Anonymous Property

Anonymous makes some interesting comments in its message to Sony. Let's take a look at a few.

First is their mention of "internet freedom." Who actually decided that the Internet is free? While it has recently become a platform of community, collaboration, and free expression, it wasn't always that way. The Internet started as a government research project, and was still tightly controlled by large companies into the early-mid 1990s. Freedom on the Internet seems to have essentially self-manifested. Some would argue it was inevitable as Internet access grew exponentially, but it's an interesting thought.

Anonymous also mentions the "thousands of innocent people who only sought the free distribution of information." I'll be the first to say I think a lot of the laws surrounding intellectual property and copyright are stupid and often misapplied, but that's irrelevant here. Anonymous can protest the law all they want, but the law is the law. Certain types of speech are prohibited under US law, and that includes discussions of methods of copyright infringement. Information is free...until it's not. Shitty laws aside, Sony was right on this one. In some cases, copyrights only remain valid if the holder actively pursues legal action against those who infringe on them. They may not have had a choice.

Now, on to the idea of ownership. Anonymous posits that Sony customers are renting their products, rather than owning them. This is partially true, and driven by those wonderful documents we all love to not read--EULAs. Companies can pretty much put whatever they want into their license agreements, and a vast majority of customers won't read past the first line. Some of it might not hold up in court, but it's in there. In most cases, hardware is purchased and owned. Software, on the other hand, is more complicated. License agreements for software generally permit free use of the software under certain conditions. Altering, reverse engineering, or otherwise causing the software to do something other than its intended purpose is generally a violation of the license agreement. Again, shitty laws and corporate practices aside, Sony was (legally) right on this one. Were they actually right? No, but until the laws change, big business wins.

Screw Sony.

- The Admiral