November 10, 2003

SunnComm, MediaMax CD3, and the shift key - revisited

Ernest Miller has a note on Sony's CD DRM Makes a Comeback, where he describes new Sony CD copy restrictions. He then asks, rhetorically:

How long before someone like Alex Halderman writes a critique of Sony's DRM as devastating as Halderman's analysis of SunnComm's (Analysis of the MediaMax CD3 Copy-Prevention System).

That reminds me ...

Around October 31, I submitted another question to Peter Jacobs, the president of SunnComm (remember, this is the company which threatened to use the DMCA to sue over that research), using their "Ask The Prez" form.

[Begin ask-the-prez question]

At the webpage a poster who is apparently an employee of SunnComm states in part:

"... we decided not to go after [Alex Halderman], and not because of the shift key, but because ultimately, the media's 'spin' would eventually become bigger (and badder) than the actual initial problem."

Would you be willing to confirm this statement? Now, I'm not asking about the shift key, I understand about the shift key, you need not tell me about the shift key. Rather, I'm asking if it is accurate that SunnComm decided not to "go after" the researcher because of the bad publicity it would generate for SunnComm (note I'm not asking if SunnComm considered that bad publicity to be warranted).

Please consider the reply for public consumption.

[End ask-the-prez question]

Unlike my last question to SunnComm, this time around there was no reply ...

By Seth Finkelstein | posted in dmca | on November 10, 2003 11:58 PM (Infothought permalink) | Followups
Seth Finkelstein's Infothought blog (Wikipedia, Google, censorware, and an inside view of net-politics) - Syndicate site (subscribe, RSS)

Subscribe with Bloglines      Subscribe in NewsGator Online  Google Reader or Homepage


There are 2 reasons I can think of why he won't answer.

One, confirmation either way would label him or the employee a liar. If he confirms what the employee said is true, then his own (Jacob's) earlier statement, that he did not pursue the lawsuit because of the chilling effect it would have on research (or words similar to that), would be seen to be a lie.

Two. It seems they may be now receiving the attention of the SEC and have decided to batten down the hatches regarding any sort of public statements that could be used against them. See this press release.

Posted by: ataboy at December 5, 2003 09:03 PM