Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Canadian Sony Rootkit Settlement Stirs Controversy

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the neighbors-to-the-north-getting-less-love dept.

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."

8 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 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. Exibit C *NOT* Missing from Sony settlement site by apnielsen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's labeled Exhibit C to Settlement Agreement

  3. 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.

  4. 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 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