Jump to content

Talk:Sony BMG copy protection rootkit scandal/Archives/2016

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Infringement vs. apparent infringement

In response to a recent attempt to excise the word "apparently" from this article's lead/summary section—

It doesn't matter if we're talking about criminal or civil court cases, or informal accusations of crimes or civil wrongs; we must avoid playing judge and jury, or repeating third-party accusations as if they were fact. So, regardless of how strong the evidence or how we may personally feel, we can't go saying that XCP's use of code from open-source software certainly and absolutely constitutes an infringement of copyright. No court has weighed in on the matter, and neither Sony BMG nor F4I/Fortium admitted infringing anything. Therefore, we can only say that evidence has been presented and accusations have been made.

Accordingly, in the relevant section of the XCP article, and in this article's Copyright infringment section (which just summarizes the XCP article), and in this article's lead/summary section, everything has been carefully phrased to avoid saying infringement definitely happened, only that evidence of apparent infringement has been presented.

The use of apparent is meant to say that the evidence uncovered by various researchers (e.g., Porst, Nikki, Halderman) appears, to those researchers (and to affected developers who have spoken publicly about it), to show that copyright has been infringed. I think this is really the best way to talk about it. —mjb (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Well presented argument, but is "apparent" the best word? It always seems vaguely flippant or sarcastic in use to me - as in it's obviously the case, but to avoid a lawsuit insert "apparent(ly)" into the sentence. How about "claimed"? Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
The phrasing of all the sections I mentioned could certainly stand to be further refined, yeah... whether a single word substitution is ideal, I'm not sure... —mjb (talk) 09:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
"Alleged" seems to fit the bill... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.37.166.142 (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Sony BMG copy protection rootkit scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal/Archives/2016&oldid=928861539"