The Difficulty Of Suing Sony BMG For Violating GPL With Their Rootkit
from the ain't-so-easy dept
Back when the Sony rootkit fiasco hit, some people noticed the irony that this product Sony kept insisting was designed to "protect" intellectual property was actually making unauthorized use of some open source code, and not abiding by the license the software was released under. Now, Digg points out that DVD Jon, the author of some of the code being used (extra amusing, since the his claim to fame is breaking copy protection and getting sued by the entertainment industry), has discovered it doesn't really make sense to sue Sony BMG, because the work isn't registered at the Copyright Office. The code is covered by copyright, but the law says you can only go after statutory damages (basically above the nominal damages) if it's registered. Secondly, it's difficult to prove what those nominal damages are -- especially since the code was GPL'd. Basically, there aren't really any nominal damages. The only way to get money is to go for statutory damages -- and you can't do that without a registered copyright. If Sony BMG were still using the software, then he could sue to get them to stop -- but since they've officially stopped (even if they're still widely available) there just isn't that much to be gained in a lawsuit. So, basically, there's almost no remedy for him under the law -- making it pretty pointless to sue at this point, no matter how amusing the resulting lawsuit would have been.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually...
Interesting side thought, this gives precedence for anyone to steal GPL'd code that isn't registered as copyrighted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lots of damages
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Damages?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hey CAN get damages
All he has to do is register the coyprighted code NOW, and then file suit LATER. It does not matter when it was infringed.
If you have any questions, I'm adding my hotmail email: monostatic@hotmail.com
I would be happy to help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It still makes sense to sue
They are thought to have settled an unrelated UK case out-of-court to avoid this, so they ought to be willing to pay (say) $100K damages in the USA to avoid a court case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why bother
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: why bother
I'm an amatuer musician (not a lawyer, so don't take all this to the bank), and my band has looked into everything that is done when you put out an album.
Work is copyrited as soon as pen is put to paper. Without registration, it is difficult to prove that you are the one that penned the particular [music, code, book, ect]. If you don't copyright it, and someone steals your song, you would have to get it registered before going to court to really have a chance at anything.
So again, the short answer is yes, all songs from large name music companies get registered. One may slip through the cracks, but it is very unlikely because they don't want to lose a cent, and it is VERY cheap to get something copyrited.
© Anon 2006
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong question
What Sony/BMG did was not to steal revenues out of his own work. This is basically what copyright is for. The strong idea behind GPL is that in exchange for the release of copyright revenues, users willingly accept a restriction in the allowed uses.
So it's not copyright compensation that DVD Jon should look for: he voluntarily released copyright revenues when choosing GPL. What we have here is simply and clearly a breach of contract, because Sony/BMG put his code to an use they simply were not allowed to.
This has both civil and criminal impacts, and although GPL makes it difficult to calculate the kind of economic compensation he is worth, the issue of breach of contract very definitely makes it an interesting case to pursue in court, possibly with the aid of EFF.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jon should sue, but he shouldn't sue for damages.
They can argue that since they used GPLed code in their software, (and they also used modified LGPL code), in there their software. This means, simply that Sony must release the source code, not that they ow Jon any money. The GPL doesn't require you pay someone to use their work, but they do ow every user of the XCP disk the full source code to the XCP scheme.
That would be fun, to get to see how that rootkit works in source form.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]