Back at the beginning of December, we helped debunk a story making the rounds claiming that the RIAA was going after a guy named Jeffrey Howell for ripping his own CDs to his computer. That story was misleading, at best. While we know that the RIAA is constantly pushing to extend both the meaning and scope of copyright law, in this case the details were pretty clear that they were not going after Howell for just ripping his CDs, but for putting those ripped files into a shared Kazaa folder. Now you can (and we do!) disagree that simply putting files into a shared folder are infringement, but that's different than just claiming that ripping the CDs is illegal or that he was being targeted just for ripping the CDs. Unfortunately (and for reasons unclear to me), the Washington Post has revived the story, again repeating that Howell is being targeted for ripping his own CDs. That's simply not true, and it's nice to see a true copyright expert like William Patry question the Washington Post on this as well.
Good news -- or not the bad news we thought -- at least so far.
]]>Back at the beginning of December, we helped debunk a story making the rounds claiming that the RIAA was going after a guy named Jeffrey Howell for ripping his own CDs to his computer. That story was misleading, at best. While we know that the RIAA is constantly pushing to extend both the meaning and scope of copyright law, in this case the details were pretty clear that they were not going after Howell for just ripping his CDs, but for putting those ripped files into a shared Kazaa folder. Now you can (and we do!) disagree that simply putting files into a shared folder are infringement, but that's different than just claiming that ripping the CDs is illegal or that he was being targeted just for ripping the CDs. Unfortunately (and for reasons unclear to me), the Washington Post has revived the story, again repeating that Howell is being targeted for ripping his own CDs. That's simply not true, and it's nice to see a true copyright expert like William Patry question the Washington Post on this as well.
Good news -- or not the bad news we thought -- at least so far.
]]>The industry's lawyer in the case, Ira Schwartz, argues in a brief filed earlier this month that the MP3 files Howell made on his computer from legally bought CDs are "unauthorized copies" of copyrighted recordings.
"I couldn't believe it when I read that," says Ray Beckerman, a New York lawyer who represents six clients who have been sued by the RIAA. "The basic principle in the law is that you have to distribute actual physical copies to be guilty of violating copyright. But recently, the industry has been going around saying that even a personal copy on your computer is a violation."
Maybe I'm just unique, but I feel that it's this kind of hostility and contempt for the consumer that is doing in the music business.
Elisa writes:
]]>Let me tell you how many CDs I own: somewhere between 1000 and 1500.
Let me tell you how many hours out of the day I listen to my music (my every-single-song-was-legally-acquired music) via my iPod or computer: at least 10 hours a day in my car, at work and at home.
Let me tell you how many of my CDs I would listen to if not for my iPod: probably very VERY few. Even a multi-CD player would be too inconvenient to rely on during the work day. I like being able to turn on Shuffle on my computer or iPod and have music all day without thinking about it or messing with it. Pre-iPod I did not listen to CDs at work ever. I did listen to CDs in my car, but tended to have the same 6 CDs in there for weeks without changing them.
Let me tell you how that would affect my music-buying habits: It would greatly diminish them. I would forget about artists I liked, I would fall into a musical rut, instead of maintaining the really quite broad musical taste I have. And broad taste leads to broad music-buying habits. iTunes has already massively increased my music-buying habits by being so simple and so immediate. By exposing me to more music. And by making it easy for a constant variety of music to accompany my life most of my waking hours.
So, here's what the RIAA is just begging me to do: Never buy another physical CD, ever.
The industry's lawyer in the case, Ira Schwartz, argues in a brief filed earlier this month that the MP3 files Howell made on his computer from legally bought CDs are "unauthorized copies" of copyrighted recordings.
"I couldn't believe it when I read that," says Ray Beckerman, a New York lawyer who represents six clients who have been sued by the RIAA. "The basic principle in the law is that you have to distribute actual physical copies to be guilty of violating copyright. But recently, the industry has been going around saying that even a personal copy on your computer is a violation."
Maybe I'm just unique, but I feel that it's this kind of hostility and contempt for the consumer that is doing in the music business.
Elisa writes:
]]>Let me tell you how many CDs I own: somewhere between 1000 and 1500.
Let me tell you how many hours out of the day I listen to my music (my every-single-song-was-legally-acquired music) via my iPod or computer: at least 10 hours a day in my car, at work and at home.
Let me tell you how many of my CDs I would listen to if not for my iPod: probably very VERY few. Even a multi-CD player would be too inconvenient to rely on during the work day. I like being able to turn on Shuffle on my computer or iPod and have music all day without thinking about it or messing with it. Pre-iPod I did not listen to CDs at work ever. I did listen to CDs in my car, but tended to have the same 6 CDs in there for weeks without changing them.
Let me tell you how that would affect my music-buying habits: It would greatly diminish them. I would forget about artists I liked, I would fall into a musical rut, instead of maintaining the really quite broad musical taste I have. And broad taste leads to broad music-buying habits. iTunes has already massively increased my music-buying habits by being so simple and so immediate. By exposing me to more music. And by making it easy for a constant variety of music to accompany my life most of my waking hours.
So, here's what the RIAA is just begging me to do: Never buy another physical CD, ever.
Click the play button to get things rolling. If the video doesn't load for you, here is a direct link to the file. And if that doesn't work for you, here is a link to a downloadable version. (Give it some time. Sorry about the hassle. I'd encode it into Flash, but it's not my movie. I just wish it were. This is brilliant!)
Update May 19: Cory Doctorow contacted me about getting a better, downloadable version of the film available online. Director Eric Faden gave him the same download URL as I have above, but Cory has set it up using Coral to help relieve the Stanford server of some of the resulting effect of his Boing Boing post today.
]]>Click the play button to get things rolling. If the video doesn't load for you, here is a direct link to the file. And if that doesn't work for you, here is a link to a downloadable version. (Give it some time. Sorry about the hassle. I'd encode it into Flash, but it's not my movie. I just wish it were. This is brilliant!)
Update May 19: Cory Doctorow contacted me about getting a better, downloadable version of the film available online. Director Eric Faden gave him the same download URL as I have above, but Cory has set it up using Coral to help relieve the Stanford server of some of the resulting effect of his Boing Boing post today.
]]>The Southern District of New York has just issued a bombshell decision in this area. In Shaw Family Archives v. Marilyn Monroe LLC, it held that Marilyn Monroe's heirs cannot claim post-mortem publicity rights because she died before the enactment of the statute that creates them in California (and, for reasons that are not important here, Indiana). So, according to this Court, her image, likeness and persona are all in the public domain. Put it on a t-shirt. Or a bottle of wine. Use it to sell widgets. No permission necessary. (But please remember, copyrights to the photograph you might want to use are a whole spearate issue.)
Is this a big deal? You bet. Licensing dead celebrities is a multi-million dollar business. But California -- the center of the celebrity universe -- only passed the statute creating post-mortem publcity rights in 1984. Lots of the hottest dead celebrities (licensing-wise) died long before that, and millions of licensing revenue stands to disappear under this decision.
Intellectual property lawyers in Hollywood will now have plenty to worry about, and therefore plenty of job security, for years to come.
This gets to the heart of the new "ownership society" in which we've found ourselves, where people's images, ideas, even naturally-occurring genes are claimed. It's like watching 2nd grade boys claiming territory in the sandbox. "First dibs!"
(Are there sandboxes on playgrounds any more? Let's ask the lawyers.)
If I come across as a tad cynical about this, that's because I'm getting the sense that the claims being made by media corporations and other interested parties are not helping to encourage innovation, but rather are working to stifle it. --Not that the prospect of seeing more Hollywood golden era stars dancing with vacuums has anything to do with innovation one way or the other.
This is going to be an interesting story to follow. And you can be sure the news media will cover it. After all, such things are their bread and butter.
[Comments are now closed due to relentless "nancy miracle" spam]
]]>The Southern District of New York has just issued a bombshell decision in this area. In Shaw Family Archives v. Marilyn Monroe LLC, it held that Marilyn Monroe's heirs cannot claim post-mortem publicity rights because she died before the enactment of the statute that creates them in California (and, for reasons that are not important here, Indiana). So, according to this Court, her image, likeness and persona are all in the public domain. Put it on a t-shirt. Or a bottle of wine. Use it to sell widgets. No permission necessary. (But please remember, copyrights to the photograph you might want to use are a whole spearate issue.)
Is this a big deal? You bet. Licensing dead celebrities is a multi-million dollar business. But California -- the center of the celebrity universe -- only passed the statute creating post-mortem publcity rights in 1984. Lots of the hottest dead celebrities (licensing-wise) died long before that, and millions of licensing revenue stands to disappear under this decision.
Intellectual property lawyers in Hollywood will now have plenty to worry about, and therefore plenty of job security, for years to come.
This gets to the heart of the new "ownership society" in which we've found ourselves, where people's images, ideas, even naturally-occurring genes are claimed. It's like watching 2nd grade boys claiming territory in the sandbox. "First dibs!"
(Are there sandboxes on playgrounds any more? Let's ask the lawyers.)
If I come across as a tad cynical about this, that's because I'm getting the sense that the claims being made by media corporations and other interested parties are not helping to encourage innovation, but rather are working to stifle it. --Not that the prospect of seeing more Hollywood golden era stars dancing with vacuums has anything to do with innovation one way or the other.
This is going to be an interesting story to follow. And you can be sure the news media will cover it. After all, such things are their bread and butter.
[Comments are now closed due to relentless "nancy miracle" spam]
]]>One would think that, with the exploding cultural, communications and market-driven phenomenon of online media, these international corporations run by very-well-paid executives would be all over it, bringing their vast libraries of creative content to new markets, leveraging their dominance in the 20th century economy into great advantage going after 21st century opportunities.
Instead, it seems their energy has gone into what Freud would call anal-retentive behavior: adding more "security seals" and un-clickable FBI and Interpol warnings to DVDS, producing slick ads propagandizing the evils of what they consider illegal copying, and, of course, suing consumers to keep them -- us -- in line.
The obvious change that has to happen, though, is cultural. Now the major studios have recruited the Boy Scouts to frame the issue, as they see it, in terms of Scouting values:
The movie industry has developed the curriculum.
"Working with the Boy Scouts of Los Angeles, we have a real opportunity to educate a new generation about how movies are made, why they are valuable, and hopefully change attitudes about intellectual property theft," Dan Glickman, chairman of the Motion Picture Association of America, said in a statement Friday.
Scouts will be instructed in the basics of copyright law and learn how to identify five types of copyrighted works and three ways copyrighted materials may be stolen.
Scouts also must choose one activity from a list that includes visiting a movie studio to see how many people can be harmed by film piracy. They also can create public service announcements urging others not to steal movies or music.
I don't know. There seems to be something a little perverse about this. Do we really want commercial interests to start propagandizing our kids through Boy Scouts? Should Coke and Pepsi consider something like this in their cola wars? I'm imagining a Pepsi Challenge Merit Badge.
Scouts are an obvious target for commercial and political interests who want to influence a new generation of Americans to think their way, but maybe it would be better if they stuck to camping, team-building and selling mediocre cookies.
]]>One would think that, with the exploding cultural, communications and market-driven phenomenon of online media, these international corporations run by very-well-paid executives would be all over it, bringing their vast libraries of creative content to new markets, leveraging their dominance in the 20th century economy into great advantage going after 21st century opportunities.
Instead, it seems their energy has gone into what Freud would call anal-retentive behavior: adding more "security seals" and un-clickable FBI and Interpol warnings to DVDS, producing slick ads propagandizing the evils of what they consider illegal copying, and, of course, suing consumers to keep them -- us -- in line.
The obvious change that has to happen, though, is cultural. Now the major studios have recruited the Boy Scouts to frame the issue, as they see it, in terms of Scouting values:
The movie industry has developed the curriculum.
"Working with the Boy Scouts of Los Angeles, we have a real opportunity to educate a new generation about how movies are made, why they are valuable, and hopefully change attitudes about intellectual property theft," Dan Glickman, chairman of the Motion Picture Association of America, said in a statement Friday.
Scouts will be instructed in the basics of copyright law and learn how to identify five types of copyrighted works and three ways copyrighted materials may be stolen.
Scouts also must choose one activity from a list that includes visiting a movie studio to see how many people can be harmed by film piracy. They also can create public service announcements urging others not to steal movies or music.
I don't know. There seems to be something a little perverse about this. Do we really want commercial interests to start propagandizing our kids through Boy Scouts? Should Coke and Pepsi consider something like this in their cola wars? I'm imagining a Pepsi Challenge Merit Badge.
Scouts are an obvious target for commercial and political interests who want to influence a new generation of Americans to think their way, but maybe it would be better if they stuck to camping, team-building and selling mediocre cookies.
]]>The Japan Society for Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers, found 29,549 video clips such as television shows, music videos and movies posted on YouTube's site without permission, an official from the group, Fumiyuki Asakura, said Friday.
The San Mateo, Calif.-based company quickly complied with the request to remove the copyright materials, made on behalf of 23 Japanese TV stations and entertainment companies, Asakura said.
Most videos posted on YouTube are homemade, but the site also features scores of copyright material posted by individual users. YouTube's policy is to remove such clips after it receives complaints, though some have suggested the startup eventually could be sued, especially with deep-pocketed Google Inc. about to buy it for $1.65 billion in stock.
This is almost inevitable. The media industry is built upon control over distribution, and 'net outlets like YouTube blast their oligopoly back into the 20th century. They are trying to hang on by using DRM and sniffer technology:
The company agreed to deploy an audio-signature technology that can spot a low-quality copy of a licensed clip. YouTube would have to substitute an approved version or remove the material automatically.
But the writing is on the wall: There is no room for the controlling middle man in the new economy. Content creators, producers, writers, photographers, videographers, filmmakers will be taking their work more directly to their audiences. In the end, while things will inevitably shift around, my guess is that the new economy will be better for the creators.
It's the "owners" who don't create, just speculate, that will lose out. They require big jackpot payoffs, and the market is shifting to the long tail.
]]>The Japan Society for Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers, found 29,549 video clips such as television shows, music videos and movies posted on YouTube's site without permission, an official from the group, Fumiyuki Asakura, said Friday.
The San Mateo, Calif.-based company quickly complied with the request to remove the copyright materials, made on behalf of 23 Japanese TV stations and entertainment companies, Asakura said.
Most videos posted on YouTube are homemade, but the site also features scores of copyright material posted by individual users. YouTube's policy is to remove such clips after it receives complaints, though some have suggested the startup eventually could be sued, especially with deep-pocketed Google Inc. about to buy it for $1.65 billion in stock.
This is almost inevitable. The media industry is built upon control over distribution, and 'net outlets like YouTube blast their oligopoly back into the 20th century. They are trying to hang on by using DRM and sniffer technology:
The company agreed to deploy an audio-signature technology that can spot a low-quality copy of a licensed clip. YouTube would have to substitute an approved version or remove the material automatically.
But the writing is on the wall: There is no room for the controlling middle man in the new economy. Content creators, producers, writers, photographers, videographers, filmmakers will be taking their work more directly to their audiences. In the end, while things will inevitably shift around, my guess is that the new economy will be better for the creators.
It's the "owners" who don't create, just speculate, that will lose out. They require big jackpot payoffs, and the market is shifting to the long tail.
]]>My big problem is that we are not being told about these things. Decisions about the software we run on our systems – the ones we saved hard for, or stole from some drunk yuppie last night – are being made, and implemented without our consent. Now, some legal smart arse will undoubtedly point out that it was all outlined quite clearly in Section 3, paragraph 17, addendum III b of the user contract but let’s be realistic, who the hell reads that all of that mumbo jumbo in the first place? Most real people don’t and when it comes to products from big brands, I often don’t. It’s not just that it’s mind-numbingly boring, but that it’s written in a way to make it impenetrable to normal folk.
One could say that it’s been embedded with an Anti-Interest rootkit that prevents you from reading more than a few paragraphs before you start questioning your own existence. The only way to stop it is to press the ‘Accept’ button. Consumers allocate a certain amount of trust to household name companies when they buy one of their products. We figure, maybe naively, that forking out that extra bit of cash for a real CD instead of some cheapo knock-off at a car boot sale, entitles us to a certain level of quality and protection. Not so. We have now gone from being valued customers to potential criminals. That’s it in a nutshell.
And, he points out, the ultimate consequence of Sony's treatment of its customers is that the customers will be more likely to go the illegal route and download pirated music -- Sony's customers will indeed become the "criminals" that Sony despises.
I'm reminded of a tenet of Eastern thought:
You tend to receive from life that upon which you focus. If you focus on bad things, then you tend to cultivate bad things in your life.
In other words, you reap what you sow. And the "why" is that your creativity is a powerful thing, and works in ways that you don't even realize. Put all your energy into positive endeavors and positive energy comes back to you.
Successful entrepreneurs know this -- they will be the first to tell you how once you commit to a venture, it's almost like doors are opened up before you and the universe conspires for your success. On the other hand, gloomy Murphys will tend to see the downside of any decision; they prove adept at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
In this sort of Zen-like way, we're seeing multinational megacorporations focusing on the negative, and therefore cultivating negative outcomes. Sony's corporate policies are being dominated by gloomy Murphys who see criminal intent in every customer. Meanwhile, whatever creative visionaries there might be in Sony's executive suites -- those who might see the new media developments as opportunities rather than threats -- seem to be having little or no impact on corporate decision-making.
The clichéd metaphor of corporate "dinosaur" seems especially apt in this context, for we see a large beast that is so angry that its feeding grounds are changing that its stomping out the food it has -- and seems to be too limited in intelligence to see the self-destructiveness of its actions.
That's not to say I'm predicting the fall of Sony over this. As entrenched as these corporations are in our global economy, it's pretty clear that they aren't going away any time soon.
But this does offer yet another clear indication that the market is changing in ways of which the megacorporations are not mentally, creatively or even lawyerly equipped to take advantage. Our economy is changing, and the old-time top-down hierarchical business models, where the consumer has little or no say in the vendor's business practices, are proving to be outmoded and, ultimately, counter-productive.
Sony is facing an expensive lesson in the new economics of the world. How many more lessons will it take, and how many other dinosaurs will have to suffer the same, before they join us rather than fight us?
]]>My big problem is that we are not being told about these things. Decisions about the software we run on our systems – the ones we saved hard for, or stole from some drunk yuppie last night – are being made, and implemented without our consent. Now, some legal smart arse will undoubtedly point out that it was all outlined quite clearly in Section 3, paragraph 17, addendum III b of the user contract but let’s be realistic, who the hell reads that all of that mumbo jumbo in the first place? Most real people don’t and when it comes to products from big brands, I often don’t. It’s not just that it’s mind-numbingly boring, but that it’s written in a way to make it impenetrable to normal folk.
One could say that it’s been embedded with an Anti-Interest rootkit that prevents you from reading more than a few paragraphs before you start questioning your own existence. The only way to stop it is to press the ‘Accept’ button. Consumers allocate a certain amount of trust to household name companies when they buy one of their products. We figure, maybe naively, that forking out that extra bit of cash for a real CD instead of some cheapo knock-off at a car boot sale, entitles us to a certain level of quality and protection. Not so. We have now gone from being valued customers to potential criminals. That’s it in a nutshell.
And, he points out, the ultimate consequence of Sony's treatment of its customers is that the customers will be more likely to go the illegal route and download pirated music -- Sony's customers will indeed become the "criminals" that Sony despises.
I'm reminded of a tenet of Eastern thought:
You tend to receive from life that upon which you focus. If you focus on bad things, then you tend to cultivate bad things in your life.
In other words, you reap what you sow. And the "why" is that your creativity is a powerful thing, and works in ways that you don't even realize. Put all your energy into positive endeavors and positive energy comes back to you.
Successful entrepreneurs know this -- they will be the first to tell you how once you commit to a venture, it's almost like doors are opened up before you and the universe conspires for your success. On the other hand, gloomy Murphys will tend to see the downside of any decision; they prove adept at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
In this sort of Zen-like way, we're seeing multinational megacorporations focusing on the negative, and therefore cultivating negative outcomes. Sony's corporate policies are being dominated by gloomy Murphys who see criminal intent in every customer. Meanwhile, whatever creative visionaries there might be in Sony's executive suites -- those who might see the new media developments as opportunities rather than threats -- seem to be having little or no impact on corporate decision-making.
The clichéd metaphor of corporate "dinosaur" seems especially apt in this context, for we see a large beast that is so angry that its feeding grounds are changing that its stomping out the food it has -- and seems to be too limited in intelligence to see the self-destructiveness of its actions.
That's not to say I'm predicting the fall of Sony over this. As entrenched as these corporations are in our global economy, it's pretty clear that they aren't going away any time soon.
But this does offer yet another clear indication that the market is changing in ways of which the megacorporations are not mentally, creatively or even lawyerly equipped to take advantage. Our economy is changing, and the old-time top-down hierarchical business models, where the consumer has little or no say in the vendor's business practices, are proving to be outmoded and, ultimately, counter-productive.
Sony is facing an expensive lesson in the new economics of the world. How many more lessons will it take, and how many other dinosaurs will have to suffer the same, before they join us rather than fight us?
]]>Stung by continuing criticism, the world's second-largest music label, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, promised Friday to temporarily suspend making music CDs with antipiracy technology that can leave computers vulnerable to hackers.
Sony defended its right to prevent customers from illegally copying music but said it will halt manufacturing CDs with the "XCP" technology as a precautionary measure. "We also intend to re-examine all aspects of our content protection initiative to be sure that it continues to meet our goals of security and ease of consumer use," the company said in a statement.
Note that customer satisfaction is not mentioned. We don't even get a crocodile tear.
I must say, I find their contempt for the customer -- or, at best, disregard for customer satisfaction -- astonishes me.
It apparently also offended the sensibilities of the new assistant secretary for policy in the Department of Homeland Security, Stewart Baker:
"I wanted to raise one point of caution as we go forward, because we are also responsible for maintaining the security of the information infrastructure of the United States and making sure peoples' [and] businesses' computers are secure. ... There's been a lot of publicity recently about tactics used in pursuing protection for music and DVD CDs in which questions have been raised about whether the protection measures install hidden files on peoples' computers that even the system administrators can’t find."
In a remark clearly aimed directly at Sony and other labels, Stewart continued: "It's very important to remember that it's your intellectual property -- it's not your computer. And in the pursuit of protection of intellectual property, it's important not to defeat or undermine the security measures that people need to adopt in these days.
"If we have an avian flu outbreak here and it is even half as bad as the 1918 flu epidemic, we will be enormously dependent on being able to get remote access for a large number of people, and keeping the infrastructure functioning is a matter of life and death and we take it very seriously."
Now that's an angle I hadn't thought of.
]]>Stung by continuing criticism, the world's second-largest music label, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, promised Friday to temporarily suspend making music CDs with antipiracy technology that can leave computers vulnerable to hackers.
Sony defended its right to prevent customers from illegally copying music but said it will halt manufacturing CDs with the "XCP" technology as a precautionary measure. "We also intend to re-examine all aspects of our content protection initiative to be sure that it continues to meet our goals of security and ease of consumer use," the company said in a statement.
Note that customer satisfaction is not mentioned. We don't even get a crocodile tear.
I must say, I find their contempt for the customer -- or, at best, disregard for customer satisfaction -- astonishes me.
It apparently also offended the sensibilities of the new assistant secretary for policy in the Department of Homeland Security, Stewart Baker:
"I wanted to raise one point of caution as we go forward, because we are also responsible for maintaining the security of the information infrastructure of the United States and making sure peoples' [and] businesses' computers are secure. ... There's been a lot of publicity recently about tactics used in pursuing protection for music and DVD CDs in which questions have been raised about whether the protection measures install hidden files on peoples' computers that even the system administrators can’t find."
In a remark clearly aimed directly at Sony and other labels, Stewart continued: "It's very important to remember that it's your intellectual property -- it's not your computer. And in the pursuit of protection of intellectual property, it's important not to defeat or undermine the security measures that people need to adopt in these days.
"If we have an avian flu outbreak here and it is even half as bad as the 1918 flu epidemic, we will be enormously dependent on being able to get remote access for a large number of people, and keeping the infrastructure functioning is a matter of life and death and we take it very seriously."
Now that's an angle I hadn't thought of.
]]>Sony's now infamous decision to use system destabilizing DRM malware in order to "fight piracy" (despite it being shockingly easy to defeat) has earned Sony a lawsuit or three. A new class action suit has been filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, another is expected in New York this week, and there have been a handful of rumblings in other countries, as well.
In California, the class action suit alleges that Sony's DRM has caused harm to computers, and that the company failed to disclose precisely what the DRM technology would do to users' computers. According to sources, the suit alleges three distinct violations of California law, including violations of statutes relating to deceptive trade practices and obfuscated technological measures deemed to be anti-consumer. The suit seeks an injunction against the sale of the effected CDs as well as monetary damages for those who purchased the discs.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation also is considering legal action and is seeking information from affected customers.
What's more, now the "Stinx-E trojan" has appeared to exploit the Sony DRM software's code to open a back door to PCs.
And not only that, Mark Russinovich reports that the DRM software itself is harder to uninstall than many malicious viruses.
What's even more, Cory at BoingBoing links to Darren Dittrich's report that the Sony CDs also infect Macs:
I recently purchased Imogen Heap's new CD (Speak for Yourself), an RCA Victor release, but with distribution credited to Sony/BMG. Reading recent reports of a Sony rootkit, I decided to poke around. In addition to the standard volume for AIFF files, there's a smaller extra partition for "enhanced" content. I was surprised to find a "Start.app" Mac application in addition to the expected Windows-related files. Running this app brings up a long legal agreement, clicking Continue prompts you for your username/password (uh-oh!), and then promptly exits. Digging around a bit, I find that Start.app actually installs 2 files: PhoenixNub1.kext and PhoenixNub12.kext.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of anyone installing kernel extensions on my Mac. In Sony's defense, upon closer reading of the EULA, they essentially tell you that they will be installing software. Also, this is apparently not the same technology used in the recent Windows rootkits (made by XCP), but rather a DRM codebase developed by SunnComm, who promotes their Mac-aware DRM technology on their site.
EFF has a partial list of infected CDs:
Trey Anastasio, Shine (Columbia)
Celine Dion, On ne Change Pas (Epic)
Neil Diamond, 12 Songs (Columbia)
Our Lady Peace, Healthy in Paranoid Times (Columbia)
Chris Botti, To Love Again (Columbia)
Van Zant, Get Right with the Man (Columbia)
Switchfoot, Nothing is Sound (Columbia)
The Coral, The Invisible Invasion (Columbia)
Acceptance, Phantoms (Columbia)
Susie Suh, Susie Suh (Epic)
Amerie, Touch (Columbia)
Life of Agony, Broken Valley (Epic)
Horace Silver Quintet, Silver's Blue (Epic Legacy)
Gerry Mulligan, Jeru (Columbia Legacy)
Dexter Gordon, Manhattan Symphonie (Columbia Legacy)
The Bad Plus, Suspicious Activity (Columbia)
The Dead 60s, The Dead 60s (Epic)
Dion, The Essential Dion (Columbia Legacy)
Natasha Bedingfield, Unwritten (Epic)
Ricky Martin, Life (Columbia) (labeled as XCP, but, oddly, our disc had no protection)
Several other Sony-BMG CDs are protected with a different copy-protection technology, sourced from SunnComm, including:
My Morning Jacket, Z
Santana, All That I Am
Sarah McLachlan, Bloom Remix Album
They also tell you how to figure out if another CD is infected.
(Now I need to call my sister. I'd bought Santana's album, but didn't care for it and gave it to her. I'm glad I didn't pop it into my Mac first ... but she has a PC. Ack!)
David Berlind on ZDNet notes that the bands whose CDs are being sold with the crippleware are not happy about it:
Z isn't the only band that's upset with the latest DRM developments. Last month, CNN.com reported how a member of the band Switchfoot whose DRM-protected CD debuted at No. 3 on The Billboard 200 was equally disappointed. Said Switchfoot guitarist Tim Foreman, "We were horrified when we first heard about the new copy-protection policy…. It is heartbreaking to see our blood, sweat and tears over the past two years blurred by the confusion and frustration surrounding new technology."
Even more demonstrative of the control points afforded to any market leading or dominating solution, the CNN story goes onto describe how Sony BMG is aware of the problems when it comes to transferring music from its DRM-protected CDs to iPods and is "urging people who buy copy-protected titles to write to Apple and demand that the company license its FairPlay DRM for use with secure CDs." Even though Apple's Fairplay may not have a monopoly yet, the company is behaving very monopolistically, an issue I discuss in another blog entry that I posted today.
Molly Wood's CNET column last week expressed outrage at Sony's behavior:
But this--using the tactics of criminals to invade our PCs without our knowledge and to expose us to further attack, just so you can keep us from, say, burning a mix CD and giving it to our friends--this is beyond the pale. And as many news sources are beginning to point out, there's some reason to think it might also be illegal, under the U.S. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
From the realm of unintended consequences, jasonn wonders if anti-virus companies could be prosecuted for removing the DRM software:
The logical question, regarding the Sony rootkit scandal and the upcoming removal tools from antivirus companies, is when will the DOJ prosecute antivirus companies for violating the DMCA? It's not a question of whether or not they violate the law when they supply removal tools for Sony's rootkit, aka Digital Rights Management software, which now exposes PCs to a virus threat. The question is whether or not the government will apply the law.
Isaac.Eiland-Hall is astounded by all this:
I mean really—I can’t imagine they thought they could get away with this.
I tell you what—if I had Sony stock, I’d be selling it like no tomorrow—because that’s what they might have.
Perhaps the simplest and clearest response comes from over By the Bayou:
Nice going. Do they just really hate their customers? As I said before: this is why I almost never buy CDs anymore.
At the very least, I think this is just another demonstration on why Cluetrain-clued-in businesses and open source approaches to technology have bright futures.
]]>Sony's now infamous decision to use system destabilizing DRM malware in order to "fight piracy" (despite it being shockingly easy to defeat) has earned Sony a lawsuit or three. A new class action suit has been filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, another is expected in New York this week, and there have been a handful of rumblings in other countries, as well.
In California, the class action suit alleges that Sony's DRM has caused harm to computers, and that the company failed to disclose precisely what the DRM technology would do to users' computers. According to sources, the suit alleges three distinct violations of California law, including violations of statutes relating to deceptive trade practices and obfuscated technological measures deemed to be anti-consumer. The suit seeks an injunction against the sale of the effected CDs as well as monetary damages for those who purchased the discs.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation also is considering legal action and is seeking information from affected customers.
What's more, now the "Stinx-E trojan" has appeared to exploit the Sony DRM software's code to open a back door to PCs.
And not only that, Mark Russinovich reports that the DRM software itself is harder to uninstall than many malicious viruses.
What's even more, Cory at BoingBoing links to Darren Dittrich's report that the Sony CDs also infect Macs:
I recently purchased Imogen Heap's new CD (Speak for Yourself), an RCA Victor release, but with distribution credited to Sony/BMG. Reading recent reports of a Sony rootkit, I decided to poke around. In addition to the standard volume for AIFF files, there's a smaller extra partition for "enhanced" content. I was surprised to find a "Start.app" Mac application in addition to the expected Windows-related files. Running this app brings up a long legal agreement, clicking Continue prompts you for your username/password (uh-oh!), and then promptly exits. Digging around a bit, I find that Start.app actually installs 2 files: PhoenixNub1.kext and PhoenixNub12.kext.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of anyone installing kernel extensions on my Mac. In Sony's defense, upon closer reading of the EULA, they essentially tell you that they will be installing software. Also, this is apparently not the same technology used in the recent Windows rootkits (made by XCP), but rather a DRM codebase developed by SunnComm, who promotes their Mac-aware DRM technology on their site.
EFF has a partial list of infected CDs:
Trey Anastasio, Shine (Columbia)
Celine Dion, On ne Change Pas (Epic)
Neil Diamond, 12 Songs (Columbia)
Our Lady Peace, Healthy in Paranoid Times (Columbia)
Chris Botti, To Love Again (Columbia)
Van Zant, Get Right with the Man (Columbia)
Switchfoot, Nothing is Sound (Columbia)
The Coral, The Invisible Invasion (Columbia)
Acceptance, Phantoms (Columbia)
Susie Suh, Susie Suh (Epic)
Amerie, Touch (Columbia)
Life of Agony, Broken Valley (Epic)
Horace Silver Quintet, Silver's Blue (Epic Legacy)
Gerry Mulligan, Jeru (Columbia Legacy)
Dexter Gordon, Manhattan Symphonie (Columbia Legacy)
The Bad Plus, Suspicious Activity (Columbia)
The Dead 60s, The Dead 60s (Epic)
Dion, The Essential Dion (Columbia Legacy)
Natasha Bedingfield, Unwritten (Epic)
Ricky Martin, Life (Columbia) (labeled as XCP, but, oddly, our disc had no protection)Several other Sony-BMG CDs are protected with a different copy-protection technology, sourced from SunnComm, including:
My Morning Jacket, Z
Santana, All That I Am
Sarah McLachlan, Bloom Remix Album
They also tell you how to figure out if another CD is infected.
(Now I need to call my sister. I'd bought Santana's album, but didn't care for it and gave it to her. I'm glad I didn't pop it into my Mac first ... but she has a PC. Ack!)
David Berlind on ZDNet notes that the bands whose CDs are being sold with the crippleware are not happy about it:
Z isn't the only band that's upset with the latest DRM developments. Last month, CNN.com reported how a member of the band Switchfoot whose DRM-protected CD debuted at No. 3 on The Billboard 200 was equally disappointed. Said Switchfoot guitarist Tim Foreman, "We were horrified when we first heard about the new copy-protection policy…. It is heartbreaking to see our blood, sweat and tears over the past two years blurred by the confusion and frustration surrounding new technology."
Even more demonstrative of the control points afforded to any market leading or dominating solution, the CNN story goes onto describe how Sony BMG is aware of the problems when it comes to transferring music from its DRM-protected CDs to iPods and is "urging people who buy copy-protected titles to write to Apple and demand that the company license its FairPlay DRM for use with secure CDs." Even though Apple's Fairplay may not have a monopoly yet, the company is behaving very monopolistically, an issue I discuss in another blog entry that I posted today.
Molly Wood's CNET column last week expressed outrage at Sony's behavior:
But this--using the tactics of criminals to invade our PCs without our knowledge and to expose us to further attack, just so you can keep us from, say, burning a mix CD and giving it to our friends--this is beyond the pale. And as many news sources are beginning to point out, there's some reason to think it might also be illegal, under the U.S. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
From the realm of unintended consequences, jasonn wonders if anti-virus companies could be prosecuted for removing the DRM software:
The logical question, regarding the Sony rootkit scandal and the upcoming removal tools from antivirus companies, is when will the DOJ prosecute antivirus companies for violating the DMCA? It's not a question of whether or not they violate the law when they supply removal tools for Sony's rootkit, aka Digital Rights Management software, which now exposes PCs to a virus threat. The question is whether or not the government will apply the law.
Isaac.Eiland-Hall is astounded by all this:
I mean really—I can’t imagine they thought they could get away with this.
I tell you what—if I had Sony stock, I’d be selling it like no tomorrow—because that’s what they might have.
Perhaps the simplest and clearest response comes from over By the Bayou:
Nice going. Do they just really hate their customers? As I said before: this is why I almost never buy CDs anymore.
At the very least, I think this is just another demonstration on why Cluetrain-clued-in businesses and open source approaches to technology have bright futures.
]]>The story goes like this. Starting in June 2004, Sony BMG records began copy-protecting its pop-music CD's. Over the months, the company has used several software schemes for preventing you, the customer, from making illegal copies of its discs. But 20 albums are protected by a scheme devised by a company called First 4 Internet-and it's caused an incredible online furor.
These CD's, all bearing "Content Protected" labels on the packaging (meaning "copy protected"), do something very sneaky if you try to play them on a Windows PC: they install a proprietary watchdog program that prevents you from copying the CD more than twice. (On a Macintosh or Linux machine, these CD's play just fine, without any copy protection.)Last week, a programmer and blogger named Mark Russinovich dug a little deeper, and found out something disturbing: the Sony watchdog program not only installs itself deep in the core of Windows-it's what's called a rootkit-but it also makes itself invisible.
Now while, as a copyright holder, I can appreciate Sony BMG's anxiety over illegal copying of music to which they own the copyright, but to install stealth software on people's computers? As Pogue says, that is "creepy."
It also speaks to the attitude that seems to predominate megacorporations today: the customer is a problem to be managed.
Why Sony BMG thought it would be a good idea to pre-emptively treat people like criminals, I have no idea. It sounds like the lawyers are running the show there.
And why they thought they could get away with trespassing on people's computers, installing secret malware that actually disables computer function ... well, that just boggles my mind.
The contempt of it!
And what ices it is Sony's refusal to apologize for this invasive, offensive and contemptuous behavior towards the customer.
I was also surprised at how dismissive Sony BMG and First 4 Internet seem to be. "It's a tempest in a teapot," Mr. Gilliat-Smith says. "It's benign content protection. It's not malware, it's not spyware-it's innocent.
["]Consumers, for eight months, have been using these discs with positive feedback. When the issue arose, we addressed it very quickly."
I wondered if he could even understand why consumers might feel a bit violated. I pointed out that the usual damage-control plan for public-relations disasters (see also Tylenol; Perrier; Pentium bug) is not to haughtily dismiss customer fears, but to apologize profusely.
But the closest thing Mr. Gilliat-Smith would say is, "We understand what the concern was, but there was no intent. We reacted as quickly as we could, took responsive issues. And now, hopefully, we move on."
Translation: Hey, I stopped hitting you! Whaddayagonnadoabowdit?
]]>The story goes like this. Starting in June 2004, Sony BMG records began copy-protecting its pop-music CD's. Over the months, the company has used several software schemes for preventing you, the customer, from making illegal copies of its discs. But 20 albums are protected by a scheme devised by a company called First 4 Internet-and it's caused an incredible online furor.
These CD's, all bearing "Content Protected" labels on the packaging (meaning "copy protected"), do something very sneaky if you try to play them on a Windows PC: they install a proprietary watchdog program that prevents you from copying the CD more than twice. (On a Macintosh or Linux machine, these CD's play just fine, without any copy protection.)Last week, a programmer and blogger named Mark Russinovich dug a little deeper, and found out something disturbing: the Sony watchdog program not only installs itself deep in the core of Windows-it's what's called a rootkit-but it also makes itself invisible.
Now while, as a copyright holder, I can appreciate Sony BMG's anxiety over illegal copying of music to which they own the copyright, but to install stealth software on people's computers? As Pogue says, that is "creepy."
It also speaks to the attitude that seems to predominate megacorporations today: the customer is a problem to be managed.
Why Sony BMG thought it would be a good idea to pre-emptively treat people like criminals, I have no idea. It sounds like the lawyers are running the show there.
And why they thought they could get away with trespassing on people's computers, installing secret malware that actually disables computer function ... well, that just boggles my mind.
The contempt of it!
And what ices it is Sony's refusal to apologize for this invasive, offensive and contemptuous behavior towards the customer.
I was also surprised at how dismissive Sony BMG and First 4 Internet seem to be. "It's a tempest in a teapot," Mr. Gilliat-Smith says. "It's benign content protection. It's not malware, it's not spyware-it's innocent.
["]Consumers, for eight months, have been using these discs with positive feedback. When the issue arose, we addressed it very quickly."
I wondered if he could even understand why consumers might feel a bit violated. I pointed out that the usual damage-control plan for public-relations disasters (see also Tylenol; Perrier; Pentium bug) is not to haughtily dismiss customer fears, but to apologize profusely.
But the closest thing Mr. Gilliat-Smith would say is, "We understand what the concern was, but there was no intent. We reacted as quickly as we could, took responsive issues. And now, hopefully, we move on."
Translation: Hey, I stopped hitting you! Whaddayagonnadoabowdit?
]]>