Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:An amendment would fix this (Score 1) 264

by Bartab (#33716970) Attached to: Other Tech the Senate Would Have Banned

Remember the Sony rootkit? Who went to prison over that one? I'm pretty sure who would have gone to prison if I, a private citizen, had done something like that.

If you, as a private citizen, distributed software by CD that included .... software? Distributing faulty software isn't a crime, by the way.

What crime are you suggesting you would be charged with, and presumably Sony decision makers should have been? Quote the law itself please, handwaving and uttering "thereaouttabealaw!!!11111oneone" isn't sufficient.

Comment: Re:An amendment would fix this (Score 1) 264

by Bartab (#33716912) Attached to: Other Tech the Senate Would Have Banned

Yep corporations can get away with murder. All the CEO or Board needs to do is find an employee willing to do that job (example: dump poisons into drinking water). They will be shielded by the corporate license.

You have an incorrect understanding of limited liability afforded by incorporation. Decision making is an -act-. Deciding that poisons should be dumped into drinking water is a -criminal-act-. Actually engaging in the dumping is a separate criminal act. Both actors are subject to criminal charges, and in practice the dumper tends to get off with lighter sentences than the decider due to assisting prosecution, etc.

It strikes me that you're just upset that the people involved have a presumption of innocence. Too bad.

Comment: Re:An amendment would fix this (Score 1) 264

by Bartab (#33716828) Attached to: Other Tech the Senate Would Have Banned

It seems like a form of double dipping - a mechanism by which business owners may not only vote and contribute personally towards political campaigns, but also utilize the resources of their company or companies to "suggest" legislation, contribute MORE money directly towards their preferred candidates, and make unlimited campaign ads in support of the aforementioned candidates and legislation.

Poppycock. People heading the decision infrastructure of a corporation are simply utilizing the resources of that corporation as they decide, subject to fidicuary duty restraint. This is no more "double dipping" then me pulling money from both my savings and my checking accounts in order to engage in an activity.

Once again, there is nothing special - or in this case unspecial - about money controlled by a corporation. Anything a private citizen may do with their own funds they may also with funds under their control due to heading the decision making process of a corporation. It doesn't matter if they own 100% of the shares, or if they don't own a single one.

In so doing, they presume to speak for everyone under their employ - whether they be a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green or firetruck red Communist. Whether they support net neutrality, gay marriage, UHC or immigration reform.

False. A corporation is not "speaking for" a single person in their employ, and anybody who believes a PR rep personally believes what they say really needs to take their hand off the keyboard and sit and think really hard for a very long time, because their beliefs are embarrassing to themselves. They are speaking for investors in that corporation, but only insofar as much as any investor in question has control of the decision making process. The corporation wholly owned by a single person is of course speaking for that person - because that person is the one deciding the corporation should speak in such a manner. However, just because you own 100 shares of Coke doesn't mean you agree with their statements, political or otherwise. You have no reasonable control over the decisions, and likewise as above anybody who acts like you do should simply stop talking, for their own benefit.

They take a portion of the wealth those employees created through their efforts for the company, and then use it to buy laws and legislation those employees might find disagreeable or abhorrent.

Employers, be they large corporations or small businesses -purchase- the effort of their employees, and as such own it. Of course they take the proceeds of that effort, because it's theirs to take. Neither the size of the company, method of its organization, or what the company chooses to do with those proceeds has any bearing.

Comment: Re:An amendment would fix this (Score 1) 264

by Bartab (#33716662) Attached to: Other Tech the Senate Would Have Banned

Now, suppose that I'm doing something on my own, and as a direct action of something negligent I do somebody dies. I can spend years behind bars for that.

Negligence is a crime. Negligence as an employee of a corporation is -still- a crime.

You're just upset that in some circumstance, something you view as negligence either provably isn't or can't be proven to be in a court of law. So? People still are innocent until proven guilty, even when they work for a corporation.

Comment: Re:An amendment would fix this (Score 1) 264

by Bartab (#33716614) Attached to: Other Tech the Senate Would Have Banned

Refrain from engaging in silly arguments, and I'll refrain from pointing it out.

The RIAA is in organization, made up of organizations, that exist to codify group decision making. People making decisions within that framework -are- speaking for RIAA, even if they're not speaking for an individual member entity.

It's how group consensus works. Don't like it? Don't join a group.

Comment: Re:An amendment would fix this (Score 4, Insightful) 264

by Bartab (#33714938) Attached to: Other Tech the Senate Would Have Banned

If i person gets someone killed they go to jail - if a company gets someone killed they might get fined..

Err. No.

Corporations and other such organizations cannot be charged with a crime, such charges are applied to people. The actors of the crime. If you commit a non crime killing, you'll be subject to civil charges, not criminal charges. As fines associated with civil charges are generally scaled to your wealth, the fine itself would be a lot loss.

The thing crazy people like to forget is that "imaginary people" such as corporations are....imaginary. They cannot act because they do not exist. Thus actions are always the acts of people. If a crime occurs, it's a person engaging in them. If a right is being exercised, it's a person engaging in them. Corporations in particular, and similarly but differently for PACs and Unions, the organizations exist as a formalized organizational structure to assist investment and decision making. When that decision making leads to illegal activity, the decision makers and actors are both vulnerable to criminal charges. In addition, the people involved -and- the corporation itself is vulnerable to civil charges.

One small step for man, one giant stumble for mankind.

Working...