure they already know and will be in touch shortly.

    4. Re:Friends by Buran · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sue 'em yourself. If you can prove their crap is on your computer, you have proof of damage. Go after them in small claims court. If enough people did the same thing, they'd be hit with too many tiny lawsuits to fight them all.

      They didn't tell you or the original owner of the malware on the disk, so they are liable because they were aware of its existence.

  6. Sony get off too lightly by half by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm not sure about this. Here it costs at least 40/hour to have a decent engineer come over and reinstall windows, back up your data and restore the machine to working condition. Taking the settlement Sony offer might prejudice getting a proper settlement, which I estimate at between 60-80 per affected user.

    Thats's the civil liability. Here in the UK what Sony have done is a *criminal* offence under the computer misuse act.

    I hope we haven't even started to see the scale of damage this is going to cost Sony. Frankly I hope it bankrupts them.
    If some 14 year old kid wrote this rootkit he would be staring at 10 years in jail.

    1. Re:Sony get off too lightly by half by penix1 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      "Here in the UK what Sony have done is a *criminal* offence under the computer misuse act."

      It is supposed to be criminal here to under the CFAA (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act). Of course, you will never see them charged like they are supposed to be.

      B.

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
  7. who is the ass master by dubiousmike · · Score: 4, Interesting

    who decided that a free album was appropriate compensation? How about the cost to archive all important files and reinstall the afflicted OS at the very least. They could forgo the time lost without a shitted on computer

  8. We can only hope by DarthChris · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This will like set an important precedent w.r.t. rootkits and other commercial malware (Starforce anyone?). I only hope the result will be good for the customer and not the corporations. If Sony don't get the punishment they deserve for this, everyone else will jump on the bandwagon.

    --
    Don't you just hate it when people reply to your signature?
  9. Days of War, Nights of Love. by qualico · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The problem is that the typical consumer really has no interest in wasting their time with lawyers, paperwork, and beuracracy.

    Knowing this, is how politics take advantage of the mass consumer thinking.

    Days of War, Nights of Love is a collection of political essays which may touch on these ideas:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Days_of_War%2C_Nights _of_Love

  10. No thanks to ANYTHING from Sony by erroneus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I never bought one of these. Instead, I suffered at the office as the IT guy who had to clean up the mess that Sony left behind. I would like to sue them for the labor, time and frustration they caused... and continue to cause! Those things are still out there drifting about. Just last week I had to reverse the damage one of those CDs caused. A real pain in the ass it is. So far, that makes over 10 machines trashed because of that stupid crap.

    And the "real" punishment, as far as I'm concerned, is that I had the opportunity to explain to a lay-person what Sony has done, why they did it and why they shouldn't trust Sony with their dollars ever again. I truly think it's a powerful thing since these people found out first-hand that it wasn't "their fault" and that trusting a big company like Sony to always do the right thing is pretty wrong. The opinion these people, and those they that hear their story, hold of a much lower opinion of Sony than they once did.

    May Sony feel the wrath of the consumer!!

    1. Re:No thanks to ANYTHING from Sony by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Funny

      Explaining it to the end users was probably a waste of time, since THEY didn't have to clean up their machines - they foisted it on you. Its the same as explaining to an IE addict why they should switch to Firefox ... over and over and over and ...

      Besides, I see that there's a Celine Dion album on the list. I would argue that the world is a better place if everyone who bought that CD ends up with a non-functional computer.

    2. Re:No thanks to ANYTHING from Sony by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Sony put a virus on one of their music CDs. When you play it, it installs the virus and trashs your PC".

      That's how I explained it to Joe sickpack, and it worked perfectly. They hated Sony as much as we do and it's the truth.

      Remember "Virus" is a scary word for the uninformed, they think it means "everything gone" or "credit card details stolen". It also does it quick enough for them not to get bored, hence perfect solution and the truth in 1.

      --
      I like muppets.
  11. Not as bad... up front, maybe. by Kristoffer+Lunden · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In a way it's even sneakier though, as it teaches the public that DRM is ok. Just watch how many who otherwise claim to love freedom who readily defends it whenever the issue comes up. As soon as the mindset it firmly in place, there will be no problem rolling out worse and worse protections, until we have "Trusted Computing" telling you exactly where you want to go today.

    No thank you.

    1. Re:Not as bad... up front, maybe. by jb.hl.com · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In a way it's even sneakier though, as it teaches the public that DRM is ok.

      Because people knowing about a fair(er) form of DRM and agreeing with it is SO evil.

      iTunes' DRM is very acceptable to most people, as its limits aren't very strict, and it only applies to music. Trusted Computing or whatever bollocks they call it now isn't in the same ballpark.

      --
      By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
    2. Re:Not as bad... up front, maybe. by scuba0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you give in to one DRM-type, it means you are more welcome to accept the next one. Some people might say that it isn't like that but it does not matter, the media industri and the lawmakers sees it as acceptable.

    3. Re:Not as bad... up front, maybe. by honkycat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your logic is amazing! The way you refute his argument without even addressing its merits is a sight to behold. Aristotle would be proud.

    4. Re:Not as bad... up front, maybe. by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Because people knowing about a [less intolerably unfair] form of DRM and agreeing with it is SO evil.
      There, fixed that for ya. As we all know, DRM is unfair by definition because it is incapable of accounting for Fair Use.
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    5. Re:Not as bad... up front, maybe. by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can't resell it.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    6. Re:Not as bad... up front, maybe. by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Informative
      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.
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  12. My reply from the EFF by cove209 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Greetings,

    I just read on your website where the EFF has agreed to settle with Sony BMG.
    What a pathetic settlement that does nothing to assist consumers with the costs of removing the rootkit software and in addition, fails to act as any sort of a deterrent to Sony BMG.
    Way to knuckle under for the little guy.
    Unhappy in California

    Hi ,

    I'm sorry you feel that way and there may be nothing I can do to
    convince you otherwise, since I understand some people want Sony
    BMG's head on a pike and nothing less will do. I don't necessarily
    disagree, but the law limits what we can get in the context of a
    class action settlement. But I hope you'll at least give me a hearing.

    First, you understand that the settlement *preserves* the claims of
    folks who have hardware damage due to the rootkit, right? They can
    still sue to get more and we're happy to help. The scope of the
    settlement is for a different harm -- the harm of merely having
    bought these bad CDs.

    The main reason that we didn't settle those claims is that we haven't
    had enough people come forward with proof that the CDs harmed their
    computers to constitute a sufficient number for a class action. Class
    actions require "numerousity" and "uniformity" of claims. If you
    know of such people, please send them our way. They can bring small
    claims actions. If we do discover enough folks with a common pattern
    of harm, we will consider another class action.

    Second, as for whether this will serve as a deterrent to Sony in the
    future, I guess we'll see in time. Even if we had taken the case all
    the way through to a trial and been completely successful, a court
    would not be able to order Sony to cease using all DRM under current
    law. So as much as I'd like to see Sony do that, this case alone was
    never going to accomplish that goal.

    Right now they have stopped pressing *any* CDs with DRM on them,
    agreed to independent review of any future DRM (with a report to the
    lawyers involved in the case), and agreed to allow non-DRM/non-EULA
    versions of all of the music that was affected by the bad DRM. The
    cash cost of the settlement is hard to value but Sony says that the
    value of album downloads are $10 per album. If the 5 million people
    affected by MediaMax get a free album download that's a cost of $50
    million to Sony. That's before the $7.50 per album for the 3 million
    XCP users and the extra downloads that they get, or the replacement
    music for the MediaMax 3 users.

    While the settlement terms are the product of negotiation and so
    aren't perfect, I do think we got a good deal in the settlement for
    purchasers of the CDs. Believe me it was hard fought and there is
    much in there now that Sony started out by flatly rejecting. I
    certainly understand if you disagree and want to try for more on your
    own. You absolutely have the right to opt-out of the settlement and
    bring your own action. I'd be very curious to hear how that goes if
    you choose to do it.

    Most important for us was:
    1. stop production of any more CDs with the dangerous DRM on it.
    2. get people non-DRM'd/non-EULA'd versions of their music (this was
    strongly resisted by Sony)
    3. do it quickly
    4. get people some free music (or in the case of XCP, money) for
    their trouble.

    There's much more in the settlement than that, of course, but for the
    purchasers these were the core goals.
    Again, I appreciate your feedback.
    - Show quoted text -
    On wrote:
                                                              ---- .org
                                        ---- www.eff.org
    Electronic Frontier Foundation
    454 Shotwell Street
    San Francisco, CA 94110
    (415) 436-9333 x

    1. Re:My reply from the EFF by rifftide · · Score: 2, Insightful
      At first I thought the EFF had sold us down the river, but now I think the settlement is reasonable. Sony agrees to cease and desist the practice, and they must provide a convenient mechanism for exchange of XCP disks. What it doesn't do is (1) provide reasonable compensation to people who suffered extensive system damage, or (2) blast Sony back to the Stone Age for having a corps of bozo executives running their music division. But as the EFF pointed out, those in the first category can opt out of the settlement and sue on their own dime (or perhaps join a separate class action), while the second criticism is just unproductive knee-jerk stuff.

      The EFF gets their legal fees compensated, and I'm sure their hourly rates are of generous size by the standards of most IT workers. Sony did get off fairly cheaply. But in many class action suits involving low-ticket products, the law firm(s) representing the plaintiffs walk away with 40 percent of the pot while the consumers get peanuts, and the company does no worse than Sony did. The whole thing is basically a big reward for the law firm that filed the claim first. Here, we still get peanuts, and I personally don't intend to file a claim, but it probably wasn't a financial windfall for the EFF - just a nice little project for them.

    2. Re:My reply from the EFF by gizmonic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But as the EFF pointed out, those in the first category can opt out of the settlement and sue on their own dime

      But, what the EFF said was:

      First, you understand that the settlement *preserves* the claims of folks who have hardware damage due to the rootkit, right? They can still sue to get more and we're happy to help. The scope of the settlement is for a different harm -- the harm of merely having bought these bad CDs.

      That means that the lawsuit applies only to buying the DRM'd CD. It has nothing to do installing it, nor the damage done by it. You can collect on the current class action for having bought one of the CDs, and still be able to sue or join a second class action for damages caused by the CDs. Which is pretty darn cool, IMHO. It means this lawsuit actually has a VERY reasonable settlement value. You bought a DRM'd CD, you get a free non-DRM'd CD, plus $7.50, plus some free downloads. Not bad, if you ask me. Oh, the damage it did to your machine by installing it? Well, as they say, that's a whole different lawsuit. And inclusion in this class does NOT exclude you from the other. You don't have to opt out if it to get damages for the DRM hosing your system.

      (All that assumes what the EFF said was true, of course...)

      --
      WWJD?
      JWRTFM!
  13. If you want more blood by codepunk · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --


    Got Code?
    1. Re:If you want more blood by Stevyn · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

  14. only the bad publicity harmed Sony by Lazy+Jones · · Score: 2, Informative

    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?

    --
    "I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
  15. Fairness Hearing Scheduled for May 22, 2006 by marklyon · · Score: 4, Informative
    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.

    --
    -- Mark Lyon http://www.marklyon.org
  16. Payment by unix_core · · Score: 3, Funny

    Can I please pay by paypal the next time I install a rootkit on one of Sony's workstations? $7,50 each, right? They pick some stuff from my mp3 collection too, if they want.

  17. What this is really about.... by tverbeek · · Score: 2, Funny

    Don't you people realize that this so-called "settlement" is just a trick to enable the courts to collect the names and addresses of people who listen to creatively bland corporate musick?!

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  18. The Linked article was bad by sgent · · Score: 4, Informative
    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.

  19. Title should be... by danwesnor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... EFF Finally Sells Out.

    I would think they would be encouraging victims to withdraw from the class action. Maybe the victims who did so would get nothing (as opposed to next-to-nothing), but every victim who withdrew from the class would cost the lawyers who agreed to this worthless settlement a little bit of their fee.

    Not only does the agreement not compensate the victims for real damages ($7.50 is what, 10 minutes of tech support?), but contains no punitive damages. Let's not forget that Sony didn't just use DRM, they infected their victims computers with a virus, stole personal information, opened up their computers to further attacks, and then took deliberate actions to cover up their wrongdoing. If you or I did that, we'd be facing jail time.

  20. Very Lame Compensation by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 2, Insightful
    This is very lame compensation. Sony got off just short of scot-free so far. The CD's cost well under a buck to press. The damage to your computer, time and efforts to clean it up, cost far more than this.

    I don't see a single thing in this settlement that punishes Sony sufficiently to absolutely convince them to never even think of attempting this again.

    Worse yet, I don't see anything here to scare off any other big music or movie company from trying the same thing.

    Sony should have gone down big time over this one.

    And the lawyers should have only gotten a replacement CD and 3 free downloads as well.

    Are there still any other suits in any other state/countries pending that will hurt them more?

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  21. Not true. by babbling · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd argue that in some ways, the iTunes DRM is worse. At least with the Sony CDs, the DRM stayed the same. Apple has changed what you can do with the music AFTER you have purchased it.

    Apple has changed the number of CDs you can burn it to, and the number of computers you can have the music on at the same time. Apple also force upgrades by requiring new software for new model iPods, so not updating iTunes isn't a viable way of escaping changes in the DRM permissions.

    If Apple ever decided to build backdoors into iTunes, people would still have no choice but to upgrade and have all the backdoors affect all of their music, if they want iTunes to work with their latest iPod... or if they chose not to buy the latest iPod because of the backdoors, they would lose the ability to play all of their music on-the-go, since the music can't be played on any competing MP3 players.

  22. Apperantly by Giometrix · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    --
    Download free e-books, lectures, and tutorials at bookgoldmine.com