5 ms·

No, you aren't. And what I find galling about the article is how they go out of their way to use sympathetic language in describing him. Just one example: "Gem

No, you aren't. And what I find galling about the article is how they go out of their way to use sympathetic language in describing him. Just one example: "Gembe's malware crimes, while undeniably exploitative and damaging, were crimes driven by a passion for games rather than profits." I understand that it is important to explore his motivations, but the way this is phrased (in particular what seems to be an attempt to contrast the boy's "passion" with Valves lust for "profits") is pretty terrible. I don't think his "pure" motivations matter at all-- what matters is that he chose to steal the property of Valve and make it available to others. Whether Gembe meant for it to end up on the internet doesn't matter when it ends up on the internet. I see a lot of comments on this that are sympathetic to the kid, and while I understand that feeling, I think a more sensible look at the situation demands that you feel sorry for him because he brought this upon himself, not because he was any kind of "victim". I'm glad to see that he was able to get on with his life, and I probably don't agree with what U.S. authorities would like to have sentenced him to had they gotten ahold of him. But that doesn't make him the persecuted hero that so many people seem to think he is. And that doesn't mean he shouldn't have done some jail time either.

__david__ 16y ago
> in particular what seems to be an attempt to contrast the boy's "passion" with Valves lust for "profits" Wow, did you read the same sentence I did? They weren't implying Valve had a lust for profits, they were indicating that Gembe wasn't motivated by profit. I think you're reading way too much into that particular sentence. > I see a lot of comments on this that are sympathetic to the kid, and while I understand that feeling, I think a more sensible look at the situation demands that you feel sorry for him because he brought this upon himself, not because he was any kind of "victim". I see the comments here differently--I don't think anyone thinks he's strictly innocent, I think people are sympathetic because he was looking down the barrel of the American Corporate Legal System™ and only narrowly escaped. I understand Valve's anger at having their stuff ripped off and published around the internet and if I were in their position I might have the same outlook. But, having the gift of 20/20 hindsight, we can see that it didn't actually affect them negatively in any tangible way. Half-life 2 was released and overwhelmingly successful and there are no game engines with stolen Valve code stealing licensing profits from them. So I am sympathetic to the fact that he escaped any jail time because in the end what he did didn't matter. 2 Years of probation seems perfectly appropriate.
- icarus_drowning 16y ago
  >Wow, did you read the same sentence I did? They weren't implying Valve had a lust for profits, they were indicating that Gembe wasn't motivated by profit. Fair enough. I think its a fairly straightforward example. Reading it again, I still think its fairly obvious that the piece was designed to minimize the clearly stupid, clearly wrong actions of an individual, and in order to do so, they needed to paint Valve as the villain. But I appreciate that this is my own interpretation and certainly one could read it differently. (The example I cited should have been changed regardless, as I don't think its necessary to the story and to me still reads as an attempt to vilify Gembe's victim). > we can see that it didn't actually affect them negatively in any tangible way Red herring. This probably helped Valve's sales, but that doesn't mean that it necessarily would have, and has nothing to do with the morality/legality of the matter, and as such, it has very little impact on my view of Gembe's actions.

__david__ 16y ago

> in particular what seems to be an attempt to contrast the boy's "passion" with Valves lust for "profits" Wow, did you read the same sentence I did? They weren't implying Valve had a lust for profits, they were indicating that Gembe wasn't motivated by profit. I think you're reading way too much into that particular sentence. > I see a lot of comments on this that are sympathetic to the kid, and while I understand that feeling, I think a more sensible look at the situation demands that you feel sorry for him because he brought this upon himself, not because he was any kind of "victim". I see the comments here differently--I don't think anyone thinks he's strictly innocent, I think people are sympathetic because he was looking down the barrel of the American Corporate Legal System™ and only narrowly escaped. I understand Valve's anger at having their stuff ripped off and published around the internet and if I were in their position I might have the same outlook. But, having the gift of 20/20 hindsight, we can see that it didn't actually affect them negatively in any tangible way. Half-life 2 was released and overwhelmingly successful and there are no game engines with stolen Valve code stealing licensing profits from them. So I am sympathetic to the fact that he escaped any jail time because in the end what he did didn't matter. 2 Years of probation seems perfectly appropriate.

icarus_drowning 16y ago
>Wow, did you read the same sentence I did? They weren't implying Valve had a lust for profits, they were indicating that Gembe wasn't motivated by profit. Fair enough. I think its a fairly straightforward example. Reading it again, I still think its fairly obvious that the piece was designed to minimize the clearly stupid, clearly wrong actions of an individual, and in order to do so, they needed to paint Valve as the villain. But I appreciate that this is my own interpretation and certainly one could read it differently. (The example I cited should have been changed regardless, as I don't think its necessary to the story and to me still reads as an attempt to vilify Gembe's victim). > we can see that it didn't actually affect them negatively in any tangible way Red herring. This probably helped Valve's sales, but that doesn't mean that it necessarily would have, and has nothing to do with the morality/legality of the matter, and as such, it has very little impact on my view of Gembe's actions.