Sony and DRM software

[BlueShift]

Well, just for those who are buying new Sony movies/music/applications on cds/dvds, you might want to read this before you do.

http://www.sysinternals.com/blog/200...ecloaking.html

I have no problems with DRM (Digital Rights Management) as long as the distributor makes it clear that they are bundling something that can't be uninstalled and that calls home, and makes it optional to install or return the product.


/BlueShift

[Dschaga]

Re: Sony and DRM software

I have no problems with DRM (Digital Rights Management) as long as the distributor makes it clear that they are bundling something that can't be uninstalled and that calls home, and makes it optional to install or return the product.

You don't have problems as long as you know it?

[Da_elf]

yeah well in my oppinion if they are not advertising it as much as they should be then i would suggest one of those KMA situations to them. kiss my ....

[jujubee]

No program should be bundling software beyond clear and explicit knowledge prior to purchase. This is a clear case of self-serving bandwidth theft. Spyware should be a punishable offense.

[Da_elf]

i would reserve the last laugh though seeing as how my work systems are not connected to the internet hehe

[BlueShift]

Dschaga:
I don't mind if they make it clear because that means I can choose to boycott their products.

Its a dirty underhanded tactic that, as jujubee said, should be punishable by law - severely. As I understand their is a class action lawsuit underway in the US against Sony - I hope consumers win a crap load of money.

The whole software and digital rights protection situation is murky, there are no lines drawn between what's right and what's not. People like Microsoft want to implement stuff like Palladium (google TCPA and Palladium). Personally when I pay close to 4'000USD for a machine; I want complete control over my investment - not some money hungry monster company that can choose to spy on my personal data.

There is so much harm that will come of this, I mean just imagine an exploit of the Palladium system. I remember there was a security flaw in Win XP (before SP1) that would reboot your system as soon as you went online because of a flaw in "Microsoft Remote Assistant". It was hell for me to download a patch for it from MS. It was about 3mb - I was on dialup so by the time it was 80% done downloading my machine would reboot.

Its just wrong, I understand the dev side of the argument - but I also understand the consumer side too. Devs should step back and understand that they are consumers of other products that may use this technology, how will they feel to be on the receiving end of things?


/BlueShift

[cpnichols]

Well you see for software it doesn't really work that way... legally speaking. You don't buy software, you lease it. Big difference. Lets take Vray for example. Legally, if you buy it, you would own the code and everything else. You lease it, meaning that Chaos still owns it and leases you a license to use it. Bill Gates came up with that one way back when, after he bought MS DOS from some dude who made no money beyond the first sale, then he made a deal with IBM that he would lease it to users via End-User Licenses. If you think about it, it is really wierd, but it made him a bazillionair. The best line of that agreement is when IBM (one of the most powerful companies in the world back then) said: "Lease? whatever... people don't care about software, it is the hardware that matters."

When you buy music, it is storta the same deal. You don't own it, you own the right to play it and listen to it on your own or in private fuctions. You are not allowed to rip it, change it, etc... Of course everyone does. Technically speaking, the whole ipod thing could be found illegal.... but people buy the music "virtually" now, so that makes it "ok."

Now in terms of the whole way that companies try to "protect' their products... well that is a different story.

[jujubee]

I can understand people/companies from wanting to protect their product from theft - it is their livelihood after all. But secretly sending information is abuse and is another form of wiretapping that the government should require on an individual basis under specific circumstances. Currently, the laws in the US are not up-to-date as they should be.

Where do you draw the line between making it obvious that you are being monitored and doing it without someone's knowledge? For example, how would you like it if I started bugging my Jpegs for keylogging? I know how to do it and you wouldn't ever detect it. I own the copyright (check www.uspto.gov for copyright law.) Since you can view the jpegs online, does this give me the right to spy on you without your knowledge? Lease or not lease, I think you should be made aware of what someone intends to do to your system.

[cpnichols]

Oh I agree with you... I'm just saying that you need to take into consideration the concept of ownership and owners rights and users rights. Most people seem to forget that when dealing with with copy protection. Spyware is wrong too... but its legality is not a clear as lets say stealing. It is a pain that joe "honest" shmoe has to suffer because of jack "hacker" brat.

[jujubee]

Hey, I just found out and I'm excited Sony is launching its free telephone service! Do you suppose it come with free eavesdropping/wiretapping as a calling feature?:

http://news.com.com/Sony+launches+fr...l?tag=nefd.top