Property III

Property pt. 3

• "Renting you web domains" :

Even though you purchased and traded money for a Sony product, Sony still is in control of your product. In a way you are only renting what you purchased and they can control your product and access rights to that product through software updates. Should there be a contractual obligation to release all access to the new owner? For example, a product title swap vs. a product lease. Should these two items be priced differently?
I think that once you buy the product, you should have full access and control over that product. It should not be intrusive or controlled by an outside source.

• "Suppression of this information"

This idea comes from the issue of Sony not allowing users to use the product that they paid for fully. In doing so they were suppressing the buyers and owners of using their machine to access information that should have been rightfully theirs to access. Sony dances on a fine line and to Anonymous, breaks a basic freedom. Why does Sony think that this is OK? If we allow this as a society, what will happen next?
I think that it is important to set the societal rules of acts and rights online. Companies will do what is best for them, and stomp on the toes of the consumer without hesitation. It is up to us, as a community to reinforce what we believe is fair and right, and stand up to the companies imposing unfair norms.

• "Information is free"

Anonymous stands behind the idea that many online activists also stand behind. Information cannot be owned. Information is there for everyone and no one. No single person can find information and declare it theirs and hoard it away from others. That would greatly affect the outcome of the future and the growing of information.
However, while I am typing this I am thinking of the patent system. When a person finds information and claims it via a patent, so no other person can do the same thing, the same way. That person paid a pretty penny to declare that information as theirs. Could Sony have used this to better their stance in some way and make the user pay more for access or information?

• "We own this. Forever."

Anonymous writes this letter to explain their issue with Sony owning information and stepping on the rights of the users. He shows just how angry he is and lets Sony know that this isn't over, and it will never be. They cannot own information. Then Anonymous turns around and says that he owns this, but means it in a totally different way. By Anonymous owning Sony and their information, everyone owns that information. When Sony tried to own information, no one could access that information. By Anonymous owing the information they can guarantee that the rights of the users are not being stepped on and that we will forever have free information.