YOU can help nail Sony BMG
p2pnet special: Are you tired of the way Big Music cartel members get away clean with one scummy trick after another, with Sony BMG currently leading the pack?
Here’s a thought >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you don`t stand up for yourself who will?
By Bill Evans – p2pnet
As I pondered the Sony/BMG DRM fiasco the past few weeks, one thought kept running through my mind:
If you or I did this, we’d have the FBI be knocking on our door.
While there’s encouraging news from Texas with the Texas attorney general suing Sony/BMG , the EFF suing Sony BMG and NY Attorney General Spitzer investigating because Sony BMG had NOT pulled the CDs in question as it had promised, very little else has been done.
It’s up to the purchasers of these discs to complain.
I checked out the complaint process for the state I live in (Virginia) but it was really quite cumbersome and the complaint was really more product-focused – scams and such.
However, I have some good news. And it doesn`t involve car insurance.
There’s a website co-sponsored by the FBI and the National White Collar Crime Center. It’s called the Internet Fraud Complaint Center and I’d like to encourage anyone who bought a Sony BMG spyware CD, thinking it was safe to play, to file a complaint here.
They’ll want detailed information, so be as accurate as possible. It takes about 12-15 minutes (so I`ve been told).
The very fact Sony recalled the CDs is a de facto admission of guilt. But just because it recalled them doesn`t make the company which is, you’ll recall, a founding owner of both the RIAA and MPAA, any less responsible for the potential damage, or for the intentional deployment of the software in question.
The center doesn’t guarantee there’ll be charges, or even an investigation, but if enough people complain, there’s a good chance it could happen.
If you don`t stand up for yourself who will?
Included below for your information is the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. (Some background information on the CFAA can be found here.)
Disclaimer: I Am Not a Lawyer.
[Evans founded and ran Boycott-RIAA.com. He's now senior p2pnet editor.]
==================================
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (as amended Oct. 3, 1996)
Section 1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers
(a) Whoever–
(1) having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access, and by means of such conduct having obtained information that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant to an Executive order or statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign relations, or any restricted data, as defined in paragraph y of section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, with reason to believe that such information so obtained could be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits, or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;
(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains–
(A) information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in section 1602(n) of title 15, or contained in a file of a consumer reporting agency on a consumer, as such terms are defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.);
(B) information from any department or agency of the United States; or
(C) information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication;
(3) intentionally, without authorization to access any nonpublic computer of a department or agency of the United States, accesses such a computer of that department or agency that is exclusively for the use of the Government of the United States or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, is used by or for the Government of the United States and such conduct affects that use by or for the Government of the United States;
(4) knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period;
(5)
(A) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;
(B) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage; or
(C) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage;
(6) knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization, if–
(A) such trafficking affects interstate or foreign commerce; or
(B) such computer is used by or for the Government of the United States;
(7) with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, educational institution, financial institution, government entity, or other legal entity, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to cause damage to a protected computer;
shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.
(b) Whoever attempts to commit an offense under subsection (a) of this section shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.
(c) The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) or (b) of this section is–
(1)
(A) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(1) of this section which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; and
(B) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(1) of this section which occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; and
(2)
(A) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(5)(C), or (a)(6) of this section which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; and
(B) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(2), if–
(i) the offense was committed for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
(ii) the offense was committed in furtherance of any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State; or
(iii) the value of the information obtained exceeds $5,000;
(C) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(2), (a)(3) or (a)(6) of this section which occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; and
(3)
(A) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(4), (a)(5)(A), (a)(5)(B), or (a)(7) of this section which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; and
(B) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(4), (a)(5)(A), (a)(5)(B), (a)(5)(C), or (a)(7)of this section which occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; and
[former paragraph (4) stricken effective Oct. 11, 1996].
(d) The United States Secret Service shall, in addition to any other agency having such authority, have the authority to investigate offenses under subsections (a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B), (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5), and (a)(6) of this section. Such authority of the United States Secret Service shall be exercised in accordance with an agreement which shall be entered into by the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General.
(e) As used in this section–
(1) the term “computer” means an electronic, magnetic, optical, electrochemical, or other high speed data processing device performing logical, arithmetic, or storage functions, and includes any data storage facility or communications facility directly related to or operating in conjunction with such device, but such term does not include an automated typewriter or typesetter, a portable hand held calculator, or other similar device;
(2) the term “protected computer” means a computer–
(A) exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United States Government, or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, used by or for a financial institution or the United States Government and the conduct constituting the offense affects that use by or for the financial institution or the Government; or
(B) which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication;
(3) the term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any other commonwealth, possession or territory of the United States;
(4) the term “financial institution” means–
(A) an institution with deposits insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation;
(B) the Federal Reserve or a member of the Federal Reserve including any Federal Reserve Bank;
(C) a credit union with accounts insured by the National Credit Union Administration;
(D) a member of the Federal home loan bank system and any home loan bank;
(E) any institution of the Farm Credit System under the Farm Credit Act of 1971;
(F) a broker-dealer registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to section 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
(G) the Securities Investor Protection Corporation;
(H) a branch or agency of a foreign bank (as such terms are defined in paragraphs (1) and (3) of section 1(b) of the International Banking Act of 1978); and
(I) an organization operating under section 25 or section 25(a) of the Federal Reserve Act. (5) the term “financial record” means information derived from any record held by a financial institution pertaining to a customer’s relationship with the financial institution;
(6) the term “exceeds authorized access” means to access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain or alter;
(7) the term “department of the United States” means the legislative or judicial branch of the Government or one of the executive departments enumerated in section 101 of title 5; and
(8) the term “damage” means any impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or information, that–
(A) causes loss aggregating at least $5,000 in value during any 1-year period to one or more individuals;
(B) modifies or impairs, or potentially modifies or impairs, the medical examination, diagnosis, treatment, or care of one or more individuals;
(C) causes physical injury to any person; or
(D) threatens public health or safety; and
(9) the term “government entity” includes the Government of the United States, any State or political subdivision of the United States, any foreign country, and any state, province, municipality, or other political subdivision of a foreign country.
(f) This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or of an intelligence agency of the United States.
(g) Any person who suffers damage or loss by reason of a violation of the section, may maintain a civil action against the violator to obtain compensatory damages and injunctive relief or other equitable relief. Damages for violations involving damage as defined in subsection (e)(8)(A) are limited to economic damages. No action may be brought under this subsection unless such action is begun within 2 years of the date of the act complained of or the date of the discovery of the damage.
(h) The Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury shall report to the Congress annually, during the first 3 years following the date of the enactment of this subsection, concerning investigations and prosecutions under section 1030(a)(5) of title 18, United States Code.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Tired of being treated like a criminal? They depend on you, not the other way around. Don’t buy their ‘product’. Do bug your local political representatives. Use emails, snail-mail, phone calls, faxes, IM, stop them in the street, blog. And if you’re into organizing, organize petitions, organize demonstrations and then turn up on your local political rep’s doorstep, making sure you’ve contacted your local tv/radio station/newspaper in advance.





December 2nd, 2005 at 6:12 pm
Has it occured to anyone that the Sony/BMG (and their pet the RIAA) might have been using the information gathered (personal information and ip address’s) to furthere their lawsuits? Who needs ISP to identify people if they have personal information and can link it to ip address’s via their spyware/virus/rootkit!
December 2nd, 2005 at 7:18 pm
This is the sign on form for the Texas suite
On line complaint form for the State of Texas lawsuite
https://www.oag.state.tx.us/consumer/complain .shtml
December 2nd, 2005 at 7:30 pm
yes but that wouldn’t be admissible in court
December 2nd, 2005 at 7:31 pm
why not?
December 2nd, 2005 at 7:37 pm
Because even in lawsuits brought by private individuals/companies, there are rules of evidentiary procedures.
Imagine this exchange in such a court proceeding:
DEFENSE ATTORNEY: So, how did you get this information?
SONY: Well, we installed software on the computer in question which gathered the information.
DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Did the defendant know about this?
SONY: Well, we have a EULA.
DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Did the EULA specifically allow the installation of this software?
SONY: Well, no, not really.
DEFENSE ATTORNEY: So, in essence, you installed spyware on this computer?
SONY: (after much arguing), well, yes.
DEFENSE ATTORNEY: So, if we can’t trust you to obey the law and respect the rights of consumers to their own property, how can we trust you to bring legitmate evidence into this court room? How do we know that you didn’t just make this up?
SONY: Ummm…
December 2nd, 2005 at 8:02 pm
yeah but Sony would claim the EULA did in fact allow for this install
December 2nd, 2005 at 8:58 pm
So far with the requirements to prove anything beyond the accusation, the RIAA has had great success in both the media and initital stages of tthe courts. Under a shroud of what appears legal approval I would be suprised at what they might be able to get away with. If they can couple three things together, IP, rootkit info, and an IP that shows up as an infringer in the same general area I would believe they would go for that. (Certainly if the rootkit info was from a rural area where chances would be much greater of success) They haven’t exactly held to proof as a criminal standard as evidence. Yes. I understand it’s civil and doesn’t require criminal standards, but how’s its gone so far is in itself criminal as for the results of these lackadaisy suits.
December 3rd, 2005 at 5:09 am
And they would, in fact, be lying, as:
1) The EULA did not allow for the installation of programs that hid themselves and had no easy removal process and
2) Even if people refused the EULA, the program was installed, anyway.
Which is, of course, the reason why Sony could be in a lot of trouble. What they did was illegal.
December 4th, 2005 at 3:04 am
No information that is stored digitally can be verified as being absolutely positively guaranteed 100% no questions asked, correct or accurate. Digital info is simply too easy to manipulate. I don’t care if the system in question is using some kind of journaling system, if it’s got an independant backup system duplicating every transaction etc etc etc.
It’s possible to delete, create and edit ANY information stored digitally in such a way that you can’t tell it’s not legit. The entire business world relies totally on systems that they cannot verify the accuracy of. Do you really think the software that your bank uses to keep track of their…sorry “your” money, does NOT come with an EULA that states something like:
“We don’t guarantee this software will do one damn thing, and if it does something wrong, even if we KNOW it’s gonna do it wrong, tough luck.”
Kinda scary isn’t it?
December 4th, 2005 at 2:42 pm
Not content with simply knowingly infecting its customers’ computers with security-hole inducing spyware, Sony is now sponsoring a “guerrilla” graffiti ad campaign to promote the PSP, covering inner city neighborhoods with images of kids playing with its overpriced, crippled handheld.
http://www.secondaryscreening.net/static/archives/2005/11/index.html
December 4th, 2005 at 6:53 pm
I for one would like to help sink my teeth into Sony BMG. And considering that the CDs are still on the shelf it would still be fair to buy them. (Just don’t use them in a computer!) For other New Yorkers like myself that would only add fuel to Spitzer’s fire…
December 4th, 2005 at 11:18 pm
Investigators looking into the corruption charges found evidence against two Sony BMG senior executives, sources say.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-fi-sony4dec04,0,2183725.story?coll=la-home-headlines
December 5th, 2005 at 1:29 pm
True, but most banks that I know of have their own programmers and write their own applications. Who cares what the EULA says if you own the rights to the program.