Slashdot Mirror


Canadian Sony Rootkit Settlement Stirs Controversy

An anonymous reader writes "Canadian law professor Michael Geist is reporting that Sony BMG Canada has quietly kept a key legal document secret as part of its class action settlement over last year's rootkit case. The document, which is not on the Sony settlement site but has now been posted on Geist's site (pdf), contains a series of bogus arguments about why Canadians are receiving far less than U.S. consumers."

21 of 96 comments (clear)

  1. Thanks for the root Sony by HatchedEggs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It was nice of them to throw that on their discs in some shabby attempt at DRM. I remember when I first found it installed on my computer. Needless to say, you're not going to find me purchasing anything else that contains a DRM anything akin to that.

    Customers need to stand up and show media organizations that ther are limits to what we are willing to deal with.

    --
    Justin - Don't be afraid of my blog, it won't bite.
    1. Re:Thanks for the root Sony by HatchedEggs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Er, in regards to the article though, it is too bad that Canada didn't seem to push more than it did. The reason the US got more is because it seems they asked for more.

      --
      Justin - Don't be afraid of my blog, it won't bite.
    2. Re:Thanks for the root Sony by Crilen007 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Customers do need to stand up.. however most customers don't know what DRM is, and this is where the problem resides.

      What customers need is to educate themselves, or be educated about such things so they can make an educated decision.

    3. Re:Thanks for the root Sony by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I was already boycotting Sony before the DRM, just because I'm annoyed at them for coming up with stupid proprietary formats. All this stuff (not to mention the PS3 debacle) did was deepen my conviction...

      Nowadays, my opinion of Sony is about equal to my opinion of Microsoft (or, dare I say, worse?), and that's pretty damn bad.

      --

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

    4. Re:Thanks for the root Sony by aztracker1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Heh, well, I still use MS stuff, because 1) I'm stuck with it, 2) their development tools are pretty nice, and 3) they keep me employed.. ;)

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    5. Re:Thanks for the root Sony by mabhatter654 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      but the Canadians should haved asked for much more... they already give their record industry per-cd and other media stipends as compensation for "piracy". Sony taking extra, invasive, illegal, restrictions in addition to the consideration they already get is gross contempt for the Canadian People, eh.

    6. Re:Thanks for the root Sony by ultranova · · Score: 4, Insightful

      but the Canadians should haved asked for much more... they already give their record industry per-cd and other media stipends as compensation for "piracy". Sony taking extra, invasive, illegal, restrictions in addition to the consideration they already get is gross contempt for the Canadian People, eh.

      Well, to be fair, how much respect would you have for someone who pays you tribute ?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  2. Trusting Sony by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The exchange of XCP CDs for identical CDs without XCP.

    How about: The exchange of XCP CDs for identical CDs with other soul-sucking DRM you haven't caught onto yet. That's what I'd expect Sony to attempt first.

    Trusting Sony to be good about this? Ha!

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  3. Exibit C *NOT* Missing from Sony settlement site by apnielsen · · Score: 5, Insightful
  4. Re:"Bogus" Reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So, as usual, the victim is expected to work their ass off (and likely pay through the nose for lawyers) in order to obtain any sort of justice. And in the end, it's just the lawyers who win anyways.

    Is it any wonder so many people have lost all respect for the legal system?

  5. Mod Parent Up by loteck · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This fact combined with the fact that Sony has a somewhat legitimate point make this a non-story.

    I look forward to the dupe.

  6. PayPal think non-US == third-world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    I once made a transaction through Paypal, and got hit with very high fees. I live in Australia, as did the purchaser. When I asked PayPal, they said it they (quote) "have to charge high fees to cover the risk of doing business overseas." On the contrary, I think there are many countries (Australia included) that are MUCH SAFER places to do business than the US. I'm guessing the PayPal employee who made this statement had never been outside of the US.

  7. Proud to be a fart by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Thanks, I'll keep beating my chest. Just 'cause the average person doesn't bother to protect rights X,Y, and Z doesn't require that I surrender them.

    --
    My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
    1. Re:Proud to be a fart by rkcallaghan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just 'cause the average person doesn't bother to protect rights X,Y, and Z doesn't require that I surrender them.

      It does if you live in the United States. If you don't think this is true, there's some men in Guantanamo Bay that would like their speedy trial.

      ~Rebecca

    2. Re:Proud to be a fart by plover · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Big Brother? Check. Evening News 2 Minute Hate? Check. Telescreens? Check. We have always been at war with Terrorism.

      Callaghan, RK-858110! You forgot the part where they dressed Emmanuel Goldstein up in a turban and renamed him "Osama".

      Oops, I almost forgot, his name always was Osama.

      I love George Bush.

      --
      John
    3. Re:Proud to be a fart by rkcallaghan · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The people in Guantanamo aren't US citizens, they're enemy combatants. There's a huge difference. It's not like we can just release them back to the government they fought for, given that they didn't fight for any government. Until we finish the War on Terror, there's really no where to send them, so it's safer to temporarily keep them in Guantanamo.
      It's a sad state of affairs that you felt it necessary to AC to say that.

      Mr. Coward, you mentioned that the people in Guantanamo Bay aren't US Citizens. Considering that the designation "enemy combatant" strips you of your US citizenship (if you have it); I regretfully must concede that this is correct. However, in the past and in all previous wars, or peacetime; enemy combatants have still recieved the right to a trial, albeit in a military tribunal. Thus far, we have seen no such indication with regards to the Guantanamo Bay prisoners. In addition, anyone who has visited there or been allowed to inspect the facility (such as Amnesty International) have reported that they believe the prisoners are unlawfully detained and being tortured.

      Being that it is highly unlikely that the military would want to show Amnesty International a worse picture of what is going on down there; the conclusion remains then it is either being presented honestly, or conditions are actually worse than we know. Unfortunately, none of the options (including the unlikely "conditions are better than reported") constitutes a retention of all rights that the average man doesn't care to protect.

      In your own words, there's "really no where to send them" until we finish the "War on Terror". I consider myself to be reasonably intelligent, and this discussion has occurred more than once in the last few years. Still, I am at a loss as to how you would determine the end of a war against an emotion. Perhaps you would be willing to shed some light on the situation?

      If there remains no definition for the end of said war; We can extract from that that in your eyes it is acceptable for a foriegn government to:

      1) enter any country it so desires, without permission or declaration of war against said country AND
      2) extract and detain indefinitely anyone living in said country without trial or even so much as a criminal charge.

      Unless you'd rather we release them to attack the United States.
      Please review False Dilemma; then consider that a median ground option -- A fair trial by jury, without torture or multi-year delays -- is also available. If they are so guilty as to deserve the treatment in Guantanamo Bay, they would surely be found so by a trial. As it stands however, they're not even allowed council.

      ~Rebecca
  8. Isn't what Sony did a _crime_ in most countries? by TheLink · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Unauthorized access and modification of computer systems?

    Does that mean if I spread malware/trojans using CDs I don't risk any jail time?

    Or it's only because a big company is involved that's why nobody is going to jail, whereas silly amateurs vandalizing stuff get in big trouble?

    My suggestion to all you "hackers" out there, if you want to hack millions of computers and get away with it- work for Sony.

    The spyware people seem to be getting away with it too. But it seems that Sony is a safer bet - guilty of everything lots of publicity, but nothing much happens to the people responsible.

    --
  9. Fair is fair I guess by Bullfish · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They give us a crappy settlement, I won't buy their crappy products.

    I have owned sony products, that has ended. The XCP fiasco is just the latest in a series of blunders on their part. The sony name used to be synonymous with quality. Now they are truly a clueless company that has deserved the beating their stock has taken. Anything I can do to drive it down more as a consumer, I will do and No.1 is buying someone else's products (which now are better anyway).

  10. Sony sucks by caller9 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sony used to be synonymous with high quality cutting edge products. Now errr... they have a nice game console. The high-end audio is totally out of thier reach. They push overpriced middle market products which are often inferior. Depending on where you buy "Sony" you may or may not be getting products from the same manufacturer. Subtle differences in model # for quite a while have been the difference between quality hardware and crap. The model #s differ by a small degree. Basically there's a Wal-Mart Sony and a high end Sony. Not dissing Wal-Mart intentionally, but they sell the cheap Sony.

    Either way McIntosh, among countless others have stomped them into the ground repeatedly on fidelity and features. Pick up ANY home audio mag and try to find Sony in a positive light, or if you can, find them at the top of the heap... you can't. But the pricing is still geared that way. Sony Entertainment has so many black eyes they look like a bruised potato and I refuse to do business with them. I really hate it for good filmmakers roped into the Sony production line, it's everyones loss there.

  11. Don't tell us, tell them by zoeblade · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you're boycotting Sony because of their nasty DRM, try writing them a letter telling them, otherwise they won't notice a handful of hackers boycotting them, it'll get lost in the noise of economics. Maybe if enough people tell them why their sales are slightly down, they might notice, and maybe even do something about it.

  12. No, actually I mustn't by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There's probably a Diet Godwin law I can invoke when we're talking about CDs and the digression is all about Guantanamo. But anyway...

    Fair use etc. is the current law; it's not a sweeping change I'd like to bring about in the copyright system. It is Sony et al. who would like to introduce a sweeping change, namely the notion that a little c with a circle around it constitutes a legally binding contract never to access "their" content except under the circumstances of their choosing.

    As TFA points out, the settlement -- huh?!! -- isn't about copyright anyway. It's the enforcement of a consumer protection law. This is also currently on the books; I have the right to control my computer and not have intruders rootkit it, etc. I don't need to convince anyone that I have it

    This is what is implied by the word "inalienable". Certain rights can't be voted out of existence by governments, representative or otherwise. When they ostensibly do so, all they are really doing is voting their own mandate to govern out of existence.

    --
    My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love