Sony is Sued
In my earlier post on the Sony DRM controversy, I left it to others “to determine whether the use of a resource-hogging, difficult-to-remove rootkit like this one is illegal or merely distasteful.”
Today, several lawsuits were filed by parties who think the Sony DRM software is illegal as well as distasteful.
EFF filed a class action suit. The press release is here, and the complaint is here. EFF is co-counsel with well-known class action firms Green Welling and Lerach Coughlin. The EFF complaint, filed in California state court in Los Angeles, alleges unfair and deceptive trade practices (Cal. Civ. Code section 1770), unfair competition through violation of, among others, the Consumer Protection Against Computer Spyware Act and the Online Privacy Protection Act, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and false or misleading statements.
The Texas Attorney General filed suit under the Texas anti-spyware laws. The press release is here (including impressively slick print-quality photos and broadcast-quality video), and the complaint is here.
4 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
RSS Feed
I’m simply giddy in anticipation for this. A question, is this whole fiasco likely to retard the DRM movement, or provide impetus for ‘beefed up, new and improved’ methods of copy protection?
Comment by Pooh — 21 November 2005 @ 22:57
I think it will slow the adoption of DRM in CDs, which had been going pretty fast up to this point. The anti-spyware claims are flashy, but the real damage to DRM will be if certai key provisions of the EULAs are found unenforceable (which could make some DRM an illegal computer trespass under state or federal law).
Comment by Joe Gratz — 22 November 2005 @ 16:55
Having not read the legal documents that closely, are the plaintiffs claiming that the portions of the EULA are unenforceable, or that the rootkit exceeded the scope of the EULA.? The former is probably a ‘better’ outcome for consumers, but I’m guessing that a court would be much happer to find liability based on the latter.
Comment by Pooh — 22 November 2005 @ 20:59
Both. For the allegations of unconscionability, see paragraphs 102-104 of the EFF complaint. For allegations of exceeding authorized computer access, see paragraphs 105-119 of the EFF complaint.
The Texas complaint doesn’t touch the EULA, alleging only that the software hides itself and keeps consumers from uninstalling it (which is against the law in Texas).
Comment by Joe Gratz — 22 November 2005 @ 21:25