Texas Sues Sony BMG Alleging Violation of
Texas Spyware Statute |
11/21. The state of Texas file a
complaint [8 pages in PDF] in state court in Texas against Sony BMG Music
Entertainment alleging violation of its state statute titled "Consumer Protection
Against Computer Spyware Act", or CPACSA. The complaint alleges that Sony has sold
audio CDs with software, some of which is related to content protection, which software
also degrades the consumers' PC performance, and exposes the PC to certain virus threats,
without disclosure to consumers.
Greg Abbott, who is the Attorney
General of the State of Texas, stated in a
release
that "Sony has engaged in a technological version of cloak and dagger deceit
against consumers by hiding secret files on their computers ... Consumers who
purchased a Sony CD thought they were buying music. Instead, they received
spyware that can damage a computer, subject it to viruses and expose the
consumer to possible identity crime."
The complaint states that Sony has sold CDs that contain "its own proprietary
media player designed to play audio tracks on a personal computer (as opposed to a consumer
using third-party programs such Microsoft Windows Media Player). These audio CDs utilize XCP
Technology (``XCP´´) which Sony BMG represents is designed to ``protect the audio
files embodied on the CD.´´" (Parentheses in original.)
The complaint adds that Sony marked the CD packages with the notice "Content
Protected", but that it made "no disclosures on the packaging that anything will
be installed on the consumer's computer".
The complaint elaborates on the details of the software installed on consumers' PCs.
"During the installation of its media player, Sony BMG creates and installs
components of its XCP technology in a folder it names ``C:/Windows/System32/$sys$filesystem.´´
Unbeknownst to the consumer, Sony BMG also installs a file named ``Aries.sys´´ in the same
folder which conceals the XCP files and the folder in which they are installed, such that
the owner of the computer performing a search of the file system would not be able to locate
and remove the XCP technology. Essentially, the Aries.sys driver masks any folder or
file name on a consumer's computer that begins with the characters ``$sys$,´´
which are the first characters of the folders, files, and registry entries
associated with the XCP technology. Moreover, these hidden files and folder are
installed within the consumer's Microsoft Windows ``System32´´ subfolder, such
that a consumer may confuse that software with essential files needed to run the
computer's operating system."
The complaint also states that "The Aries.sys file is not required to play
Sony BMG’s copy protected CDs; rather its purpose is to conceal the copy protection
software installed by Sony BMG.", and that "Sony BMG does not disclose the
fact that its technology includes this cloaking component to consumers on either
the CD itself or in its licensing agreement." It adds to that Sony's proprietary
media player is not required to play the CDs.
The complaint then addresses how this undisclosed installation
of software can harm consumers. First, it consumes system memory. The complaint
states that "Sony BMG’s XCP technology remains hidden and active
on a consumer’s computer at all times after installation, even when Sony BMG’s
media player is not active. During the installation process, Sony BMG installs
another hidden file named, ``$sys$drmserver.exe´´ which is cloaked and constantly
consumes system memory, resulting in a reduction in a consumer’s available
system resources."
"In addition, a consumer attempting to remove the XCP
technology finds that Sony BMG has made it extremely burdensome if not
impossible to do so -- Sony BMG does not make an uninstall utility readily
available. The consumer must first contact customer service via email to receive
a patch that will ``uncloak´´ the hidden files (in part by deleting the Aries.sys
file), and then requiring the consumer to contact customer service again if
he/she wants to remove the XCP software."
The second type of possible harm to consumers is increased vulnerability to virus
threats. The complaint states that "Despite Sony BMG's assertions, various news
sources have recently reported the spread of newly created viruses which exploit Sony
BMG’s cloaking technology. As a result, a consumer without knowledge of the
installation of the Aries.sys file on their computer may be vulnerable to new
security risks, and given the cloaked nature of these files, and the extremely
burdensome impediments to removing them, that consumer may find it difficult or
impossible to protect themselves from future risks."
The complaint seeks injunctive relief and damages in the amount of $100,000
per violation.
This case is State of Texas v. Sony BMG Music Entertainment LLC,
District Court of Travis County, Texas.
Texas is developing a record as a regulator of information technology. In
addition to the present action, on March 22, 2005, Texas filed a
complaint [14 pages in PDF] in state court in Texas against
Vonage alleging violation of the Texas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) in connection with Vonage's marketing and
sale of voice over internet protocol (VOIP) service. See,
story
titled "Texas Sues Vonage Over Marketing of VOIP Service" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 1,101, March 23, 2005.
Also, in 2004, Texas was a plaintiff in the failed lawsuit against
Oracle
seeking to block Oracle's acquisition of PeopleSoft on antitrust grounds. See,
February 26, 2004,
complaint. See also, stories titled "DOJ Loses Oracle Case" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 974, September 10, 2004, and "Antitrust Division Sues Oracle to
Enjoin Its Proposed Acquisition of PeopleSoft" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 846, March 1, 2004.
Disclosure. One of the attorneys for the state of Texas whose name
appears on the complaint is a former law school classmate and roommate of the
publisher of TLJ. Readers may wish to take this into consideration is assessing
the accuracy and objectivity of any TLJ coverage of this lawsuit.
|
|
|
Federal Circuit Affirms Holding Regarding
Claim Invalidity in IPXL v. Amazon |
11/21. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir)
issued its opinion
[PDF] in IPXL Holdings v. Amazon, affirming the District Court's
holding regarding invalidity of claims.
IPXL filed a complaint in U.S. District Court
(EDVa) against Amazon alleging that Amazon's one click system infringes its
U.S. Patent No. 6,149,055, titled "Electronic fund transfer or transaction
system".
The District Court granted summary judgment to Amazon. It held that Amazon
did not infringe the patent, and that all of the claims at issue are invalid. It
also awarded attorneys fees to Amazon under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Its opinion is
reported at 333 F. Supp. 2d 513.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the holdings regarding invalidity, did not
reach the infringement issues, and reversed the award of attorneys fees on the
grounds that the motion for attorneys fees was not timely filed.
This case is IPXL Holdings LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit, App. Ct. Nos. 05-1009 and 05-1487, appeals from
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria, No.
04-CV-70, Judge Leonie Brinkema presiding. Judge Clevenger wrote the opinion of
the Court of Appeals, in which Judges Rader and Schall joined.
|
|
|
7th Circuit Holds Federal Wiretapping
Statute Can Apply to Secret Use of Video Cameras |
11/21. The U.S. Court of Appeals
(7thCir) issued its
opinion [PDF] in Doe v. Smith, a civil action for violation of
the federal wiretapping statute, which
is codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-22. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded
the District Court's dismissal. The Court of Appeals held that secretly
recording with an video camera (that also captures an audio track), and then
distributing the recording by e-mail, can constitute a civil violation of the
federal wiretapping statute.
The defendant, Jason Smith, used a
video camera to secretly record a bedroom encounter with the plaintiff, who
brought this suit anonymously as Jane Doe. The camera may have captured audio
and video. Smith then distributed the recording by e-mail. One recipient
published the recording on the internet.
Doe filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (CDIll)
against Smith alleging, among other claims, violation of the federal wiretapping
statute. The District Court dismissed this claim. The Court of Appeals reversed.
Most cases involving application of the
federal wiretapping statute involve wiretapping. However, the statute applies to
interception of "any wire, oral,
or electronic communication". Also, while the most common form of
interception of oral communications is bugging to obtain the content of
conversations, the language of the statute is much broader. Hence, the Court of
Appeals reversed, and remanded to the District Court to determine such facts as
whether there was an audio track, and whether Doe had an expectation of privacy.
The Court of Appeals wrote that "Doe may be able to establish
that the recording had a sound track and that she had an expectation of privacy,
the two ingredients of the statutory definition: `` `oral communication´ means
any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such
communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such
expectation, but such term does not include any electronic communication´´. 18
U.S.C. §2510(2). A silent film would be outside this definition, but most video
recorders capture sound as well."
The Court of Appeals continued that "Next comes the question
whether Smith ``intercepted´´ the oral communication. This defined term ``means
the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral
communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.´´
18 U.S.C. §2510(4). If Doe and Smith engaged in ``oral communication´´ in Smith’s
bedroom, then its acquisition by a video recorder -- an ``electronic . . .
device´´ -- is covered. And if the interception was forbidden by §2511(1)(a),
then its disclosure was forbidden by §2511(1)(c)."
This case is Jane Doe v. Jason Smith, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
7th Circuit, No. 05-1903, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of Illinois, D.C. No. 04-3173, Judge Richard Mills presiding. Judge
Frank Easterbrook wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in which Judges
Williams and Evans joined.
|
|
|
|
Notice |
Delivery of a number of copies of
TLJ Daily
E-Mail Alert No. 1,257 (Monday, November 21, 2005) was blocked. Hence,
this issue has been published in the TLJ web site. |
|
|
Washington Tech Calendar
New items are highlighted in red. |
|
|
Tuesday, November 22 |
The House will next meet on Tuesday, December 6, 2005.
The Senate will next meet on Monday, December 12, 2005.
1:00 - 2:00 PM. The National Science
Foundation (NSF) National Science Board will meet. The Board will discuss a
report
[12 pages in PDF] titled "National Science Board 2020 Vision for the National
Science Foundation". See,
notice in the Federal Register, November 16, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 220, at
Pages 69604 - 69605. Location: NSF, Public Meeting Room 120, 4201 Wilson
Boulevard, Arlington, VA.
|
|
|
Wednesday, November 23 |
Deadline to submit comments to the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) regarding its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding the
source of income derived from international communications activity. See,
notice in the Federal Register, September 19, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 180, at
Pages 54859 - 54878.
|
|
|
|
|
Friday, November 25 |
Deadline to submit reply comments to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in
response to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding closed
captioning rules for video programming. See,
notice in the Federal Register, September 26, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 185, at
Pages 56150-56157. This NPRM is FCC 05-142 in CG Docket No. 05-231.
Deadline to submit initial comments to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response
to the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding the the specific relocation
procedures applicable to Broadband Radio Service (BRS) operations in the 2150-2160/62
MHz band, which the FCC previously decided will be relocated to the newly restructured
2495-2690 MHz band. The FCC also seeks comment on the specific relocation procedures
applicable to Fixed Microwave Service (FS) operations in the 2160-2175 MHz band. This
NPRM is FCC 05-172 in ET Docket No. 00-258. See,
notice in the Federal Register, October 26, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 206, at
Pages 61752 - 61762.
|
|
|
Monday, November 28 |
Deadline to submit written comments to the Department of Justice's (DOJ)
Antitrust Division and the
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regarding their joint
workshop on October 25, 2005, titled "Competition and Real Estate Workshop".
See, FTC notice and
notice
in the Federal Register, September 8, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 173, at Pages 53362 - 53364.
Deadline to submit initial comments to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response
to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding whether its roaming requirements
for commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers should be modified, expanded, or
eliminated. This NPRM is FCC 05-160 in WT Docket Nos. 05-265 and 00-193. See,
notice in the Federal Register, September 28, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 187, at
Pages 56612 - 56620.
Deadline to submit nominations for members of the Commerce
Spectrum Management Advisory Committee to the Department of Commerce's
National Telecommunications
and Information Administration (NTIA). See, NTIA
release.
|
|
|
Tuesday, November 29 |
10:00 AM. The Supreme
Court will hear oral argument in Illinois Tool Works v. Independent
Ink, No. 04-1329, a patent tying antitrust case. See, story titled "Supreme
Court Grants Certiorari in Patent Tying Antitrust Case" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 1,158, June 21, 2005.
12:00 NOON - 1:30 PM. The Federal
Communications Bar Association (FCBA) will host an event titled "The
On-Going Debate Over the Sunshine Act". Location: __.
TIME? The Senate Commerce
Committee (SCC) will host an event titled "Open Forum on Decency".
Press contact: Melanie Alvord (Stevens) at 202
224-8456 or Melanie_Alvord at commerce dot senate dot gov, or Aaron Saunders (Stevens)
at 202 224-3991 or Aaron_Saunders at commerce dot senate dot gov. Location:__.
|
|
|
More News |
11/21. The Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) rescheduled its next meeting. It had been scheduled for
December 15. It is now rescheduled for December 9. December 9 is Commissioner
Kathleen Abernathy's
last day at the FCC.
11/18. The U.S. Court of Appeals (6thCir)
issued its opinion
[PDF] in Stratienko v. Cordis, a case involving claims of misappropriation
of a trade secrets and breach of contract. These are state law claims. Federal
jurisdiction is based upon diversity of citizenship. The Court of Appeals affirmed the
District Court's summary judgment for the defendant, Cordis. The District Court and Court
of Appeals held, among other things, that under the state law of Tennessee, there is no
cause of action for conversion of trade secrets. This case is Alexander Stratienko v.
Cordis Corporation, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, App. Ct. No. 04-6349,
an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, at
Chattanooga, D.C. No. 02-00005, Judge Allan Edgar presiding.
11/18. Cisco Systems announced a "definitive
agreement for Cisco to acquire Scientific-Atlanta". Scientific-Atlanta provides set
top boxes, end-to-end video distribution networks and video system integration. See, Cisco
release.
11/18. The National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA) changed the deadline for submitting comments in
regarding the draft NARA guidance for implementing
Section
207(e) of the E-Government Act of 2002. This Act requires the NARA to adopt
"policies and procedures" that provide that federal statutes regarding archiving
of government records "are applied effectively and comprehensively to Government
information on the Internet and to other electronic records". The NARA had
previously announced that comments are due by December 29, 2005. See,
notice in the Federal Register, November 14, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 218, at Pages 69165
- 69168. The NARA has moved the deadline up to November 30, 2005. See,
notice in the Federal Register, November 18, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 222, at Page 69994.
See also, story titled "NARA Requests Comments on Archiving Internet and Other
Electronic Records" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,253, November 15, 2005.
11/17. U.S. Trade Representative (USTR)
Rob Portman returned from a ten day trip to Europe, Africa, India, People's
Republic of China, and Korea. See, USTR
release summarizing his trip.
11/17. John Snow, the Secretary of the Treasury, gave a
speech, in which he
argued, among other things, that lower tax rates, especially for capital gains
and dividends, promote innovation and investment.
|
|
|
About Tech Law Journal |
Tech Law Journal publishes a free access web site and
subscription e-mail alert. The basic rate for a subscription
to the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert is $250 per year. However, there
are discounts for subscribers with multiple recipients. Free one
month trial subscriptions are available. Also, free
subscriptions are available for journalists,
federal elected officials, and employees of the Congress, courts, and
executive branch. The TLJ web site is
free access. However, copies of the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert are not
published in the web site until one month after writing. See, subscription
information page.
Contact: 202-364-8882.
P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.
Privacy
Policy
Notices
& Disclaimers
Copyright 1998 - 2005 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All
rights reserved. |
|
|