4 ms·

So when the corporations do something illegal why doesn’t this conduit go to jail or pay out of pocket for misconduct? Or is the said conduit only in play for a

So when the corporations do something illegal why doesn’t this conduit go to jail or pay out of pocket for misconduct? Or is the said conduit only in play for all the convenient aspects of the job like firing people while taking millions in bonuses?

LearnYouALisp 2mo ago
Aka all the benefits, none of the negs why if YOU profit off a single copyright violation, it could be $250,000 and up to five years, but if you do it against millions of artists, and have a corporation (and money), it's just a few thousand per and you walk and keep doing business (never mind pretending the rest of it is 'fair use', when no human work is being done to produce the Fourier-combined ploduct and nothing new is added).
raincom 2mo ago
If a business is a two person shop, it is very easy to prove the culpability of a CEO. However, in a large corporation, it is very hard to prove the culpability of a CEO, as too many people are involved. That's why you see small business owners are easier to prosecute than CEOs of larger corporations.
- nobodyandproud 2mo ago
  Size isn’t an excuse. If there’s no real accountability then it’s a very real and negative problem.
- blitzar 2mo ago
  it is very hard to prove the culpability of a CEO for anything bad it is very easy to prove to the CEO earned the credit for all things good
  - ryandrake 2mo ago
    Yup, when the company succeeds or does something good, it's the CEO's excellent leadership. When the company fails or does something bad, the culpability gets spread vaguely over the entire company.
  - raincom 2mo ago
    The issue is who should one prove the culpability to? As long as the board of directors agree that CEO earned the credit for all things good, he/she will get a fat bonus. For culpability, it is the jury/judge, where things are quite strict; otherwise, it is very easy to convict.
- xboxnolifes 2mo ago
  Thats the excuse given, but it makes no sense. All you do is state "CEOs are culpable for the actions of the campany". Bam, problem solved.
  - bluefirebrand 2mo ago
    I genuinely used to think that the reason CEOs and other executives made as much money as they did was because they were accepting the risk of steering a large company that might screw them Boy was I wrong. They have zero risk and pure upside of being an executive. Oh it's a hard job, it's stressful? So is mine and I get paid peanuts in comparison!
  - raincom 2mo ago
    That requires a change in criminal law, with an exception of RICO. However, the DOJ will not use RICO against the elite class, as ex-prosecutors end up working for the same elite through law firms.
    - eru 2mo ago
      That's a bit silly. Tough prosecutors and regulators get top jobs all the time. Being tough is actually a good way to raise your profile.
      - raincom 2mo ago
        RICO statues are slapped against a specific set of people: Mafia. Without RICO, you can't just percolate up the culpability to the CEO without a solid proof. The issue here: laws, courts, how courts look at evidence. With RICO, the bar is lower. In any large organization, there is a legal department, there is a chief legal office/General counsel. These guys train CEO enough how to pass down messages. When I was a salesman, my training team and my managers never told us to lie. However, the pressure tactics they use force sales people to lie. That's how things work. Even if some assistant attorney/prosecutor wants to use RICO, he/she will be overruled in the same department.
aleksandrm 2mo ago
That's why Citizens United is a sham. Corporations are NOT people. If they were, they would see more consequences. But no one ever does.
- jack_h 2mo ago
  That's not what CU held. The idea that corporations have legal personhood with some degree of rights is much, much older than Citizens United. Citizens United was a non-profit corporation that created Hillary: The Movie which was critical of Hillary Clinton. They wanted to distribute it shortly before the 2008 primaries. The Federal Election Campaign Act prohibited corporations from using general funds for electioneering or speech that advocates for the election or defeat of a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of an election. The Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from stopping an incorporated association from independently spending its own money for political advocacy of a candidate. To put it another way, if I can spend my money to advocate for or against a candidate, why can I not get together with some friends to pool our money and incorporate to do the same? If this had gone the other way would you be okay with a corporation being forbidden from releasing a video critical of Trump shortly before the 2024 election?
  - xboxnolifes 2mo ago
    Nobody wants to be the first one who cant pool large sums of money to influence politics, but, yes, im okay with not being allowed to spend millions of dollars to influence our politics. Our society has too much wealth inequality for that to be a good idea.
    - infamouscow 2mo ago
      This would mean that all media companies in the US would be prevented from publishing anything that could be perceived as negative about any candidate running for elected office, regardless of factual basis and regardless of if it were satire. A candidate would simply go to any circuit court judge and get an injunction against the media company. If the media company did not comply, the judge would find the officers in contempt. Marshals would then arrest and throw the companies officers in jail indefinitely until they complied. That's what you're asking for. It's genuinely stupid. I say this as someone that would declare a national emergency on day 1 of being elected just to have the Air Force turn most media company HQs into smoldering craters.
Anonyneko 2mo ago
In the post-Soviet world it's a fairly normal practice to have a "CEO on paper" who's only there to go to jail if things go wrong, and have a completely different person or people make all of the business decisions and handle deals and big customers. E.g. in one of my former workplaces this formal "CEO" was the bookkeeping guy who handled our salary payments and whatnot. This practice is old enough that it was parodied in "The Golden Calf" in 1931...

LearnYouALisp 2mo ago

Aka all the benefits, none of the negs why if YOU profit off a single copyright violation, it could be $250,000 and up to five years, but if you do it against millions of artists, and have a corporation (and money), it's just a few thousand per and you walk and keep doing business (never mind pretending the rest of it is 'fair use', when no human work is being done to produce the Fourier-combined ploduct and nothing new is added).

raincom 2mo ago

If a business is a two person shop, it is very easy to prove the culpability of a CEO. However, in a large corporation, it is very hard to prove the culpability of a CEO, as too many people are involved. That's why you see small business owners are easier to prosecute than CEOs of larger corporations.

nobodyandproud 2mo ago
Size isn’t an excuse. If there’s no real accountability then it’s a very real and negative problem.
blitzar 2mo ago
it is very hard to prove the culpability of a CEO for anything bad it is very easy to prove to the CEO earned the credit for all things good
- ryandrake 2mo ago
  Yup, when the company succeeds or does something good, it's the CEO's excellent leadership. When the company fails or does something bad, the culpability gets spread vaguely over the entire company.
- raincom 2mo ago
  The issue is who should one prove the culpability to? As long as the board of directors agree that CEO earned the credit for all things good, he/she will get a fat bonus. For culpability, it is the jury/judge, where things are quite strict; otherwise, it is very easy to convict.
xboxnolifes 2mo ago
Thats the excuse given, but it makes no sense. All you do is state "CEOs are culpable for the actions of the campany". Bam, problem solved.
- bluefirebrand 2mo ago
  I genuinely used to think that the reason CEOs and other executives made as much money as they did was because they were accepting the risk of steering a large company that might screw them Boy was I wrong. They have zero risk and pure upside of being an executive. Oh it's a hard job, it's stressful? So is mine and I get paid peanuts in comparison!
- raincom 2mo ago
  That requires a change in criminal law, with an exception of RICO. However, the DOJ will not use RICO against the elite class, as ex-prosecutors end up working for the same elite through law firms.
  - eru 2mo ago
    That's a bit silly. Tough prosecutors and regulators get top jobs all the time. Being tough is actually a good way to raise your profile.
    - raincom 2mo ago
      RICO statues are slapped against a specific set of people: Mafia. Without RICO, you can't just percolate up the culpability to the CEO without a solid proof. The issue here: laws, courts, how courts look at evidence. With RICO, the bar is lower. In any large organization, there is a legal department, there is a chief legal office/General counsel. These guys train CEO enough how to pass down messages. When I was a salesman, my training team and my managers never told us to lie. However, the pressure tactics they use force sales people to lie. That's how things work. Even if some assistant attorney/prosecutor wants to use RICO, he/she will be overruled in the same department.

aleksandrm 2mo ago

That's why Citizens United is a sham. Corporations are NOT people. If they were, they would see more consequences. But no one ever does.

jack_h 2mo ago
That's not what CU held. The idea that corporations have legal personhood with some degree of rights is much, much older than Citizens United. Citizens United was a non-profit corporation that created Hillary: The Movie which was critical of Hillary Clinton. They wanted to distribute it shortly before the 2008 primaries. The Federal Election Campaign Act prohibited corporations from using general funds for electioneering or speech that advocates for the election or defeat of a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of an election. The Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from stopping an incorporated association from independently spending its own money for political advocacy of a candidate. To put it another way, if I can spend my money to advocate for or against a candidate, why can I not get together with some friends to pool our money and incorporate to do the same? If this had gone the other way would you be okay with a corporation being forbidden from releasing a video critical of Trump shortly before the 2024 election?
- xboxnolifes 2mo ago
  Nobody wants to be the first one who cant pool large sums of money to influence politics, but, yes, im okay with not being allowed to spend millions of dollars to influence our politics. Our society has too much wealth inequality for that to be a good idea.
  - infamouscow 2mo ago
    This would mean that all media companies in the US would be prevented from publishing anything that could be perceived as negative about any candidate running for elected office, regardless of factual basis and regardless of if it were satire. A candidate would simply go to any circuit court judge and get an injunction against the media company. If the media company did not comply, the judge would find the officers in contempt. Marshals would then arrest and throw the companies officers in jail indefinitely until they complied. That's what you're asking for. It's genuinely stupid. I say this as someone that would declare a national emergency on day 1 of being elected just to have the Air Force turn most media company HQs into smoldering craters.

Anonyneko 2mo ago

In the post-Soviet world it's a fairly normal practice to have a "CEO on paper" who's only there to go to jail if things go wrong, and have a completely different person or people make all of the business decisions and handle deals and big customers. E.g. in one of my former workplaces this formal "CEO" was the bookkeeping guy who handled our salary payments and whatnot. This practice is old enough that it was parodied in "The Golden Calf" in 1931...