RoR: Forum

This story seems to conflate the security aspects of Sony's DRM with a retrenchment of it's position on copying.

Sony was silly to use activex as it's infamous as a backdoor for security violations, particularly in Explorer; that's why Firefox doesn't support activex.

But this doesn't have much to do with copy protection per se, does it? I can't see why Sony doesn't have the right to implement mechanisms to prevent duplication of it's products.

Ross

Post 1

Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 4:55pm

Ross,

The issue was NOT ActiveX. There were two real issues:

1. Sony CDs installed a rootkit that hid files and directory entries starting with $sys$ from system calls used by security software. This gave invisibility to any attacker who gave malicious files and registry entries names that exploit this vulnerability. It was like selling jewlery that was valuable enough to keep in a safe - and adding, to the package, an explosive charge that silently and invisibly blew the safe open to any interested criminal.

2. The software that Sony used to compromise the security of their customers' computers had been originally crafted by and for computer criminals, who violated the copyrights of the original author of at least one software component that Sony used. So Sony, in the name of protecting itself against the possibility of violations of its copyrights, deliberately used criminal-crafted software tools that themselves violated the copyrights of software authors.

Can you say "sociopathic?"

Post 2

Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 6:40pm

Adam, re ActiveX, I was referring to the *uninstaller* that the article mentions, not the original protection code.

And, I didn't say Sony hadn't made mistakes in it's actions, I was suggesting that this seems like a good excuse to bash Sony for attempting to protect it's copyright in the first place.

This is the attitude I'm talking about.

"The company [Sony] no doubt believes in content protection technology. The trouble is few of its customers do."

Well, that does it then. Sony's out-voted. Copy away.

Ross

Post 3

Friday, November 18, 2005 - 9:51am

Ross,

You can do better than appeal to subjectivism, as in "Sony's outvoted" etc. The problem with the people who run Sony - and many other companies that are being defended, not on principle but by reflex, by people who think that they are defending Capitalism - is these "Capitalists" never understood the principles of Capitalism and trade, and are given to "defending" their intellectual property rights with methods and tools that violate the very rights that they are attempting to "defend." Hiring a gang of unreformed computer criminals to "design" your Digital Rights Management software is a step that, in reality, can only lead to loss of whatever respect rational men still had for your company. And yes, it is likely to accelerate the ongoing loss of political recognition of intellectual property rights. If some authors try to protect their copyrights by violating the copyrights of other authors, and conduct transactions that defraud customers by hiding the transactions' consequences, then where are the principles that the defenders of Capitalism are trying to defend?

Post 4

Friday, November 18, 2005 - 11:37am

Adam,

Exactly! What a terrific example of needing to see the facts rather than simply toss off Objectivist pabulum.

Jim

Post 5

Friday, November 18, 2005 - 12:38pm

Adam,

I not only agree that if you hire a criminal to do an honest man's job, there will be monkey-business, I want to add another point on understanding capitalism.

The whole thrust of protection against copies discards the realities of new technologies. Capitalism thrives on new technologies, so not taking this into account is an attempt to impose constraints on the free market.

It is one thing to protect against copies when there is only sophisticated equipment that can do the job, or at least equipment that is not generally available. The only people copying would be rip-off artists. However, once you give EVERYBODY the capability of copying content, then a new concept needs to be designed to remunerate the content owners. (The Internet is a prime example of the current problem, but computer copies of CD's and DVD's, including MP3 encoding, are almost as big.)

New rights concepts have been adopted constantly in the field of intellectual property over the years. In music, for instance, lump sum payments were increased by royalties on sheet music, which were increased by mechanical rights for record sales, which were increased by performing rights for broadcast and live presentations, which were increased by inclusion rights for themes (characters and shows) in TV shows and motion pictures, and so on.

All intellectual property rights in all areas have the same kind of story.

At each stage of development, there was strong resistance by people who tried to impose the older standard of intellectual property rights on the new technology. What in reality has happened is that with the new definitions, the content owners have become much better remunerated and vastly richer than they were before. This would make a good study sometime. I would guess that the ones who resisted the most were the companies who ended up benefiting the most from the new concepts.

Look at Sony now. What Sony tried to do was restrict the use of copying technology now easily available to everyone and hire bandits to help them do it.

That was a piss poor call from all angles. Sony should be studying new concepts in rights and how to make more money legally. Not how to spy and invade.

Michael

Post 6

Friday, November 18, 2005 - 1:06pm

Adam, I am not defending Sony for any misdeeds. I am defending it's right to protect it's copyright by all *moral* means. If it has taken steps contrary to that then you won't find me defending them.

But my posts above make that quite clear to anyone who reads them.

And I'm constantly amazed that the so-called defenders of capitalism & private property rights seem to so easily forget the most basic principles simply because the ease with which the law can be circumvented, ie. the copying of digital media, seems to suggest to them that they are not really breaking the law at all.

Ross

Post 7

Friday, November 18, 2005 - 2:06pm

Ross,

You just wrote this:

And I'm constantly amazed that the so-called defenders of capitalism & private property rights seem to so easily forget the most basic principles simply because the ease with which the law can be circumvented, ie. the copying of digital media, seems to suggest to them that they are not really breaking the law at all.

Could you please get over your amazement long enough to state which law and which country you are talking about?

Michael

Post 8

Friday, November 18, 2005 - 1:30pm

Part of the problem with this software is that the computer user is not notified of what the software does and is not given the ability to easily uninstall it (which would make the CD unplayable). I don't have a link for this but if you search Google or Yahoo! News for "Sony DRM" you're sure to find something.

Another issue is that First 4 Internet itself violated several copyrights in its own software, which Sony then distributed in an effort to protect their own copyrights.

Post 9

Friday, November 18, 2005 - 3:14pm

Sure, John, you're absolutely correct. The fact that Sony is scrambling to replace the offending discs is proof that even they know this was a mistake. My angle is and will always be that the owner of a work has the right to protect misuse of it's copyright (same with patents), be they a first time author or the much vilified mega-corporation.

Ross

Post 10

Friday, November 18, 2005 - 4:09pm