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."
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.
Well it would improper to ask for more. We wouldn't want to feel we were being to pushy.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
At the beginning of their statement, Sony BMG Canada says that Sony BMG Canada sources all their material from Sony BMG USA. Then at the end, they say that Sony BMG Canada will not use the specific technology that was the trigger for the injunctions in the USA - this is like saying, "we buy our apples from the USA ... we will make sure all the apples that we make will not have fruit fly in them."
I wish people would read these arguments before accepting them in their court hearings...
-The fact that the US called for investigation into the Sony DRM debacle and dragged Sony USA into court. Cananda did not, and to date has not.
-A large percentage of Canadian business with Sony goes through Sony USA instead of through Sony Canada.
Sony has essentially offered to not infect Canadian computers with their software. I am no fan of Sony, but if Canada doesn't want to go through the procedures of taking Sony through Canadian courts, they shouldn't get to reap the benefits of the results that such an action might produce.
An anonymous reader writes: 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
Is it not completely obvious that this "anonymous reader" is either Bill S. Preston, Esquire, or Ted Theodore Logan?
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
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."
...for a laptop and I didn't buy a Sony. ...for a digital camera and I didn't buy a Sony.
I am going shopping for a flat-screen TV and a fancy sound system. Guess what - I'm not buying a Sony. I have only negative things to say about Sony to my friends and family.
Here is a big clue to the suits: If you're going to try to sneak (DRM or any) software onto *MY* computers, then you won't be selling me anything. Period.
Funny thing is, back in the '80s I lusted after Sony products and bought them almost exclusively. Funny thing, indeed.
It's labeled Exhibit C to Settlement Agreement
I look forward to the dupe.
So far as I can tell, with the CD-copying levy etc and various other factors, there have been no cases of somebody being sued for downloading music in Canada. That being said, perhaps that's the best way to get a song distributed by sony without getting the malware?
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
For those that haven't RTFDocument, it basically says two things:
1) Sony BMG Canada will not accept any binding injuction based on legal proceedings from a different country with a different set of laws, but...
2) Practically speaking, the actions of Sony BMG Canada will be the same as those of Sony BMG US (for technical/logistical reasons). That is, Sony BMG Canada will unofficially follow the terms of the injunction.
What more do you expect? I'm no fan of lawyers, but certainly no company is going let a precedent be set that their operations in one country will be bound by the legal system of a different country. The document is just saying to Canadian consumers "Look, we can't legally submit to this injunction, but we'll be playing by its rules anyway."
The whole Sony rootkit affair reeks, but this just looks like standard legal procedure - CYA of a fairly inoffensive variety.
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.
That should be "no longer missing". It was missing when the EFF and Geist articles were originally posted. Right now, you can still see the version without it in the Google cache if you search for "Consolidated Amended Statement of Claim in Quebec". Google says they picked it up on Sept 3.
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).
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.
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.
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