  assuming that the unconfirmed reports are accurate, we have here a media company infecting users' machines silently with a file that affects a computer's functionality, without first obtaining informed consent: a likely violation of pretty much every jurisdiction's anti-hacking laws. It's possible to foresee criminal charges being brought at some point: after all, having a good reason for spreading malware has never been much of a defence in court. And a file that alters a computer's functioning without the owner's informed consent is the very definition of malware. Because this malware can be transferred from machine to machine on a removable disk, and requires user interaction to spread, it is, quite simply, a computer virus.
(A worm, on the other hand, is distinguished by its ability to spread without user interaction. ) It does seem deceptive for companies to limit the functionality of something they're selling you without making it clear to the consumer before purchase. I wonder if the actions taken by this CD are close enough to the legal definition of a virus to enable some kind of lawsuit. urlLink link 
