7 ms·

One thing I do not understand in law is that there is no proportionality (except in some cases in Nordic countries). If 100B€ company is against me then all of

One thing I do not understand in law is that there is no proportionality (except in some cases in Nordic countries). If 100B€ company is against me then all of us should expect a painful fine if we loose. For me that will be 10k€,for them 1B€ (or whatever). They can afford to send lawyers whose job is to just do that: go to court. I have to take a day off. If the fine is 10k it is insignificant to them and they can assume they will lose and this is no big deal. For me it is. This unequality between a normal person and a company is painful. I belive that if companies were possibly in trouble when they loose then they would make more efforts to provide a good service (also out of court arrangements should be forbidden to force them to face the music)

mrits 6y ago
You are even describing a big corp vs top 5%. Less privileged people might end up losing their job to go to court.
rectang 6y ago
The impracticality of turning to the courts is what drives a lot of the thirst for government regulation — legislative relief is the only hope for these classical musicians. What good are the courts if the law is on your side but justice is inaccessible?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
  They work better in loser pays systems. A legitimate complaint can't be shut down with escalating costs.
  - space_fountain 6y ago
    Doesn't that make it a lot worse if you as an average Joe do lose against a team of well payed lawyers?
    - joking 6y ago
      Not really, the fees are more o less standard, and if one of the parties decide to go with ten lawyers, the loser pays only the fees published by the legal system, at least where I live.
  - rectang 6y ago
    A legitimate complaint absolutely can be shut down because there is no guarantee that you will win even if you are in the right. The risk management calculation is completely different if you are an individual of limited means who cannot afford to lose as opposed to a deep-pocketed entity that can absorb the worst-case costs.
- jfoster 6y ago
  Regulation is also useless if it is not enforced.
space_fountain 6y ago
This is only tangentially related but I wonder if it would be possible to create a system where both sides have the same resources. I'm imagining everyone has to put any money they want to spend on the case into a pot and then each side gets half. There are obviously loads of problems with this approach but I wonder if they're solvable
- VohuMana 6y ago
  It could be interesting to make things based on percentages rather than hard numbers. Like loser has to pay 15% of net worth or something like that. Doesn't really even the playing field but it at least makes the stakes the same for both sides.
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
The problem with this is that large corporations will just get a nominally smaller entity to do their dirty work. They already do this to get away with things like Hollywood accounting. There is a tiny little nominally independent corporation that owns the rights to a thing and is then completely unprofitable because whatever money it makes goes right back out as costs to whoever it is really making the profits. So then you go to court with a "small business" with "less than ten employees" which qualifies for all the exemptions to whatever costs you're trying to pin onto major companies. This may in fact even make the problem worse, because very small entities they can shoehorn their legal troubles into may pay lower penalties than the current average. The actual solution is to impose penalties that serve as a deterrent on everyone. Because why shouldn't a two person company that sends out millions of fraudulent takedowns end up with a billion dollar fine? The fine is proportional to the damage you do, not how much money you have. Otherwise what's to stop very small entities from causing rampant destruction and then getting a $25 fine?
- hedora 6y ago
  You should have the penalties climb up the chain to the topmost parent. Each entity should be fined proportional to annual revenue (not profit). The same proportion should apply to individuals and their incomes as to companies. Problem solved.
  - labawi 6y ago
    That's tricky. LLCs exist for a reason and the wealthy have have better means of obscuring ownership/control, so a simple take would only get the small businesses and their owners, possibly shareholders. Nevertheless, I do agree more should and could be done, especially for fines and penalties (less so for debts and obligations). It shouldn't be hard to prove those are shell companies, or fragments of a joint adventure.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > Problem solved. Not even close. There is no requirement for the company doing the dirty work to be a subsidiary. It can be "owned" by any random person drawing a lower middle class salary, because the entire premise is that that entity doesn't actually make any money. It does what you want because otherwise you don't do business with it, not because it's a subsidiary.
ikeboy 6y ago
The law, especially in civil cases, isn't there to punish losers. It's there to fix harms done. If you win, you get paid an approximation of your harm. Class actions exist to solve the collective action problem of the harm not being large enough for a single person to pursue.
- BrandoElFollito 6y ago
  For me the law is to bring fairness. This includes the fact that if someone is disproportionately stronger than me, they should be ready to face the consequences. In other words the court should not be only there to fix harm, but also to teach a lesson.
  - dnautics 6y ago
    That's particularly dangerous as the "lessons to be taught" are quite subjective and someday may skew towards behaviours that you may not like coming from a state, and eventually converge to self-serving and self-perpetuating "lessons". After all, it's already bad under the more restrictive standard of "reasonable damages"
    - im3w1l 6y ago
      > That's particularly dangerous as the "lessons to be taught" are quite subjective and someday may skew towards behaviours that you may not like coming from a state Sorry what.. are you arguing against the concept of criminal law?
      - ikeboy 6y ago
        We're talking about civil law here.
        im3w1l 6y ago
        I brought up criminal law to make a point: That we already trust the state to "teach people lessons" so the fears of what would happen if we gave the state the power to "teach people lessons", is kind of.... we already know the answer.

mrits 6y ago

You are even describing a big corp vs top 5%. Less privileged people might end up losing their job to go to court.

rectang 6y ago

The impracticality of turning to the courts is what drives a lot of the thirst for government regulation — legislative relief is the only hope for these classical musicians. What good are the courts if the law is on your side but justice is inaccessible?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
They work better in loser pays systems. A legitimate complaint can't be shut down with escalating costs.
- space_fountain 6y ago
  Doesn't that make it a lot worse if you as an average Joe do lose against a team of well payed lawyers?
  - joking 6y ago
    Not really, the fees are more o less standard, and if one of the parties decide to go with ten lawyers, the loser pays only the fees published by the legal system, at least where I live.
- rectang 6y ago
  A legitimate complaint absolutely can be shut down because there is no guarantee that you will win even if you are in the right. The risk management calculation is completely different if you are an individual of limited means who cannot afford to lose as opposed to a deep-pocketed entity that can absorb the worst-case costs.
jfoster 6y ago
Regulation is also useless if it is not enforced.

space_fountain 6y ago

This is only tangentially related but I wonder if it would be possible to create a system where both sides have the same resources. I'm imagining everyone has to put any money they want to spend on the case into a pot and then each side gets half. There are obviously loads of problems with this approach but I wonder if they're solvable

VohuMana 6y ago
It could be interesting to make things based on percentages rather than hard numbers. Like loser has to pay 15% of net worth or something like that. Doesn't really even the playing field but it at least makes the stakes the same for both sides.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

The problem with this is that large corporations will just get a nominally smaller entity to do their dirty work. They already do this to get away with things like Hollywood accounting. There is a tiny little nominally independent corporation that owns the rights to a thing and is then completely unprofitable because whatever money it makes goes right back out as costs to whoever it is really making the profits. So then you go to court with a "small business" with "less than ten employees" which qualifies for all the exemptions to whatever costs you're trying to pin onto major companies. This may in fact even make the problem worse, because very small entities they can shoehorn their legal troubles into may pay lower penalties than the current average. The actual solution is to impose penalties that serve as a deterrent on everyone. Because why shouldn't a two person company that sends out millions of fraudulent takedowns end up with a billion dollar fine? The fine is proportional to the damage you do, not how much money you have. Otherwise what's to stop very small entities from causing rampant destruction and then getting a $25 fine?

hedora 6y ago
You should have the penalties climb up the chain to the topmost parent. Each entity should be fined proportional to annual revenue (not profit). The same proportion should apply to individuals and their incomes as to companies. Problem solved.
- labawi 6y ago
  That's tricky. LLCs exist for a reason and the wealthy have have better means of obscuring ownership/control, so a simple take would only get the small businesses and their owners, possibly shareholders. Nevertheless, I do agree more should and could be done, especially for fines and penalties (less so for debts and obligations). It shouldn't be hard to prove those are shell companies, or fragments of a joint adventure.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > Problem solved. Not even close. There is no requirement for the company doing the dirty work to be a subsidiary. It can be "owned" by any random person drawing a lower middle class salary, because the entire premise is that that entity doesn't actually make any money. It does what you want because otherwise you don't do business with it, not because it's a subsidiary.

ikeboy 6y ago

The law, especially in civil cases, isn't there to punish losers. It's there to fix harms done. If you win, you get paid an approximation of your harm. Class actions exist to solve the collective action problem of the harm not being large enough for a single person to pursue.

BrandoElFollito 6y ago
For me the law is to bring fairness. This includes the fact that if someone is disproportionately stronger than me, they should be ready to face the consequences. In other words the court should not be only there to fix harm, but also to teach a lesson.
- dnautics 6y ago
  That's particularly dangerous as the "lessons to be taught" are quite subjective and someday may skew towards behaviours that you may not like coming from a state, and eventually converge to self-serving and self-perpetuating "lessons". After all, it's already bad under the more restrictive standard of "reasonable damages"
  - im3w1l 6y ago
    > That's particularly dangerous as the "lessons to be taught" are quite subjective and someday may skew towards behaviours that you may not like coming from a state Sorry what.. are you arguing against the concept of criminal law?
    - ikeboy 6y ago
      We're talking about civil law here.
      - im3w1l 6y ago
        I brought up criminal law to make a point: That we already trust the state to "teach people lessons" so the fears of what would happen if we gave the state the power to "teach people lessons", is kind of.... we already know the answer.