Clarification on a few points

Posted Feb 1, 2012 9:49 UTC (Wed) by niner (guest, #26151)
In reply to: Clarification on a few points by tbird20d
Parent article: Garrett: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

> As it stands, the demands made by the SFC in order to bring a company back into compliance are beyond the value that busybox provides to a company. I also believe they are wrong from both a legal and moral perspective.

You are working for Sony, a company that sues teenagers over several times their lifetime incomes for copyright violations while at the same time breaking the law by installing rootkits on customer's computers and which likes to break products after they sold them.

Sony has no moral standing whatsoever. None.

> I am proud of Sony's track record of GPL compliance.

Being proud of Sony sometimes not breaking the law? Yes, that's certainly impressive.

> However, companies and people do sometimes make mistakes

Tell that to Sony's lawyers. They somehow see matters not as lenient.

to post comments

Clarification on a few points

Posted Feb 1, 2012 11:55 UTC (Wed) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] (7 responses)

You are working for Sony, a company that sues teenagers over several times their lifetime incomes for copyright violations while at the same time breaking the law by installing rootkits on customer's computers and which likes to break products after they sold them.

Hang on. The Sony company that does these things (Sony BMG/Sony Music Entertainment) and the Sony company that sells gadgets with Linux inside (Sony Electronics) aren't the same.

Clarification on a few points

Posted Feb 1, 2012 12:22 UTC (Wed) by niner (guest, #26151) [Link] (2 responses)

All these so different Sony companies belong to Sony Corporation. They answer to the same board. The ones you mentioned share a common root even on a lower level at Sony Corporation of America.

It's like "let's put all our questionable businesses into a separate corporation, so we share all the income but not the blame".

Sorry, I just don't buy your argument. It's a Sony.

Clarification on a few points

Posted Feb 1, 2012 12:49 UTC (Wed) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] (1 responses)

Right. So having a brother who's a sleazy lawyer automatically makes you sleazy, too.

Incidentally, Sony BMG, of the 2005 rootkit scandal, wasn't even a 100% Sony subsidiary – it was a joint company, half of which consisted of Bertelsmann Music Group (hence the »BMG«), a subsidiary of Bertelsmann AG. Sony bought Bertelsmann's share in the venture only in 2008, to (re-)make Sony Music Entertainment.

Clarification on a few points

Posted Feb 1, 2012 13:04 UTC (Wed) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link]

Not unless you and your brother both stand under the direct command of the same entity. But if you do, then totally yes.

If Sleazy Inc owns companies A and B, then yes, A doing something evil does reflect poorly on B, and it makes total sense to (for example) consider B without moral standing, based on the actions of A.

It makes sense because the same single board controls both A and B.

If your left hand engages in aggression towards me, I'm totally going to consider your right hand a potential threat: because I'm aware that both of your arms are controlled by the same entity.

Clarification on a few points

Posted Feb 1, 2012 14:41 UTC (Wed) by leoc (guest, #39773) [Link] (2 responses)

Please correct me if I am wrong but it is your Sony that made the PS3, widely advertising its support for running Linux and then retroactively removed the function after many people bought it just for that purpose?

Clarification on a few points

Posted Feb 1, 2012 15:54 UTC (Wed) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] (1 responses)

This is something the original poster might justifiably have criticised but didn't.

One thing to take away from this is that huge companies like Sony (or for that matter Microsoft) may employ people who are reasonable if not downright nice, and whose actions have no bearing on the actions of their colleagues in other parts of the company (or related companies). Refusing to talk to these people, or calling them names, on the grounds that they have sleazy colleagues who ultimately answer to the same CEO (probably with seven tiers of different intermediate managers in-between) doesn't lead us anywhere.

Nothing personal, just business ?

Posted Feb 1, 2012 21:41 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

Sorry, but this is exactly how we've ended in this mess: reasonable if not downright nice people work for nasty companies with justification that it's Ok because it's big company and they can not do anything means that companies feel free to continue to harass customers, lobby for draconian laws, etc.

Sorry, but no. Justification that you just have sleazy colleagues who ultimately answer to the same CEO does not make it Ok even you personally have done nothing atrocious. Now, I'm not saying everyone should forget about their life, family and declare jihad against nasty companies despite onerous personal costs. If you have no reasonable choice and are forced to work for the nasty company then noone will condemn you. And if you were just offered 50% bigger compensation - then that's fine, too (if companies will know that their nastiness can cost them real money they will adjust, they are not stupid). But in all cases you should be slightly ashamed and look for the other opportunities if possible, not try to explain that "this SONY is not like that other SONY, no, they are totally different". This is your SONY and your actions will be viewed in light of "that our SONY" decisions.

Clarification on a few points

Posted Feb 1, 2012 16:20 UTC (Wed) by bpearlmutter (subscriber, #14693) [Link]

Really? Can I buy some shares of Sony Electronics without buying any shares of Sony BMG/Sony Music Entertainment?