"Why aren't people attacking folks who steal digital content (music, TV shows, movies, etc.) with the same zeal and passion."

Charlie, have you been under a rock? Are you not aware of the RIAA's "settlement centre" tactics?

To more specifically answer your question - the Sony rootkit comes on a Sony CD, that people have to legitimately purchase to obtain. Why do you suggest that people who purchase the CD and get attacked by Sony's malware are "stealing" the music?

People who download Sony music illegally will not be affected by this, it is only consumers who legally purchase the CD who are. Why should the legal purchasers be attacked in any way, shape or form?

Charlie, I suspect you are playing "Devil's Advocate". You cannot be trying to justify what Sony did -- you're too bright of a guy. Regardless, there are a few callouts in Mark's blog that are worth mentioning. A little definition first. I am not going to draw a line between Sony and First4Internet. As far as I see it, F4I is a subcontractor, and Sony is responsible for making sure they provide a quality product that is delivered via Sony's CDs. Sony could have gone with any one of many providers, they CHOSE First4Internet.

First and foremost, one of the reasons I don't bother to make a fuss about the record industry is that I see that they can take care of themselves. They have the RIAA. Could you please point me to the analogous "industry group" who is making sure that things like this don't end up on my PC?

Next, per Mark, the tool was poorly written. "Not only had Sony put software on my system that uses techniques commonly used by malware to mask its presence, the software is poorly written..." Now I do not have the background to be able to make a judgement of the quality of the software in question. But I think Mark has the credentials to make such an assertion. Sony is installing bad software on my machine, and there is no reason it should not reflect poorly on Sony.

Then, until Mark made a fuss, there was no warning that "...poorly written..." software was being instaled on my machine, and no practical way to remove the product once it was installed. Yes, there was a brute force approach, but I do not see Sony volunteering to pay the "Geek Squad" guy to properly remove the software from (and re-enable the CD drive) my parents' PC. To quote directly from Mark, "I checked the EULA and saw no mention of the fact that I was agreeing to have software put on my system that I couldn't uninstall. Now I was mad."

Finally, remember what your parents tought you -- "two wrong's don't make a right" (but three lefts do.) People stealing music is one thing. But it seems that you are suggesting that if I do not pursue that topic, I do not have the right to pursue the topic concerning Sony.

I'll leave you with a question Charlie. Can you reconcile Sony's actions with the following paragraphs?

"Trustworthy Computing is a long-term, collaborative effort to provide more secure, private, and reliable computing experiences for everyone. This is a core company tenet at Microsoft and guides virtually everything we do."

"Trustworthy Computing is built on four pillars: Security, Privacy, and Reliability in our software, services, and products; and integrity in our Business Practices."

(Source: Microsoft's Trustworthy Computing page: http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/twc/default.mspx)

Charlie,

Will Media Center be able to rip these Sony CD's to the My Music library?
Could I avoid the this copy protection mess by just laying out cash and buying a 200 disc Sony changer to hold my copy protected Sony media?

Charlie,

1) Why isn't a Microsoft programmer attacking a rival company that is undermining the security of his own flagship product?

2) Ed's book has no digital rights managment methods applied to it because its not digital. You are free to read that book in your primary home, vacation home, friends home, in your car, office, boat, plane or anywhere else. Try doing that with your Media Center content and you might not even make it into the next room in your house with some content. Now which is really disrespecting their customer more, the distribution form Ed chose for his book, or the form Media Center voluntarily honors for certain TV broadcasts?

James, you're right that the book isn't digital. But the CD in the back of the book contains a complete digital copy of the book, in PDF format. It has no DRM of any kind. Anyone who buys or borrows the book can copy that PDF file to any computer, burn another CD, or put it on a file-sharing network. I hope they don't, but we don't prevent any of those uses.

I regularly run across copies of the PDF files for Windows XP Inside Out on underground Web sites. To my knowledge, we haven't undertaken any campaign to stop people from doing that, nor are we planning to introduce any kind of rights management in future editions. And if someone does suggest that, you can bet I will want to have a "full and frank exchange of ideas" with them.

Charlie -

The problem is honest customers get the shaft with DRM. I purchase all my music and DVDs, I want them available on MCE and streamed throughout the house. If due to overly restrictive DRM, I can't get content on my MCE or extender -- what use is the product? Seems to me that DRM does not help Microsoft.

The other thing is the RIAA strong arm tactics leave most consumers with a bad taste in their mouth and hence, you find little sympathy for them.

Speaking of fair use rights, why can't I stream DVDs from my MCE to my extender???

I'd rather see Microsoft coming out and telling me that all my digital media will be available on my MCE and extender and not putting more DRM into the product or adding eye candy to the "My Music" interface. Make it simple, make it work, make it stream everywhere and make me excited and want to care about the product again. I think this is the biggest area of concern when Microsoft fans become apathetic and don't tell anyone to run out and buy the product [but maybe you don't need me?]

"Why aren't people attacking folks who steal digital content?"

Because it's human nature not to care if you don't have a direct vested interest in the crime. The Record labels and the RIAA (and the movie studios and MPAA) care b/c they have a direct vested interest in the theft. But as soon as something happens that directly affects us, then that is when we have a vested interest. If Sony puts something on my computer without my consent, then I am concerned. If I bought the CD legally, then I shouldn't be harassed b/c they're trying to curtail piracy. The record labels and movie studios have the money to buy the big gun lawyers to go after digital pirates, but what's my recourse? Not purchasing anymore of their products? Whoopty-doo! How much is that? $25 per product (at most)?

This is basically the old Big Guy versus Little Guy scenario, David versus Goliath, the people versus the Man. Heck, in the case of the music industry, the recording labels are a bunch of thieves themselves who use shady accounting practices to rip off the musicians, who they cry are the real victims in digital piracy. Isn't that the pan calling the kettle black?! So excuse me for not shedding a tear if people are downloading the products of these bullying companies. If I buy my stuff legally they should at least treat me respectively instead of treating me like a criminal. It's getting to the point where they're treating EVERYONE like criminals. Sheesh! Give me a break!

"I'm pointing out I haven't seen any sort of outrage in the general population about the theft of copyrighted materials. Folks seem to enjoy jumping on the bandwagon of berating any sort of DRM, but never want to address why it's there: Theft."

That's true, but here's why (in my opinion) nobody is outraged about copyright theft - we are too used to the dishonest minority in our culture. We know that we pay a couple of pence/cents on our chocolate bars to cover the cost of the chocolate bars that get stolen from the shop. Our car insurance goes up even if we have a clean driving record, because of others.

In our society, we are used to paying for the dishonesty and mistakes of others, and we are so used to it that we don't howl about it on a regular basis. We are so used to it that, in fact, we pretty much ignore it.

So with that in mind, I can say that the copyright thieves don't impact me directly. Indirectly, they do, but as I said, I am so used to that that I don't notice.

But when my PC becomes riddled with a multitude of buggy, substandard media players that installed themselves with CDs I purchased legitimately, I notice.

My home media setup is PC based (Media Centre/Desktop/iPod), and now I have a pile of CDs of I have legally purchased that I am unable to ever use, because of the restrictions placed by the copyright holders intended to stop thieves. I notice this.

Paul.

"Why aren't people attacking folks who steal digital content (music, TV shows, movies, etc.) with the same zeal and passion."

1. Sony is doing things that could fuck up my computer; people who are stealing digital content aren't. Yes, I think people shouldn't steal digital content, but I'm obviously going to be more vehement about people who are ruining my stuff than people who are ruining other people's stuff.

2. There is a large complex of wealthy and powerful companies (aided by friendly legislatures) who are being very vociferous about the theft thing. The only people who are upset about Sony doing egregiously stupid things are a bunch of geeks on the internet who pay way more attention to such things than would be healthy. Tell me again which of these groups has an overwhelming public voice?

I'm curious if you still think this issue is about "stealing music" or something much larger. I wonder if the department of homeland defense is gonna chime in when they realize poor or malicious software design could disable our TV sets in the future. Seems to me they may have a problem with our number one communication system being shut down by some stupid programers.