Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Hackers Nab Unreleased Michael Jackson Tracks From Sony

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the take-a-look-at-yourself-and-then-make-a-change dept.

Music 192

wiredmikey writes "Sony once again has found itself in the news surrounding another hacking-related incident. This time around, the breach doesn't appear to involve any lost user data or customer accounts, but instead, some valuable property owned by the record company. Today, several British news outlets have reported that more than 50,000 music tracks have been illegally accessed and downloaded by hackers, including a large number from the late Michael Jackson. Sony bought the catalog from Jackson's estate for $250 million in 2010, giving the company distribution rights to the unreleased music. The attack reportedly occurred shortly after details of the massive PlayStation Network breach last April, but details were only revealed this past weekend."

cancel ×

192 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

why? (5, Interesting)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#39248315)

Not every system you have needs to be connected to the Internet. Why in the world was such valuable digital property on a system that had ANY connection to the Internet, thorough NAT or otherwise?

I'm sorry... it just doesn't make sense. It's like all the talk of the vulnerable power grid... just don't put those items on the open internet. Or better yet... don't network them at all and have a human attend it in a secure place.

Re:why? (2, Insightful)

Loether (769074) | more than 2 years ago | (#39248465)

Wow what a pain that would be to administer such a landlocked system. Patching, backups, updating the content, accessing the content. What do they do when they want to access the file to mix it, or to distribute, publish the new song. What do they do when they get a new artist signed and it's time to add a song to the collection. Send in Joe the Admin with his thumbdrive to download or upload the needed song. I agree with you that there security is beyond poor, but land-locking the entire system as a solution to me doesn't seem like the best course of action.

Re:why? (5, Insightful)

jesseck (942036) | more than 2 years ago | (#39248853)

I agree with you that there security is beyond poor, but land-locking the entire system as a solution to me doesn't seem like the best course of action.

I guess it depends on how valuable the item is- if RIAA were to be counting, what was stolen was trillions of dollars. A thumbdrive and a dedicated admin to administer the landlocked system is a fraction of the value in that case.

Of course, in the real world, Sony knew the music was not worth trillions, and that is why it was connected to the Internet.

Re:why? (1)

bernywork (57298) | more than 2 years ago | (#39248977)

There is plenty of times these exact things happen. It's called "Security" and it's big business. While you complain about it, in a lot of places these things happen for a reason and yes there is security personnel who review data brought between the networks. Stop being so short sighted.

Re: $50,000 Tracks (4, Insightful)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 2 years ago | (#39249223)

Wait a minute, the Spin Doctor got here and led us right where he wants us.

So the real story is that Sony lost security on 50,000 tracks and the title became "Michael Jackson tracks copied"?! Really? They had to pick one of only about 10 Flamebait artists?

Re:why? (1)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#39249783)

Again though, if you have 25 studios all around the world, each one of which could be working on all or part of a track, it becomes very hard to manage thousands of separate pieces of data.

It's not that the potential security arrangements are impossible, they certainly aren't, record companies did business long before the internet, so that's even an option. It's that an effective, collaborative workflow for hundreds or thousands of employees around the world, or even on one large facility, it's a time wasting nightmare to be running through layers of security to send it from building 1a to building 9 100 metres away.

Lots of businesses manage to keep their employees connected, have files of various sorts accessible, because they have security they feel is capable of keeping all of that material secure. They might be wrong, and sony might have thought it had adequate protections. We can't on one hand argue for all of these collaborative tools that really do improve workflow and then say no one should use them because they're insecure. If they are insecure it's a matter of figuring out how secure we can make them.

No matter what though, if people have access to the data, they could release it.

Re:why? (0)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#39248991)

Wow what a pain that would be to administer such a landlocked system. Patching, backups, updating the content, accessing the content. What do they do when they want to access the file to mix it, or to distribute, publish the new song. What do they do when they get a new artist signed and it's time to add a song to the collection. Send in Joe the Admin with his thumbdrive to download or upload the needed song. I agree with you that there security is beyond poor, but land-locking the entire system as a solution to me doesn't seem like the best course of action.

That word doesn't mean what you think it means. [wikipedia.org]

You're thinking of airgapping [wikipedia.org] , which is well beyond appropriate for this. For critical utilities and such, yes - but not for friggin' music.

Re:why? (2)

Linuxmonger (921470) | more than 2 years ago | (#39249315)

Wow what a pain that would be to administer such a landlocked system. Patching, backups, updating the content, accessing the content.

Do you really need to do those things on a machine that has no network connection?

Assuming that when the machine was put into place it did the functions it was required to, what is the point of updating? I remember doing an update on a machine once to find out that the single file changed was the software providers logo - they had changed a background color and listed it as a required update.

Re:why? (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#39249469)

Do you really need to do those things on a machine that has no network connection?

Absolutely -- there are going to be insider threats, and they have the potential to do more damage than outsiders. Do you really think that your $35k/year janitor is not going to be paid twice that by someone trying to download your valuable data? Do you really think that a disgruntled employee would not try to run an exploit pack on your airgapped, security-sensitive system? Security is about more than simply keeping the outsiders out.

Re:why? (4, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#39249385)

Wow what a pain that would be to administer such a landlocked system

If you paid $250 million for the data stored on that system, and you know that there are lots of people who would love to download that data without your permission, would you really think that the administrative work is too much? That should have been one of the highest security systems Sony owned, and it should not have been connected to the Internet.

What do they do when they want to access the file to mix it, or to distribute, publish the new song

None of those require an Internet connection. You can connect the computers involved in mixing to a private network, where you can control who has access to the network and you can monitor the network as a whole, and then you can transfer the files. Likewise with machines that publish the music on physical media. Publishing electronically will be harder, but for the money they paid for that data, it seems like a reasonable effort.

What do they do when they get a new artist signed and it's time to add a song to the collection

Not store it on the same system as the collection that can never be updated, and that once leaked loses a lot of value. This sounds like a pretty typical MLS problem.

Re:why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39249535)

...but land-locking the entire system as a solution to me doesn't seem like the best course of action.

Even after losing $250 million worth of music? Park your Porsche in the street in the edge of a ghetto, because it's convenient. And then (in SONY's case) be a belligerent little dweeb on a megaphone ordering the neighborhood to stay away from it. I guarantee you, you will not be driving that car for very long. It's stupidity, or arrogance, or sloth, to leave such an important asset connected to a hostile network. If my network admin doesn't like the inconvenience of managing this as a system apart, then the lazy fuck doesn't belong there. They may as well just store the data in "The Cloud", if they are going to be that casual about security.

Re:why? (1)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | more than 2 years ago | (#39249943)

If I ever complete my novel and become famous I plan to do exactly this. Maintain a landlocked system where I write.

Of course- I need to complete a book first. Before that- I need to learn basic grammer and spelling.

Re:why? (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#39250031)

The same thing they do on Video editing systems at most places. cart the files on a drive. I did IT for a major Tv production house, none of the AVID's were on a private separated network. all projects and assets were carted around outside the AVID isolated network and media server.

IF IT whines, you smack them and tell them to STFU and RTFM as putting extra effort into protecting the machines that actually makes money is more important than upsetting a few wanna-be BOFH's.

Re:why? (4, Insightful)

Lennie (16154) | more than 2 years ago | (#39248491)

It might have started with just a desktop with a browser you know. After one system gets compromised it might be possible to get deeper in the corporate networks of Sony.

Even the Nuclear facilities in Iran were not connected the Internet (it did have an air gap) but the Stuxnet virus still got in.

But did data get out? (1)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | more than 2 years ago | (#39248895)

Sure, data got in, Stuxnet got in. But no data got out. If you want to protect your IP from "theft" (they still have the data, so any file sharing evangelist won't call it theft) landlocking seems like a perfect layer of security. Trusting just the one layer is not very smart, but as security layers come, in this case, it would be quite effective.

Encrypting each individual track and storing the keys on another landlocked location would make it a lot better, but it would make access to the date quite a bit more cumbersome.

Re:But did data get out? (3, Funny)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 2 years ago | (#39249277)

All my servers are landlocked. Unless the data center gets flooded.

Re:why? (1)

bacon.frankfurter (2584789) | more than 2 years ago | (#39248511)

*AHEM!*

...might I direct your attention to yet another hilarious article which portends similarly ominous disasters, all because someone claimed that maintaining a constant connection to the internet was a good security practice?

Car Hacking Concerns On the Rise [slashdot.org]

AND I QUOTE:

...manufacturers will struggle to keep abreast of rapidly-evolving threats unless they organize regular software updates.

Re:why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39248561)

And I was wondering Why in the world its such valuable property and why anyone would want to subject the world to its release. To each their own I guess.

Re:why? (5, Insightful)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 2 years ago | (#39248587)

It's fucking music tracks they were not releasing to cash in at a later point.

This was going to be available at some point in the future, and it's better for society that it's available now. Locked up in a vault they had zero value.

Re:why? (4, Insightful)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#39248783)

Yep, this actually highlights some really supreme losses to society by virtue of the Jackson estate hoarding the shit out of Michael's music and Sony too.

Were it not for this we'd see Jackson remixes for the next 100 years if Sony had their way. Good on the hackers to get that stuff out there instead into society where *society* can benefit.

Talk about greed vs culture.

Re:why? (4, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#39249275)

I'm sorry, is "society" really entitled to everything a person created, ever? Even if they themselves never published it to the world?

My opinion is that, no, society isn't entitled to everything - a person is quite entitled to not release something and its no loss at all to society at large, because it never influenced it in the first place.

Re:why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39249705)

I think because they never published, the copyrights should be invalid. At least it would if copyrights worked with patent legislation. Invent 'world changing machine' and don't market it in 5 years, you patent would be invalid (or would be able to be succesfully made invalid by going to court).

Re:why? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39248885)

It's fucking music tracks they were not releasing to cash in at a later point.

This was going to be available at some point in the future, and it's better for society that it's available now. Locked up in a vault they had zero value.

Better for society, you say. For society.

We're all... um... "proud" that you found a knee-jerk talking point buzzphrase that gets stupid people on your side when you use it regardless of what you're using it for (see similar phrases, such as "for the children", "for democracy/patriotism/America", "reasons of national security", "distributed and decentralized", or "all open source"), but just because it's applied to you getting free music doesn't make it any less wrong and annoying to not-stupid people as the aforementioned examples are.

Re:why? (2)

Stizark (1962342) | more than 2 years ago | (#39249521)

As I see it, you're the only one referring to it as 'free' music. Most of the rest of us see it as just music-- and, arguably, art. Art which, while already created, was kept in a vault for the sake of corporate profit. The artist didn't profit from it, his estate did-- and they were already paid. And the company would have waited until 'experts' tell them that such music would have been at most value. Then, they would slowly drip out small albums at exorbitant (IMHO) costs.

So while I understand the need for corporations to make profit-- and, while I understand your general, apparent disdain for piracy-- the gp did have a point. Sociey-- that being, human beings and our culture-- are quite a bit more 'wealthy' because of it. At least, if the priates ever intend to release the music without extorting it in some way, or hoarding it. Heh.

If Sony were smart, they'd come out with their music before the hackers torrent them. Then again, as this happened a year ago, and Sony still hasn't released the files, it seems to me that they have no interest in that idea. I'm glad someone out there is enjoying the music.

Re:why? (1, Troll)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#39248967)

"Being in existence somewhere" never reasonably equates to "Should be available to me, just because I say so".

Re:why? (0)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#39249815)

Evidently someone disagrees with me but doesn't have the balls to actually enter into discussion about it.

No, you do not have an entitlement to something just because it exists. There, I said it again.

Re:why? (0)

anotheryak (1823894) | more than 2 years ago | (#39248985)

This was going to be available at some point in the future, and it's better for society that it's available now. Locked up in a vault they had zero value.

Sony has become evil, and I hate them for it.

But, that does not make stealing something slated for later sale moral. If I want a new video game, and it won't be released until October, so I break into the store and steal a case of games in August, how is it a benefit to society? Won't society benefit more if they are sold legally? The kid working in the game store, the UPS man who delivers them, the pizza store next to the game store...they would all prefer the product to be legally sold.

Jackson recorded them for the purpose of making money and/or providing a funding legacy for "his" children. So I don't see how stealing them is somehow moral. If Sony had decided to never release them, this would be one thing....but it is not. Please explain to me how the fact that Sony had not sold them yet makes it moral to steal them.

Re:why? (4, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#39249485)

While I don't condone the theft, your comment is striking in how it highlights the way copyright has gone astray. Some of Micheal's music has been in copyright for close to 40 years already. And yet for a lucid, rational person for yourself, it seems reasonable to put forward that his kids need another shot of royalties so that they will have a "legacy". Now, I have nothing against providing your children (especially young children) with a bundle of cash to get them through early life and their educations - hell, maybe even a nice starter-mansion and first Rolls-Royce... but all of that could have been done through saving his money, investments, and life insurance... they sure don't need society to grant them welfare payments just because their dad(?) was a good singer.

Copyright is supposed to be about convincing artists to produce their creative works. It's supposed to be about making it a reasonable career choice to become a singer, painter, artist, etc. Why? So that we, as a society, get more creative output. It is not about making sons-of-good-singers rich. When the artist you are providing an incentive to dies, the incentive should die as well. At the very least, it should die within the number of years that a typical corporation plans for. If I'm being generous, Sony might have a 10-year plan.

As for the pizza parlor and the UPS man, this is beginning to sound an awful lot like the broken window fallacy to me. I have a sneaking suspicion that UPS could ship works based upon Michael Jackson's songs that fell into public domain just as well as they ship his 20-30 year-old stuff.

Re:why? (1, Informative)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | more than 2 years ago | (#39249997)

it's better for society that it's available now

I disagree- this is Michael Jackson's music we're talking about- it is better that this never is broardcast ever. Legally or illlegally.

Re:why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39248673)

Unplug everything from the internet! Just use thumbdrives and homing pigeons to transmit data!11! I know how security works!!

Re:why? (0)

sociocapitalist (2471722) | more than 2 years ago | (#39248917)

/irony on

The Internet is public...evidently Sony wanted this material in the public domain...

/irony off

Re:why? (1)

517714 (762276) | more than 2 years ago | (#39249343)

Technically yes, this a pretext for heavy-handed RIAA sponsored legislation that will eliminate many consumers' rights while doing nothing to the actual criminals involved in such crimes. Undoubtedly, Michael Jackson's name will be prominent in the rhetoric and bill. I expect broad bipartisan support for the measure in both houses and from the President.

Re:why? (1)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | more than 2 years ago | (#39249085)

Maybe they try to break their own 2011 hacking record? Frankly, considering the numerous and obvious methods used in 2011 (like SQL injection) I would not be surprised to learn (maybe from the inside) that their IT organization is an unimaginable mess.

Re:why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39249195)

Why indeed?

Why would anyone want to pirate Michael Jackson songs??

Re:why? (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#39249929)

Not every system you have needs to be connected to the Internet. Why in the world was such valuable digital property on a system that had ANY connection to the Internet, thorough NAT or otherwise?

I'm sorry... it just doesn't make sense. It's like all the talk of the vulnerable power grid... just don't put those items on the open internet. Or better yet... don't network them at all and have a human attend it in a secure place.

Really couldn't agree more. There'd be so little to read on Slashdot if people had a lick of sense anymore regarding networking computers. If it needs to be on the local network, put it there. If it needs to get to the outside, put it behind a firewall. If it doesn't require any connectivity, then don't network it at all (damn Microsoft and their auto-updates, forget about them!)

Geez, it's like the current generation of IT people would, in charge of a bank, leave the doors and vault open all night, without so much as a guard.

Smooth (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39248325)

Some smooth criminals!

Bad (5, Funny)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39248479)

Really, really bad.

Re:Bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39248643)

Just beat it.

captcha: imitated

Re:Bad (2)

arelas (1336019) | more than 2 years ago | (#39248691)

It's not as Black or White as you make it seem.

Re:Bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39248757)

Poor Sony. No one wants to be defeated.

Re:Bad (2)

Metabolife (961249) | more than 2 years ago | (#39249109)

Whatever security measure Sony had in place, these hackers beat it.

Re: Smooth (1)

Obvius (779709) | more than 2 years ago | (#39248851)

Don't Stop Till You Get Enough (downloaded music)

Re:Smooth (5, Funny)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 2 years ago | (#39248981)

Sony are you ok? Are you ok Sony?

Re:Smooth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39249077)

So much piracy it makes me want to scream

Re:Smooth (1)

acedotcom (998378) | more than 2 years ago | (#39249373)

Sony, you can't win.

Good marketing (3, Insightful)

asdbffg (1902686) | more than 2 years ago | (#39248329)

Really. This will get some good buzz going in advance of Sony formally releasing the tracks.

Re:Good marketing (1)

Shoe Puppet (1557239) | more than 2 years ago | (#39248401)

I wouldn't be surprised if those where the only copies, and the hackers deleted them. But they'll probably chase after the hackers and force them to re-upload the tracks to their servers in either case.

Re:Good marketing (5, Insightful)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 2 years ago | (#39248527)

I certainly how those were the only copies and the hackers deleted them. If there is one thing Sony does not need its more money, and if there is one thing I don't want to have to suffer hearing on the play list of every pub, is more of that man's terrible music.

Including a large number from Michael Jackson (5, Funny)

Barbara, not Barbie (721478) | more than 2 years ago | (#39248331)

including a large number from the late Michael Jackson

And nothing of value was lost ...

Re:Including a large number from Michael Jackson (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39248425)

Especially because nothing was lost...

In further news ... (5, Funny)

Barbara, not Barbie (721478) | more than 2 years ago | (#39248481)

Reporter: "So you're saying that these are unreleased tracks that were made before Michael Jacksons' death?"
Sony: "No, no - these are tracks from the LATE Michael Jackson!"
Reporter: "You mean, this is stuff from AFTER he died?"
Sony: "Exactly! This is music he created after death."
Reporter: "That's didiculous! How can he write music if he's dead?"
Sony: "He's de-composing, duh!"
Sony: "It's all in the contract. When you sign with us, we really do own your soul!"

Re:In further news ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39248889)

OT: My daughter's name is Barbara. You have the coolest nick.

Re:In further news ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39249669)

Finally! Proof that extending copyright beyond the creator's death really does encourage more content creation.

Re:Including a large number from Michael Jackson (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39249397)

Of course not, it was only copied and the original version is still there.

I wonder (2)

ooshna (1654125) | more than 2 years ago | (#39248399)

Will Sony finally get their heads out of their asses and get some adequate security now that they have gotten something important stolen from them instead of their customers?

Re:I wonder (5, Insightful)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | more than 2 years ago | (#39248571)

No. They can now just conflate crackers, hackers AND pirates and get even stricter laws into enforcement. This isn't a security problem on their end of course. This is because we're too soft on those dirty music downloaders.

Re:I wonder (0)

AdrianKemp (1988748) | more than 2 years ago | (#39249009)

Okay, I really can't let that go.

You start off intelligent enough; they will almost certainly do as you say and abuse this breach to ram awful laws through.

Shockingly enough even in the few words you posted you manage to go from enlightened to blabbering idiot:

too soft on those dirty music downloaders.

Sony was breached by criminals breaking the law. Sony wasn't doing anything (legally) wrong by holding those tracks and since the artists agreed to the terms of their engagement it's hard to fault them ethically for this particular act either. The people who broke into Sony need to be brought to justice just as a home invader does.

Re:I wonder (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#39248839)

I don't know but I'm sure I'll have another ToS to accept on my PS3 anyway...

Unreleased = No Copyright? (1)

udoschuermann (158146) | more than 2 years ago | (#39248447)

Would copyright law apply to unreleased (and potentially unknown) materials? What if someone stamped their copyright notice on those stolen materials? How would Sony prove ownership and (exclusive) distribution rights? And would the simple assertion ("it's ours") be enough to support a take-down notice? Could anyone take down anything merely by making such a claim?

Re:Unreleased = No Copyright? (2)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39248505)

If the songs were created anytime in the past few decades, copyright applies automatically upon fixation of the work in a tangible medium of expression. Publication is not necessary. The rules for older works get much more complicated, but unlikely to apply here.

Re:Unreleased = No Copyright? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39249017)

Publication is not necessary. The rules for older works get much more complicated, but unlikely to apply here.

The question was about how they will prove they own the work. Anyone can claim they make the track in his basement with synthesizer and various audio filter. Yes, copyright apply before publication, but if you are not the first to publish the burden of the prove rest on you. While i have no doubt that Sony has enough money to win any cause in court, the question remain valid and interesting.

Re:Unreleased = No Copyright? (1)

kanto (1851816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39249399)

Publication is not necessary. The rules for older works get much more complicated, but unlikely to apply here.

The question was about how they will prove they own the work. Anyone can claim they make the track in his basement with synthesizer and various audio filter. Yes, copyright apply before publication, but if you are not the first to publish the burden of the prove rest on you. While i have no doubt that Sony has enough money to win any cause in court, the question remain valid and interesting.

Afaik you could use a use a sealed postal letter to yourself (not sure if this translates correctly) or use a public notary to do something similar; both would at least work as a sign of you being in possession of the songs before they were released.

Re:Unreleased = No Copyright? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39249433)

I guess there will be enough evidence that the man singing on the recording is indeed Michael Jackson, not Joe Hacker. And starting from that, all you need is a full sequence of copyright transfer contracts starting at Michael Jackson and ending at Sony.

Re:Unreleased = No Copyright? (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#39249071)

Copyright exists when the work is created. Registering a copyright with the appropriate government agency makes it official. One of requirements of copyright is ownership so someone other than Sony trying to register these works would likely be challenged. See the SCO v Novell situation. Novell registered the Unix copyrights before SCO did because of SCO's behavior.

Where's the music? (5, Interesting)

Dan East (318230) | more than 2 years ago | (#39248463)

So where is this music? Why hasn't it spread far and wide over the net? I suspect the hackers are holding onto it in an attempt to blackmail Sony for a big chunk of cash.

Re:Where's the music? (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39248549)

If I cared, I'd look for it on USENET or one of the darknets. Anyone connecting to a tracker that hosts this archive is begging for a lawsuit.

Service to man kind (2)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 2 years ago | (#39248603)

You know, Weapons of Mass Distortion...

and not all of these tracks are by artist people want to hear, I mean, there are good chances of unreleased Celine Dion tracks in there. Think of the children

Re:Where's the music? (4, Insightful)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | more than 2 years ago | (#39248667)

Hackers likely didn't know what they had. They grabbed a ton of data and used software to sift through it for passwords, credit cards and email addresses. Going through all the music and finding the songs that were unrealeased would take plenty of ears or a music matching database. That is why Sony waited a full year before talking about this.

Re:Where's the music? (1)

udoschuermann (158146) | more than 2 years ago | (#39249345)

Maybe it was unreleased (and nobody bothered to make a torrent out of it) because it was actually awful?

distribution rights :) (4, Interesting)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 2 years ago | (#39248483)

Sony, distribution is not a right. Well it's not now anyway.

That's interesting, but... (1)

eternaldoctorwho (2563923) | more than 2 years ago | (#39248495)

...who would want that "music"? I haven't listened to any MJ stuff since the 80s.

Where can we get it? (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#39248563)

Is there a torrent or something now?

Arrests will be made (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39248611)

Anyone want to bet that Sony will put a lot more time and money into this round of hacking versus the loss of customer data that happened previously?

The hackers who did this (0)

Parlett316 (112473) | more than 2 years ago | (#39248623)

Should really look at the man in the mirror

Until now (1)

overshoot (39700) | more than 2 years ago | (#39248685)

I've never had much of a problem with the mischief-cracking set.

This could change my mind.

Were they hackers from 1985? (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#39248743)

Look, nothing against the guy, but how many people young enough to pirate still give a rat's ass about a singer whose career peeked about 25 years ago?

Re:Were they hackers from 1985? (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#39248891)

a singer whose career peeked about 25 years ago?

Some witty rejoinder about poking would appear to be in order, but unfortunately I can't find any way at all to link it to the deceased performer in question.

Re:Were they hackers from 1985? (1)

Ziekheid (1427027) | more than 2 years ago | (#39249075)

You might want to think again when it comes to true sceners vs the average P2P user when it comes to age.
Also, you might want to have a look at the itunes sales from 'a singer whose career peeked about 25 years ago'.

Re:Were they hackers from 1985? (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39249119)

His career peaked 25 years ago, and he's dead; But I'll bet he still earned more money than you did last year...

Re:Were they hackers from 1985? (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39249443)

It might come as a surprise but there are also people listening to music that is hundreds of years old.

Truly baffling (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39248745)

Ok. So 50,000 tracks got downloaded.

Let's say for sake of argument, and since this was from their digital archive according to news radio this morning, that each of these tracks were in format of uncompressed audio. Would they really keep tracks as AAC, MP3, or MPA in their digital archive? I'm gonna be generous here and say each track was 25MB. That's roughly, 125GB of data to be downloaded. That isn't something you do overnight. That's something that takes days if not weeks, and possibly a month. Massive net security failure here, or what?

You have an obviously massive amount of money invested in that archive, and yet you don't protect it with approriate network security? I have to wonder how much their yearly network security expenditure was to protect that investment. $10,000? Clearly, they still haven't gotten the message that network security is important, even after the PSN lashing.

As little as I want to sympathize with Sony and it's continual targetting by subverts of the net, I just can't. They're a multi-Billion dollar a year company who have been in business for DECADES! How are you still in business with blunders like this?!?!? How the hell can you go around dropping hundreds of Millions on music catalogues and not protect your investment?

On a personal note, I wrote off Sony in 2000 when I bought my last TV whose components shorted at half their estimated life-time. I'm just truly baffled that a company this large, and with such massive influence and monies, can't take its online presence seriously.

Re:Truly baffling (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39249087)

This is Sony. Their idea of a Captcha is, well, this [sony.com] (Google, BTW, returns the Captcha letters in plaintext if you search for it. Yeah, not so good on the "stopping bots" there Sony). Sony is simply incompetent when it comes to security: there is no other way to put it. Their vaunted PS3 secure bootloader? Yeah, turns out they don't know how to properly sign their keys (instead of using random numbers in the signature, they always used the same number, allowing anyone to discover their private signing key with basic algebra). These aren't difficult-to-implement, advanced security: this is literally the basic concept behind these types of security, which you can find explained on Wikipedia, implemented well in open source software which they could use, and they still can't get it right.

They probably have the source for all their software hosted on an unsecured FTP server somewhere, so that their developers can access it easily, relying on no-one knowing the IP to keep it secure. It would literally not surprise me, at this point.

Re:Truly baffling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39249585)

This is Sony we're talking about. The songs are probably encoded in ATRAC.

Re:Truly baffling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39249857)

Ok. So 50,000 tracks got downloaded. ... That's roughly, 125GB of data to be downloaded.

Nice try, but it's like 1.25 TB of data, so even worse. And that's probably an estimated on the low side.

Re:Truly baffling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39249895)

last I heard from someone who worked for a label, the files are stored in .WAV format, so yeah these files had to be a large amount of data that would have taken a long time to download. I would think like a network utilization graph would have been off there..given that the PSN hack happened soon after Sony laid off some of their security staff..makes you wonder if they should invest more in their network/security people

Re:Truly baffling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39250071)

It was a single zip file.

Taking Computer Security seriously! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39248817)

Maybe a kick in the pants or more accurately the pocketbook will make the suits in the executive suite to take security seriously. The CEx people have to allocate the proper amount of funds to build good network security. Right now it's looked upon as a drain on the bottom line. When they look at it as PROTECTING the bottom line, things might change.

Support your artists (3, Interesting)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 2 years ago | (#39248951)

If you don't want to more and more corporate-produced, demographically-designed artists, start buying your damned CDs from the people you like instead of downloading it for free and complaining about how crappy music is nowadays. I'm not even a huge music fan, but I make a point to buy CDs when I hear something I like.

Tiny violins? (5, Funny)

mindcandy (1252124) | more than 2 years ago | (#39249005)

filetype:torrent "tiny violins"

50,000 tracks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39249049)

Now who wants to bet that sony will try to sue them for copyright infringement? After all 50,000 tracks at $150,000 per track only puts their "losses" at $7.5 Billion per set of tracks. Oh wait...

Obligatory... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39249073)

torrent^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hmagnet link or it didn't happen.

Legal lock down of digital media in 5..4..3..2... (2)

whovian (107062) | more than 2 years ago | (#39249135)

No matter whether Sony should've kept this on an isolated network or they weren't really planning to do anything with the tracks, I expect them to portray this incident as evidence in support of legally locking down all digital media. I would not be surprised if the "look what can happen" card will be played with renewed vigor.

Lets hope the hackers got the high def masters.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39249261)

This might be interesting if the hackers got the high definition masters of Jackson's music.
Otherwise what did they hack mp3s ? lol.

Unreleased? (1)

synapse7 (1075571) | more than 2 years ago | (#39249481)

So I listened to some MJ back in the 80s but now I wouldn't know if a track was unreleased or not. I wonder how the "hackers"/thieves know this, assuming it was not in a folder named UNRELEASED.

A trend? (1)

digitalmonkey2k1 (521301) | more than 2 years ago | (#39249483)

Why does anything having to do with Michael Jackson always involve unwanted penetration?

I Wonder... (1)

mlauzon (818714) | more than 2 years ago | (#39249513)

when the "unreleased" tracks of music will start showing up on torrent sites..?!

Stop using the word Hackers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39249639)

No matter what your opinion of Sony is, those are not hackers. Shitheads maybe, hackers not at all. Unless you think those idiots play in the same league as Linus Torvalds or Kirk McKusick.

Re:Stop using the word Hackers (1)

mlauzon (818714) | more than 2 years ago | (#39249685)

The problem with that is, as soon as the media got hold of the word 'hacker' in the '80s, they turned it into a word that means something along the lines of "malicious intent", instead of what it meant, which was a programmer.

Re:Stop using the word Hackers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39250005)

The problem with that is, as soon as the media got hold of the word 'hacker' in the '80s, they turned it into a word that means something along the lines of "malicious intent", instead of what it meant, which was a programmer.

What would you prefer? Crackers? Some white people broke in and stole our music?

Language evolves, have a banana.

Sony rootkit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39249823)

sony rootkit [wikipedia.org]

Never forget, never forgive.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>