|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
Suits them?
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: IceBreaker
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS...s.ap/index.html
Discuss!
Posted by: Gunslinger
Anything for big business.
There are plenty of excellent reasons for class-action lawsuits against large corporations. It's not like chasing an ambulance.
Posted by: Airdawg10
 Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gunslinger
Anything for big business.
There are plenty of excellent reasons for class-action lawsuits against large corporations. It's not like chasing an ambulance.
|
You make it sound as though Bush banned class-action lawsuits...
I'm not a laywer, but from what I understand lawyers were filing suits and, because of the way the system was set up, able to choose which state or local courts to file them in. Well, if you've been int eh business long enough or do your homework, you're bound to find a judge that will be more sympathetic to your cause. In essence, lawyers were able to make the defense fight an uphilll battle to win a case.
This bill just even's the playing feild by taking the lawsuits straight to federal court. Federal court has filters that help keep frivilous lawsuits out as well...
Posted by: redwench
no such thing as a frivolous class action suit, since a judge has to certify it as such........
Posted by: Gunslinger
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Airdawg10
You make it sound as though Bush banned class-action lawsuits...
|
It wasn't a commentary on Bush at all. Just a....comment.
Of course, you make one point that I like...about the uphill battle of defense lawyers. It is difficult to have a level playing field in any legal action, but ultimately, that is up to the judge to control.
Posted by: 9:35
he's just making decisions the American way I dont see the problem 
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Airdawg10
You make it sound as though Bush banned class-action lawsuits...
[...]
This bill just even's the playing feild by taking the lawsuits straight to federal court. Federal court has filters that help keep frivilous lawsuits out as well...
|
And you make it sound as though Bush, in signing the law, had the interests of the commoner in mind...
Posted by: Airdawg10
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
And you make it sound as though Bush, in signing the law, had the interests of the commoner in mind...
|
Haha! Tu-she (however that's spelled...)
I think that Bush had the best interest of business in mind, small and big. In a "trcikle down" way, one could argue that that would help the "commoner" as well, but that's a completely different topic ;-)
Posted by: IceBreaker
O yes you got the 'trickle' part right.
Help might come in trickles - at best -)
That is, if the little chance commoners previously stood against all-powerful megacorps doesn't trickle away - which IMO is far more likely all the more so than that's the very purpose of this law, isn't it?
EDIT:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Airdawg10
Tu-she
|
hehe - I made a few attempts with an online Japanese -> English translator before I realized this was supposed to be phonetic...
it's 'Touché' 
Posted by: Airdawg10
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
O yes you got the 'trickle' part right.
Help might come in trickles - at best -)
|
Haha... This isn't a political forum, so I'll resist turning this into any sort of political debate... Oh, so tempting though... :-D
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
hehe - I made a few attempts with an online Japanese -> English translator before I realized this was supposed to be phonetic...
it's 'Touché' |
HAHAHA!!! That had me laughing for 5 minutes!
Thanks for the spelling correction, I really had no idea...
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Airdawg10
Haha... This isn't a political forum, so I'll resist turning this into any sort of political debate... Oh, so tempting though... :-D
|
Resist we must http://forum.presence-pc.com/icones/smilies/jap.gif
At first I'd thought of starting this topic in the R&R section, but as it's a restricted part of the forum I started it here instead so everyone could participate...
Posted by: Oldcrocd
Article quote
The House of Representatives joined the Senate in sending a clear message to the nation: the rights of large corporations that take advantage of seniors, low-wage workers and local communities are more important than the rights of average American citizens," said Helen Gonzales of USAction, a liberal, pro-consumer activist group.
quote end
It would appear that not only haas your free speech taken a back seat but so have even more rights of ordinary citizens?
Article quote
"It's the final payback to the tobacco industry, to the asbestos industry, to the oil industry, to the chemical industry at the expense of ordinary families who need to be able go to court to protect their loved ones when their health has been compromised," said Rep. Ed Markey, D-Massachusetts. "And these people are saying that your state isn't smart enough, your jurors aren't smart enough" to hear those cases.
quote end
Looks to me to be a gagging order of the highest, or am I mistaken?
Posted by: IceBreaker
Alas you are not mistaken comrade.
The corporate state of fascism has triumphed - again (not that I'm surprised http://forum.presence-pc.com/images...20le%20loup.gif)
Posted by: redwench
oh my gawd, teh drama.
all the legislation does is move certain large suits to federal court. it doesnt prohibit, restrain, or in any other way affect them..........
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
it doesnt prohibit, restrain, or in any other way affect them..........
|
Oh really?
Quote:
"The House of Representatives joined the Senate in sending a clear message to the nation: the rights of large corporations that take advantage of seniors, low-wage workers and local communities are more important than the rights of average American citizens," said Helen Gonzales of USAction, a liberal, pro-consumer activist group.
[...]
But Democrats say Republicans just want to protect corporations from taking responsibility for their wrongdoing by keeping them clear of state courts that might issue multimillion-dollar verdicts against them.
Federal courts are expected to allow fewer large class-action suits to go forward, which Democrats say means more businesses will get away with wrongdoing and fewer ordinary people will be protected.
"It's the final payback to the tobacco industry, to the asbestos industry, to the oil industry, to the chemical industry at the expense of ordinary families who need to be able go to court to protect their loved ones when their health has been compromised," said Rep. Ed Markey, D-Massachusetts.
|
You'd rather believe the GOP than those defending the interests of consumers?
You really think Bush had the welfare of the "ordinary people" in mind when signing the bill, and not that of the corporate$? 
Posted by: redwench
off course not, dont be silly. bush wouldnt know a consumer if one bit him on the ass. that doesnt mean its going to have much of an effect, much less the one everyone thinks it will. or even that the expected effect isnt desirable. us poor consumers are the ones that ultimately pay for this stuff, one way or the other.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Except that in the past, both the consumers (according to you) AND the corporates "paid for this stuff".
Now, however, corporates are safe - otherwise why do you think they backed the bill?
Quote:
|
The House approved the bill by a 279-149 vote Thursday as businesses finally saw success after a decade of efforts to reduce their legal liability from cases where a single person or a small group can represent the interests in court of many thousands of people.
|
So I guess that leaves only the "poor consumers" to bear the brunt, eh?
Of course, I for one do hope you know better than ALL those who backed (GOP, corporates etc) AND opposed the bill (Democrats, consumer-rights groups...).
But quite frankly, I doubt so http://forum.presence-pc.com/images/perso/kryten.gif
Posted by: redwench
eh, a lot of the time these projections of doom are found to be way off the mark. no one has any real idea what the federal courts will do differently, if anything.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
Except that in the past, both the consumers (according to you) AND the corporates "paid for this stuff".
|
huh? the consumers have always paid for large lawsuits, both from increased prices and the removal of useful goods from the marketplace. and of course, as taxpayers we get to pay for the courts. judgements never come out of the CEO's pocket........
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
eh, a lot of the time these projections of doom are found to be way off the mark. no one has any real idea what the federal courts will do differently, if anything.
|
Oh, it's more like both parties have a very clear idea where this will lead - and the fact that of all people it is Bush himself who, I quote, "wasted no time signing the bill" (surprise surprise ) and that the corporates backed him up, that alone is of evil omen for things to come...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
huh? the consumers have always paid for large lawsuits, both from increased prices and the removal of useful goods from the marketplace. and of course, as taxpayers we get to pay for the courts. judgements never come out of the CEO's pocket........
|
I wasn't talking about court costs (and even then: is the company that was sued exempted from court costs even if it lost the case? I'm not so sure ; )
Megacorps will be all too happy at the prospect of no longer having to face any responsibility towards consumers in cases where they once would have been sentenced to pay millions in damages - sums that probably way exceeded the court costs - out of their own pockets.
As for the rise in prices - please...  Even with the spectre of multi-million dollar settlements no longer looming above their heads, corporates will always find another excuse - over here for example, it's called inflation. And it ain't pretty - especially since the conservatives took over...
Posted by: Fury451
Quote:
|
The bill "will help protect people who are wrongfully harmed while reducing the frivolous lawsuits that clog our courts, hurt the economy, cost jobs, and burden American businesses," Bush said.
|
bullcrap . ****in bullcrap . as usual .
what about them lawsuits when some guy can sue you just cause you stepped on his foot or something ? now THESE are the REAL frivolous lawsuits but hey it dont affect business so i guess bush doesnt give a **** about these huh ? or what about the companies that file suits against helpless individuals sometimes for absolutely NO reason ? guess that law of his aint gonna help us against these suits either eh ?
BULLSHIT . like someone said , its all for big business . aint nothing in it for us private individuals . its only gonna get worse for us but hey i guess well just have 2 get used to it for the next 4 years eh ? 
Posted by: tovarich
Where do you think Bush gets his campaign money from.? Not from the little man. He owes the big industry. When nearly the whole world gratifies the Kyoto agreement , the greatest p oll uter America refuses. The problems for the big industry in the States would be enormous. The American law has always been considered by us Europeans as very strange. The enormous amounts of dollars some people get paid for things that in Europe would not get into court. Well, vive la différence, but we still love you. Paul
Posted by: sidefx52
I think you all have to keep in mind that this country and it's average indivuduals cannot survive with out the businesses that run it. I'm not saying that this bill is right or wrong but there is definately a reason that so many businesses and JOBS are moving and have moved out of this country.
In the economical sense, if this country stops producing, we stop having money, then not only the average citizen but EVERY citizen will not be able to sustain themselves. EVERY COUNTRY ON THIS PLANET is NOTHING without the businesses that support them. Need examples? See any third or fourth world country. What do they lack? Industry.
America is on the verge of financial collapse due to the slipping value of the dollar, but people have their heads so far up their asses that they can only think about themselves, not the greater good of their families, their communities, this country, or the world itself. It is the fundamental flaw of American values. Take care of number one. Well you can't take care of yourself in an environment that is void of all necessities.
Ever hear of Maslows hierarchy of needs? People are out looking for self-actualization without having satisfied the pre-reqs.
Posted by: redwench
?
everyone knows exactly why businesses select which countries to locate their various enterprises. wherever their long-term costs will be the least is where they will put up a building. although why people seem to think dangerous industrial work is preferable to highly skilled technical work is beyond me.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sidefx52
I think you all have to keep in mind that this country and it's average indivuduals cannot survive with out the businesses that run it.
[...]
In the economical sense, if this country stops producing, we stop having money, then not only the average citizen but EVERY citizen will not be able to sustain themselves. EVERY COUNTRY ON THIS PLANET is NOTHING without the businesses that support them. Need examples? See any third or fourth world country. What do they lack? Industry.
America is on the verge of financial collapse due to the slipping value of the dollar, but people have their heads so far up their asses that they can only think about themselves, not the greater good of their families, their communities, this country, or the world itself. It is the fundamental flaw of American values.
|
Utter rubbish. If if weren't for the fact that over 60% of your corporations pay no taxes, perhaps what you're saying would make some sense. And following your "reasoning", we would reach the conclusion that each & every WELFARE state (ie. the majority of west-european countries: UK, Germany, France, Spain, ... not to mention the nordics: Sweden etc.) would be down in the dumps right now. And although they each have their own economic crises to deal with, they are nowhere near the abyss.
And speaking of those people who "can only think of themselves", you might want to turn your attention so a certain leader whose political agenda, up to now - including the present bill we're discussing in this thread - has been driven solely by personal interest$ - and who would balk at nothing to this end - not even starting an illegal war that only served to compound your national debt by...um...200 billion? And guess who will bear the brunt of it... http://forum.presence-pc.com/images/perso/666%20.gif
The epitome of selfishness, don't you think?
Posted by: sidefx52
Hey I never said I liked this country's president, nor did I say I back his war. I agree completely that he and his administration are complete bs but this argument isn't about Bush. The fact of things is that the businesses (and gov) in this country have horrible management practices (with few exceptions) and waste their profits trying to fix symptoms of problems instead of the sources. This is driving their costs up and bottom-line down. So their looking for everything and anything to help them cut corners. A lot of companies look to doing illegal things like fixing books to show numbers in their favor when the reality of the situation is just the opposite. Lawsuits against companies do hurt everyone, not just the companies themselves. When a business is unprotected against useless crap lawsuits that are nothing more that a person's inability to take responsibilities for themselves, the business is open to millions of lost revenues that they shouldn't have to suffer. The fact that these companies can up and move to Mexico or India and avoid those kinds of suits is a pretty good inscentive to leave among other reasons.
Getting back to my original argument, if there are no more businesses in America how do you expect Americans to have jobs, to support themselves, to sustain an economy. I am by no means an expert on European economy, but I do know that European governments support big European businesses with direct subsidies (Airbus is a good example of this) to directly compete and undercut American companies. I don't know where you get your facts, but I've never heard of this 60% of our corps don't pay taxes. I can't deny it, or agree with it. But to compete with foriegn competitors tax breaks are needed, just as EU govs pay billions into funding EU companies.
As for your rebute with Welfare States; I think the fact that European Governments can provide social equality to its people is a fantastic thing. The American government has its own welfare programs that try to do this too. Unfortunately people looking out for number one take advantage of these programs and the programs themselves are mismanaged. But that's the thing about this economy. There are winners and losers. It is set up to keep the winners winning and the losers losing. You are arguing against the system. I am too. We (America) need to change how we do things, no questions there. But if all of the revenue that is generated from our businesses (over half of it is generated by something like 10% of the businesses... I can't remember what the actual numbers are but that's close) were to leave this country we would collapse and never recover, so we have to do what we can to keep them here until somebody grows some balls and fixes America.
Posted by: Oldcrocd
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sidefx52
The fact that these companies can up and move to Mexico or India and avoid those kinds of suits is a pretty good inscentive to leave among other reasons.
|
The obvious reason is why they are transferring work from UK to India and Pakistan - they do not have to comply with the law, (Union Carbide-a prime example) and the pay for the workers is about 10% of what it is in the home country. As for health and Safety law, it just does not exist.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sidefx52
... no means an expert on European economy, but I do know that European governments support big European businesses with direct subsidies (Airbus is a good example of this) to directly compete and undercut American companies.
|
Quite frankly I do not know where you get your facts, Under EU law Governments are restricted in supporting companies as unfair competition, not to the US but to others in the EU.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sidefx52
But to compete with foriegn competitors tax breaks are needed, just as EU govs pay billions into funding EU companies.
|
This is just not correct, its the other way around, we are struggling against Trade restrictions imposed by the US (AS classic example is take our bananas or we will tax your whisky) in the name of fair trade!!
As for your comments about 10% of companies producing etc, this is because they keep buying up the small competitors and then have a monopoly and the small competitors can beat them on quality and price. A real prime example of this is the motor industry the second Microsoft.. They have bought up any serious or even non serious competitors. A prime example of MS is a small company called Visio, MS then cut it up in small chunks and tried selling it on the market, so far without the success of the original company who sold it en block and made a nice living from it. MS got greedy and started charging the earth for it, I mean like 20 or 30 times the original price for the same product.
Just to keep you abreast of some other thoughts on the same wavelength.
Yess your assumption about the dollar is true it hit another low of $1.93 to £1.00 today, this is really caused by the war and what it is and will cost the US, not only in lives but also money, hence BUSH visit to Europe, his comments went down like a lead balloon and we are a bit more savvy than he thinks this side of the pond. I can only think that his normal audience Texans? must be a bit gullible, I know a lot of US people but have never met any Texans so cannot be sure on this!
Posted by: redwench
how on earth do you get locating in another country = exemption from lawsuits? the only way to avoid a US lawsuit is to not do any business in the United States, and even thats not a sure thing. to use your own example, do you think airbus is exempt from lawsuits in the US if they dont have manufacturing plants here?
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sidefx52
Lawsuits against companies do hurt everyone, not just the companies themselves. When a business is unprotected against useless crap lawsuits that are nothing more that a person's inability to take responsibilities for themselves, the business is open to millions of lost revenues that they shouldn't have to suffer.
|
"crap lawsuits" are one thing - yes they do hurt everyone, I'm not disputing that. Nevertheless, you're off-beam. You seem to be making out that such suits make up the majority of all cases. I doubt so. But the point is, one of the side-effects of this law, if not its purpose, is that ALL lawsuits could be affected - including cases where victims have a very good reason to take the companies to courts - as I already quoted:
Quote:
"The House of Representatives joined the Senate in sending a clear message to the nation: the rights of large corporations that take advantage of seniors, low-wage workers and local communities are more important than the rights of average American citizens," said Helen Gonzales of USAction, a liberal, pro-consumer activist group.
[...]
But Democrats say Republicans just want to protect corporations from taking responsibility for their wrongdoing by keeping them clear of state courts that might issue multimillion-dollar verdicts against them.
Federal courts are expected to allow fewer large class-action suits to go forward, which Democrats say means more businesses will get away with wrongdoing and fewer ordinary people will be protected.
"It's the final payback to the tobacco industry, to the asbestos industry, to the oil industry, to the chemical industry at the expense of ordinary families who need to be able go to court to protect their loved ones when their health has been compromised," said Rep. Ed Markey, D-Massachusetts.
|
So how about companies' unwillingness to face up to their own responsibilities? Who will prevent them from getting away scott-free?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sidefx52
Getting back to my original argument, if there are no more businesses in America how do you expect Americans to have jobs, to support themselves, to sustain an economy. I am by no means an expert on European economy, but I do know that European governments support big European businesses with direct subsidies (Airbus is a good example of this) to directly compete and undercut American companies. I don't know where you get your facts, but I've never heard of this 60% of our corps don't pay taxes. I can't deny it, or agree with it. But to compete with foriegn competitors tax breaks are needed, just as EU govs pay billions into funding EU companies.
|
You mean, yet more tax breaks for the corporates, I surmise...
And to answer your question about the 60% figure (and the other arguments along with it):
http://www.americanprogress.org/sit...JRJ8OVF&b=45747
If you want to know more...Google is your friend ; )
See, you railed against lawsuits that cost companies millions. But we're not talking millions here - but billions, possibly. How's that for "lost revenues"? To describe "rogue companies" such as these, I believe the word that best befits them is: parasites.
So what should be the priorities, according to you? Mending a few scratches here & there, or stemming the hemorrhage?
Posted by: sidefx52
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
So what should be the priorities, according to you? Mending a few scratches here & there, or stemming the hemorrhage?
|
That's my point in the first place. The US has some major wounds that we need to address, but if we don't stop the bleeding first we'll die anyways.
And I may have stated what I said about subsidies backwards...
To make sure that you understand what I meant I'll give an example. The EU pays for a certain (large) percentage of Airbus airplanes to compete with the US giving (large) contracts exclusively to Boeing. Neither is right. The best company should get the contracts. Fair competition is best. Free trade is best. But that's for the long-term. The short-term needs some quick fixes.
You know what? I've forgot what I've even been arguing about. I'm going to submit this and then re-read what I wrote and submit another post.
Posted by: sidefx52
OK. So the original post was about the bill that Bush just passed that prevents individuals representing a large section of the population in a law suit.
Like I've (sorta) been saying, this bill won't stop the problem. It may create other problems. It is inviting companies to avoid their own resposibilites to their customers. But for the short-term stopping the constant onslaught of lawsuits that result from individuals pushing blame that should be on them onto anybody else (path of least resistance = company that problem stemmed from) will have some benefits.
Our government is in need of an entire overhaul. It worked fine a couple of hundred of years ago, but it barely cuts it anymore. The way that most businesses in this country are managed is wrong. They need to be reset too. But it takes HUGE efforts to change the minds of millions of people.
Class is over... gotta go for now.
Posted by: sidefx52
Ok, I'm in the lab now.
I wanted to talk about IceBreaker's assumption on Texans.
I don't know very many Texans, but I do know a bit about the state. It's an extremely republican state except for Austin, TX which is extremely democratic.
I live in Indiana. Most of the people here are also very republican (Rush Limbaugh). I know way too many people that support Bush 100% no matter what he does with out any question. That scares me a lot. I wouldn't say I'm republican or democrat or conservative or liberal. I used to think that most people were like me. But a lot of people around here at least (I don't get out much) are just like you assume Texans are.
I was searching for some jobs outside of this country in the UK for a while (I'm graduating this May). I wouldn't mind getting out of this country for a while and learning some different points of views, not to mention I'd rather not be here when shit hits the fan and the dollar finally collapses.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sidefx52
Like I've (sorta) been saying, this bill won't stop the problem. It may create other problems. It is inviting companies to avoid their own resposibilites to their customers. But for the short-term stopping the constant onslaught of lawsuits that result from individuals pushing blame that should be on them onto anybody else (path of least resistance = company that problem stemmed from) will have some benefits.
|
Except that in the present case, I believe the drawbacks largely outweigh the benefits...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sidefx52
Our government is in need of an entire overhaul. It worked fine a couple of hundred of years ago, but it barely cuts it anymore. The way that most businesses in this country are managed is wrong. They need to be reset too. But it takes HUGE efforts to change the minds of millions of people.
|
Perhaps we agree here...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sidefx52
I wanted to talk about IceBreaker's assumption on Texans.
|
I believe you're mixing up with someone else's post
Posted by: AK47
lol kerry/edwards in 04!
Posted by: tovarich
Here in Belgium nearly 40 % of our gross salary goes to taxes and social security. We have one of the worlds best social security systems in the world. Hilary Clinton was supposed to be in charge to do something about the appalling situation in the states. Nothing happened. I think a very drastic mentality change will be required to solve some of the problems you have.Perhaps something catastrophic has to happen before a real change comes along.That seems to be the only time when everybody is concerned with the common good. I hope your great country finds a way to get out of this impasse. Paul.
Posted by: redwench
never gonna happen. the same percentage of our income goes to the government, it just finds ways to spend it on frivolous things. like a missle defense system that does not work.
Posted by: Oldcrocd
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
do you think airbus is exempt from lawsuits in the US if they dont have manufacturing plants here?
|
Excuse me but you can bring any lawsuit in any country, its effectiveness however is limited to THAT COUNTRY, not world wide. Otherwise the US and in particular GWB would have been hauled before the Court of Justice in the Hague many months ago. But the US does not recognize this court, likewise the rest of the world tends to ignore empty legal threats of US lawsuits which are unable to be actioned outside of the US.
Although the US would very much like to think that they dominate the world, they do not. The last person of that particular persuasion was a guy called Hitler, look what happened to him!!
Posted by: redwench
yes, but his claim was that companies were relocating to avoid lawsuits. which is preposterous, since they could then be filed in 2 countries rather than one.
and yes, the US, to the best of my knowledge, generally upholds foreign civil court judgements. the Hague is not a civil court, and we are not a signatory to the treaty that created it. unfortunately.
Posted by: sidefx52
I wasn't saying that the only reason a company would move out of this country would be to avoid lawsuits. I understand that labor costs are the primary reason. But you never know what the last straw for a company will be. Looser laws can make a country look a bit more attractive. Our government puts a lot of restrictions on companies to make sure that employees have fair wages, good working conditions, etc. If a company can avoid certain lawsuits by moving to another country on top of the fact they can get away with paying employees a fraction of the wages an American employee would get in much cheaper working conditions then what's stopping them? Our government offers a lot of incentives to stop them from doing just that; tax breaks, subsidies, now increased legal protection. I know that icebreaker doesn't agree with me, but I still think that it's the businesses in a country that supports its economy. There are other factors that go into it, but without industry would those other factors even exist? The companies may not have to pay taxes, but it's employees do. If those people don't have jobs then they're not paying taxes. Then the goverment doesn't have money (the gov already doesn't have money regardless). If the gov stops getting money then (in theory at least) it can't spend it, it can't support itself, and it can't complete its primary objective to protect the people who support it. Then it ceases to exist because another government will take it over.
Besides, the whole reason spammers and filesharers are located outside of the US is to avoid US lawsuits. If it was easy to sue the companies do you think the RIAA would go after the indviduals who use the services? Do you think Microsoft and other companies would spend all that they do on R&D to come up with ways to stop spam? No way, it'd be much cheaper and easier to shut down or bankrupt the operations that are doing it in the first place.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sidefx52
The companies may not have to pay taxes, but it's employees do. If those people don't have jobs then they're not paying taxes.
|
Irrelevant. Between the taxes these companies (should have to) pay and the taxes levied on the employees, I believe there's a bit of a difference in the amount of money involved ; ) That the employees shoulder the whole tax burden changes nothing, and these companies are still parasites nonetheless: the taxes they get away with represent a huge financial loss for the country, so the issue remains unresolved...
Posted by: redwench
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sidefx52
Besides, the whole reason spammers and filesharers are located outside of the US is to avoid US lawsuits.
|
no, they are located where its convenient for them; many spammers are located in the US. aside from that, youre talking about criminal activities. a lawsuit is far down the list of things they need to worry about.
Quote:
|
If it was easy to sue the companies do you think the RIAA would go after the indviduals who use the services?
|
what companies? what am i missing? they sued napster and shut it down. and a few others that escape my mind. dont you understand what peer to peer networking is? its a group of individuals sharing a network, not a company maintaining one.
Quote:
|
Do you think Microsoft and other companies would spend all that they do on R&D to come up with ways to stop spam? No way, it'd be much cheaper and easier to shut down or bankrupt the operations that are doing it in the first place.
|
youre mixing your metaphors again. there is a difference between a civil class action suit and a criminal charge.
Posted by: sidefx52
i guess you're right. bad example. kazaa has been skirting the lawsuits against it by claiming they have no responsibility for the actions of thier users. I was thinking criminal suits.
Icebreaker, I don't understand when you say that the companies are parasites. Can you explain this a little?
|
|
|
|
|
