OT? Stating the truth is off-topic?

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you saying it is OK to post incorect information concerning the company and its products, but to post the correction is off-topic?

--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"

"Reality is optional" strikes again... :)

... sorry, but my response to TJ was not "opinion".

Posted by: jrinphx

"Or can you provide a link?"

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=9608207

Posted by: jrinphx

"....as not only is "v6"
vaporware, it's unapproved vaporware :) "

This would be YOUR opinion?"

Oh no. My opinion was at the end of my message.
Not only has the purported "v6" failed to appear
before anybody but SuncMax insiders, it was Mario's
statement that it would not be ready until March...
in the same message that included the "without much
further dilution" statement. And as much as I view his
statements skeptically, I found those rather believable :)

"Or can you provide a link?"

Such a funny person... or did you honestly miss
reading that statement before it disappeared?

No matter, it took a while to retcon reality and
others here did not miss it. (The selloffs began
shortly thereafter.)

As for my other statements, you have the settlement,
the Mediamax site, and the EFF's response to my
inquiry.

No "v6",at least in any form usable by Sony BMG.

And with Mario's statement and no contact from
SuncMax to the plaintiffs "v6" = vaporware.

As I said, my opinion is that SuncMax trotted out
a tacked-together "v6" and found out that
"preemptive installation" wouldn't fly anymore.
Perhaps they targeted the non-S/BMG labels?

stehvestor: wrong question.

Remember? Mario admitted that there is no
"v6" as of yet, ("March...") much less a
"v6" that has passed the hurdles needed for
post-settlement use by S/BMG... so SBMG could
hardly start using it now, as not only is "v6"
vaporware, it's unapproved vaporware :)

It can't be called the somewhat more polite
term "in development" because of what the Mediamax
site said without qualification. It has been
portrayed as existant, but a supposedly "in the know"
insider has said that it is not. Therefore it is
vaporware until copies hit third-party desks...
those same third-parties that have not been selected
yet.

Many software products before have blundered into
vaporware status and have struggled through to
actual existence, but now "v6" has to cross from one
state to the other.

So your question

"If sony/bmg is still going to use mediamax v6, is there
anything stopping them from using it now."

Should be phrased:

"Is there anything stopping SBMG from announcing
an intent to use a future version of MM and getting
a start on the acceptance ball rolling?"

That would be the best SuncMax investors could hope
for with the information to hand.

And that's not opinion... that's what Mario said is
happening (of whatever value that may be) contrasted
with what the settlement says must happen for
a future "v6" to gain acceptance.

My opinion?
SuncMax tacked together a "v6" that they thought
would hold the wolves at bay... and they found out that
the settlement "no installation" terms meant business
and thus are having to retool. Just my thoughts on the
subject.

--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just waving Princeton pennants to drive the conspiracy theorists nuts?"

But not nearly as many "Suncom" as "Mediamax"...

:)

There are many kinds of "Mediamax"...

... surely folks here did not think the name was unique?

...and if Macrovision also fails scrutiny, kenco?

Posted by: kenco

"Zap, yes it looks like they had their ducks all lined up waiting for this implosion to happen so they could leap in to save the day"

You leap to the assumption that MV automatically has a
clean bill of health. XCP and MMv3 & 5 made the same
leap of faith...

... and they are still sponging those bodies off the
rocks below...

Just because MV corporate did not exceed as badly as
F4I, or reek as badly as SuncMax, that doesn't
automatically give TotalPlay a halo and wings.


"Copy Protection", whatever you may want to call it,
involves messing with people's computers... the stakes
are high... and those rocks wait below...

--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: proof that the end is nearer than you think."

er... not so fast, kenco...

Posted by: kenco

"as I read the settlement, Sony only needs to have that 3rd party "opinion" in hand to be in total compliance with the settlement."

?

That the EFF will be involved in the security part of
third-party checking doesn't seem to be specified by
the agreement, but the security part is not the only
third party checking required. There are other
checkpoints to pass...

Still, it cannot be argued that MacroVision has a
definite leg up over the purported MMv6 in achieving
settlement compliance... starting with the verified
actual existence of the product and also a simple flat
declaration by Macrovision that it doesn't screw with
the PC upon insertion, for starters.

Either of those would do MMv6 a world of good with
regards to claims of settlement eligibility.

--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just lovable transgenic chimerae?"

The EFF chimes in...

This is somewhat belated, and seems increasingly
irrelevant as it has become apparent that SuncMax
and v6 are... er... "business as usual".

But I did email the EFF "what's up with this stuff?"
and today got a succint, if considered and lawyerly,
reply to that email.

(Note: I've altered the text by replacing my private
email with my public email. Also left in where she
quoted my original letter to her so you folks can see
that I laid out all that I posted here re: v6 et al
in case it warranted correction... but apparently
they either didn't see any errors or didn't bother
to correct me... flip a coin... :)

Of course some will read the following as
confirmation, others will read it as condemnation...
I read it as "Sony ain't v6'ing yet , and the EFF is
waiting on an actual v6 like everyone else...."

From: Corynne McSherry <corynne@eff.org>
To: Chuck Stewart <zapkitty@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Questions regarding Sony resuming
DRM CDs immediately.
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 14:11:29 -0800
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.623)

Hi Chuck --

Sorry for the delay in responding. We have seen a
wide variety of rumors posted on Freedom to Tinker
and other sites, which purport to know something
about the future of SunnComm or new versions of the
MediaMax software. Generally we do not give those
rumors much credence.

As you probably know, Sony's requirements for future
DRM are discussed in the Settlement Agreement
(http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM/Sony-BMG/sony_settlement.pdf).

As for SunnComm, we have asked for a copy of MM
version 6 for independent security testing, which
they have not yet provided. As you may know, we also
sent an open letter to SunnComm last month
(http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004245.php).

Since then we have had discussions with SunnComm (see
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004339.php), and
expect a formal response on the remaining points soon.

Best regards,

Corynne

On Jan 23, 2006, at 9:17 AM, Chuck Stewart wrote:

> To: Corynne McSherry
> Staff Attorney
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> corynne@eff.org

> Hello!

> My name is Chuck Stewart, and I'm emailing you
> to ask for any input the EFF may have concerning
> some pretty wild claims and rumors regarding the
> Sony DRM settlement that are being directed at
> SunnComm/MediaMax investors, specifically in regards
> to *currently ongoing* work Sony is supposedly doing
> with Mediamax DRM'ed CDs.

> The questions first arose from Sunncomm/Mediamax
> claims that were anonymously spammed to the "Freedom
> To Tinker" blog:
> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=954

> ========

> Anonymous Says:
> January 13th, 2006 at 12:01 am

> "MediaMax V6 is out and the Sony Agreement only
> bans V3 and V5. SunnComm rules once more....
http://www.mediamaxtech.com/PDF/MediaMax(V6)Features_and_Advantages.pdf
> SunnComm V6 with soon to be added Darknoise
> technology to prevent leakage through the analog
> hole. An awesome combination!"

> Anonymous Says:
> January 13th, 2006 at 12:20 am

> "I hear Sony-BMG are thrilled with V6. Its GO GO
> GO from here on in.
> Those who just want to steal music and those who
> pretend to be for consumer rights (but really just
> want to steal music too) lose again. I hear Sony
> will be using V6 on a major release this month."

> ========

> Of course it's obvious that the above statements are
> quite impossible in many respects, and that the...
> er- call them "pro-Sunncomm/Mediamax folks" ;)...
> are desperately trying to shore up their collapsing
> stock... but it did lead to the following link and
> quote:
http://www.mediamaxtechnology.com/HTML/mediamax_advantages.asp
> "NOTE: Installation of software and presentation of
> the EULA "End User License Agreement" conform to the
> newest standards as defined by the industry and
> consumer advocate groups."

> (In fact, this one statement is apparently the
> only difference in the specs listed for Mediamax v5
> and v6.)

> This has led to an involved debate over at Investors
> Hub's Sunncomm forum as to whether Mediamax v6 is
> actually "settlement-approved", and just how far
> could Sony go towards resumption of DRM'ed CDs, before
> the final settlement approval, without the EFF and
> other plaintiffs in the case knowing about it... and
> how far could Sony proceed towards such "early
> production" before plaintiff interaction became
> mandatory.

> (This is presuming, of course, that Sony actually
> had any interest in restarting DRM "as soon as
> possible".... which seems unlikely, but this is what
> the SuncMax shills are pushing *hard*.)

> So here are the questions asked, and the answers
> I gave on my own. Any corrections to my responses,
> or further clarifications you may have, would be
> most welcome :)

> 1.) Has anyone from Suncncomm/Mediamax consulted
> with anyone from the EFF about these "newest
> standards" that Mediamax v6 supposedly adheres to?
> Is MediaMax v6 settlement-approved... or is it at
> least "nearly-> settlement-ready?"

> My answer was: "Not possible, yet. Interactive
> involvement from the plaintiffs is required."

> 2.) The question then became "Could Sony
> commission a SuncMax product before the final
> approval of the settlement?"

> My response was "Not without the EFF knowing
> about it. The plaintiffs would have to be informed
> if Sony commissioned new DRM software for CDs."

> 3.) Would Sony need the EFF's active cooperation
> before Sony resumed production of DRM'ed CDs?

> My response was "The EFF not only would have to
> know if Sony began CD DRM again early, but it would
> have to be actively involved as a third party, the
> "EULA Reviewer" must be approved by both plaintiffs
> and defendants. Thus Sony cannot put out a DRM'ed CD
> product before the settlement is official, if in
> fact Sony was inclined to do that, without the
> EFF's cooperation."

> Again, any insight or clarification the EFF can
> provide to any of these questions would be very
> helpful. And even if you can't help I do thank
> you for your time :)



> Sincerely,
> Chuck Stewart
> zapkitty@yahoo.com



--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"

alj14... er... wrong.

Posted by: alj14

"If Zap is happy to assume the mantle of lobbyist for a "no DRM, destruction of all IP rights" agenda, that is his free choice, but all those who follow this board should be well aware of what is going on, and of what that agenda is."

Ok. You have made known your "creative",
personally invented, subjectively elaborated
idea of the nature of the zapkitty. How quaint.
Nothing to do with me, mind you, but... quaint.

"EFF's role in this area is limited to participation
in the joint designation of the "EULA Reviewer", as per
the text of the agreement."

Which means that for Sony to proceed early on
the settlement terms for new DRM, which was the
subject under discussion, Sony would not
only have to alert the EFF, but would have to
have their active cooperation.

Which is all theoretically possible... but which
also blows any SuncMax claims of "behind the
scenes movement" clear out of the water.

Posted by: t d j

(snip appropriate quote for brevity.)

"EFF can help pick the third party. Nothing about yes
or no to Sony moving forward."

?

The original question was: "Is the SuncMax v6
settlement-approved or is it at at least
settlement-ready?"

My answer was: "Not possible, yet. Interactive
involvement from the plaintiffs is required."

The question became "Could Sony commission a
SuncMax product before the final approval of
the settlement?"

My response was "Not without the EFF knowing
about it."

tj asked for EFF's "stop authority", which
implied more than what I meant, but...

... I then found out that the EFF did indeed
have to pass approval on a third party
before the settlement could move forward.

Thus the EFF not only would have to know if
Sony began CD DRM again early, but it would
have to be actively involved.

So in the end, a Sony "early movement" scenario
comes right up against needing the EFF's
cooperation before claiming compliance with the
settlement.

So the end result of all this? It's simple...

... the SuncMax implied claims on the website are
just that: implied claims sans actual evidence of
any settlement-mandated input. And the Sony
involvement implied in the pro-SuncMax
blogspams is flatly impossible.

And Sony cannot put out a DRM product before the
settlement is official, if in fact Sony was
inclined to do that, without the EFF's cooperation.

Posted by: Holdingthebag

"... that do not shine a nice light on SCMI, they are attacked. (See Zap's posts, and all the responses)"

But some, including some who contest my comments
most strongly, do not attack me. They research and
post right back at me :)

And the overall negative reaction is, admittedly,
quite a bit less than when I first drifted
over here.

I doubt if I'll ever actually be welcomed warmly
here, but then again I probably shouldn't be...

Sting, please be specific...

Posted by: stingray2

" Zap, Personal preferances of what you would like things to mean, does not make it a factual presentation of the agreed to terms."

*sigh*

How am I incorrect, Sting? Be specific.

The settlement is not subject to interpretation
in the sense you apparently mean. While it's
theoretically possible, in some fantasy world, for
Sony to be quietly concluding deals with SuncMax
it is not possible, even in a fantasy world, for
the plaintiffs to be left out of that planning...
especially when the defendants are obligated by
the settlement to include the plaintiffs in third
party selections involving any future endeavours.

The SuncMax "this is all happening behind the
scenes!" BS simply falls apart at that point.

Actually, yes... the EFF does have a say.

First off:

Posted by: t d j

http://www.mediamaxtechnology.com/HTML/mediamax_advantages.asp

Yes, the carefully unspecific puff-piece by SuncMax,
unreviewed by any of the required third parties...
and that's assuming that SuncMax is trying to be
honest and factual... which hasn't exactly been high
on their priority list in PR pieces up until now,
has it?

Sorry tj, but unless SuncMax is finally willing to
start talking and to get specific that link is proof
of nothing in particular. It's sad when a business'
word alone is not reliable... but what can you do?

Kindly post a link that gives any final say to the EFF.

?
By Basts' whiskers, these people are indeed
desperate. That's not meant as a slam, just a
realization on my part... again.

http://www.girardgibbs.com/sonysettlementagreement.pdf

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
IV. "AGREEMENT WITH ATTORNEYS GENERAL" B. 3. e & f

It's interesting, the things you learn when you
poke around :)

As I meant it, it was not a matter of "final say"
but rather that such "early action" could not
possibly proceed without the EFF, as a plaintiff,
being kept fully informed. The settlement requires
third-party validation of a LOT of things,
third parties which have not been selected yet,
and while all parties concerned may find it beneficial
to proceed apace, such action could NOT possibly occur
without EFF knowledge... even if the judge decided,
for some strange reason, that plaintiff consent
was not required. The EFF would know, and they
would not have any reason to keep quiet.

"Unless the EFF says otherwise..." simply meant
that until the EFF said they'd been informed of
"early action" then "early action" could not
possibly be happening.

BUT...

But when I looked it up I found that the EFF, as a
plaintiff, does have a final say in the
selection of the third-party EULA reviewer...
...
... which means no EFF consent, no "early action".

Again: No EFF consent, no Sony DRM.

Now, the EFF has plainly indicated that it does not
intend to interfere with Sony should Sony choose to
pursue more CD DRM, but they can no longer do it in
secret, as it were.

So not only would EFF knowledge be required for
the fantasy spun by SuncMax supporters to have
any possibility of happening, but EFF consent
and approval would also be required.

And the EFF would talk about that...a lot. It's
what they do, y'know :)

tj: not minor and injunctions do prevent it.

Posted by: t d j

"I disagree with you here. The changes that had to be made were minor."

No. Not minor, not for Mediamax as v5 operated.
Mediamax depended on installing crippling
drivers before the user could stop it. This is
not permitted now, under the settlement. If v6
waits for explicit permission before acting,
then that's fine... but so far what little has
been released about v6 says nothing substantive
on the subject. The Mediamax modus operandi was
to "get" the user's PC before the user had a
chance to "get" at the music. And nothing on the
Mediamax site or the vague allusions by the
supposed "insiders" on the forum have given any
real assurance that Mediamax has given up that
tactic. In fact the "insiders" have been
downright evasive when pressed on the subject.

It might be a simple thing to hold off on the
driver installation until after the EULA has
been accepted... but it would totally change
the way Mediamax has operated until now,
including their marketing.

(zapkitty said:) "will have to wait for the final settlement approval"

And tj responded:

"They have known the conditions since early to mid December and may have them all in place. If not, I don't believe it will be far off."

and tj also said:

"Why? Business doesn't stop just because there is a lawsuit pending.... Unless there is an injunction preventing future use..."

Yes. any future DRM must pass two separate
third-party inspections.

And while SuncMax might be secretive and some
hopeful soul could postulate that Sony
maybe might be hot to trot... I guarantee
that the Electronic Frontier Foundation is neither.

Unless the EFF says otherwise it'll be June
at the earliest.

odie001: And your correction(s) would be?

Posted by: odie001

WOW ZAP!
YOUR AN IDIOT !!!!!

I think you meant "you're an idiot"... :)

While my post was an idly meandering thing... have
you found any inaccuracies in it?

Posted by: odie001

"Greed, thats why we post so much...If this tanks, we all need to get together for a beer."

Greed isn't good, but it isn't bad either. It just is.

"I can't believe I held so long, my gut says it will go up, something has to be done about piracy!"

But Mediamax isn't about preventing piracy, it's
about controlling the customer...

The actual commercial pirate couldn't give less of
a damn about DRM, and runs off their exact copies of
the "protected" CDs at will.

So, seeing the failure to control that aspect, the
media companies locked onto the customer as a
potential control point. But attempting to control
the customer inevitably leads to playing games with
the customer... which is where SuncMax got into
trouble. You should have seen red flags when Sony
tried to use these purported "anti-pirate measures"
to attack Apple in the marketplace.

Gaming the customer is what business is all about,
but to stay successful you've got to at least make
the customer think that you are playing fair...
and giving even the semblance of fair play
seems to be very difficult for SuncMax... given the
extremely fast-and-loose way SuncMax has played
with reality in the past. (This is not opinion, and
is not subject to debate.)

So saying that you're backing SuncMax to "stop piracy"
is like saying that you are playing the odds on the
unspeakable pursuing the unattainable :)

"I really think the artists want copy protection but they cant reveal what they think because it might hurt their rep."

They'd be happy if assured that DRM could give them
more money without harming their fans. And
Sony, XCP, and Mediamax blew any chance of artist
peace of mind in that regard... bigtime.

So Sony gets in with Apple, and Apple's DRM for
that niche. No group that has announced anything
with Mediamax seems to be still using Mediamax, if
they ever did. And Sony, even if they pick up a injunction-modified v6 (which cannot possibly exist
yet), will have to wait for the final settlement
approval... which means June at the earliest.

So when will SuncMax disavow the spams' allegations?

Posted by: sahd3g

"Don't expect press releases until after BMG lawsuits are settled."

Except that the blogspams hinting of some kind
of impending Mediamax release continue... first
it was a Sony Mediamax release that was hinted
at, which is physically impossible in the time
frame suggested, now the spam continues, but
without the Sony allegation... and SuncMax does
have other customers besides Sony BMG, right?

So... aside from some perceived PR value, what's
to be gained by the blog spamming by someone who
apparently claims to have inside knowledge?

And if it's NOT SuncMax then shouldn't they step
forward and disavow the spams' claims... it would
also help with the bad impression the spamming is
giving of Mediamax to people who read the blogs.

So the blog spamming isn't by SuncMax?

... just by someone who keeps claiming that an
otherwise unannounced Mediamax release is
imminent?

So when will SuncMax step forward and disavow
the spams' claims?

Posted by: stehvestor

"Since the new mmxt web site has reference to v6, isn't it strange that no PR or sunngram has mentioned it's completion and styate of readiness it is for the industry."

It seems that the only press releases re:
SuncMax are the continued spamming of the
Freedom To Tinker blog...

Here is the announcement, apparently, of an
upcoming new Mediamax release of some kind
or the other...

http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=954

"Anonymous Says:
January 17th, 2006 at 9:39 am

Sapsilly. Don't you understand the word "pretend"?
"Those who just want to steal music and those who pretend to be for consumer rights (but really just want to steal music too) lose again."

It was not libelious. It was not an attack on those who really are for consumer rights, just the pretenders. There are many genuine protectors of consumer rights, like the good folk at SunnComm and MediaMax Technology. They have put their money into protecting the consumer by creating software that enables them to exercise their rights. Real money, not empty academic rhetoric.

Just read MediaMax V6 specs and you will agree.

http://www.mediamaxtechnology.com/PDF/MediaMax(V6)Brochure.pdf

Peter Jacobs and the new leader Kevin Clement are the ones you should be thanking, not firing cheap shots at them for some minor glitches in the code. Microsoft, Semantic and Apple all have had similar glitches in the last few weeks. Go pick on them. Can you hear the future? We can and you will hear it later this month too for a $15 investment."

Only SuncMax management (or those ever-present
"insiders") would know of such a release, yes?

Now back to stehvestor's inquiry...

Posted by: stehvestor

"Are they waiting for more research reports from third parties, are they just to poor to put out a PR?"

This is an honest observation: The only reports
reaching the public are the OT posts to Freedom
To Tinker... posts the make assertions and
accusations unrelated to the commentary, and
seem merely aimed at pumping the stock... and yet
contain claims of an impending release... claims
that should rightfully only come from SuncMax.

So when will SuncMax step forward and disavow
the spams' claims?

And if the don't disavow them... isn't that a
pretty sad way to rum a PR campaign? Admittedly
it is an acknowledgment that FTT gets far more
attention than SuncMax official channels... but
it's still sad.

"I really think a lot of this would be by the wayside if they say here is V6, it's been tested and approved by all interested parties including the SAG of all the states listed in the legal action."

But that is physically impossible... there
hasn't been time for well-thought-out,
well-researched, well-tested changes to
Mediamax, at least the kind of changes as
stipulated by the injunctions.

"Oh by the way, Felton & Halderman also approve."

I believe that they'd test it and give an
honest report, despite the spamming.

No news of an impending Mediamax release?

None at all?

V6: It's almost the same as v5?

Posted by: screamineagle

"Signs of LIFE- MediaMax V6 ; MediaMax™(V6) Features
On-the-Fly Technology™"

...and the exact same feature set as v5 with
one (1) change... the following addition:

"NOTE: Installation of software and presentation of the EULA "End User License Agreement" conform to the newest standards as defined by the industry and consumer advocate groups."

Presumably this would mean that Mediamax no
longer installs stuff without giving clear
warning of what it's about to do and getting
explicit permission from the user before
doing it... as required by the injunctions of
the Sony settlement.

If not, then v6 is unusable by Sony for the
period of the injunctions.

If that's so, if Mediamax still installs
drivers upon insertion (despite the advice of
the Federal Government against doing such
things from audio CDs) then warnings must be
boldly displayed on or in the case...
preferably on the case (unlike Macrovision)
so that people will know what they're getting
into before purchasing the CD.

But which option did v6 take? Whatever the
answer may be, it is sure to be... interesting.

Posted by: zstevek

"Cripple it from what?"

From its use as a fully functional CD drive.

The point being that there's a hell of a
difference between reading a EULA and
installing kernel-level device drivers.

And the settlement forbids installing drivers
(Copy Protection) before the EULA is accepted.
Again, this isn't my opinion, these are the
settlement terms that the judge will cheerfully
enforce.

I keep reading things blandly stated on this
board that, if implemented, would keep
Sony's lawyers busy just tallying up the
contempt-of-court fines.

You've tried to dance around that point before.

Reading a EULA DOES NOT EQUAL installing
drivers that cripple a PCs CD drive... even
"temporarily".

From the settlement:
"Ensure that the Content Protection Software
operates in a manner ensuring that no software
will be installed on the hard disk drive of a
user's computer unless and until the user has
agreed to such installation by accepting a
EULA or by otherwise affirmatively consenting
to such installation."

Now perhaps v6 will try to get around this by
doing it in memory... in Windows... hold
on... I can't stop laughing... *ahem*...

Mediamax, as v5, is unusable by Sony.

If v6 has not changed its methodology from v5
any more than the Mediamax web page would
suggest, that is to say "not at all, aside from
cosmetics" then v6 is unusable by Sony during
the injunction period.

And no. That's not my opinion humble or otherwise.
That is a simple if-then statement.

So the question is: has v6 changed from v5's
habit of installing drivers upon insertion?

If it has changed then that's step 2 towards
usability by Sony. (1 is, of course, a clear
EULA before installation.)

Posted by: alj14

Surely, here on this board we should avoid dilution and dispersal of the truth!

I'm trying my best to live up to that aspiration :)

Posted by: alj14

In the meantime, there is independent testing and compliance with all the various requirements of the legal agreement.

One would hope... but there is no evidence
of such at this time. At least no more so
than v5, and you saw what that was worth.

The "new" v6 shows only what the old v5 had:
MS certification (It should run on Windows
but don't hold us to that) and "PMTC"
certification (we'll certify your optical
discs just as far as you can afford)

Oh yeah... and a declaration by Mediamax
that "Installation of software and
presentation of the EULA "End User License
Agreement" conform to the newest standards
as defined by the industry and consumer
advocate groups." Just a declaration,
nothing more. Hmmm... and notice how
"Installation of Software" is mentioned
before "EULA"? It would be sad if that were
applied in that order. Sad... and unusable
by Sony for the injunction period.

None of the settlement-mandated third-party
consultations... which makes sense as there
was only a preliminary judicial approval
last Friday. So obviously this "v6"
doesn't apply to Sony at this time, if ever.

Posted by: dilutionagain1

But on the website, there is no (V6) after MediaMax in the certification section. It just says MediaMax.

Might have been an oversight: it's there now.

http://www.mediamaxtechnology.com/HTML/mediamax_validation_certifications.asp

Microsoft™ - After rigorous review by the Windows Quality Online Services Team, MediaMax (V6) has been awarded the 'Designed for Windows' certification.

Did anyone notice...

... that the "specs" for the "v6" version are
lifted almost verbatim from the v5 brochure?

http://www.sunncomm.com/Brochure/SunncommCover.htm

The only real difference is the mention of
the existence of a EULA... which is
an improvement over V5...

No, it was also for Mediamax.

Posted by: t d j

"Zap - that was for XCP, not MM."

No. While usually XCP was far worse in each
offense, (except for the covert installation)
Mediamax was guilty on all counts as well.

Note: this is history, now. Some of this
stuff no longer applies to Mediamax.

I said:

"Starting with the original responses from
Sony when the problem was first noted,"

Do I really have to dig up 3 or 4 or 5 or 6
"Stupid Sony Tricks" quotes? :)

"to the "uninstaller" that made the customer
jump through unnecessary hoops and demanded
unneeded personal data"

http://tickets.sunncomm.com/selfhelp/addbook_readarticle.php?articleID=24

"Q: Is there a way to remove your software from my computer?
A: Please note that MediaMax was designed to manage and safeguard the copyrights of specified artists' CDs while giving you an enhanced visual and listening experience. It does not interfere with or impact any of the normal operations and/or functions of your computer."

http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=925

"None of the MediaMax albums I've seen from
Sony-BMG include any option to uninstall the
software."

"Update: Apparently SunnComm was providing an
uninstaller to users who persistently demanded
one,"

http://www.michaelrighi.com/2005/06/20/use-sony-drm-format-your-hard-drive/
(This is after the author made repeated requests
for an uninstaller)
"Conversely, removing Sony's DRM software requires an Internet connection, Internet Explorer and an ActiveX control."

Looking at it.... is this what you referred to, tj?

I know that it may not be obvious to non-techs,
but requiring all that jumping through hoops and
specific web browser and the much-reviled ActiveX
gives entirely too much personal information to
Sony, especially for just getting unwanted
software off of the machine. As I said: not as
bad as XCP, but definitely unneeded privacy
disclosures nonetheless.

My further quotes were in reference to the
very-well documented security vulnerabilities
both in uninstallers and in Mediamax itself.

Was that (disclosures) what you were referring to?

format c: reinstall Windows lose time lose data.

Can you say "Service Charges"?
I knew you could :)

Back again, after I said I was done, but a
factual question has been asked, no posts
indicating any awareness of the actual
situation have been seen... and I can't
help myself when I know the answer :)

Fact: A chilling effect.
For many people, average computer users
as opposed to "Joe and Jane CD Buyer", well...
when faced with the ongoing Sony DRM debacle
from the point of view as a user there were damn
few choices they could make to ensure their PC
security. Starting with the original (only
word for it) bullshit responses from Sony when
the problem was first noted, to the "uninstaller"
that made the customer jump through
unnecessary hoops and demanded unneeded
personal data to the fact that said same
uninstaller turned out to be a security risk to
the discovery that the malware was in and of
itself a security risk anyway...

... to the average user nuking the hard drive
and reinstalling Windows was the only sane
thing to do to get malware off of their systems.

AND THAT COSTS .

And Mediamax was responsible.

Now amplify that by a small corporation or
non-profit entity that suddenly has to disinfect
a few dozen PCs the hard way and watch the bills
multiply in number and cost... and the
ill-will towards whoever was responsible builds
as well.

Yeah, theoretically the EULA forbade that last,
non-personal installations, but the covert
installation would have done the damage even if
the user declined the EULA.

THAT's why there's a lot of ticked-off people who
feel that Sony owes them hard cash in large
quantities... and not mp3 downloads.

Settlement tentatively approved...

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/1310AP_Sony_Lawsuits.html

Sony Mediamax stopped for now, as expected, but
apparently neither side tried to slip in a fast
one.

Just passing by...

Posted by: t d j

"Zap,

MediaMax..."

Er... which Mediamax? The one in current
release, which has not been recalled, is a
very different beast from what you describe.

"MediaMax allows you to copy music, "

Per the EULA, with unwarranted restrictions.

"transfer to all portable music players"

No. As presented on the CD and under the
EULA, no. Per the Sony-Apple conflict ipods are
excluded by the EULA.

" and remove the software with the uninstaller."

As presented on the CD and under the EULA, no.
There is no uninstaller, nor is one referred to.

" What specific road block is in the way of version 6? "

As long as the settlement provisions remedying
the above are followed, none :)

SuncMax had incidentally met some of the
provisions, but they were either "under the
counter" (music to ipod) or after the fact
(uninstall)... and nothing for the rest of
the provisions. The provisions must be met
in the version of Mediamax 6 distributed
on CD and the EULA must match as well.

Those provisions are summarized here.
http://www.sunbelt-software.com/ihs/alex/sonysettleme23423423434nt.pdf

See my reply to zstevek for a quote from it.

Yo, mods,

I said I'd made my points, but would monitor
for replies and corrections.

Will you permit me to reply to questions asked
of me... at all?

Posted by: t d j
In reply to: A deleted message

"Zap,

MediaMax..."

Er... which Mediamax? The one in current
release, which has not been recalled, is a
very different beast from what you describe.

"MediaMax allows you to copy music, "

Per the settlement, with unwarranted restrictions.

"transfer to all portable music players"

No. As presented on the CD and under the
EULA, no.

" and remove the software with the uninstaller."

As presented on the CD and under the EULA, no.
There is no uninstaller, nor is one referred to.

" What specific road block is in the way of version 6? "

As long as the settlement provisions remedying
the above are followed, none :)

SuncMax has made some provisions either under the
table (music to ipod) or after the fact (uninstall)
but 6.0 must have all settlement provisions built
in and clearly disclosed.

The provisions I refer to... if Mediamax was as you
described it then this would read very differently.

http://www.sunbelt-software.com/ihs/alex/sonysettleme23423423434nt.pdf

This is the "Motion And Memorandum Of Law", a
motion for, and summary of, the settlement that
gives the judge advance notice of what the full
settlement will do for all parties involved.

A quote from that:

"Defendants have agreed to waive certain of
their rights under the XCP and MediaMax EULAs.
These waivers will allow consumers to remove the
XCP and/or MediaMax software from their computers,
listen to the audio files across all file formats
and in all portable music players, and choose not
to download future updates of the XCP or MediaMax
software. Once these provisions are waived,
consumers will not have to be in possession of the
SONY BMG CD to hold a license for the audio files,
will not be precluded from copying music files and
other digital content on the CDs, will be allowed
to resell the CDs, and will not lose their licenses
for the software if they file for bankruptcy
protection or are declared insolvent. Also,
Defendants waive their rights to be indemnified by
users of the XCP or MediaMax software for harm
arising from their use of the software."

In the end...

Posted by: stingray2

" I believe all understand that in order for copy management to be acceptable the Rights of the Consumer "Buyer of the CD" must be preserved by implementing the following!

(1) The Eula needs to be in plain English and be understood
and be unambiguous.
(2) The acceptance of the Eula must be made prior to any
installation.
(3) A workable uninstaller that removes the entire
copy /management system must be available.
(4) Clear labeling stating that the CD has Copy/ Management.


So far, so good :) But important things
must be added to address the new shape
this possible "Mediamax 6.0" must take
in order to comply with the settlement...

(I will use the settlement's term:
"Content Protection". That's what the
lawyers carrying out the injunctions will
be calling it, 'k ?)

(5) The EULA must not interfere with such
copying rights as the user may have.

Explanation: Sony has waived all such
nonsense claims from the previous XCP/MM
EULAs and cannot suddenly try to add them
back during the injunction period without
the judge slapping Sony silly with contempt
citations. And an angry judge can hurt even
mammoth Sony/BMG... badly.

(6) The Content Protection Software may be
bypassed by the user. The methods need
not be obvious, but they will be there.

Explanation: This, naturally, also extends
from Sony's waiving of the unenforceable
terms of the EULAs. Actually, of course,
this is a just simple observation of fact
but it's existence must be taken into
account when designing and trying to sell
the Content Protection to the customer.

SuncMax is not obligated to say "PLease
ignore Mediamax" but SuncMax can no longer
try to sweep such a simple fact under the
rug. To be blunt: (What? Me? Blunt? :)
SuncMax can't lie about the existence of this
fact, lie about the customer's legal right to
bypass, nor may SuncMax scream "Thief!" at the
customer in an attempt to try and stop them.

(If Steh doesn't die of apoplexy at just the
thought he/she might actually find that this
eases their blood pressure considerably ;)

"A clear standard should certainly be the result!"

A hope, for the moment only a hope. You,
the investors and the SuncMax people,
are not out of the woods yet... by a long
shot.

But if SuncMax now starts off by being
straightforward and honest I believe they'll
find out what certain other content providers
have discovered: that the average customer
likes being trusted and respected and will
generally (but of course not always) make
the small effort it takes to be worthy of
that trust and respect.

As an example, one that probably seem like
it's from another world to you, check out
Baen Books for an ebook success story without
DRM.... in a sub-industry where the mammoth
publishing houses watch their DRM-encumbered
ebooks molder on the cyber-shelves.

But be warned: a return to a "Shoot on sight!"
policy can only lead SuncMax back to this
nasty spot again.

I am done here, though I will monitor for
responses and corrections to any errors I may
have made.

Good luck! :)

--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"

sahd3g: Insightful.

Posted by: sahd3g

"Maybe giving them what they wanted is what caused the problems."

Insightful.

After yesterday's insanity (and sorry,
there was no other word for some of what
was said) I am pleased to see thoughtful
insight.

Yes, acting on the media company twin
suppositions... that the consumer was
automatically guilty and had no rights
but what the labels chose to give them...
was the root of the problem.

Someone needed to see beyond the media
company worldview of the marketplace as a
dichotomy torn between placid CD-eating,
money-shitting ignorant consumer sheep and
evil leeching pirate wolves.

Someone needed to see the customer as they
actually were: individuals with rights and
worthy of a modicum of respect.

Someone needed to see beyond the media
company PR line... and failed.

Now Sony has said they will undergo a
corporate culture change... to the point
of having the EFF oversee it. (bleagh :)

And the question is the same as I asked
before: Can Sunc/Max follow suit?

Posted by: stehvestor

" Do you accept the conditions set by mediamax Y N"

Y'know.... if some folks herabouts would just
stop saying that their companies will fix
the problems by charging ahead and
repeating the exact same mistakes that
landed you all in this pickle in the first
place... I'd feel a lot better about
humanities' chances for the future ;)

Perhaps :)

But, if you recall, I never stated otherwise.

My problem was the malware, the covert
installation, and the attempt to abrogate
the user's rights by fiat.

But the PC hijacking and the "you have no
rights but what Mediamax gives you" BS is over.

Mediamax may not install on a PC covertly,
and may not interfere with the user if the
user wishes to bypass the software.

It may negotiate with the user, and should,
but no more abrogation by fiat.

copy protection, Copy Management, Content
Protection...

Sting, Steh called it copy protection :)

I just pointed out that the old-style
"hijack the PC" routine was no longer
allowed. Therefore "copy protection",
as steh called it, was not allowed.

"Copy Management", as in physically
preventing the copying without informed
user consent is equally disallowed.

In the settlement it is called "Content
Protection Software"... and what it can
and can't do is spelled out.

Informed user consent is required.

And of course Sunncomm/Mediamax will
follow that lead... or else ;)

Interesting.The settlement forbids hijacking the PC.

As "copy protection" is traditionally defined as
prohibiting copying by fiat then no hijack = no
"copy protection".

Do you use a different definition?