I just want to understanto how come Sony only got 750K fine for doing such crime !!!

$750K is a pittance. The judicial system needs to make an example out of these people. Therefore, the penalty should be something like $750 per track per person.

See any parallels to that penalty? ;)

So, when I bought Bruce Springsteen "We Shall Overcome" and tried to rip it to PC, this root kit told the DVD (one side was) and CD (the other side) don't work in this computer no more?
Because the drive became inefficient thereafter.

Is this crap still making the news? Seems Betanews are desperate to dig anything up about Sony these days.

They are in dire need of some impartial editors.

They're just following the money--attention brings new viewers, viewers mean more ads are seen, more ads mean more money for Betanews. Can you blame them?

Now, if they were out-and-out lying, doing anything illegal, or purposely misleading people to believe something that is not true, then I have a problem. I do think Betanews is trying to find the line that they cannot cross and push as far as they can for more money, and that may lead to problems in the future if pushed too far, but for now, the line has not been crossed IMO.

It is however, verging on the edge of a smear campaign.. Funniest part about it, is many media wh0res here lap it up like it's the gospel truth...

I guess I see your point. When mainstream media plays favorites in political issues, it becomes propoganda. That is tough luck in most cases, IMO, but once they make baseless accusations, statements, or reports without any knowledge of the issue, and paint it as God's truth, I have a real problem.

Difference is that Betanews is not making up lies about what sony is doing--they are just over-emphasizing the negative and under-emphasizing the positive. Unbalanced and perhaps even unethical, but impossible to regulate. Again, once they make up lies about sony or say things like "sony's poor quality..." or "sony's lack of concern for its customers has...", then I have a problem. Why? We do not KNOW the thought process of sony excecutives, period. We speculate, but stating sony has a lack of concern for its customers without having documentation or proof of their actual thought process lacking concern for its customers, it is speculation only.

"The suit accused Sony of not properly notifying consumers about its actions, as well as creating a potential security hole for hackers to compromise affected consumer's computers. A similar settlement has been filed in the state of Texas, according to media reports."

Any lies spoken as gospel here? Nope...

"About 12.6 million CDs are estimated to have shipped with rootkits installed during 2005. Of that total, approximately 930,000 were shipped to California. The program was stopped in November after Sony's program was exposed."

Vague wording and passive sentences keep them in the clear here--it is saying things have been estimated and have been said, etc., and they have. The question we the readers must ask is--WHO estimated? WHO said that? That, however, is our responsibility IMO.

Read the rest of the article. It may appear to be purposely deceptive, but again, since we cannot say for certain that it is the author's intent to cause us to hate sony, and everything he says is factual, wouldn't you be potentially smearing betanews, as you cannot prove their intentions?

If you believe that they are out to destroy sony, then that is your opinion and that is fine. However, do not say "Since Betanews is so determined to destroy Sony..." if it is not provable!

The settlement JUST happened, why wouldn't it make the news? This is on all the sites, not just Betanews. If you don't like the reporting here than go somewhere else, or do you just enjoy going to sites you don't like so you can whine about them?

"Boo hoo, Betanews is picking on my favorite company. Waaaa."

Ummm... you must be ignorant or just in a bad mood. This is news. Big news.

With how big the story was earlier this year, the conclusion of it *has* to be put in the news. Betanews couldn't be considered a news site if they *didn't* publish this.

Funny, I don't see you defending Microsoft from the years long "smear campaign" against it.

"Under the terms of the settlement, consumers will be eligible for compensation of up to $175 for those who can provide documented evidence that a Sony rootkit caused damage to their computers."

Wow, I'm sure that there are hundreds that are in line for that. Documented evidence that directly links the rootkit to damaging the computer?? Well, I'm assuming data loss type of damage, since rootkits do not physically destroy computer hardware--so, if you had a business with a database that lost its data due to the sony rootkit and can properly tie the two together, then sony gives you up to $175. That is NOTHING, sony may have maybe 12 cases that can be directly linked to their rootkit causing data loss--since the data was lost, how can it be linked? Yeah, documentation--but I'm sure that only 12 or so people even documented it when it happened anyway, hence the number I gave.

Moral of the story? Sony got away with it due to legal loopholes, and even the most liberal state in the union could not spin it enough to force sony to pay up for each case of malware. To me, the existense of a virus or spyware is enough evidence to say it caused damage, but not in the legal system. Therefore, Sony got away with it, at least in california.

Of course the negative press reports/etc. no doubt hurt them, there should have been, IMO, a better judgement here. Sony had some dam good lawyers if they forced the state to offer this slap on the wrist "settlement"...

"The $750,000 settlement will be used to pay court costs and penalities, California officials said."

So they are at least paying the court costs--heh, that'll help (sigh)

Yet another reason why I will not buy another Sony product.

They create their own standards and foster abnormally high costs for their proprietary standards. Yet for some reason, our legal system does not adequately punish them..

Oh yeah, that's right. Justice may be blind but she's still got places to stick money.

Since when has it been illegal to create own standards and use proprietary standards?

Seems people dislike Sony, purely because it's fashionable to do so...

There's the impostor.

The real Hollywood puts these links in his posts. Something a little Sony fanboy would never do.

www.thedvdwars.com
www.nexgenwars.com
www.thelookandsoundofperfect.com
www.gamesytemwars.com

They don't want everyone to know how bad Sony is getting beat down in the HD DVD race.

Its not illegal, and creating crappy proprietary standards and stubbornly trying to force feed them to the public is what Sony do best. It's not a matter of disliking Sony because "it's fashionable"... people are simply reacting to the deceitful way in which they chose to protect their intellectual property, especially in the case of the root-kit mess which was not only deceitful but down right malicious.

Mark, do you think the root-kit was just? If you say yes, you really need to stop watching Blu-ray content until Sony's "Grainview"TM 3D glasses ($350!!) are released in quarter 1 2007, the grainy picture on your Bravia is beginning to not only warp your vision but is blocking your ability to think logically and without bias.

Ha, nice little trick you've come up with. Do you use the duplicate HoIIywood__ name too?

You, sir, IMHO, are less believable than they are.

Thanks buddy.
No, just Marks name... but judging by Shadow Hollywood's posts I'd say the real Mark is the owner of that one.

They seed a virus in machines, willingly hiding the fact, and they get off with $750,000? If an individual had perpetrated this, that person would get JAIL TIME.

Cali, weak dudes.

sorry dude, cali is not weak. it's just laws are created to protect the very rich. RIAA can sue you for this much for claiming you d/l songs, and they can do it without proof.

I don't recall them "seeding a virus" they installed DRM to protect their CD's, someone else hijacked the DRM and create the virus.

Whilst Sony have been far from perfect, spinning and lies like this just makes your anti-Sony arguments silly.

Keep to the facts, and people might actually take your rants seriously.

Technically the malware was a trojan horse, and the OP is correct: it would result in jailtime if an individual had released this software on a redistributable format like a CD.

The malware actually caused system downtime, actively hid itself, and didn't announce it was doing so to the end-user. Their software was no different technically than malware from thousands created a year trying to subvert the end-user for financial gain.

Can car manufacturers be sued for providing a vehicle to run someone over? Can a gun manufacturer be sued because I shot someone? This is no different. Sony provided the vehicle for a virus to invade systems.

People forget, Sony did not deploy the virus, they provided (inadvertantly) the mechanism for someone else to.

Perhaps it's the "somone else" that should be sued, but that requires work, it's much easier to sue Sony, as they have more money..

Sorry to point out that your arguments are invalid.

Cars and Guns cannot legally be operated by minors. There are laws and restrictions that govern their usage.

Normal use of a car is to drive. Negligent use results in running people over.

Normal use of a gun is to shoot a bullet. Irresponsible use causes the wrong people to get shot.

Normal use of a audio CD is to play music. Normal use of Sony's tainted CDs resulted in software being without user consent. This software was later found to be exploitable.

Sony could have avoided all this if they had simply prompted the user prior to installing the software. It is because they cloaked the software and hid the install that they should be punished.

Any spin on this Mark? Dave?

Here... let me post the same links I always do...

I have to. I hate Sony that much.

I'd route for a competing format if it came out of Iran just so Sony can't profit.

Please see my comment above.
Mark.

Sure "Mark".

Honestly though, I can't trust your opinion either. Willing to deceive some as to who you are, so more than likely you wouldn't stop there if there was reason enough to lie to us...