Indeed, there are laws that rule on this, such as issues of merchantability (is it something that can be sold?). But the rootkit DRM isn't actually malicious, in that it is not intended to cause harm to the user or computer. It could be argued that the drive manufacturers whose drivers malfunction due to the DRM could be found at fault, depending on how the size of their legal organ compares to Sony's.
The fair use rights to copyrighted works is something that has essentially been removed from copyright law, thanks to the Soni Bono and DCMA copyright amendments, so I'm skeptical that anyone will be able to seriously challenge that this inflicts harm or is malicious to the end user who's using a machine whose drivers work in accordance with Microsoft's guidelines.
Is it wrong? Yes. Is it amoral? Yes. But the law doesn't do a very good job at protecting those who can't buy it.
Now, as mentioned previously, the court of public opinion is something else. Newsweek would be great place to hear of this.
I'm actually surprised this vulnerability hasn't been exploited sooner by someone who doesn't have a financial stake on this.
Imagine scanning though some source and noticing that you assigned 100 to a var rather than 10, before you can even refocus your eye on the line the value has been changed.
Yeah, and how many programmers do you know who wouldn't use this to prove that they write perfect code?;-)
The sad thing is that Microsoft's not-so-tasteful business practices work for them, in the same way that recreational and illegal drug manufacturers work.
The basic premise is that the product has become part of the necessary fabric for so many people's worlds. Therefore, the negative results are so overwhelmingly outweighed by the cash flow. Phillip Morris, for example, is broadcasting across the U.S. advertisements warning about the dangers of cigarette smoking. Why? Because they know that it won't hurt the vast majority of their tobacco-based income (which comes from the rest of the world), nor will it stop their current user base from continuing to smoke.
Microsoft, more likely than not, has a huge cash reserve solely dedicated to paying penalties and fines. And why shouldn't they? They can recoup their losses quite quickly, because the western business world is largely dependent upon them.
Most of the world's business technology is addicted to Microsoft. And they're more than happy to feed that addiction. A 500 million dollar fine is barely a mosquito bite.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed, there are laws that rule on this, such as issues of merchantability (is it something that can be sold?). But the rootkit DRM isn't actually malicious, in that it is not intended to cause harm to the user or computer. It could be argued that the drive manufacturers whose drivers malfunction due to the DRM could be found at fault, depending on how the size of their legal organ compares to Sony's.
The fair use rights to copyrighted works is something that has essentially been removed from copyright law, thanks to the Soni Bono and DCMA copyright amendments, so I'm skeptical that anyone will be able to seriously challenge that this inflicts harm or is malicious to the end user who's using a machine whose drivers work in accordance with Microsoft's guidelines.
Is it wrong? Yes. Is it amoral? Yes. But the law doesn't do a very good job at protecting those who can't buy it.
Now, as mentioned previously, the court of public opinion is something else. Newsweek would be great place to hear of this.
I'm actually surprised this vulnerability hasn't been exploited sooner by someone who doesn't have a financial stake on this.
How about limiting it to one character? ;)
Imagine scanning though some source and noticing that you assigned 100 to a var rather than 10, before you can even refocus your eye on the line the value has been changed.
Yeah, and how many programmers do you know who wouldn't use this to prove that they write perfect code? ;-)
"Hey, Bob, you've got an error in line 127..."
*blink*
"What error?"
The sad thing is that Microsoft's not-so-tasteful business practices work for them, in the same way that recreational and illegal drug manufacturers work.
The basic premise is that the product has become part of the necessary fabric for so many people's worlds. Therefore, the negative results are so overwhelmingly outweighed by the cash flow. Phillip Morris, for example, is broadcasting across the U.S. advertisements warning about the dangers of cigarette smoking. Why? Because they know that it won't hurt the vast majority of their tobacco-based income (which comes from the rest of the world), nor will it stop their current user base from continuing to smoke.
Microsoft, more likely than not, has a huge cash reserve solely dedicated to paying penalties and fines. And why shouldn't they? They can recoup their losses quite quickly, because the western business world is largely dependent upon them.
Most of the world's business technology is addicted to Microsoft. And they're more than happy to feed that addiction. A 500 million dollar fine is barely a mosquito bite.