9 ms·

I wouldn't normally side with a cable company, but they're up against Sony Music, so I'll allow it. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_

I wouldn't normally side with a cable company, but they're up against Sony Music, so I'll allow it. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk...

shiroiuma 6mo ago
Yep, on the evil scale, Sony Music definitely ranks well ahead of Cox Cable. Now, if this were Comcast vs. Sony Music, it would be a closer call, but I still think Sony would have the edge.
- jibal 6mo ago
  I realize I'm in the minority but I side with whomever I think is right under the law, regardless of my (sometimes extreme) feelings about the parties and even about the law.
  - lazyasciiart 6mo ago
    A case only reaches the Supreme Court if there is confusion over who is right under the law. The Supreme Court decision itself is not a definitive guide to which side is right under the law, as they’ve overturned themselves multiple times. So how do you decide which party to side with?
    - jibal 6mo ago
      I just told you: I side with whomever I think is right under the law. And your first sentence is not remotely true--or rather, it is quite conceptually confused. Whose "confusion" are you talking about? Not mine, generally. There are of course disagreements about which side is right under the law, but often those disagreements are a result of bad faith--take just about every case Trump has ever appealed up to the SCOTUS. And many of the decisions made by the current crop of right wing ideologues on the Court are made in bad faith, especially Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch, in that order of corruption. Many of the "disagreements" are based on bogus "textualism" and "originalism" frameworks that are applied completely ad hoc and hypocritically and were invented by conservatives solely in order to provide them with a basis for making rulings based on their ideology (the historical record is quite clear on this). Anyway, the point was that I decide based on my view of the law, not who the parties are. Since you seem to completely miss the point, have poor reading comprehension, and are just adding muddle, I won't comment further.
      - lazyasciiart 6mo ago
        Right. The law is an objective concept, so clear that there can be no confusion, and even apparent disagreement with your objective perception is really just people lying. I’m not missing your point, you’re just disagreeing with mine.
        jibal 6mo ago
        So many strawmen. The only lies here are about what I said. > The law is an objective concept I didn't say that or anything like it and I don't believe it. > so clear that there can be no confusion I didn't say that or anything like it and I don't believe it. > and even apparent disagreement with your objective perception is really just people lying. I didn't say that or anything like it, said nothing about having "objective perception", and said nothing about disagreement with this nonexistent thing, and said nothing about anyone lying. I made no claim to objectivity, said nothing about clarity of law, or anything else that you're dwelling on here, only that I make decisions based on my own understanding--my phrase was "I think". And yes, you did miss or ignore my point and continue to ignore it while inventing supposed points of mine that have nothing to do with me (further instances of "have poor reading comprehension, and are just adding muddle"). My only point was that who I side with isn't based on what I think of the parties involved. And what point of yours am I disagreeing with? You said > A case only reaches the Supreme Court if there is confusion over who is right under the law. This is factually false, as I and others pointed out. This is all I disagreed with. It's also not relevant to what I had written ... I'll stipulate it to be true if that helps. It's certainly true if "only" is replaced with "sometimes". As I noted, there is typically disagreement about who is right under the law, but "confusion" need not be present. Sometimes SCOTUS--especially this SCOTUS--invites cases from parties they are ideologically aligned with just so they can reinterpret the law to agree with their preferences. Of course, the other party normally disagrees, but even that doesn't always hold, especially with this administration, which is happy to reverse cases brought by their predecessors. > The Supreme Court decision itself is not a definitive guide to which side is right under the law, as they’ve overturned themselves multiple times. I agree with the basic point (while not technically accurate ... due to Marbury v Madison, the law is what the SCOTUS says it is), but it's not relevant to anything I said. > So how do you decide which party to side with? As I told you: based on what I think. Can I be wrong about the law? Of course. But again, my fallibility and the court's fallibility and whether my thinking aligns with the thinking of the court etc. ad nauseam is not what I was talking about ... what I was talking about was considering the law rather than who the parties were. That's it; that's all. And I made this crystal clear. Whoever it is you think you're disagreeing with, it's not me. You want to have an argument about whether one can make objective decisions about the law, but I never claimed any such ability. All I said is that I side with who ==> I <== think (a fallible process, certainly) is right under the law, NOT WHAT I THINK OF THE PARTIES--not which party I think is more evil, which was the conversation I responded to. That was it---a point about my own behavior. That's all. JFC ... over and out forever. (If I accidentally see this thread again I shall avert my eyes.)
    - defmacr0 6mo ago
      Your view on the law seems a bit alien to me. My opinions on what the rules of the law should roughly look like, are largely independent of who specifically is involved in a legal dispute. Sure I guess if Hitler was being sued and the only way to stop him was this lawsuit by Sony, I would probably concede that on balance it's better to have a slightly worse legal standard around copyright. Otherwise, I think having a law that best reflects my moral views and creates the best incentives for society in general, far outweighs how i feel about the plaintiffs. As for how I arrive on my views, it's obviously not an entirely rational process, but the rules you get from viewing property rights and self-ownership as fundamental seem to lead to the most preferable outcomes to me. If I were forced to adopt a more deontological philosophy, it's also the one that has the fewest obviously absurd conclusions, though not entirely. From this it's, in my opinion, pretty obvious to be skeptical of copyright law more generally (Ayn Rand would disagree) and therefore I welcome any precedent that weakens it.
- lotsofpulp 6mo ago
  Cox cable pays legislators to limit people’s access to wired broadband internet service at their home (by banning government internet utilities), allowing them to charge higher prices due to having a monopoly. And they provide substandard asymmetric broadband because their customers have no choice. Proof: compare the quality and price of their service in neighborhoods with access to fiber to the home as opposed to just having access to Cox via coaxial cable.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
_2d30 6mo ago
I don't know maybe just be worried instead about being on the side of justice and what is right and not be so worried if that side has people you don't like on it.
- chii 6mo ago
  a lot of people determine what is right by who is on that side - the right side is the group that they identify with, and the wrong side is the group they dislike. And you get the hilarious (if not sad) situations often, where the exact same actions is wrong if committed by one group, and right if done by some other group.
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
  - snapcaster 6mo ago
    That's not hilarious or sad. It's valid to oppose your enemies and support your allies. It takes a certain kind of educated liberal bubble to think that is "hilarious"
    - Eisenstein 6mo ago
      What happens is that it takes the form of attributing bad things to enemies and good things to allies, such that you are blind to where your allies are not your allies. If your allies are acting opposed to your interests but you like them because they signal to you as an in group, then you are being fooled by them. Thus, it is good to actually evaluate things on their merits once in a while.
      - snapcaster 6mo ago
        The "blind" ones are people like you! doing everything in good faith against people who aren't and fundamentally oppose you and your existence. Foolish!
        6mo ago
shevy-java 6mo ago
It really has nothing to do with Sony as such though. This is a common finding; 9:0 is also a clear message. If service providers are held accountable then arms producers also have to be held accountable. Or politicians who drive up prices via racket scheme such as a certain guy using orange powder on his wrinkly face. Someone is stealing money from stock exchange - that is also becoming increasingly clear from the trading pattern. Krugman pointed this out not long ago, without naming anyone specifically but I guess we can kind of infer who was meant.
- throwaway894345 6mo ago
  I don’t think the American right wing has any concerns about being perceived as inconsistent. They will reverse their positions overnight if it suits them, as they have illustrated every week for since the start of 2025 (most recently “no new wars / america first” to cheerleading the war in iran.
- shadowgovt 6mo ago
  It's always seemed fundamentally flawed to me that the exchange laws are designed to prevent people benefitting from insider information but then the entire purpose of the stock exchange is to make money by leveraging information asymmetry to make choices other rational actors wouldn't make because you have more knowledge or data than they do. It's a very "leverage your info to make money no wait not like that" scheme. I think I just don't understand what the difference is between an insider who sits on a board (illegal) or has a nephew who's an SVP at the company (illegal) and a politician setting the laws that shape the whole industry (legal apparently?) or gets tips from same (legal apparently?).
  - chii 6mo ago
    That's why i would rather see insider trading made legal, but transparent. Instead of quarterly filings, if you are considered an insider (or is affiliated with one), you are required to have your trades be instantly reported and be public the nanosecond you make them. You are allowed to make use of the insider info, as long as you adhere to these transparency measures.

shiroiuma 6mo ago

Yep, on the evil scale, Sony Music definitely ranks well ahead of Cox Cable. Now, if this were Comcast vs. Sony Music, it would be a closer call, but I still think Sony would have the edge.

jibal 6mo ago
I realize I'm in the minority but I side with whomever I think is right under the law, regardless of my (sometimes extreme) feelings about the parties and even about the law.
- lazyasciiart 6mo ago
  A case only reaches the Supreme Court if there is confusion over who is right under the law. The Supreme Court decision itself is not a definitive guide to which side is right under the law, as they’ve overturned themselves multiple times. So how do you decide which party to side with?
  - jibal 6mo ago
    I just told you: I side with whomever I think is right under the law. And your first sentence is not remotely true--or rather, it is quite conceptually confused. Whose "confusion" are you talking about? Not mine, generally. There are of course disagreements about which side is right under the law, but often those disagreements are a result of bad faith--take just about every case Trump has ever appealed up to the SCOTUS. And many of the decisions made by the current crop of right wing ideologues on the Court are made in bad faith, especially Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch, in that order of corruption. Many of the "disagreements" are based on bogus "textualism" and "originalism" frameworks that are applied completely ad hoc and hypocritically and were invented by conservatives solely in order to provide them with a basis for making rulings based on their ideology (the historical record is quite clear on this). Anyway, the point was that I decide based on my view of the law, not who the parties are. Since you seem to completely miss the point, have poor reading comprehension, and are just adding muddle, I won't comment further.
    - lazyasciiart 6mo ago
      Right. The law is an objective concept, so clear that there can be no confusion, and even apparent disagreement with your objective perception is really just people lying. I’m not missing your point, you’re just disagreeing with mine.
      - jibal 6mo ago
        So many strawmen. The only lies here are about what I said. > The law is an objective concept I didn't say that or anything like it and I don't believe it. > so clear that there can be no confusion I didn't say that or anything like it and I don't believe it. > and even apparent disagreement with your objective perception is really just people lying. I didn't say that or anything like it, said nothing about having "objective perception", and said nothing about disagreement with this nonexistent thing, and said nothing about anyone lying. I made no claim to objectivity, said nothing about clarity of law, or anything else that you're dwelling on here, only that I make decisions based on my own understanding--my phrase was "I think". And yes, you did miss or ignore my point and continue to ignore it while inventing supposed points of mine that have nothing to do with me (further instances of "have poor reading comprehension, and are just adding muddle"). My only point was that who I side with isn't based on what I think of the parties involved. And what point of yours am I disagreeing with? You said > A case only reaches the Supreme Court if there is confusion over who is right under the law. This is factually false, as I and others pointed out. This is all I disagreed with. It's also not relevant to what I had written ... I'll stipulate it to be true if that helps. It's certainly true if "only" is replaced with "sometimes". As I noted, there is typically disagreement about who is right under the law, but "confusion" need not be present. Sometimes SCOTUS--especially this SCOTUS--invites cases from parties they are ideologically aligned with just so they can reinterpret the law to agree with their preferences. Of course, the other party normally disagrees, but even that doesn't always hold, especially with this administration, which is happy to reverse cases brought by their predecessors. > The Supreme Court decision itself is not a definitive guide to which side is right under the law, as they’ve overturned themselves multiple times. I agree with the basic point (while not technically accurate ... due to Marbury v Madison, the law is what the SCOTUS says it is), but it's not relevant to anything I said. > So how do you decide which party to side with? As I told you: based on what I think. Can I be wrong about the law? Of course. But again, my fallibility and the court's fallibility and whether my thinking aligns with the thinking of the court etc. ad nauseam is not what I was talking about ... what I was talking about was considering the law rather than who the parties were. That's it; that's all. And I made this crystal clear. Whoever it is you think you're disagreeing with, it's not me. You want to have an argument about whether one can make objective decisions about the law, but I never claimed any such ability. All I said is that I side with who ==> I <== think (a fallible process, certainly) is right under the law, NOT WHAT I THINK OF THE PARTIES--not which party I think is more evil, which was the conversation I responded to. That was it---a point about my own behavior. That's all. JFC ... over and out forever. (If I accidentally see this thread again I shall avert my eyes.)
  - defmacr0 6mo ago
    Your view on the law seems a bit alien to me. My opinions on what the rules of the law should roughly look like, are largely independent of who specifically is involved in a legal dispute. Sure I guess if Hitler was being sued and the only way to stop him was this lawsuit by Sony, I would probably concede that on balance it's better to have a slightly worse legal standard around copyright. Otherwise, I think having a law that best reflects my moral views and creates the best incentives for society in general, far outweighs how i feel about the plaintiffs. As for how I arrive on my views, it's obviously not an entirely rational process, but the rules you get from viewing property rights and self-ownership as fundamental seem to lead to the most preferable outcomes to me. If I were forced to adopt a more deontological philosophy, it's also the one that has the fewest obviously absurd conclusions, though not entirely. From this it's, in my opinion, pretty obvious to be skeptical of copyright law more generally (Ayn Rand would disagree) and therefore I welcome any precedent that weakens it.
lotsofpulp 6mo ago
Cox cable pays legislators to limit people’s access to wired broadband internet service at their home (by banning government internet utilities), allowing them to charge higher prices due to having a monopoly. And they provide substandard asymmetric broadband because their customers have no choice. Proof: compare the quality and price of their service in neighborhoods with access to fiber to the home as opposed to just having access to Cox via coaxial cable.
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]

_2d30 6mo ago

I don't know maybe just be worried instead about being on the side of justice and what is right and not be so worried if that side has people you don't like on it.

chii 6mo ago
a lot of people determine what is right by who is on that side - the right side is the group that they identify with, and the wrong side is the group they dislike. And you get the hilarious (if not sad) situations often, where the exact same actions is wrong if committed by one group, and right if done by some other group.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- snapcaster 6mo ago
  That's not hilarious or sad. It's valid to oppose your enemies and support your allies. It takes a certain kind of educated liberal bubble to think that is "hilarious"
  - Eisenstein 6mo ago
    What happens is that it takes the form of attributing bad things to enemies and good things to allies, such that you are blind to where your allies are not your allies. If your allies are acting opposed to your interests but you like them because they signal to you as an in group, then you are being fooled by them. Thus, it is good to actually evaluate things on their merits once in a while.
    - snapcaster 6mo ago
      The "blind" ones are people like you! doing everything in good faith against people who aren't and fundamentally oppose you and your existence. Foolish!
      - 6mo ago

shevy-java 6mo ago

It really has nothing to do with Sony as such though. This is a common finding; 9:0 is also a clear message. If service providers are held accountable then arms producers also have to be held accountable. Or politicians who drive up prices via racket scheme such as a certain guy using orange powder on his wrinkly face. Someone is stealing money from stock exchange - that is also becoming increasingly clear from the trading pattern. Krugman pointed this out not long ago, without naming anyone specifically but I guess we can kind of infer who was meant.

throwaway894345 6mo ago
I don’t think the American right wing has any concerns about being perceived as inconsistent. They will reverse their positions overnight if it suits them, as they have illustrated every week for since the start of 2025 (most recently “no new wars / america first” to cheerleading the war in iran.
shadowgovt 6mo ago
It's always seemed fundamentally flawed to me that the exchange laws are designed to prevent people benefitting from insider information but then the entire purpose of the stock exchange is to make money by leveraging information asymmetry to make choices other rational actors wouldn't make because you have more knowledge or data than they do. It's a very "leverage your info to make money no wait not like that" scheme. I think I just don't understand what the difference is between an insider who sits on a board (illegal) or has a nephew who's an SVP at the company (illegal) and a politician setting the laws that shape the whole industry (legal apparently?) or gets tips from same (legal apparently?).
- chii 6mo ago
  That's why i would rather see insider trading made legal, but transparent. Instead of quarterly filings, if you are considered an insider (or is affiliated with one), you are required to have your trades be instantly reported and be public the nanosecond you make them. You are allowed to make use of the insider info, as long as you adhere to these transparency measures.