3 ms·
Apropos of being disingenuous. Sony BMG (now Sony Music Entertainment), which is infamous for using malicious hacking is not and have never been an ESA member.
by pandaman 12y ago
Apropos of being disingenuous. Sony BMG (now Sony Music Entertainment), which is infamous for using malicious hacking is not and have never been an ESA member. The ESA member is Sony Computer Entertainment. And no, it's not the same org. Both are subsidiaries of the same holding company so they are as related as HBO and Time Warner Cable or GEICO and See's Candies.
- Natsu 12y agoI didn't realize that having a holding corporation absolved you from shared moral culpability the way it does for shared legal culpability.
- pandaman 12y agoI am sorry, I don't follow. Two different companies did two different things (installing rootkit and being an ESA memeber), you seem to believe they are the same company. I have corrected you. What does moral culpability have to do with any of this?
- Natsu 12y agoActually you've been talking to Natus, Inc. and the person you wanted to correct is Natsu, LLC. Because we're completely different imaginary entities that merely happen to share an account, you're actually the one who is confused here. Hopefully this clarifies things for you. On a more serious note, if I can't hold the owners responsible for their actions via their own subsidiaries, then what? This is why I find them to both be 'Sony' enough to share blame and I don't particularly care for it when people try to play shell games with corporate identities. The particulars of their corporate governance are simply not relevant to what I was saying.
- pandaman 12y agoOk. So you believe Sony Corp owners (who are mostly institutions) both made the decision to install rootkit in Sony BMG and signed off the ESA publication in SCEA? Good for you, I guess. This belief is definitely more popular on HN than reality.
- Natsu 12y agoI'm not saying they made the decision, necessarily, only that they can be held responsible for it. If they can't be responsible for anything their corporations have done, who can be?
- pandaman 12y agoHow about this: people who make the decision are responsible for it and people who have nothing to do with it... are not? If you have 401K you might be owning Sony yourself. If you have a savings/CD account you might also own Sony. So by your own standard you are likely responsible for every action any Sony's subsidiary and any subsidiary of any other corporation you invested do.
- Natsu 12y agoI could agree with that for the most part, but I have a hard time seeing how there can be no one anywhere in Sony who had anything to do with Sony's decisions. Also, I've read a fair number of proxy statements, but I've never had a chance to vote on what sort of lobbying they should do or what projects they should work on.
- pandaman 12y agoI am pretty sure there is nobody anywhere at any Sony subsidiary who had anything to do with Sony Music and SCE decisions in question simultaneously. As same as there is nobody in Berkshire Hathaway who is simultaneously deciding on the candy recipies and on the insurance policies.
- Natsu 12y agoAnd I don't think that lobbying efforts are undertaken without the involvement of senior management (unlike, say, candy recipes), so we'll have to disagree here.
- 12y ago
- pandaman 12y agoCare to explain downvotes? Am I wrong somewhere here?