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

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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one 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:
 * Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/5jG7thyTO?url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/11/19/bmg_to_replace_antirip_natalie/ with https://web.archive.org/web/20100217044257/http://www.theregister.co.uk:80/2001/11/19/bmg_to_replace_antirip_natalie/ on http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/11/19/bmg_to_replace_antirip_natalie/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051124032239/http://hack.fi/~muzzy/sony-drm/ to http://hack.fi/~muzzy/sony-drm/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051124032239/http://hack.fi/~muzzy/sony-drm/ to http://hack.fi/~muzzy/sony-drm/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sonybmg.com.au/news/details.do?newsId=20030829002668

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

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