Talk:Sony faces class action lawsuits for DRM

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Few NPOV issues with this:


after the user agrees to a lengthy and convoluted end user liscence

One Trojan (a virus that exploits such vulnerabilites and grants full access to the infected computer) has already been discovered.
Not the technical definition of a trojan, nor is even correct - trojan was masked with a filename that hides it from "infected" computers, doesn't come with CD.

In addition to questions of legality, the DRM software has come underfire from media rights activists
Expand more.

Just a few issues that need to be cleared up, along with copyedits. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 12:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

  • The comment about a trojan was correct; a trojan has been discovered in the wild (will add this language) which uses the rootkit (on the CD) to open backdoors and maliciously spread themselves. See this article at the BBC. I'm adding the link now. As for the EULA, it is long, it is convoluted. Most are. No POV there. - McCart42 (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, still POV there. It may seem to be lengthly, but most EULA's are - so therefore, no need to include it in this article without explaining that tidbit. And no, the terminology is incorrect - the trojan horse simply adds the string in front of the file to hide it, utilizing the rootkit's abilities - the wording above implies the trojan is installed upon CD insert, in which it is not. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 23:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The wording above was "One trojan (a virus that exploits such vulnerabilites and grants full access to the infected computer) has already been discovered in the wild." The trojan was not discovered on the CD, it was discovered in the wild, exploiting such vulnerabilities as those granted by the rootkit Sony installs. The trojan does not just prefix $sys$ to its filename; if it did, it wouldn't be much of a trojan, as it wouldn't spread. It does this, which completely obscures it from any antivirus program, making it undetectable (until the rootkit is dealt with), and then it acts like any other trojan, attempting to replicate itself to other computers. As for EULA's, it is still important to emphasize that it is lengthy, because most people have never read a complete EULA, and in this case, the EULA is a major aspect of the lawsuit. The fact that Sony attempted to force users to sign away their rights via a lengthy legal document, unlikely to be read, is part of the story; or rather, it should be. It is part of the CA suit, which is discussed in more detail at the Washington Post article. There are three CA statutes at issue: the "Consumer Legal Remedies Act," "Consumer Protection against Computer Spyware Act," and the "California Unfair Competition" law. - McCart42 (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

It looks ready for publication to me now. Any objections?--Eloquence 23:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm a bit confuesed by the use of "trojan". Trojan traditionally refers to any software which uses deception to get a user to install it, but traditionally connotated non replication. The "third party software" trojan is also a virus right? Shouldn't we be calling it an email virus, as it does replicate?

Also, If I give you a pprogram which clearly asks "May I format your harddrive?" before doing so, I am not guilty of ging you a trojan horse. OTOH, if I give you a program which has a long hard to read EULA, which includes a passage saying "By installing this software you agree to allow it to format your harddrive" and it does so, then I have given you a trojan horse. A priori, Sony's DRM software itself is not trojan, as it likely admits to being DRM software. However, the First 4 Internet rootkit part makes the whole package into a trojan, as the program does not clearly admit to being hard to uninstall. So we should call Sony's whole program a trojan really.