“It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents — except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of unnecessary obfuscation which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies), rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness.”
6 Likes
Well, his writing is pretty hard to read, and his point is hard to discern. I mean, he keeps talking about how we’ve misunderstood his intent, without really clarifying what his intent was. There’s also the whole thing about criticizing others for making statements they couldn’t possibly know, while simultaneously making charged statements about others and their motivations. But it’s OK because he’s not saying he knows these things (Oh snap! I guess his point isn’t valid, then, because he isn’t saying he actually knows anything).
1 Like
I do not like fire engines. Stop saying that.
Edit. Is it possible I’ve completely misunderstood you?
Should I be laughing more? Obviously, if so, you can’t really answer from within your character, so I guess I’ll never know for sure. If that is the case, to the human underneath, apologies.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It should be noted that Yoon Mi-rae (born Natasha Shanta Reid) is American.
1 Like
So, you could be incorrect, or, alternately, your host is drunk? That’s some weapons grade humility you have there. /s
2 Likes
miasm,
Sorry for the cheapshot, I just found your response to be more grammatically complex than needed, to the point that it reduced clarity. I felt like taking a bit of a shot because you did spend that poor sentence calling me a corporate shill. I wasn’t trying to escalate, but I did want to get some payback 
My contention is that your inflexible attitude toward sane behaviour from corporations is enabling their intrusive behaviour.
When we give them a pass for their unsettling contribution to the current landscape of hostile intellectual property law, we assist in their negative agenda.
This is why I took that cheapshot, I want to reply to your point here but I’m honestly not sure exactly what you’re trying to say. Are you saying that I’m inflexible in not demanding corporations show sane behaviour? Are you saying that the actions of corporations are intrusive and unsettling, but ‘sane’ given their goals, and we should hold them to a higher standard as a result? What is their negative agenda? You could be referring to anything from hostile copyright law to a general corporate run state.
You need only look at sony’s actions over the last few weeks to see their propensity for over-reach and hysterics.
Which actions? My understanding is the theatres were the ones that refused to show the movie, Sony’s failings were their refusal to stand up for releasing the movie, as well as jumping on the blame NK bandwagon with insufficient evidence.
You firmly state that this is an accident, which I shouldn’t need to point out is not something you could possibly know.
Well lets say I’d give it a P value of 0.95, which for discussions like this becomes a firm statement. It’s very easy to see a scenario where the director says they want the song, the licensing task gets passed around until someone contacts K-pop, at that point wires get crossed and they think the licensing is taken care of. The alternate scenario where they contact K-pop, and then, without even asking for a quote, decide they’re going to pirate the song and home it goes unnoticed, is completely nonsensical. If they wanted to pirate all-along they never would have brought her attention to the movie, and if they only decided to pirate part-way through then what was their motive?
Now perhaps it did happen, in which case Sony should get hammered by the courts, but the current assumption should be the most obvious one, that it was an accident.
I do wonder if you can find it within yourself to be critical of anything sony does, over and above some examples outside of the topic of piracy but then we’d need another thread for that.
Hmm, I don’t really pay enough attention to Sony to think of many examples, but here’s a few. They support and direct the RIAA/MPAA, making them responsible for comical copyright infringement laws and pointless copyright extension laws. They view computers as an appliance they’re allowed to control, leading to the root-kit fiasco and Blu-Rays that you can’t play on Linux. They also apparently have really bad internal security but I don’t know if they’re exceptional in that or just a typical big company.
1 Like
Except I still responded to his point and his followup.
To be honest his posts strike me as someone trying to write at an inappropriately advanced level in order to seem smarter. Frankly it reminds me of the posts hi-lighted in the Dish’s Poseur Alerts Poseur Alert Of The Year Nominees – 2014 – The Dish. I’m not trying to say it as an insult, everyone has done it and I fight the urge to still do it. I just think his writing would be served if he were more clear and concise.
Feel free to think I’m a corporate shill, Sony employee, moron, or whatever. But I don’t see how I’m wrong on this.
Not even close.
Would I work for Sony? If it was making something cool, maybe. If it was on something DRM related, no.
I probably wouldn’t work for Apple, I definitely wouldn’t work for Microsoft, I have turned down jobs because I’d have to use Windows, and I have worked for Red Hat.
I’m making these statements because I have what I think is a consistent and fair philosophy that I try to adhere to. You may not agree, but I’m not going to let you accuse me of sock-puppetry because you disagree with me.
1 Like
Unfortunately, party x isn’t merely advocating for something I think is unfair, they’ve already gone and had it burned into law(though they are, naturally, advocating for yet more).
I’m not proposing anything extrajudicial, just that the laws they wanted be applied to them with the same…vigor…as they have to others. As it happens, that leaves a lot of pain on the table.
5 Likes
I’d bet there will be no lawsuit. This surely happens regularly. The lawyers will talk. Sony may pay a bit more than if they had done their job properly.
Even if the artist is inclined to make some sort of point their publisher doesn’t want to damage it’s reputation with the film industry.
1 Like
I see your point and I generally agree that the current, and proposed, laws are far too harsh.
I just don’t see those laws as being applicable to an accidental infringement like this.
Cases where Sony has screwed around with artist royalties however (I’m pretty sure I’ve heard of those), even if the same laws aren’t directly applicable I see a strong moral case for nailing Sony to the wall.
It is glorious! Sony is hoist by their own petards, the creators of the DRM rootkit malware (http://www.networkworld.com/article/2194292/network-security/sony-bmg-rootkit-scandal--5-years-later.html) can expect litigation over their own DRM violations. To quote Gil, Bert and Solomon,
My object all sublime
I shall achieve in time—
To let the punishment fit the crime,
The punishment fit the crime;
And make each prisoner pent
Unwillingly represent
A source of innocent merriment,
Of innocent merriment!
Oops… gotta go. A solicitor for D’Oyly Carte Opera is knocking at my door.
1 Like
If you just leave the url alone, without adding those parentheses, it becomes clickable. http://www.networkworld.com/article/2194292/network-security/sony-bmg-rootkit-scandal--5-years-later.html
Yes you can write proper links too, if you pay attention to the board’s markup.
Sony BMG rootkit scandal: 5 years later
but sometimes the simplest solution is the best.
Hmm. Full disclosure. Loaded on painkillers as of late. Injury and, apparently, CRPS. Perhaps I’m not being as succinct as I could be but I re-read my comments and it’s all in there.
I do also have a holdover from my philosophy days and have, in particular, theorised that the further we push the integrity of language to abstraction, the more information we can fit into the associated ideation, but I’m no Neitzche.
I’ll revist your replies in a bit. Gotta book. 
1 Like
True that. The beauty of dealing with big corporations is that we can afford to be mellow and tolerant, and still have enough reasons to beat them into a bloody pulp.
1 Like
Well, I’m guessing @miasm might have been referring to these kinds of shenanigans:.
Goose, gander, blah blah blah.
1 Like
Very likely.
I think it does. The song was used in a for profit manner after all. It is much more like piracy than an elderly lady downloading rap songs. Sure, they might not mean to use the song without reaching an agreement with the owner, but they did, thats why:
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
