January's Toast to Tech Evil

comforteagle writes "In this month's mocking toast To Evil! Danny O'Brien laments the holiday habit of trying to hide one's evilness from Father Christmas, but finds those evil tech companies can't help being who they are. 'I'm really hoping that in their next batch of cinema adverts, the MPAA addresses this, and shows a grumbling adware developer instead of a Hollywood set-painter. The piracy issue, it affects us all: the construction guy, the lighting guy. And me, the guy who installed all that crap on your mum's computer. And also an awful lot of Los Angeles-based cocaine dealers. Why doesn't anyone think of them?'"

Re:Don't do drugs.

[me at werk]

Read the rest of TFA?

It's kind of intriguing, isn't it, when the MPAA and RIAA is to scaring us [respectcopyrights.org] into believing that the world of unauthorized copying is filled of dodgy-dealers stuffing the files with all kinds of polluted malware and pop-ups, that they're also paying the people who do the stuffing?

I think that's where the "evil" part comes from.

Re:/. special gourmet quality fodder

[JonnyCalcutta]

Last I checked despite your opposition to a law you can't simply "ignore it" when it doesn't suit you. Otherwise I totally call dibs on everything in your home.

Of course you can. That's what freedom is all about. That's what Mel Gibson died to tell you. "You can take our lives, but you'll never take our freedom" - get it?

Naturally you have to accept the consequences of your choices; which might inlude a court date with the RIAA, having your entrails cut out or my fist in your face if you come round my house. On the other hand I might let you take some stuff I don't need anymore, you never know unless you try.

Re:/. special gourmet quality fodder

[saintp]

Actually, the MPAA lawsuits weren't an example of evilness. Travis Kalanick (whose last name sounds suspiciously like "colonic") is a turncoat, and that's what was evil:

In March, Kalanick...was far more conciliatory to the competing technology.... "I don't want to fight BitTorrent," he said....

A few months on, and Kalanick's opinion has apparently modified very slightly. Choosing to speak on the MPAA's behest at the very event where they decided to take on BitTorrent, his new take appeared to be: I don't *want* to fight BitTorrent, but if publicizing my product involves cutting a deal with some guys who'd want to kill it, shave it, and parade it naked through the village - well okay then.

I'd suggest you go back and read the whole article. It mentions the MPAA lawsuit, but not as its point, rather as a supporting point about Kalanick's evilness. I know you want to see /.ers as a bunch of morons who can't see past the constant hum of anti-*AA dogma, but this is not an example of that. It's becoming instead an example of the many /.ers who, at every conceivable opportunity, uncork a trite, moderately off-topic, well-rehearsed rant about their favorite topic, be it the fabled /. hatred of Microsoft or the applicability of the law, or any other of a dozen favorite topics.