7 ms·
For me, the really interesting question is not if he's guilty - I had assumed as much - but if he will come out financially successful. That video had millions
by fxtentacle 3y ago
For me, the really interesting question is not if he's guilty - I had assumed as much - but if he will come out financially successful. That video had millions of views and a sponsorship deal. Call me a cynic, but it seems that some companies will deliberately break the law and pay the price if it's worth it, so why not independent hustlers.
- WillPostForFood 3y agoLegal fees alone are going to be many times YouTube revenue. Add lost wages for a half year in prison. Add future lost revenue from sponsors who don't want to be associated with this, and it has to be a huge financial disaster.
- ryandrake 3y agoEven if the legal fees weren't many times the revenue, I never understood why couldn't the justice system default to fines like "All income arising out of crime + $XYZ" for all crimes, so that the fine is never a cost of doing business?
- altairprime 3y agoWhat percentage of viewer income was due to the crime?
- constantly 3y agoI presume this is hypothetical. A reasonable start would be to see the difference average views on a video and views on this particular video times as revenue per view. Admittedly I’ve never heard of this guy and avoid most YouTube “creators” and it got a view out of me out of morbid curiosity and so I could speculate on whether it was pre planned.
- altairprime 3y agoThat question, as posed, represents why this isn’t often done. It’s very difficult to determine the contributing revenue fraction when one illegal action is laundered among many. Seizure tends to be all or nothing as a result.
- paulryanrogers 3y agoPerhaps laziness? Determining which profits are due to a crime could be difficult to separate from legitimate activity. That said, they could write the law to claw back anything that's easily accounted for, and just use some approximations when that's impractical.
- autoexec 3y agoIt doesn't even need to be an exact or accurate accounting of money made due to crime. The legal system could impose fines high enough to hurt regardless of where the money came from, and pretty much everyone agrees that they should because otherwise fines are just a cost of doing business. The fact that the legal system refuses to do that when it's so obvious that not doing it is harmful to everyone except criminal corporations is troubling.
- Deprecate9151 3y agoThe technical term for it is "disgorgement" and it does exist in some contexts. I agree it is shockingly absent in far too many.
- TeMPOraL 3y agoMy guess: it's too expensive to keep track of what constitutes "income arising out of crime" for the statutory period / lifetime of the perpetrator, especially if it could spawn an endless stream of minor cases for whether any specific income is truly "arising out of crime".
- beeboobaa 3y agoEasy fix, have the perpetrator pay for the investigation.
- pavon 3y agoI thought that was what criminal forfeiture laws were supposed to be about. Is there are reason why they aren't routinely applied in cases like this? Seems to be a much more productive use than typical civil forfeiture.
- mcmoor 3y agoI'd argue that it's shouldn't even be only income + $xyz, it's income * (1 / chance of succesful enforcement) to reduce companies that thought that as long as it's hidden enough you'll be safe. It'll be a lot more arbitrary though.
- dataflow 3y agoProbably because it's not necessarily always a proportional punishment? Like if you drive somewhere with a suspended license somewhere and make a million dollars as a result, should all that money be subject to seizure?
- glasshug 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_Sam_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_Sam_law
- rtpg 3y agoThis is a thing (this is the whole thing about treble damages). Despite what people say on HN, "Fines are a cost of doing business" is more a statement of fact (running a business, you sometimes fuck up and pay for it), rather than a statement of intent (do things that get fined but make money off of it). For most people anyways. If you run scam X and earn Y from that scam, then get caught doing X, it is extremely unlikely that you are walking away with a fine less than Y. The problem is of course maybe the feds only notice Y/2 or Y/10. There's some hand wringing about scam X earning you Y directly but helping to support scam Z in the future that you will do better (or legitimate businesses A,B,C that earn you Y * 1000). But there's a base principle, and "let's just fine off of overall revenue" things leading to "some case officer in Omaha lied on forms, so we will fine this bank $2 billion" is kinda silly[0]. But generally speaking illegal activity where you get caught is going to end badly for you. And illegal activity you get away with will end better for you, but that's true independent of the fee structure. [0] the case officer might be part of a larger pattern. This is what discovery and investigations are for! Do enough work and you can prove that the earnings from the illegal activity is higher!
- bdonlan 3y agoThis is called disgorgement and is indeed frequently used for certain types of crimes (particularly financial crimes).
- dzolob 3y agoPlus, and I’m speculating here, there might be a breach of contract or tos here and there due to illegal activities, so he might even have to return some or all revenues.
- hackerlight 3y agoWe have the benefit of hindsight. If he thought there was a 20% chance of being caught, then maybe 0.2*(legal fees + other consequences) < $profit + fame.
- pengaru 3y agoNo chance for future lucrative film and book deals? If this kind of thing becomes increasingly common in the "influencer" economy, this instance could be seen as Ground Zero making him an OG pioneer of sorts. That has to be worth something, for better or worse. Six months prison time isn't very long after all, six months of average salary doesn't buy you anywhere near this level of fame.
- duskwuff 3y agoA federal felony and a 6-month prison sentence, on their own, would almost certainly tip the scales to "not worth it". I wouldn't be surprised if there were also a disgorgement involved.
- mozman 3y agoIt’s a big black mark on your reputation, it’s rarely worth it. He could have injured or killed someone for a video. Crime doesn’t pay
- ta1243 3y agoLarge companies commit crime constantly and make it pay, the fines they incur are simply counted a cost of doing business
- adrr 3y agoThey don't regularly commit crimes though. They commit regulatory violations. There's a big difference. Like getting a parking ticket versus being convicted for a felony. Ones that get convicted like Purdue Pharma are fined so heavily they are forced to close. Or they could just be banned from doing business like Arthur Anderson when they had to surrender their CPA licenses and forgo rights to practice.
- titzer 3y agoSteal a loaf of bread, do hard time. Steal $5 here and there millions of times over from unsuspecting customers with completely made-up junk fees, and it's an FTC fine...after years of haggling in court. The magic of indirection!
- boeingUH60 3y agoNobody does hard time for stealing a loaf of bread, but sure keep ranting..
- ugh123 3y agoI doubt its anything that can beat 6 months in jail
- paulpauper 3y agoFor me, the really interesting question is not if he's guilty - I had assumed as much - but if he will come out financially successful. That video had millions of views and a sponsorship deal. Call me a cynic, but it seems that some companies will deliberately break the law and pay the price if it's worth it, so why not independent hustlers. given all the media attention and the general frivolity of the matter, that answers it. A tiny sentence at prison camp for a few months makes it worth it for a career of earnings and buzz.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- tokai 3y agoThats assuming that yt pays out and his sponsors doesn't sue him.
- fieryskiff17 3y ago[flagged]
- smcin 3y agoA more hip headline would be "Feds hand YouTuber the ultimate demonetization for plane crash vid"
- laborcontract 3y agoWe're living in the age of advertisers hyperfixated on brand safety. I can't see any brand thinking it's a good idea to throw money at this guy. More attention is a good thing until you're OJ Simpson.
- jahsome 3y agoWill ridge wallet come crawling back? Heck no. But in the world of influencers one of the primary currenciez is notariety, some cess pool like kick or rumble would gladly take the publicity, good or "bad."
- madeofpalk 3y agoHow much money would you take to spend 6 months in jail?
- blackoil 3y agoIf I can choose it to be a Norwegian prison, may be 100-200k USD. I always wanted to take a self-discovery retreat but can't commit to it.
- wruza 3y agoDepends on a jail. Some are more like resorts/rehabs compared to others. US jails for 6-month crimes aren’t particularly bad, afaiu. Personally I’d take around $200k too for a US jail, assuming I have nothing to do for half a year and there will be no social/legal consequences that matter. Disclaimer: I wouldn’t commit a crime to make money/time tradeoff, only a hypothetical experimental exchange with no real danger to anyone.
- Reubachi 3y agoThis "what if" is not realistic, because you have the retainer of "there will be no social/legal consequences that matter". A felony prevents you from getting a job. Obviously being hyperbolic but you know that the conviction is as much a punishment as the incarceration.
- tw04 3y agoIs YouTube actually letting him monetize it? I didn’t think you could make money off a video of yourself committing a crime?
- dvngnt_ 3y agothe crime was the cover-up tho
- jahewson 3y agoDemonetized.