In Sony’s case, the electronics business is run mostly from Japan and the music business (“Sony Music Entertainment”, or SME) is run from the US (it used to be “Columbia Records” before Sony bought it from CBS in the 1980s). To make matters more complicated, there is also a “Sony Music Entertainment Japan”, which has nothing to do with the US-based SME except that they’re both owned, ultimately, by Sony.
“Sony Music Entertainment” is not to be confused with “Sony Pictures Entertainment”, who are the folks with the Spider-Man movies; they’re both subsidiaries of “Sony Entertainment Inc.”, which is a subsidiary of the Sony Corporation of America, which is a subsidiary of the actual Japanese Sony company.
So as you can see, “personality disorder” doesn’t even begin to describe what is going on
“To protect artists” - that was a steaming load from the first minute. When the vote results were announced, the guy who ramrodded it said this was a win for “creative companies.” From start to finish this was nothing but a blatant fraud designed to give big corporations eternal control over the internet and everything posted on it.
I’ve wondered that myself. What could I do as a shareholder? Write a letter to the board, telling them about this asshattery, make sure they know? If we were to do this, we’d also need to publicize it, otherwise it’s just a drop in a bucket.
Just like people, my friend! /s
But it’s worse. People usually work as individuals. However, corporations have legions of resources of all kinds so as to be dicks, and each one of those employees can hide behind the apronstrings of the corporate mama.
Is it accurate to say that Google has seen their engineers and other quit due to the evilness that’s creeping into that organization? IOW, they are doing something about it and making a statement that it’s not part of the deal?
I haven’t heard of any Google engineers quitting because Google is trying to assert proprietary control over as much of the internet as they possibly can.
A human doing actual analysis would have looked at a video of a man playing a piece of music older than American copyright law and determined that it was not something they owned.
I think we’ve seen by years of copyright lawsuits that in fact corporate human analysis will, in fact, overreach. The dancing baby case showed us that. And the Blurred Lines lawsuit.
Granted, automated takedowns are indiscriminate, but people compensated based on corporate overreach can be worse. At least Content ID doesn’t take down music based on style.
Sure, but that’s not really a defense of anything, if any Sony division wants to distance themselves from their evil goatee’d Sony counterparts, they should change their name and operate completely independently.
It’s a good start for people who don’t realize how corporations work, how they are treated legally and why (esp. why they are ‘people’). The Germans had I.G.'s which were even more broad. Think Farben. Think Zyklon B. Think, oh, Bayer (a part of IG Farben), for one.
It didn’t address my question, all it did was suggest that management at SONY is magically required to hear me out (which they’re not). This following your suggestion that people like me are too rich to care about SONY’s corporate policy.
A successful shareholder revolt generally requires at least 10% of the company’s shares. That’s around $5billion, let me check my piggy bank.
