I read through the article written by Mark Russinovich who was one of those who brought this to light and I understood that Sony only recently changed the EULA. Originally there was no mention of anything being written to your OS. So there are probably many people out there who unknowingly have this on their PC.
Jeez, getting caught red-handed and being forced to change now counts as being pro-active?
I also love the Sony guy’s use of the term “unnecessary concerns.”
What he’s really saying is, “This is nothing to get your panties in a wad about, but we’ll give you a ptach to stop you whining.”
Fuck him and his fucking company. As others have suggested, the vast majority of copyright and DRM protection on modern media does very little except make life more difficult for the people who actually pay money for the product.
File system check, used for examination and repair of file systems, on *nix operating systems. Running fsck is ‘fscking’.
So you know, this is SOP for Sony. They have a tendancy to do the illegal until caught, then back-pedal and say, “Oh, your concerns are unjustified, but here’s a fix, and… Oh! Look!” They then point out the windown and run from the room while the lawyers are distracted.
Case in point- It is (or at least, was 5 years ago) illegal to own a film company, distributer, and movie theaters. It’s considered something of a ‘vertical monopoly’. Guess who owns all three? Unfortunately, it’s one of those things that isn’t seen as hurting anyone, and no one really stands to gain by standing up to the giant on this. When there was murmuring about doing so, Sony began to change the names of the theaters they owned, to make it a little less obvious.
(Disclaimer: please don’t ask for a cite- I was in film school when we were discussing this and reading actual paper newspapers.)
And of course is often substituted as a swear 'cause it looks like one when you type it.
I’m with sleestak. I admit to using filesharing programs in the past, but if I found any songs that I liked, I bought the CD!!! (got at least 1/2 my collection that way). Now if I buy the CD it’ll hack my PC if I put it in the drive? Forget that, no way!
As far as I understand the situation in the UK, the EULA has never been tested in a court of law. When buying a product you have certain statutory rights, and you cannot give these rights away even by agreeing to a EULA. Some of the EuLA’s try to circumvent your rights one way or another. Whether this is actually legal or not has never actually been proved.
I belierve the same thing applies in the US - it’s simply never been tested.
I belierve the same thing applies in the U.S. It’s simply never been tested.
Errr… it has indeed been tested in the US. ProCD, Inc. v. Ziedenberg. 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir., 1996). EULA was found to be legal, but there are still ways of deeming an EULA void, whether due to overly restrictive terms, or perhaps even a minor being unable to consent to the EULA.
I couldn’t find any such case in the in the UK, however, “contracts of adhesion” are most certainly legal, and the EULA is a type of contract of adhesion. Regardless of the status of the EULA, it cannot take away the rights in the Sale of Goods Act and other statutory consumer protection.
However, there is nothing in the Sale of Goods Act that prevents you from contracting to have your computer modified, which is exactly what the Sony Malware does. If the EULA was indeed proven legal, you would have no recourse to rely on your “right not to have my computer fuxx0red”, because there is no such right.
If I contract to have you bash my computer into sub-atomic particles, I am most certainly free to do so. This is vaguely akin to what Sony is having you agree to.
However, again, there is another issue, that if a term in a contract is especially onerous, that it has to be specially brought to attention, for example, having a “red hand” pointing to the term. Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1WLR 461 per Lord Denning (Mwhahaha). It is at least arguable that this term is particularly onerous, and that putting the consent into the EULA, regardless of the validity of EULAs, is not conspicuous enough, and therefore that term should be void.
If a minor, or someone without the ability to consent, opens the box etc, then everything I just said goes straight out the window.
WHEW!
I found an update on Slashdot that is kinda funny.
Blizzard’s Warden Thwarted by Sony’s DRM
Basically you can use the rootkit Sony installed to get around the security spyware(rootkit?) that Blizzard installed to stop cheats for World of Warcraft.
Not funny in the ‘Ha Ha’ way, funny in the ironic way.
What is distrubing about this is that others are already using Sonys little rootkit in ways that I am sure Sony never expected.
Slee
I’m not familiar with the terms of the EULA, but given that the purpose of the DRM is to prevent copying and so on, if it arses your PC up totally or exposes you to hacking, could you not have a claim on the lines that the product was not fit for the purpose it was sold to fulfil? This would be along the lines of you buying a cup of coffee with “warning! scalding hot liquid, consume at your own risk” written on it and then finding that it was not just scalding but contaminated with Paraquat.
Wow! That is a weird “coincidence”, since Sony owns Everquest and Everquest 2. They lost a LOT of customers to WoW. It wouldn’t surprise me if it also caused WoW to malfunction in other ways, and crash.
Ya, that’s it! Let’s SUE the bastards!
Maybe if Sony weren’t one of the largest companies in the world, didn’t have one of the largest stables of attornies on-hand, and had a proven record of continually violating minor laws and rights of citizens, it would be a good idea. But they aren’t all of the above, so it will do no good.
Additionally, if people would read their fucking EULAs, this might not happen so often.
Sam
Just about every EULA in existence has a clause about any harm coming to your computer or the data contained within due to the install of the specific software essentially not being their fault. Most times, the EULA is just a backstop for them inc ase they really want to distance themselves from the effects of their software.
What we need is a good anti-EULA case, since to date we’ve had almost none.
Sam
You put words in my mouth there. I didn’t say the citizens should sue, I said Sony should be prosecuted. There is a difference. I would like to see them pay legal penalties and get the laws tightened up so such things cannot happen again. That would be very nice, don’t you think? I know it’s not likely to happen, but I can still dream, can’t I?
Bolding mine.
I agree, and in essence that is what I have suggested. 
Unforutnately, Z_C, most of us need the software we are purchasing. In many cases, there aren’t any safe or less violating alternatives that won’t pull the same stunts in contract language. As a result, people are unlikely to take a stand and argue against the EULA.
I agree with your sentiments, however I think prosecuting by the state and suing by citizens would be as fruitless as Microsoft’s prosecution and in this case even less likely to come out of it with a win of any sort. Sony was very quick to placate users with their patch, and most will say “Yay Sony! you’re goo people!” and install the crap anyways.
Sam
I’m not sure that EULA applies to removing the software, that a. they didn’t tell you they were installing, b. they hid and c. uninstalling it renders your machine non-funtional.
I don’t see how SONY gets to hide behind is EULA, when they hid what they were doing.
That’s what I was thinking when I was hoping there was a way to prosecute them for this.