4 ms·

I 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 sam

I 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 ago
Actually 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 ago
  Ok. 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 ago
    I'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 ago
      How 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 ago
        I 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 ago
        I 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 ago
        And 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.
        pandaman 12y ago
        Pardon my ignorance, but in what world installing a rootkit is a part of lobbying efforts?

Natsu 12y ago

Actually 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 ago
Ok. 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 ago
  I'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 ago
    How 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 ago
      I 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 ago
        I 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 ago
        And 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.
        pandaman 12y ago
        Pardon my ignorance, but in what world installing a rootkit is a part of lobbying efforts?