Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
stehvestor
How do you know the crash did not happen months ago while testing and the results filtered back to sunncomm thus having Mario claim 4 was having trouble and causing puters to crash.
Check the dates on Mark's blog
http://www.sysinternals.com/blog/2005/10/sony-rootkits-and-digital-rights.html
I do rememer Mario saying more than once forget First4 they have big problems.
Yes he did. He has said thousands of things that I have an issue with.
I am not going to troll back through posts from months ago, but what was preseneted to us was that when XCP CDs were loaded into computers they caused them to crash and burn.
The crash that Mark noted was trying to uninstall XCP after first being able to even find it.
Stehvestor, we do ourselves no good by pretending things are different than they are. Sony themselves stated that there had been few complaints and continued to issues CDs until the recent discovery of the rootkit cloaking.
Hopefully this will all work out in our favor. Personally I think it will be to our disadvantage for a while, but when the issue dies down we may be able to win over Sony.
Kenco, remove me too. I have no interest in being a moderator.
Howdy,
could that be the CRASH part of the CRASH & BURN I have mentioned long ago
Actually, no it isn't.
This crash was discovered just last week by the systems specialist that noted XCP installed a root kit and when he tried to remove it with Windows utilities it crashed his system.
Prior to last week, Sony noted that there were little if any complaints regarding XCP.
Your crash and burn allegations (supported by Mario) were then, and still now are, unsubstantiated. Those allegations started soon after we started seeing articles indicating that Sony were using XCP on CDs. Rather than acknowledge that we had competition, we had this ridiculous campaign suggesting that when XCP CDs were placed on computers, they caused those computers to Crash and Burn.
Not one ounce of evidence has been given by you or Mario to support your allegations from that time and it is contradicted by recent statements from Sony. One would also assume with the current focus on XCP that customers of the 20 or so titles using the product would have been writing to every journal and blog to say the CDs also caused their systems to crash and burn. Funny that they haven't.
If I am wrong on something I will say it, but your statements from the past have not been vindicated by this recent fiasco for XCP and your claims that it somehow or other does just doesn't hold water.
OT: Kenco,
I accept your apology.
OT: Since Kenco has admitted he did it, then I apologise to Bleuduece and Screamineagle for suggesting that they may have been involved.
OT: Let Kenco have his say first.
Bleuduece you just posted a private message to me that was a personal attck on Kenco. I though the rules of the board didn't allow that?
OT: Should Kenco admit that he added my name, then I apologise for suggesting that you two may have been involved.
Bleuduece and Screamineagle
Perhaps you would like to go over my posts of the last 2 months say and pick out those which you think were factually incorrect. Point out the inaccuracies and I will either concede I was wrong if I can't counter your points or I will counter argue to prove you wrong.
Unfortunately as I am not a board moderator or assistant moderator, I will have to rely on your integrity and hope that you will not remove answers from me that you don't like.
But I'm sure you wouldn't do that anyway.
Gregg99. Yes that is correct. I was unaware until I read Screamineagle's post a few minutes ago that my name was there. I decided to check and had to unhide the board info to see my name on the list.
I also did not apply ever to be an assistant.
OT: Bleuduece and Screamineagle
The funny thing about the Quiet Tiger MMXT board run by Kenco is that the board info takes up two full screens. So that means to see new posts you would have to scroll down two pages every time. Under those circumstances, any normal poster would choose the option to hide the board info.
But the only way you would know that my name was added as an assistant, would be to have the board info unhidden.
Very odd that you two have chosen that option.
screamineagle,
Aren't you now an assistant on the moderated board for MMXT with Kenco?
The reason I saw it as a personal attack as I saw no possible reason for asking such a question other than he didn't like me trying to be as factual as possible.
But now I take it back. Somehow or other my name has been added as an assistant to the MMXT board, with that of Buddyduck. I was completely unaware of that when I responded and did not ever request that position.
If Kenco has done that without even asking me, then shame on him.
If he hasn't done that, then I am 99% sure who has. And I bet it is the same people who fear me being open and expressing the truth as I see it. Rather than argue against me, which they can't, they have undertaken to try and discredit me.
Its odd that the question was asked by the SCMI board moderator and followed up by one of his assistants. Do you think that is just a coincidence?
Sam. Yes we do place a program on a users computer. We try to hide it so that it cannot be easily deleted and the copy protection bypassed.
But that is a fact of life when it comes to copy protection. All the 4 major products do it as far as I know.
The difference with XCP is that the method they used to hide the program allows the system to be compromised by hackers. It also appears that if the XCP program is discovered and removed using normal Windows utilities it may crash the system.
or could it be me explaining that Certified for Windows XP is not the same as Certified Spyware Free is another type of bashing? Even though I stated that those who know Mediamax know it's not spyware.
Somehow or other posting accurate information is not liked by some people.
or maybe me pointing out that Clements is going to be based in New York is somehow or other bashing?
What exactly do you mean?
Is this a shrouded personal attack because you think I shouldn't have pointed readers to a derogatory article on SunnComm? Is this keep our heads in the sand week?
More bad press due to latest PR
DRM maker denies plans to shatter iPod users' eardrums
Sunncomm misses 250 decibel joke
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/09/sunncomm_drm_ear/
Clement taking office in Phoenix
Regardless of his position at SonyBMG or his upcoming position at MediaMax where all are assuming he will take office in Phoenix
If you mean physically take office in Phoenix, I don't think that will be the case.
AGREEMENT (the "Employment Agreement" or this "Agreement") dated as of the
______ day of November, 2005, between MediaMax Technology Corporation, a Nevada
corporation (the "Company"), and Kevin Clement ("Executive").
8.3.1 The Executive may terminate employment for Good Reason or without Good Reason. "Good Reason" means:
(a) any failure by the Company to comply with any provision of Paragraph 4
of this Agreement, other than an isolated, insubstantial and inadvertent
failure that is not taken in bad faith and is remedied by the Company
promptly after receipt of notice thereof from the Executive;
(b) any other material breach by the Company of this Agreement or of any
other agreement between the Executive and the Company that is not remedied
by the Company within thirty (30) days after receipt of notice thereof from
the Executive;
(c) any public disparagement of the Executive by the Company or senior
executives of the Company;
(d) any change in the location of the base of employment of the Executive
to a location that is more than 25 miles from New York City, New York; or
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1057024/000119983505000574/exhibit_10-2.txt
Unless I am reading that wrong or Phoenix has moved a lot closer to NY, he won't be based here.
Agreed, and that is why I think Spyware Free certification would be a good starting point.
And, we'd better hope that those in the know understand that MediaMax isn't like the F4I stuff
zstevek,
From what I have read, XCP would not have been flagged as spyware until it was exposed by the latest contraversy.
Spyware detection tools don't automatically look at a program and determine whether it is spyware or not. The tool maker has to be first informed by someone that they have found something on their system that seems to be acting like spyware and then the tool maker investigates it further. If it determines it to be spyware then it will add the program to its list and try to remove it from systems whenever the tool is run.
For programs that may be viewed suspiciously by users, the program developer can proactively request that the program be certified as spyware free by the tool makers. Following the XCP debacle, I would think MediaMax also falls into the category of programs that may be viewed suspiciously.
We know it is not spyware, so my suggestion is that we have it certified spyware free so we can tick the box and not have to continuously defend against uninformed allegations.
Howdy,
It isn't. There is nothing wrong with spyware if the user wants to have it on their system or, say, an employer demands it be installed on an employee's system (although there may be legal issues with the latter). Spyware monitors certain system activity and reports back to another user.
Performance tools are spyware that monitor resource usage. NetNanny and programs of that type are spyware that monitors kids usage of the net and will prevent access or report back to parents. Similarly, employers may log employee web activity to ensure that they are not going to sites they shouldn't go to etc.
There are many types of spyware that perform legitimate monitoring (spying). It is when the program is installed on their own "personal" computer without the users consent or knowledge that it becomes an issue.
What may be regarded as legitimate monitoring in one environment may be seen as spying in another.
"I was under the impression that gaining the Certified for Windows Logo was enough!"
Certified for Windows Logo should ensure that you do not cause Windows to crash if you try to remove the program using normal Windows tools. It should also not damage the system in other ways. That was the problem with F4I. However, you can be Windows compliant and still be spyware. There are many spyware programs that are legitimate and comply fully with Windows.
"how many readers knew it was a spoof."
Possibly the whole planet.
Sting,
Do you know if we have applied for "Spyware Free" certification and if not, why not. Certified for Windows is obviously good to have, but it doesn't mean we are not spyware.
I know we are not spyware, but I'm thinking in terms of the general public, those who buy Mediamax CDs.
re: SunnComm falls for p2pnet spoof
I thought that the PR wasn't a good thing. The PR should have at least stated that they were aware it was a spoof PR, but were issuing a denial none the less. This makes the company look stupid and is not the publicity we need at the moment.
The comments at the end of the article are pretty confrontational. I think it would be better to have a formal denial of some of those allegations (some are true unfortunately) than the denial on the Macrovision joint venture.
Because we did issue a denial on the jv, not issuing a denial on some of those allegations might raise some eyebrows. P2PNET was the source of both articles.
Howdy,
What's the big deal if RipGuard will only be on one movie title. It is a new product and this is their first release. Apparently it will be a blockbuster title.
We have had our DVD protection available for over 1 year. How many titles will we be protecting before year end?
We can't even assume he is putting up any finance himself. The only thing we know is that Granite are acting as middlemen.
sahd3g
The new board members will be from Granite.....who is financing MMXT SCMI
Granite is not the financier from how I read it. They are acting as consultants and their job seems to be to introduce the financiers to SunnComm/Mediamax. It also looks like the names of those providing finance will be kept secret.
The Company hereby agrees to maintain the confidentiality of the Consultant's Investors, except as required by applicable law. Such Investors shall be those entities or individuals that the Consultant has introduced to the Company or procured as a potential candidate for a transaction with the Company. For a period of two years from the date hereof, the Company will not solicit or enter into any transaction with the Consultant's Investors without the written consent of the Consultant.
Of course it is possible that Granite themselves will also be the "investors", but we will not know that because of the confidentiality clause.
Flydoc
An IR guy or a "consultant" KNOWS that EVERY word he writes here carries weight.
I agree, this is a complete joke and is not how investor relations should act. For almost every company I have dealt with, Investor Relations do not issue statements independently of the company. The company issues official statements through press releases and SEC filings only. Additional information make come through interviews published in articles online or in journals. If IR is contacted about an issue that is material in nature, if that issue is already in the public domain, IR reiterates the statement and usually points to the official statement confirming what they have said. If not in the public domain and if the answer is material, they cannot make a statement on it to the caller because otherwise they would contravene full discosure requirements.
Although I have never seen IR from another company posting "new" information on message boards, I would not see that as a problem so long as they indicate on the message that they are speaking with the authority of the company.
The way it is handled here allows Mario to say anything, yet the company cannot be held accountable as we have seen nothing from the company to indicate that Mario speaks with any authority on their behalf.
You know the company gets a lot of leeway from investors in the way they handle things because of the cost that it might incur to do it properly or promptly (merger for example) and we don't want money wasted unnecessarily. But just having Mario include a stock standard statement regarding the authority under which he speaks would cost nothing to implement and just a few seconds to include each time.
That would make us look so much more professional, yet that is not even being done.
Howdy,
From what I recall, the first of the contracts are up for re-negotiation at the end of 2006, not all of the contracts.
The contracts do not prevent anyone else from offering something better in the meantime, so if SunnComm have something to offer, why not go for it now rather than relying solely on music protection, to which the labels have yet to fully commit
I gleaned just one CD using Ripguard from the conference call before year end. They said the delay was in ensuring that Ripguard did not break the DVD standard (so they wouldn't be able to use the DVD logo). That compliance was only certified recently.
They claimed one studio is going to use ripguard on 100% of titles and another selectively. However, they have missed the holiday season with these 2. The one that they will protect is a blockbuster and is from a 3rd studio (a one off release it seems)
Flydoc,
To be honest, it is hard to see the differences between MediaMax and Totalplay at the spec level. They both seem to offer the same features. Since there doesn't seem to be any known Totalplay CDs out there (perhaps there are in Europe), one can't tell how effectively they have implemented the specs. If EMI are really going 100% with them, then it must be reasonably OK.
One thing though. I recall a PR from Macrovision a few months ago about CDS-300 being certified spyware free. This could be a big advantage for them in light of the bad publicity Sony has got in the past 36 hours due to F4I's hidden files. I don't know if MediaMax is in the process of being certified as spyware free. It should be considered if it isn't a major cost item.
Kenco,
I don't think MediaMax does it the same way. Although it does add files to the computer and tries to disguise them as best as possible from the user, I don't think it goes as far as F4I did.
This new article describes what F4I does and why it is viewed as being so malicious.
The Cover-Up Is the Crime
Sony BMG is facing a cacophony of criticism this week following the revelation that some of its CDs are packed with special copy-protection software that conceals itself with an advanced hacker cloaking technique. We think the company is getting off easy.
The firestorm began when Mark Russinovich, a computer security expert with Sysinternals, discovered evidence of a "rootkit" on his Windows PC. Through heroic forensic work, he traced the code to First 4 Internet, a British provider of copy-restriction technology that has a deal with Sony to put digital rights management on its CDs. It turns out Russinovich was infected with the software when he played the Sony BMG CD Get Right With the Man by the Van Zant brothers.
A rootkit is a particularly insidious type of Trojan horse that hides its existence from users and programs by tampering with the operating system on the most fundamental level. Where normal malicious code might be content to choose a deceptive file name, a rootkit "hooks" operating system calls that might reveal its presence, and essentially reprograms them to lie -- like bribing the coroner to conceal a murder.
And the lie the First 4 Internet code tells is a whopper. Under the program's influence, Windows will deny the existence of any file, directory, process or registry key whose name begins with "$sys$." Russinovich verified this by making a copy of Notepad named "$sys$notepad.exe," which promptly vanished from view.
That means that any hacker who can gain even rudimentary access to a Windows machine infected with the program now has the power to hide anything he wants under the "$sys$" cloak of invisibility. Criticism of Sony has largely focused on this theoretical possibility -- that black hats might piggyback on the First 4 Internet software for their own ends.
On Wednesday, Sony answered its critics by promising to issue a patch that allows antivirus software to pierce First 4 Internet's cloaking function. But in our view, the hacker and virus threat is something of a red herring. The harm of the Sony DRM scheme is not that it enables evildoers, but that Sony itself did evil.
We needn't go skulking through the computer underground to find malicious action here. By deliberately corrupting the most basic functionality of their customers' computers, Sony broke the rules of fair play and crossed a bright line separating legitimate software from computer trespass. Their actions may be civilly actionable.
Sony may even have committed a crime under the U.S. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which can carry fines and prison terms for anyone who "knowingly causes the transmission of a program ... and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage, without authorization, to a protected computer." Corrupting Windows so it misreports the contents of a hard drive sounds a lot like "damage," and the click-wrap license agreement on the Sony disk amounts to pretty thin "authorization" -- disclosing only that "this CD will automatically install a small proprietary software program ... intended to protect the audio files embodied on the CD."
Nor are we comforted by assurances from First 4 Internet's CEO Mathew Gilliat-Smith, who, in an interview with CNET's News.com, defended his software this way: "For the eight months that these CDs have been out, we haven't had any comments about malware (malicious software) at all." Rootkits, like other cover-ups, rarely generate complaints before they're discovered.
Sony should immediately disclose the full details of its deployment of the First 4 Internet software, and assure the public that it will not use similar tactics in the future. Honest programs have no need to conceal themselves or their actions from users. Honest companies, too.
http://www.wired.com/news/rants/0,2350,69467,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2
jr
My pet hate about the sunngramms and PRs is this bit
MediaMax can be found on many Gold, Platinum and Double-Platinum selling Albums including Dave Matthews’ Platinum-selling, “Stand Up” and most recently, Foo Fighters, “In Your Honor” and The Backstreet Boys, “Never Gone.” Other popular releases that include MediaMax are J-Kwon’s Gold “Hood Hop,” and Velvet Revolver’s “Contraband” which was the first copy protected CD to reach the #1 spot on Billboard's Top 200 Album Chart and went on to achieve Double-Platinum status by selling more than 2 million units. SunnComm’s MediaMax technology has appeared on many other best-selling albums, totaling over 140 commercially released CD titles across more than 30 record labels.
Sounds good. But it would be so much more useful to us if it were all replaced by...
MediaMax can be found on X CDs
IMO the list of Golds and Platinums and #1s that have used MediaMax are there to draw attention away from the only meaningful figure, which is the number of CDs in total that have used it. The fact that they don't state it makes me think they do not regard it as something worth crowing about.
Macrovision.
I just listened to an archive of their conference call to see what they had to say. This is what I noted on the music business.
CDS-300 renamed Totalplay
Made available for release only this October 28th (didn't say anything about the previous 'official release dates' or why the hold up).
One of the major labels (seems like it may be EMI from the questions) has agreed to use it on 100% of all releases going forward.
In discussions with Sony/BMG.
They described the features - seemed from a user perspective to do much the same as MediaMax - extra content, music sharing by e-mail with potential for receiver to buy their own copy or download, labels can decide number of copies etc.
Hawkeye (P2P product) appears to be doing well, but no specifics.
Sting,
Doesn't MediaMax install code on the PC that we disguise so that it cannot be found easily and deleted?
I don't really see how MediaMax is different.
Sony CD protection sparks security concerns
http://news.com.com/Sony+CD+protection+sparks+security+concerns/2100-7355_3-5926657.html?tag=nefd.le...
I think this article is more balanced. The security concern is overstated IMO.
howdy,
When SunnComm / MediaMax representative Mario states at the completion of month 1 of the 4th QTR that Cash Flow Positive is PROBABLE - That carries a TON of WEIGHT
So long as Mario cotinues to issue statements without indicating on the statement the capacity under which the statement was made (for example - as a representative of SunnComm and issued under the authority of SunnComm) then those statements carry no weight - period.
I have yet to see any document from SunnComm stating that Mario issues statements on behalf of and with the authority of the company. Can you point me to one.
You can determine how much weight a statement from Mario carries simply by asking yourself whether a statement made by Mario on this board in the manner they are made would stand up in court as representing a statement made on behalf of the company.
Since MediaMax, CDS-300 and F4I all seem to be fairly similar in their approach to copy protecting CDs, will SunnComm be taking patent infringement action against the other 2 companies in light of this patent application?
It would certainly make a bold statement to the world that we are the leader and inventor and might cause the labels to have 2nd thoughts about dallying with the competition.
zstevek
What you described is quite feasible IMO, but is not what I would call backward compatible. What you are describing is releasing a fix or an upgrade to make those CDs compatible. The CDs themselves are not compatible.
People would need to be aware the fix is available and then take the necessary action. Anyone not aware of the fix or not connected would continue to be unable to rip the CDs to an iPod.
Using your example, you could claim the CDs are compatible with almost anything, even DRMs not invented yet, so long as the customer downloads the appropriate patch whenever it is released.
Perhaps Peter should have wrote that they will release an upgrade to MediaMax that can be downloaded to a PC to allow those CDs to be ripped to an iPod.
JTM Investments
Full details are in an earlier filing
JTM Investments I, LP
John T. Mills, General Partner
2213 Midvale Terrace
Henderson, NV. 89074
http://www.edgarfilings.biz/portfolio/Filings.asp?FileID=296
Subscribe to Ad free and enjoy an ad-free experience
Try Now
Keep the Ads