A documentary that cited video games among the reasons for childhood obesity did not treat Sony unfairly when criticising the PlayStation maker's refusal to sponsor a fitness scheme for kids. Sony also lost a claim that the company's privacy was breached. The ruling was published by Ofcom, the regulator for the UK's …
Much as I love to see Sony squirm...
Why does channel 4 seem to think that Sony /should/ sponsor their program, from which they will make money by broadcasting? I mean, it would be nice if they did, but they're under no obligation. I didn't see the program, but did Nintendo, Microsoft etc "sponsor" the program? What about 2k, EA, and all the other makers of PC games? I think not.
Still, given the DRM rubbish that Sony have put out lately, it's good to see they're not getting their own way with everything.
Sort of agree with Sony...In Part
I didn't actually see the program, so I'm working on what was said in the article, but it does seem Sony was unfairly treated. Why should Sony be effectivly blackmailed into sponsoring an event or scheme. Were Microsoft and Nintendo pulled up (although some would argue the Wii can be a workout)?
Of course Sony can easily retaliate and just refuse to advertise any items on C4.
once again: corporations are not people
This really winds me up, companies, such as Sony, are not people, they should not have the same rights as people, nor a legal position as being a person, or any other such nonsense.
There are actual people in charge of these organisations, and they should be held accountable for their actions, and those of their employees, that's what is supposed to justify their monstrous salaries, not palming off their responsibility to some faceless entity.
"Sony" should never be able to appear in court as it is not a person, for the root-kit debacle, it should have been the person who thought it was a good idea... etc etc, you get my drift..
Not people, but...
Companies are not people but they are legal entities that have some of the same "rights". There are good reasons for companies to be treated as seperate legal entities in many instances, but there are occasions where resposible directors/managers have hidden behind this protection.
Not people but .... In that case its scandalous that the clause on Corporate Manslaughter has still not reached the statute books.
Also, where exactly do I punch this pretend person on the nose .. inquiring minds need to know.
I hate Sony, I REALLY hate Sony. I think the PS3 is the biggest piece of crap on the planet, their insistence on intrusive DRM annoys me and their music business and support of the RIAA really winds me up.
Yet, in this case, I think Sony have been well and truly shat on. I quite frankly think what the show put forward was rather slanderous, suggesting that Sony's games lead to obesity without any evidence whatsoever is by definition slander.
If I were to produce a show suggesting every worker at OFCOM was a paedophile without any evidence do you really believe they'd let it slip? I don't think Sony has an argument in the privacy thing bar the leaked e-mail but in terms of the slander they deserve every right to sue the makers of the program senseless unless they can provide evidence to back their claim.
I've played computer games since I was 4 spending hours upon hours a day with them, yeah I used to play sports as a kid but not much. To this day I work as a sysadmin, I get up I drive to work, I sit in my room all day long, I drive home, I sit in my games room playing games or studying frankly the only exercise I get is the walk to the car. To sum up I do and have spent 95% of my life sat down or led down, I eat pizzas, chocolate and drink plenty of beer and coke and so on and I can't stand salads and so forth. Put simply I live and for the last 2 decades have lived the exact kind of life style this show has suggested is somehow causing people to be obese. So why am I perfectly fit 25 year old male? I'm as fit and healthy as they come so frankly the argument that computer games lead to obesity is idiotic at best.
Maybe, just maybe it's because some people have a flawed metabolism or really do just eat to much? Computer games or merely sitting around clearly has jack all to do with it else I'd be the fattest guy on the planet.
As much as I hate them, I feel sorry for Sony on this one, they don't deserve to win all their arguments in this case but their action was justified and they deserved to be given a much better treatment than they received.
Sony are not obligated to sponser anything, if they say no, that means no. They simply may not like Mr Wright's nose, if that's reason enough to say no, then so be it, drop it and get on with your life!
Sounds more like someone wanted a big, bad bogeyman to blame for fat-kids. I think we all know the main reason for a lot of kids getting fat, the older members of the household, the ones who have a problem saying no to the fifth burger or Mars bar that little Johnny or Susan has had that day!
Well I can certainly agree with that comment, it's hardly private. And as for "wrongdoing on Sony's part", I don't think there can be any doubt that SONY is responsible for doing a lot of wrongs to a lot of people.
On the other hand, couch potatoes only have themselves to blame, and I do agree that, if the idea of a fitness program for those in need is a good idea, blackmailing any company to get it funded is not.
Finally, I find that companies have entirely too many rights, and are hardly punished enough for stepping over the boundaries. If I go and rob an old lady and beat her up, I'll get a number of years in prison, lose my job and probably get served a divorce, and all that will be just - my life will be deservedly ruined.
If a company goes and ruins the livelihood, or at least the hardware, of thousands of people because of an illegal rootkit, all it gets is a slap on the wrist and permission to go on and do it again. The fines are ALWAYS ridiculous, and hardly a deterrent.
I'd like to see companies feel the same threats individuals do in the face of a judge. A company should be quaking in its boots if it gets hauled into court. It should not be fearing the amount of the fine, but the number of YEARS that it will take to overcome that fine.
Put more simply : companies should find themselves fined of their benefits for years, just like people are fined their liberty for years. Zero kopecks for the shareholders for ten years for the rootkit affair.
Tell me that shareholders won't be more careful with the law after that !
Im a programmer, the people who use my software sit in a chair, in front of a computer. If they get fat is it my fault because they use my software. Is it my responsibility to provide (and pay for) an exercise regime for all over weight workers. I think not.
The parents who’s over weight kids who play to many games should do something. Like feed them less cake, or limit their game access and buy them a football. I don’t know.
Besides im sure Ian Wright has more than enough money to sponsor these things him-self. He’s never off TV now a day. Also Ill bet he has been paid royalties at some stage for likeness rights in FIFA, Pro Evolution or Mario soccer.
... is a bit of a hypocrit isn't he? What with being in the Nintendo ads an' all...
Not unfair? As if
As much as I hate Sony's position on DRM and such, I think they were treated unfairly.
Sony have every right to refuse sponsorship. Mind you, given what was said in the article Sony shouldn't have complained as it just seemed to be a person's opinion and him saying that the project would still go on. I didn't see the show though.
That said, Nintendo and MS etc should have been approached to. I don't like MS but I bet they would have ponied up a good amount. They understand PR.
I say put a tax on the games (yes I buy them, yes I'd be _happy_ to pay). Just a small amount. Then spend that income on skate parks and free sports fields. Not entirely logical or fair, but it does give people somewhere to have fun. Might even encourage them.
I'm staff with a youth charity group, we have to pay for them to do any sports because there are no free local emenities. Despite plenty of open ground.
I'm pretty sure they have directly linked doing sweet FA/eating too much and obesity. Now, not putting on weight whilst partaking in such non-activities is more likely to be caused by genes than what Ian (above) suggests.
Your body can't store fat you don't feed it, and if you are burning the calories they must come from somewhere. Simple thermodynamics I believe.
Bad diet is the biggest culprit though.
I think the problem here is that Sony threw a fit over some guys comment. They should have just funded their own broadcast or opted to do an interview to address this guys comments.
I mean, I'm sorry, but this guy is just crying because Sony didn't fund his little scheme and saying therefore Sony is anti-health.
You need a little more evidence than that.
Sorry, I at least know who Sony is.. Who is this other guy? and is he truly a good guy, is his charity non-profit, or is he siding a little cash on the side from this deal? I mean, he is definitely trying to slander a company because they didn't fork over some cash.
Why should I pay yet again for all the fat fucks in the world that are too greedy to stop eating? Reduced fat in crisps, tax on fatty foods, tax on computer games, etc. WHY? I eat all these things, have been known to eat McD's 5 days a week for lunch, drive most places, have spent most days for the last 25 years sat in front of a computer and don't go to a gym or play sports yet I've got a 32 inch waist and weigh 11 stone.
The government, Ian Wright and all you do gooders can fuck right off. Try forcing these kids parents to stop feeding them. If that doesn't work take the kids off them, they don't deserve to have them anyway.
Righteous Human Straws
Please kindly learn a thing or two about genetics and metabolism. It isn't all obesity due to overeating (although I agree that's a highly common cause and/or contribution). People naturally fat (and once again, there's nothing wrong with that!) can find it very, very hard to stay at safe weights. It really doesn't help when people spread the media-induced, idealised image of young, strong and - above all - fit and slim children growing up to become the bewildering stereotypical attractive personage. It's something that really got to me as a kid (but heh, they were no match for the nettles), and I'd really expect people of the readership to know better than to make such a silly assumption. Of course I think parents have a duty to watch over their kids' diets, but a more worrying question might to be to wonder how the little children got so obsessed with all those yummy sweets/chocolates/chips/crisps/etc in the first place. I know I was guilty then, but I'll never understand it now as I'm hardly ever tempted by the bad stuff nowadays and my weight is fairly constant.
Sure you'd guessed, but I'm an unlucky bastard. Born short and plump, destined to die short and plump. Do watch my weight though as best I can, do try to stay off the temptations, but short and plump is sadly in the family line on my mother's side. I have at various times achieved remarkable feats of weight loss through sporting activities that I've enjoyed, but on the whole I'm an idle idol (although I do, and more people should, take frequent breaks and move about inside or outside to relieve themselves of the tedium and give yourself a bit of exercise - I myself have a strange habbit of pacing that most people can't see is just something I must do in order to even concentrate). I'm nearly twenty-five but consider my muscles more than adequate - adequate, combined with my weight, for the useful purpose of shattering a few tiresomely stiff doors, anyway. :-) Like a lot of people, I'm still getting rid of the weight I put on at the discos at uni. I have since sworn never, ever, ever to touch alcohol ever again (yeah right).
"...yet I've got a 32 inch waist and weigh 11 stone."
Sure, but what you're not telling us is that you're three feet tall. :)
Wrong and right
The right part was that an email sent to Wright was his to do with as he pleased - he signed no confidentiality agreement.
The wrong part was lumping the blame for the failure of his scheme on a single company that every right to refuse to give him money.
The argument that because they're rich they must give money to whoever asks is stupid. If you don't like Sony, don't buy their products. Actually this plan appears to be working quite well, because in case you haven't noticed, they aren't actually doing that well.
I agree with the guy that asks why Microsoft, Nintendo and indeed every previous manufacturer of consoles and games aren't treated with the same blame. It's fine to opinionate that you think video games are responsible for fat kids - it's your opinion and carries no more weight (sorry) than that.
But it's wrong to try to blackmail one corporation into funding something just because you think it's a good idea.
Sony maybe only a company, and they maybe run by greedy people, I don't know. But I do know they employ a hell of a lot of normal, everyday people that do have the right to expect the law to prevent their company from being slandered.
What people defending this decision are saying is I should be allowed to demand Ian Wright give me a million quid to start a fitness charity for kids, and if he refuses, be allowed to publicly state that he's responsible for obesity in children.
His statements were deliberately made to sound as if Sony actively sought to stop his fitness program from succeeding. As if they had deliberately sabotaged his efforts by some deviousness on their part. That's bullshit of the highest degree, and using his position as a TV presenter to push that opinion out to potentially millions of viewers is a crock of shit too.
Stop being fanboys
He [Wright] is entitled to his Opinion about Sony. Of course the usual fanboy attitude surfaces whenever their beloved company gets a bit of flack. Sony is a multi-national profit making capitalist company, not your fucking best friend.
Maybe you don't agree with what he [Wright] says about Sony but he should be entitled to voice his opinion and be able to film in a public place. This is a country that enables freedom of speech. So lets stop defending those who seek to gag and censor any comments that they don't agree with. Or perhaps one day it might be you that gets censored.
"...yet I've got a 32 inch waist and weigh 11 stone."
Wait until a couple of years after your mid-twenties, when your metabolism suddenly drops, and then try repeating that phrase. :)
At the very least, you'll be going to the gym if you want to keep that 32" waist. As you get older, you won't be able to get away with eating crap and doing no exercise.
Whose to blame... (not me, oh no)?
Can I just check I understand this. A TV company is worried that the kids play video games instead of watching TV and decides to blackmail a video game company ... because sitting on your arse all day causes obesity!?!
Well, yes, but, isn't there just a hint of light absorbent cooking utensils making hypocritical aspersions here?
Here's an idea...
Why doesn't channel 4 sponsor the thing. It's there TV show. Children sit and watch TV don't they
And what about all the adverts for unhealthy food for children?
Surely Channel 4 is as "responsible" for child obesity as Sony?
- +Comment Trips to Mars may be OFF: The SUN has changed in a way we've NEVER SEEN
- OnePlus One cut-price Android phone on sale to all... for 1 HOUR
- MARS NEEDS WOMEN, claims NASA pseudo 'naut: They eat less
- UNIX greybeards threaten Debian fork over systemd plan
- Back to the ... drawing board: 'Hoverboard' will disappoint Marty McFly wannabes