Slashdot Mirror
A Legal Analysis of the Sony BMG Rootkit Debacle
YIAAL writes "Two lawyers from the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology look at the Sony BMG Rootkit debacle: 'The Article first addresses the market-based rationales that likely influenced Sony BMG's deployment of these DRM systems and reveals that even the most charitable interpretation of Sony BMG's internal strategizing demonstrates a failure to adequately value security and privacy. After taking stock of the then-existing technological environment that both encouraged and enabled the distribution of these protection measures, the Article examines law, the third vector of influence on Sony BMG's decision to release flawed protection measures into the wild, and argues that existing doctrine in the fields of contract, intellectual property, and consumer protection law fails to adequately counter the technological and market forces that allowed a self-interested actor to inflict these harms on the public.' Yes, under 'even the most charitable interpretation' it was a lousy idea. The article also suggests some changes to the DMCA to protect consumers from this sort of intrusive, and security-undermining, technique in the future."
Good old greed..
This shouldn't be about laws, its a moral issue.
Laws don't and should not be the only guiding factor in the actions of people or corporations. It is not the case that anything specifically prevented by law is allowed. A person or corporation should also be a good citizen, and there are things you just should not do, such as inflict root kits on other people's computers.
The question then is; how did somebody at Sony arrive at the conclusion that they should try to protect their IP right in this manner?
Waas this a comittee decision where moral judgement went out the window in a corporate meeting? Or are people at Sony severely lacking personal moral judgement?
I would like to know.
Of course this would be a non-issue if Windows didn't automatically run software when you put a CD in the drive; this is just another reason why auto-run is an insanely bad idea.
And now meet what I like to call handcuffs.
An easy solution to this problem, and it would only take a few instances, would be to seize all assets of the company in question and begin prosecution. If corporations are damn near treated like real humans, then let them see the other side of the coin. Make every failure in process hurt them where it matters, I guarantee we won't have this happen again. Or we end up with less corporations willing to "risk" product release in the US.
As it stands companies can seemingly get away with whatever they want to protect their business model.
The only security and privacy that they care about is their own. These concepts don't exist for people who are not executives in the company. Especially customers.
:)
Add "copyrights" to the list. Since there are several cases showing how little the "entertainments" industry cares about other people's copyrights.
The only changes that our legal department will allow the US politicians to pass will be ones that increase the criminal penalties for possession of music.
Unless someone can get the changes sneaked past. e.g. something tacked onto the end on an anti-terrorism bill
The rootkit was put on those CDs by Sony/BMG, which is a separate entity that is 50/50 owned by Sony and Bertelsmann (BMG stands for Bertelsmann Music Group). Furthermore, the people at the top, who make all of the important decisions are all from the BMG side. So, if either company is more to blame, it is Bertelsmann. Does this mean you should boycott Bertelsmann? It does seem a bit silly to boycott Random House (major book publisher and Bertelsmann subsidiary) over what happened to some music CDs, and yet that is what some are doing w.r.t. Sony Vaio, Sony cameras, etc. My suggestion would be to boycott the product that Sony/BMG puts out-their music CDs.
"Even today, one of the qualifications that many people look for in their elected leaders is previous military service."
"Even today, one of the qualifications that many people IN THE USA look for in their elected leaders is previous military service."
The US has a weird, hyper-patriotic society that a lot of Europeans find bizarre, brainwashing and militaristic.
And only giving the franchise to people who have previously served in the military? Screw you! What gives you the right to decide that? What gives those citizens the right to decide how everyone else gets to live? Nothing whatsoever.