Sony Hit With $1M Penalty For COPPA Violations 85
coondoggie writes "It really isn't a big enough penalty, and the company admitted no guilt, but Sony BMG Music Entertainment today agreed to pay $1 million as part of a settlement to resolve Federal Trade Commission charges that it knowingly violated the privacy rights of over 30,000 underage children.
Specifically the FTC said the company violated the agency's Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) and the FTC did say the penalty was its largest ever in a COPPA case.
To provide resources to parents and their children about children's privacy in general, and social networking sites in particular, the penalty order requires Sony Music to link to certain FTC consumer education materials for the next five years."
And... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And... (Score:5, Funny)
No, but they can get some candy.
Come, I have some of them in my van.
Re:And... (Score:5, Funny)
Come, I have some of them in my van.
The children or the candy?
Re: (Score:2)
I believe he meant that his van is full of all sorts of violations.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Re:And... (Score:4, Insightful)
Do the violated children get the money?
I thought it was the parents who were "violated", by not getting the required assistance in keeping track of what their children are doing online (because putting the computer where they can see it is too hard)?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
Oh well, there is no way I am giving up the opportunity to tell people that Sony violates children, even if they were nice enough to give everyone free rootkits.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it means the government now has another million dollars with which to look for and prosecute COPPA violations.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That was COPA, which tried to prevent children from accessing porn. This is about COPPA, which is the completely pointless act that makes it a requirement for children under 13 to lie about their age regularly.
Re: (Score:1)
The COPPA is a joke. 30,000 Underage kids violated? Yeah right... they were just playing video games. The FTC says the COPPA is necessary and makes people give them money when they violate one of their "rules". Wake up parents, the world is, and always has been a dangerous place. Live with it, learn about it, and do what you can to protect your family. The FTC i
Do they actually cut a cheque? (Score:3, Insightful)
Or do they weasel their way into spending $1M on anti-"Piracy" propaganda instead? "Look we're spending money educating the children!"
However as I'm sure others will point out, Sony shareholders will only lose pocket money in lost profits (or alternately perhaps the execs can make do with 16 hookers at the corporate retreat instead of 20 this year). Boo-hoo.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Do they actually cut a cheque? (Score:5, Funny)
My job sucks. In a bad way.
Call it a hunch, but despite the apparent $250,000 salary for services at that retreat, the hooker's job sucks too.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Well, it better. Or she is going to get a low customer satisfaction rating.
Re:Do they actually cut a cheque? (Score:5, Interesting)
>>>Or do they weasel their way into spending $1M on anti-"Piracy" propaganda instead?
You're probably right. I recall when Tobacco companies were "fined" and forced to produce anti-smoking commercials. The problem was that the spokespeople for these ads were geeks & nerds, so the message sent was precisely opposite to what the government intended ("stop smoking and you'll be a geek like this guy").
IMHO the CD Cartel settlement was better - companies were forced to set-aside X million dollars and refund money to any customer who asked for it. (I received $20 and so too did my mom, my brother, and two nieces.) That's a real punishment that also benefits the people who were wronged.
Re: (Score:2)
...and all that is not claimed is then taken away from them, i hope
Re: (Score:2)
The X million dollars was held for a set amount of time (6 months I recall) and then divided according to how many customers asked for refund. So if few asked I might $50, or if many asked I might only get $10.
Re: (Score:2)
oh. that's actually even better, thanks for the detail :)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter, as you say it's just another cost of doing business. I'm sure they made more than a million by breaking the law.
But a point I haven't seen yet is why, after all the illegal, immoral, evil, disgusting things they've done, idiots still buy their tainted goods.
IMO anyone who would buy a piece of electronic gear, especially a computer, from a company that would put rootkits on music CDs is dumb as a box of rocks. I'd like someone here who still buys Sony anything to try and explain to me why
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not talking right and wrong, I'm talking about legal and illegal. I agree that COPPA is a bad law, but Sony is demonstrating once again that they are no better than the Governor of Illinois or the former head of NASDAQ, both of whom were arrested this week. [yahoo.com]
I want to know when Sony's CEO is going to be indicted for placing that rootkit on my computer. If I did that to them I'd be behind bars.
Re: (Score:2)
The various divisions answer to the CEO and board. Dishonesty, corruption, and incompetence start at the top, just as honesty, ethics, and competence do. Crooks hire crooks, evil hires evil.
Your Time-Warner connection doesn't go down because they're evil, things break and shit happens. There is no analog between your ISP losing a router and a company intentionally installing illegal, malicious software on your PC.
Rootkits don't get installed on music CDs by accident. If they'll sabotage your PC with a music
Maybe a light at the end of the tunnel (Score:2)
Maybe someone could sue any of the RIAA companies for looking at their p2p packets.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"over 30,000 underage children" (Score:3, Insightful)
There are non-underage children? I guess technically everyone is someones child, but..
Re:"over 30,000 underage children" (Score:5, Informative)
Yes. COPPA only applies to those under 13.
Re: (Score:1)
There are non-underage children? Yes. COPPA only applies to those under 13.
GP asked (rethorically, I assume) whether a child can be "non-underage", not whether an underage person can be "not a child".
So, does "underage children" convey any more information than just "children"? I don't think so, but you know, legalese is weird that way.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There are non-underage children? Yes. COPPA only applies to those under 13.
GP asked (rethorically, I assume) whether a child can be "non-underage", not whether an underage person can be "not a child".
So, does "underage children" convey any more information than just "children"? I don't think so, but you know, legalese is weird that way.
Ummm, Let's try to answer in pseudocode then...
switch (AgeofPerson) {
case lt 13: Child = True, UnderAge=True;
case ge 13: Child = True, UnderAge = False;
}
Whether we agree with the concept of 'underage child' vs. 'child' or not, it is clearly defined in this context.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL, but fairly sure child 13, 13-17 minor, underage is context specific. It was redundant. But I guess for people that may have no knowledge of COPPA or any of the real issues involved, as they try to write for a broad audience, the redundancy gives clarity to some who might not be able to follow.
Hmph. I hate it when someone disagrees with me and makes sense. I checked and COPPA does define a child as being under age 13. The term "underaged" isn't used. You were right about the context... Good call.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
So, does "underage children" convey any more information than just "children"? I don't think so, but you know, legalese is weird that way.
Uh, yes it does. "underage" has nothing to do with the age of the individual (child or adult) but an individuals age relative to some law or regulation.
After all, the drinking age in the United States is 21. Would you consider an "underage" 20 year old a "child"? Of course not (though one might use the term to describe the persons relative youth). They are by all legal accounts an adult despite still being underage to drink.
So, to answer your question, yes underage DOES give more information than just "
Re: (Score:2)
note: feeling suborned today. I want my damn strikethrough.
Re: (Score:2)
COPPA? Which statute is that? (Score:1)
COPA, CIPA, COPPA, etc.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A39748-2002May31?language=printer [washingtonpost.com] http://www.raphkoster.com/2008/07/23/child-online-protection-act-overturned/ [raphkoster.com]
Why did Sony/BMG really pay money?
E P.S.Sony/BMG when you send me your cute litle notes, do it on letterhead with a real signature. Automated PGP sigs have no validity.
Re:COPPA! (Score:2, Funny)
Her name was Lolita
she was a showgirl
with yellow feathers in her hair
and a dress cut down to there.
At the COPPA ... COPPA cabana
The rights of kids online should matter.
at the COPPA-COPPA cabana
music and passion were always the fashion
at the COPPA
says she's not allowed...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Apparently, it is this one.
Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 [coppa.org]
Thanks! (Score:1)
COPPA: The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act
This law is not the same COPPA that outlaws digitally morphed images designed to look like children having sex. Rather, it is a much less controversial bill that has to do with protecting children's privacy from online marketers. The law has not been challenged. Highlights: Penalties are imposed for collecting personal data on children under 13 years old without receiving written parental consent.
Interesting.
E
Re:COPPA? Which statute is that? (Score:4, Funny)
Child Online Protection Act, for Filtering and Elimination of Electronic Lewdness
Relevent part of the article... (Score:3, Informative)
Seems to me like they were just a big, fat example, and this is possibly a sign of things to come.
Re: (Score:1)
IMHO laws need to be changed (Score:2, Insightful)
A sexually-mature teenager with independent thoughts is clearly not the same as an immature child.
And yet the law treats them identically. Just as we allow teens to start driving at age 16, perhaps we should allow them to register on websites. After all it's certainly safer to "submit a broad range of personal information, together with date of birth" to mileycyrus.com than to drive a 4000 pound vehicle. We forbid the former, but allow the later??? Not logical.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
COPPA applies to under-13 only.
See YrWrstNtmr's post.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Privacy really that worthless? (Score:1)
So, it costs $1000000/30000 = $33.33 to violate one childs privacy? If they had violated only a single childs privacy, would they really have gotten away with a $35 dollar fine?
A $1M penalty is a joke.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Old lessons (Score:2)
Do the maths (Score:5, Interesting)
Gee.
1000000/30000 = 33.34 rounded
So, that's under thirty four dollars per child.
Now how much do all these jokers want to get when a child violates the "privacy rights" of a song?
Not that anyone actually did anything wrong in this case mind you. No.
all the best,
drew
Re: (Score:2)
At least we now know what violating a child costs.
But hey, maybe they got a volume discount. Although... ain't it so that if you happen to repeat a crime more than once you get charged extra for repeated offense?
Re: (Score:2)
Songs: $200,000 fine for violating "rights" of.
Children: $33 fine for violating rights of.
Holy S**T, WhAt ThE F**k!?!
There, I fixed it for ya.
Re: (Score:2)
Why did they do this? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I can see people making the argument you mention, but I think it is false. It is perfectly possible to clearly express restrictions without freaking people out, like content rated PG. No one freaks out, but parents are informed that it may not be the kind of movie to leave a small child in front of unattended (if ever such an appropriate thing).
Privacy vs Copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
So the RIAA typically goes after $750 per song for a COPYRIGHT violation (but has asked for much more if I remember correctly).
For violating the PRIVACY of CHILDREN, Sony is charged $33 per child...
Isn't it amazing what society values more? Oops...scary is the word I was looking for, not amazing.
Re: (Score:2)
Lesson Learned (Score:1)
Free online network too costly. Implement charge to offset cost.
Thanks ever so much, FTC, for keeping me safe!
No child hurt. (Score:2)
Actually, no child was hurt at all by Sony. At all. Quit casually throwing out the word "hurt" when you simply mean that children were exposed to things you think were "offensive" or "bad".
Re: (Score:2)
I'm confused on what they did (Score:2)
If I am reading this correctly, if someone makes a social networking site that asks for certain information, then that in itself could be illegal if someone under 13 registers on the site? That's absurd.
It would make sense to me that Sony would be liable if they distributed that information, or sold it off, or something like that. But the article makes no mention of that. It simply says that the mere action of collecting information someone voluntarily gives to them is illegal.
So if I put a form on a web
Re: (Score:2)
You have it pretty much right, which is why a lot of stock forum software asks you if you're younger than 13, why Myspace saya you must be 13 in their TOS etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
$1M is 0.02% of Sony yearly revenue, $33/child (Score:2, Informative)
Sony's annual revenue exceed $5B/year, so a $1M penalty is 0.02%. That would be like fining the average American middle-class family $10. It's basically a parking ticket. Wow what a deterrent! With penalties like that you know they'll never do anything like that again!
Re: (Score:2)
One Million Dollars!!!!!!! (Score:1)