Sony secretly installed hidden programs from CD's. Patch offered.

[nahmus]

Good point regarding making a mix CD. I do that all the time using my CD collection or iTunes. I don't see what the big deal is anyway,if I like a band I buy their music. Take for example Dream Theater, their CD covers are as treasured as their music. There are tons of little clues and puzzles in the booklet. I think that is really cool. I'd buy a CD for that alone! The quality on an original CD is unbeatable.

This attempt to limit what you can do with your CD, wrt personal use, is completely out of line and infringes on the consumer's rights.

exactally my point. people are willing to buy something if they think its worth it. you can pay for a CD with nice artwork, good cd graphics, nice booklet OR you pay the same ammount for a silver CD with the artists name on it and just a front piece of paper with some picture and a track listing.

which one is more likely to be pirated? which one makes more money for the studio.... that i think is where the fight starts.

 

[zip22]

i think the main problem with these DRM enabled cds is that they do absoluting nothing to prevent pirating. people who are going to pirate the music either see it as a challenge or as more incentive to pirate the music. either way, it gets into the necassary formats and priacy channels.

the people it does hurt and **** off are the people who are not pirating and are buying the cd. the last cd i bought had drm. it installed some services when the cd autoran. these services only allowed wmp to rip the cd into drmed format. everyone with an ipod on windows was screwed. they eventually released a 'fix'. you were to rip the cd using wmp, burn the files to a cd, and re-import them with itunes so you could use them on an ipod. the funny thing was, the cd was also on the itunes music store.

i cannot understand the reasoning behind all these tactics. there must some basic rights they are infringing on.

 

[Super Nade]

Well, Tom does have a point.

Just because you buy a CD does not make it yours. The CD itself is yours and if you want to throw it in a wood chipper, feel free but the music still belongs to the publisher. Now it happens that there are a couple of things that you can do with the music under the law.

You can make a copy "for archival purposes". This has never been especially well defined but back in the days of vinyl, it was fairly normal to copy an album right after you bought it mainly because the quality of the recording deteriorates rapidly. Today, I think the most common use of that principal would be making a copy to keep in your car. But that is not quite the same as having a copy around that you never use, so the industry could argue that that is not an archival use.

You can sell your CD on the used market. That has always been legal as long as you either transfer or destroy the archival copy. Practically, lots of people probably don't deal properly with the archival copy and retain it for personal use after selling the original. Sony may not like that but there really is not a whole lot that they can say about that. I suppose that the sneaky program could have some way of detecting a copy and required that you provide the original for verification that you still have it. However, if it did that, then there would be no point in hiding the program.

Malpo,

What you say in principle is the way things should operate, i.e based on the honor system. However, a sneaky rootkit install isn't the way to go about protecting content. As nahmus said, the industry should make the original CD so attractive that nobody would care to pirate anything. If they dropped prices to $10 and provided feature rich artwork and paper extras, who would pirate CD's? Intead, the music Co's have resorted to internet thuggery. This in my book is unacceptable. Tom has no issue with this, so, I took up issue with his argument

 

[ghettocomp]

Personally, I won't buy CD's that don't allow me to copy them, but I don't think they are illlegal. They have a right to protect their content, and we have a right to not buy media that we regard as having copy protections that are too onerous.

On the other hand, a DRM scheme that actually trashes property that DOES NOT belong to Sony, ie your hard drive and windows install, is another matter. THAT is illegal. It is not ok for them to protect their IP by blowing up your house with a bomb. This is similar. They are destroying your property to prevent a possible infringement of their IP. That is illegal.

I have gotten to the point where I will no longer accept CD/DVDs that are copy protected. Why? there are a lot of individuals like me that have alternate ways to watch movies/listen to music. Mine is by way of the ediaMVP by hauppage. I am able to stream video & music to anywere in my home via a network connection. The device connects to tteh TV or stereo and my computer. The only requirement is that the video has to be in a Mpeg 1 or mpeg 2 or divix format to work for video or MP3 for audio. those formats require "copying" the content. If I have purchased the video or cd, I see no problem with having the content in a format that I can use.

Having nearly trashed a DVD rom using a Sony DVD, I had found this info quite by accident and now am very annoyed that I am unable to enjoy the videos as I origionally envisioned. I do not share and see no problem making a copy for me to use as I need. Their actions are viewed by me as them "waving the DVD in my face" then telling me I "have to pay" for it but am not going to get to watch it because of the way I want to view it, that it does not meet 'their' standards or approvals.

 

[tom10167]

As nahmus said, the industry should make the original CD so attractive that nobody would care to pirate anything. If they dropped prices to $10 and provided feature rich artwork and paper extras, who would pirate CD's? Intead, the music Co's have resorted to internet thuggery. This in my book is unacceptable. Tom has no issue with this, so, I took up issue with his argument

Unfortunately, that doesn't really make sense.


Here on one hand we can shave a third off the prices of our product, add more media to them, and pay the artists more money,

or

we can just have our programmer write a quick little program that goes on to CDs and not shave A THIRD off of our company.

 

[tom10167]

tom,

Do you post something just for the sake of posting? There is neither any coherence nor logic to what you are saying in this matter. If you feel compelled to go against the mainstream line of thought, atleast offer a compelling argument!

-------
If I pay for it it is mine! I can do whatever I please (within the law) i.e set it on fire or have it for breakfast. My CD does not belong to Sony if I paid for it.

If you pay for it, it is yours. So I guess that means you can loan it to anyone that asks for it? That's filesharing, and that's what this prevents. The disc itself is yours, you are not the owner of those songs, you can't sell the songs to a movie company to put in their movie, just like you can't buy DVD movies and charge people to watch them.

You talk about compelling argument like I'm alone. A little company known as " www.Sony.com " agrees with what I'm saying.


There's no need for everyone to go crazy over "privacy." If you aren't sharing the media, you won't notice a problem, and if you are sharing the media, well, that's your problem.

 

[MRD]

I believe it's legally ok to loan someone a disc provided that you don't listen to the content from it while it's on loan and that the person doesn't make any persistent copies of the media.

I do understand that there are IP issues involved here, and that there does need to be some protection. Personally, the rule I go by is household. If I buy a CD, anyone in my household can copy it, listen to it, burn it, rip it, etc., but other people should buy their own.

Then again, if something is copy protected, I view that as a challenge...

 

[Super Nade]

If you pay for it, it is yours. So I guess that means you can loan it to anyone that asks for it? That's filesharing, and that's what this prevents. The disc itself is yours, you are not the owner of those songs, you can't sell the songs to a movie company to put in their movie, just like you can't buy DVD movies and charge people to watch them.

You talk about compelling argument like I'm alone. A little company known as " www.Sony.com " agrees with what I'm saying.


There's no need for everyone to go crazy over "privacy." If you aren't sharing the media, you won't notice a problem, and if you are sharing the media, well, that's your problem.

I think you missed the (within the law) part of my post. In now way was I advocating filesharing. That litttle company you speak of, has authorized the intallation of spyware on your computer, which can be deadly dangerous. If you are not sharing media and some idiot cracker gains control of your computer, because of a SONY spyware program, whose problem is it?

You are alone among consumers! Little spware SONY can take their crap elsewhere, as I for one, am boycotting them.

 

[Enablingwolf]

The biggest gripe I can see is the very liberal way software(rootkit) has been included into the content. The worst part, it is very obtuse in the manner it was presented prior to using the product.

How many otehr products have been discovered to contain the rootkit? How many will admit before it is shown the tactics preventing copying the material or actually using the material.

I can care less about how much Copy Protection they put on the Discs. I am more concerned about installing programs and rootkits without concenting to it prior to using the media. The mention of the rootkit was really vague on the actual content. Who is right on the overall? I think Sony was wrong. Bieng sly on installing content they were trying to protect. They violated my rights to protect their rights.

 

[MRD]

Where does it say that it trashes your windows install when you remove it?

That's the problem, and that's what makes it illegal.

 

[dark_15]

Where does it say that it trashes your windows install when you remove it?

That's the problem, and that's what makes it illegal.

That's even IF you can find it. While us OC'ers and computer-savvy people are able to understand and patch this little problem... what about 99% of the rest of world who have no freakin' clue that this is on there?
I don't think it's about the fact that the software was installed. As what karl stated, it's in the EULA. I think the bigger problem is that Sony made an attempt to cloak the program. It's in the EULA... why the need to hide it?

The real problem lies when black hats start making exploits of this 'feature' in Sony content-protected CD's.

Also, I found a few interesting links about this from PCWorld:
Initial Problem
De-Cloak Patch Announcement
De-Cloak Patch may cause Windows to crash

 

[larva]

I don't post a whole lot in discussion sections, but this one raises my ire.

Sony surely has the right to protect their content. But you can't for instance, kill people to do so, and this is little different. There are legal bounds individuals and companies are held to, no matter what their motivations.

Firstly, Sony cannot install this crap secretly. No matter how lame the idea, how botched the execution, and how contrived the logic may be you could easily get away with it by notifying the user and obtaining their consent at whatever event triggers the installation of the software. I don't care who you are, what rights you think you have, or how much money your lobby and legal fund hoards, you can't install software secretely. If you are enforcing a proscribed course of behavior you must tell the user what that standard might entail and what means you are using it to encourage its practice.

Secondly, it will always be easier to write some sloppy code and hide it than to make your produce a good value. Sure it would cost the music industry a (small) amount of money to improve the value of their products, but this isn't loss. They are ever-so-quick to rationalize such lame copy-protection by quoting estimates of the revenue lost to piracy, and investing in the utility of their own product is just as valid a way of recooping this loss as byzantine copy protection measures.

Although it has nearly become a footnote to history, at one time it mattered if you were good at your job. If you were, you stood to benefit. And if you weren't, you stood to lose. Sony faces this situation as well. Sure it is within their right to invest in some amateurish copy-protection while continually escalating the sales prices of the same-old-same-old, but there is nothing to say they won't pay a price for this decision.

Yes it is harder to make their products a great value, improve customer utility, and discourage pirating, but if you are really serious about success you work hard. Sony took the obvious lazy-man's way out, and was apparantly ashamed enough of the quality of their effort as to attempt to conceal it. This will cost them in lost sales and further erode the satisfaction with themselves and the industry as a whole, feeding the whole cycle. Whether you feel their actions were within legal bounds or not, this sort of sortsighted and heavy-handed decision making cannot produce the result Sony would claim this technology works towards.

 

[larva]

see page 1, post 30 above ... or have I missed your point?

Just that I am entitled to my opinion, even if it is similar to yours.

 

[zip22]

if you read the EULA, it says the software can be deleted. in practice, it cannot. sony has violated their own eula, if thats possible

and in my book, software != rootkit.

 

[MRD]

Agreed, just because you say you'll install some software doesn't mean, for example, that you can install viruses. There are limits. Sony is not being forthcoming at all.

I really think they'd be in serious trouble in court if anyone pressed the issue.

 

[tom10167]

I think they would have asked a lawyer before doing any of this.

 

[nahmus]

Karl Pell:
Nice to actually see the EULA. After reading it here are some of my concerns.

1) they make no mention of an uninstall program or how to remove the program that they install.

2) not collecting person information: I just don't trust anyone. Reel networks had the same disclaimer until they were caught doing otherwise.

3) Authorized players... who authorizes them? Did it list the players/equipment that are authorized? If this continues will you need a "sony" authorized player to play sony disk? a Warne Bros player for their music? Can you only play this on windows and ipod based machines? Something like this If taken to the extreme could be really bad for the consumer.

4) 3 copies. Back to my mix disk scenereo. Can i only ever burn or load a song 3 times for the life of the cd? If i burn 1 song 3 times does that make the whole CD locked? Even if i make 3 copies of the disk and copy the song 3 times that makes a total of 9. Thats pretty bad. Isn't the whole purpose of the ipod nano and others to load music, delete it load it again?

Could this be the start of music companies trying to phase out CD's and forcing everyone into digital distrubition? Where they have ultimate control?

 

[MRD]

I think that the more they clamp down on this, the more their sales will drop. After a while, people grow tired of getting kicked in the nuts.

 

[nahmus]

I think they would have asked a lawyer before doing any of this.

Man tom we seem to be on opposite sides of the fence on this whole thread

I have very little faith in lawyers. the profession has grown without check. I think that lawyers have turned the whole legal system into a big game. lets see what we can get away with. If theres no legal presedent then well make up a few words and buy some experts and argue it.

don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are some good decent hard working lawyers out ther that are trying to do good but they are vastly outnumbered.

Here on one hand we can shave a third off the prices of our product, add more media to them, and pay the artists more money,

I've never heard of artists being paid more after the music industry wins a settleement. I have friends that are artists and engineers in the industry and unless you are in the platnium selling range most of your money comes from touring and merchandise. I'm pretty sure all money collected from lawsuits go right back tothe company.

we can just have our programmer write a quick little program that goes on to CDs and not shave A THIRD off of our company.

exactaly. more money for the company none for the artists and the consumer gets screwed.

There's no need for everyone to go crazy over "privacy." If you aren't sharing the media, you won't notice a problem, and if you are sharing the media, well, that's your problem.

this is a problem. the people that are smart enough to uninstall the program are also smart enough to get around the copy protection. Its the average consumer that does not understand all of this that gets hurt.
Say Joe Sixpack loads a sony CD onto their harddrive. everything's fine. then something happens (loads a program or perhapse another music compnay got the idea as well and their programs are conflicting, could be a virus, spyware, whatever) and now he cant play anything. there no add/remove option, He didnot read the EULA as most people don't and has no idea what it happening. Hopefully he knows a geek and they come fix it. If not then he is at the mercey of compusa or geeksquad for probably 100.00. Chances are they don't know what to do and have to reload his OS and he looses everything.

this again IS AN EXTREME example but it can and will happen. If sony wants to do this then DO IT RIGHT! make a Sony media player plugin or stand alone application. have the program link to the sony site.. maybe play a video of the artist in question. But this goes baclk to tom's observation "why add value that will cost us money when we can just throw something together that won't cost us anything.

 

[nahmus]

please bear in mind that I've quoted only a portion of the EULA. It is (surprise,surprise) quite lengthy ...

Ya i think lawyers get paid by the letter