Slashdot Mirror


Sony Settles With FTC Over Rootkits

The FTC has struck a deal with Sony punishing Sony for the rootkits it included on millions of CDs in 2005. The deal is exactly like the Texas and California settlements — $150 a rootkit. The settlement isn't final yet. There will be a 30-day public consultation. American citizens who read Slashdot might want to put in their two cents. Comments will be accepted through March 1 at: FTC, Office of the Secretary, Room H-135, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580 (snail mail only). Here is the FTC page announcing the settlement.

8 of 133 comments (clear)

  1. Meanwhile, RIAA wants $750 per song... by Zaatxe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Isn't that a little unfair?

    --
    So say we all
  2. By that rationale... by GapingHeadwound · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From TFA

    The US regulator said the anti-piracy software wrongly limited the devices on which music could be played to those made by Sony or Microsoft.

    Hmmm... no mention whether Vista or other Microsoft operating systems will come under fire of the same arguement.

  3. If someone in their basement pulled the exact..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ....same thing, their asses would be in the slammer in no time. Sony souldn't be treated any different. This was a computer crime, plain and simple.

  4. Re:how does this multiply out? by Don_dumb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is that $150 per cd "sold through" or $150 per customer who is aware of the lawsuit and actually files to get their cheque? Because I imagine those are entirely different numbers. I wonder how many people have these CDs and dont even realise that their CDs are or have been infected? This did make the mainstream media, but wasn't a huge story. I imagine there are thousands of people who still have no idea.

    Wouldn't a better punishment be that Sony is made to stand up and publicize (using such mediums as MTV) the particular CDs that were infected and educate people as to how they can protect against malware. - It openly damages them to those who aren't aware about this (thereby acting as a deterant for anyone else thinking about doing somthing like this), informs the masses as to the lengths DRM goes to (generating more widespread disapproval for DRM) and helps to fight malware through educating the yoot.
    --
    If this were really happening, what would you think?
  5. Understatement of the year... by Panaqqa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    According to the FTC, the software also exposed consumers to significant security risks and was unreasonably difficult to uninstall.

    Huh? "Reasonably difficult"? This damned thing broke Russinovich's machine, and he had to use several utilities he developed himself to get rid of it by looking deeper into the Windows OS than I think Microsoft ever intended (or wanted) anyone to look. How many /. denizens would have looked for this little gem using named pipes to communicate?

    "Difficult to uninstall"? Right...
  6. Wonder who really gets to pay... by ray-auch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What's the betting that cost of this gets passed onto artists as deductions from royalties ?

    Artist monthly statement:

    Sales: $$$
    Gross royalties (tiny%): $
    Deductions:

          [ blah blah blah ] $$
          DRM legal costs $$
          [new this month]

    Net Royalties: -$$$

    [NB: you won't have to pay us because we're nice like that, we'll just carry it forward]

  7. Re:How About... by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The CEO of Sony has gone on the record as saying he thinks online music sales are too expensive and should be close to the 25c mark.
    What a great guy. Going on record saying what he sees as fit instead of actually running the company the way he sees fit.

    Why are they even paying this man?
    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  8. Re:If someone in their basement pulled the exact.. by jimicus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, but Sony is a company and this is the USA.

    All the rights of an individual with hardly any of the responsibilities.