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."

Comments

Thanks for the root Sony

[HatchedEggs]

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.

Re:Thanks for the root Sony

[HatchedEggs]

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.

Re:Thanks for the root Sony

[Crilen007]

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.

Re:Thanks for the root Sony

[mabhatter654]

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.

Re:Thanks for the root Sony

[ultranova]

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 ?

Exibit C *NOT* Missing from Sony settlement site

[apnielsen]

It's labeled Exhibit C to Settlement Agreement

Re:"Bogus" Reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Mod Parent Up

[loteck]

This fact combined with the fact that Sony has a somewhat legitimate point make this a non-story.

I look forward to the dupe.

Proud to be a fart

[Mateo_LeFou]

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.

Re:Proud to be a fart

[rkcallaghan]

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

Re:Proud to be a fart

[rkcallaghan]

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