It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The reason I said that I viewed Sony with great ambivalence is simply from the fact that they are so large that often times, the right hand doesn't know what the left had is doing. Not all of the divisions within Sony are evil, just most of them.
Originally posted by FredT
If your going after the RIAA you have to include Sony which bankrolls a percentage of thier operation hence has some controll over thier activities.
Again where are you going to get your food? Do you have anyidea how pervasive the influence of ADM and Montsano is in the agriculture business?
McDonalds, but not Burger King? KFC? Taco Bell? et al
Originally posted by Off_The_Street
supercheetah, I understand your rationale and I appreciate your posting it; however, I have several comments.
" Wal-mart: their quest for for "low prices" pushes them to buy from companies that continue to run sweatshops around the world, and continue to make use of children for labor."
What's your point? We have minimum wage laws, other countries don't. I am under no moral obligation to make another country raise its standards; that is the concern of the citizens of that country. And, although I do not like the concept of child labor, often it is a job like that which spells the difference beween that kid's family starving or eating.
Finally, Wal-Mart provides -- to people like me who can't afford Nordstrom's -- a place to buy stuff on a limited budget. Were Wal-Mart to try to force a foreign country to change its rules, it would damage the citizens of that country by depriving them of jobs and damage us by pricing many things out of our reach.
"Disney: they would love to extend copyright to infinite. They don't seem to like the idea of copyright actually enriching culture. They have no respect for the original intentions of copyright."
A copyright is intellectual property. It belongs to the person who generated the stuff and/or to the company that employed that person to do so or their respective assigns. In other words, it's like your grandpaw's farm or your great-aunt's fiddle. Why should a person's property expire at all? Using your logic, the family farm should revert to the government or to whomever wants to move there after, say, fifteen years.
No. Property is property, whether it's intellectual property or a piece of dirt. Taking away a copyright or taking away the farm is theft, either way.
"BSA, RIAA, and MPAA: they, too, don't respect copyright, or patents."
Wait a minute. Are you complaining that they don't "respect copyrights"? That sounds a bit in variance with your previous comment!
"Also, they tend to think that it's a good idea to treat their customers like criminals by using technology that greatly restricts the freedoms to which consumers should have a right."
The "freedoms" to which consumers "should have a right"? Are you re-writing the Constitution of the United States in your spare time?
It sounds to me like you want the "right" to download MPEGs or MP3s without paying for them. That's theft, too, whether you like it or not.
What is it about Archer-Daniels-Midland that upsets you? That they spend billions of dollars developing foodstuffs to feed the world and then make a profit on selling those foodstuffs? Or is it that you're upset because you expect to pay them one time for seeds and then, by re-using those seeds next generation, go into competition with ADM yourself?
ADM sells seeds for this year's crop and nothing more. They're not inthe business of putting other people in competition with them. If you buy a newspaper, do you think you have a "right" to a ten-year subscription to tht newspaper?
"McDonalds, Supersize me! Need I say more?'
McDonalds is evil because it sells people what they want. Wau! are you setting up yourself as the arbiter as to what people can buy and eat?
"Monsanto is much worse than ADM."
"SCO likes to make money on baseless lawsuits, particularly if it's a lawsuit against a Linux company."
So they're taking advantage of a litigous company, like the people who sue doctors who make a mistake on the operating table or the woman who sued McDonald's for the hot coffee she was served. Actually, I agree with you that our tort system is designed to line the pockets of the trial lawyers, who seem to make up a disproportionate part of our legislatures. But why blame a company for taking advantage of a system that that the average person would take advantage of if he thought he could get away with it?
Supercheetah, I think that, in many cases, you seem to rule a company as "evil" if they do not choose to share the fruits of their labors with any bum who comes along; or who dares to make an honest profit.
I see your point, but I'm not a religious person, and the term "evil" doesn't have any theological persuasion with me. I guess for that, I apologize.
I suggest that if you do not like the way a company does business, either with its foreign/domestic suppliers or its consumers, that you boycott that company, rather than paint it in neotheological terms.
Originally posted by Jonna
Corporations are not here to make the world a better place or help anyone. They are in the business of making money and taking power. If they harm the 'little guy' in the process it is really of no concern to their agenda. The only thing that matters is for the public to believe that hey care hence clever marketing and deceptive public affair campaigns.
As for Evil being involved, it is all relative to one's sense of morality and agenda. The companies themselves are not Evil. They merely have a less than humanitarian goal from the perspective of someone outside of the benefits aquired through their goals.
Oh crap! I think I just described the current US administration.