4 ms·

It's unfortunate that these execs won't get prison time for this, and that Jobs wont be tried and sentenced posthumously. Yet downloading unprotected email add

It's unfortunate that these execs won't get prison time for this, and that Jobs wont be tried and sentenced posthumously. Yet downloading unprotected email addresses is worth up to 10 years, and downloading academic journals is worth up to 35. Really, which of these things is more damaging?

monochromatic 14y ago
Oh good, let's compare yet another unrelated thing to aaronsw.
- cema 14y ago
  Well... The nature of the crime is unrelated, perhaps. But the measuring scale, so to speak, is the same: length of incarceration. So from the point of view of the measuring instrument, it is comparable, and the comparison makes sense.
parasubvert 14y ago
Prison time? You do realize these actions are not necessarily illegal (nor immoral) and the corporation would liable, not necessarily the individuals? Trying to stop poaching is standard practice. When it becomes too widespread, Uncle Sam steps in. When the bankers that blew up the global economy in 2008 just got bonuses cut, what makes you think THIS of all things would be criminal?
- jlgreco 14y ago
  It seems clear to me that he is asserting the laws are wrong, not that they broke the laws that would get that sort of punishment.
  - parasubvert 14y ago
    Sure, I'm asserting that the laws aren't even wrong, let alone would they ever be changed in the direction the OP wants. I don't think it is credible to claim these actions are criminally damaging. I don't think copyright infringement is criminally damaging either, mind you, but that's somewhat off topic.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      The DoJ did not share your perspective, nor I think do most people.
      - parasubvert 14y ago
        Um, where has the DOJ tried to lock up executives for preventing poaching? Your understanding of "most people" may be limited. Keep in mind you live in a politically polarized country.
        jlgreco 14y ago
        Did I say the DOJ thought they were to be locked up? Are you being deliberately obtuse?
        parasubvert 14y ago
        From the OP: "It's unfortunate that these execs won't get prison time for this" The flow went like this: I suggested that this was not illegal or immoral, so not deserving of prison time. You suggested that the OP meant that the laws are wrong. I said that they're not wrong, nor would any changes to them that incarcerated executives for anti-competitive practices likely ever be put into law. You suggested the DOJ disagreed with me, as do most people. I don't think I'm being obtuse, but perhaps I just have a very different perspective on this.
        jlgreco 14y ago
        > I suggested that this was not illegal or immoral > You suggested the DOJ disagreed with me, as do most people. As evidenced by the fact that there was an investigation.
        parasubvert 14y ago
        The DOJ was investigating antitrust concerns, which is a civil matter (and a rather controversial area of the law). The OP was discussing the criminal liability of corporations and their officers. That's a huge difference.

monochromatic 14y ago

Oh good, let's compare yet another unrelated thing to aaronsw.

cema 14y ago
Well... The nature of the crime is unrelated, perhaps. But the measuring scale, so to speak, is the same: length of incarceration. So from the point of view of the measuring instrument, it is comparable, and the comparison makes sense.

parasubvert 14y ago

Prison time? You do realize these actions are not necessarily illegal (nor immoral) and the corporation would liable, not necessarily the individuals? Trying to stop poaching is standard practice. When it becomes too widespread, Uncle Sam steps in. When the bankers that blew up the global economy in 2008 just got bonuses cut, what makes you think THIS of all things would be criminal?

jlgreco 14y ago
It seems clear to me that he is asserting the laws are wrong, not that they broke the laws that would get that sort of punishment.
- parasubvert 14y ago
  Sure, I'm asserting that the laws aren't even wrong, let alone would they ever be changed in the direction the OP wants. I don't think it is credible to claim these actions are criminally damaging. I don't think copyright infringement is criminally damaging either, mind you, but that's somewhat off topic.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    The DoJ did not share your perspective, nor I think do most people.
    - parasubvert 14y ago
      Um, where has the DOJ tried to lock up executives for preventing poaching? Your understanding of "most people" may be limited. Keep in mind you live in a politically polarized country.
      - jlgreco 14y ago
        Did I say the DOJ thought they were to be locked up? Are you being deliberately obtuse?
        parasubvert 14y ago
        From the OP: "It's unfortunate that these execs won't get prison time for this" The flow went like this: I suggested that this was not illegal or immoral, so not deserving of prison time. You suggested that the OP meant that the laws are wrong. I said that they're not wrong, nor would any changes to them that incarcerated executives for anti-competitive practices likely ever be put into law. You suggested the DOJ disagreed with me, as do most people. I don't think I'm being obtuse, but perhaps I just have a very different perspective on this.
        jlgreco 14y ago
        > I suggested that this was not illegal or immoral > You suggested the DOJ disagreed with me, as do most people. As evidenced by the fact that there was an investigation.
        parasubvert 14y ago
        The DOJ was investigating antitrust concerns, which is a civil matter (and a rather controversial area of the law). The OP was discussing the criminal liability of corporations and their officers. That's a huge difference.