| JSF said: Sony is not "trying to enforce moral standards (whether it be porn or anything else) on the consumer through a disc monopoly". Sony says while they personally will not publish porn, they will not stop anyone else with a Blu-Ray production license from publishing porn. That article came a week after the articles about Sony forbidding Blu-Ray porn, but it didn't receive as much coverage. Blu-Ray production licenses are handed out by the Blu-Ray Disc Association and not Sony. Obviously porn is not blocked on Blu-Ray because there is a Vivid porno out on Blu-Ray. The disconnect here is that people still haven't gotten it in their heads that Blu-Ray is being controlled by an association of vested corporations and not solely by Sony. |
I'm aware Blu-Ray is controlled by 9 or so vested corporations, not just Sony. I'm also aware that Sony cannot stop porn from going onto Blu-Ray, I was the one who first brought up the point that there was already one Blu-Ray porno.
The point I was bringing up was that Sony (whether they have the means to or not) has worrisome "big brother" aims as a corporation as obviously shown through their decades of vocally boycotting pornography or at least saying they would if they could. The fact is that if they could, they would most certainly enforce these moral aims of content censorship and the hypothetical issue or worry is whether or not the line will be drawn at porn. Another pressing question is why exactly do they feel so strongly about content censorship of any kind?
I brought this entire issue up to illustrate that Sony as an individual company has strong morally driven interests that are atypical of such a company and possible indicator of slippery slope conflicts of interest with the consumer market, my point was to sound the warning bell on Sony's character not to cry over there being no porn on Blu-Ray. It's no different than how they planned to make it so a Blu-Ray disc couldn't be played on anything but the player it was registered to, they abandoned that idea, but it doesn't change the fact they still considered it and if plausable would have liked to enforce it. Just because the tiger is behind a cage doesn't mean it wouldn't still want to rip your throat out if given the chance. And with Sony, how long is that cage door going to be locked?
