Fuck Sony

The people at Sony Computer Entertainment are awesome. I love my (modded) PS2. I love that they support Linux development on it. I love that they wanted to be able to have it copy DVDs until another Sony division came along and said no way. These are genuinely creative people who want to help their customers have fun, and who have fun themselves along the way.

Unfortunately, Sony Computer Entertainment has a big problem: that four letter word at the beginning of their name. And this is why I will never buy another PS2 game, a PSP, a PS3, or anything that requires a memory stick. Aside from the "not invented here" mentality that Sony Consumer Electronics has always had, Sony BMG has now decided that it's OK to install software on my machine that I can't uninstall without their help, to make sure I don't use a CD that I purchased in a way they don't like.

Well, Sony BMG, fuck you. It's a shame that the brilliant people at Sony Computer Entertainment are losing my business because of their association with you. I hope they finally get fed up with your asshole antics and quit, even if they go work for Microsoft. Or maybe the Sony empire will miraculously see the light and shed you like the dead decaying skin you are.

Share this

Hi, I heard there was being

Hi,

I heard there was being an invitation for me to be having the sex.

Sony is ready for the fucking. Sony, he has the astroglide ready to go.

Sony, he just loves the internet. All his life, Sony, he goes out looking for the fucking, but internet bring fucking to Sony!

-Sony

Well there are only two

Well there are only two copy-protection schemes that could ever be used: hardware or software. If hardware is implemented in such a way as to prevent copying, then it's defective hardware and nobody will buy it. If it's in software, you can just install different software, or hack the software you have. Hence copy protection is useless, and infoanarchy is the future. QED

Mmmmm, smell that righteous

Mmmmm, smell that righteous anger!

Has anyone else noticed that the larger and more diverse a firm gets, the more it starts to resemble a state in some ways?

I think it's just any large

I think it's just any large group of humans starts to take on undesirable traits when its size gets large.

Matt and Stefan, insightful

Matt and Stefan, insightful comments as usual. I think that one of the reasons corporations get so large in the first place is because of the necessity of dealing with the state, so it seems natural that they should take on attributes of the state. Another reason might be the transaction costs imposed by the state on inter-organizational transactions that don't exist for intra-organizational transactions, hence the creation of "ineconomies of smallness."

It is my belief that such large organizations are very unnatural constructs and probably would not exist at all in a stateless society. I can't (yet) prove it, though.

If you take government out

If you take government out of the equation, you have (at least) two conflicting forces controlling the size of an organization. The first is economies of scale, which tends to select for larger organizations. The second is organizational inefficiency, which tends to select for smaller ones.

I suspect that in some industries, firms would still tend to become pretty large before these started to balance out. Wal-Mart and Microsoft aren't angels by libertarian standards, but government has arguably hindered their growth as much as helped it, unless you count copyright enforcement in the case of Microsoft.

Yeah without government

Yeah without government copyright protection it's not clear to me how large Microsoft would be, because they'd probably be trying to adopt a business model that doesn't involve easy replication of their end-product. I'm not sure how successful they'd be though.

Matt McIntosh: Has anyone

Matt McIntosh:

Has anyone else noticed that the larger and more diverse a firm gets, the more it starts to resemble a state in some ways?

Yes.

The answer can be obtained by referring to chapter 9, pp. 612ff above, where we saw that the free market placed definite limits on the size of the firm, i.e., the limits of calculability on the mar­ket. In order to calculate the profits and losses of each branch, a firm must be able to refer its internal operations to external markets for each of the various factors and intermediate prod­ucts. When any of these external markets disappears, because all are absorbed within the province of a single firm, calculability disappears, and there is no way for the firm rationally to allocate factors to that specific area. The more these limits are encroached upon, the greater and greater will be the sphere of irrationality, and the more difficult it will be to avoid losses. One big cartel would not be able rationally to allocate producers' goods at all and hence could not avoid severe losses. Consequently, it could never really be established, and, if tried, would quickly break asunder.

In the production sphere, socialism is equivalent to One Big Cartel, compulsorily organized and controlled by the State. Those who advocate socialist "central planning" as the more ef­ficient method of production for consumer wants must answer the question: If this central planning is really more efficient, why has it not been established by profit-seeking individuals on the free market? The fact that One Big Cartel has never been formed voluntarily and that it needs the coercive might of the State to be formed demonstrates that it could not possibly be the most efficient method of satisfying consumer desires.

-- Murray Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State Chapter 10, section 2-F

Part of the point here being that calculational chaos is not limited to states; it's just that the organized force of the state is the only way in which calculational chaos above a certain level can reliably be sustained.

Of course Sony, as a beneficiary of government-granted and government-enforced monopolies on its gargantuan copyright and patent portfolio, is as good an example as any.

Brandon Berg:

Wal-Mart and Microsoft aren't angels by libertarian standards, but government has arguably hindered their growth as much as helped it, unless you count copyright enforcement in the case of Microsoft.

And extensive use of "eminent domain" theft in the case of Wal-Mart. I'm not sure I understand the "unless" in regard to Microsoft, though; I mean, unless you count an annual budget appropriated out of tax funds, the government has arguably hindered Amtrak more than they've supported it. But why wouldn't you count that?

As if you're pissed about

As if you're pissed about rootkits. I'm pissed that Sony BMG releases shitty music by shitty artists. Ricky Martin? Jessica Simpson? Travis? Jesus Christ.

This even made me angry and

This even made me angry and baby Jesus cry :end:

ok guys it is really easy to

ok guys it is really easy to copy sony's misic to an mp3 ..... use their own program to rip them and there is nothing they can do to stop it...... yes it is true ... most of you probally dont know but sony owns the right to a program called sound forge all you need to do is place one of those pesky copywrited disk in to a cd player and go get a cable from raido shack and hook it up between the phone out on the cd player and the line in on your computer use sony's own program to defet their own copywright software that they probally spent a nice bit of chump chage on. wa-la no more copyright from sony.

i am sorry but sometimes when you try to get to technacal simplicty rulz.

ohh and buy the way you can download sound forge from sony and then find a crack so you dont have to pay the $70 bucks that they want to charge for it

rock on and enjoy this new info