If Songkick went out of business why does the songkick.com domain work and have the same Songkick branding as it used to?
Ticketmaster admits it hacked Songkick before it went out of business
321–330 of 337 posts
Re: Ticketmaster admits it hacked Songkick before it went out of business
#322Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not in this universe anyway, nothing close to 35 years was ever on the table. To suggest otherwise is deliberate disinformation. The prosecutors had offered Aaron 6 months , he could’ve got less.
>Not in this universe anyway, nothing close to 35 years was ever on the table. To suggest otherwise is deliberate disinformation. The prosecutors office was working to pile on even more charges for a theoretical max of 50 years. The offer was a plea deal which the prosecutor thought was an appropriate sentence yet she hounded him with as many charges as possible anyway guaranteeing him years in jail if he did not acc…
yet she hounded him with as many charges as possible anyway
Why? What does she get out of it? I honestly do not understand. It is one thing pile charges on a violent murderer - not that it makes it right, at least it is debatable. Why would she think decades in jail makes sense in this case?
I honestly do not understand. How do these people sleep at night?
Re: Ticketmaster admits it hacked Songkick before it went out of business
#323Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is one of the great imbalances in the justice system where technically corporations are people, but criminally don't face anywhere near the same levels of punishment.
IMO everyone related to a corporate crime should be responsible. If a company dumps toxic waste in to a river, the person who pressed the dump button, the person who told them to and any management that signed off on the idea should all be personally as responsible as if I just took a bucket and walked down to the local river. Perhaps some exceptions for people who could not be expected to understand the law, for exa…
During my time in conscription, one thing that stuck with me was 'Forbidden Order'.
If a superior gives you an order that violates set rules or laws (e.g shoot civilians). You HAVE to obey and BOTH parties will be accountable.
It's crazy how severity of ignoring an order can be worse than tribunal. However I totally agree with accountability.
Though corps would figure out a way to weasel past this regardless.
Re: Ticketmaster admits it hacked Songkick before it went out of business
#324Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it’s a crime for you to misspeak wouldn’t you err on the side of caution? Anti trust hearings of 4 tech companies at once... ridiculous... All 4 of you have a monopoly on... something! Bullshit politics. You aren’t being forced to use ANY services from big tech in the US there is HEAPS of competition. Just US lawmakers shoring up constituents
This would be more plausible if VCs weren't spending billions openly trying to create the sort of market dominance that lets them exercise outsized pricing power. The book Super Pumped , for example, shows clearly that Uber was seeking a monopoly. They only got a duopoly in which they're the dominant player, but from a pricing perspective that's nearly as good. It follows from VC efforts that market dominance produce…
... are you assuming the US = world?
Uber didn’t get a monopoly... and there are a bunch of competitors in lots of different countries. And Uber is paying for this with epic losses every year... where is the anti trust?
Re: Ticketmaster admits it hacked Songkick before it went out of business
#325Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find this principle useful - that a fine is just permission slip for people who can afford it. But, in terms of environmental crimes as discussed in these comments, the reason corporation dump toxic waste in the river is to avoid the clean-up cost - it's an economic crime. So in that case, it's an appropriate solution to fine a large multiple of the total clean-up cost plus damages. The point is to not make it an a…
> But, in terms of environmental crimes as discussed in these comments, the reason corporation dump toxic waste in the river is to avoid the clean-up cost - it's an economic crime. Stealing is also an economic crime then, as they are stealing it because they cannot financially afford it and no one should go to jail but only pay a fine. Of course not, the reason might be economic but the crime is against much more tha…
>Stealing is also an economic crime then... no one should go to jail
I completely agree?
Re: Ticketmaster admits it hacked Songkick before it went out of business
#326Earlier quoted context omitted.
This would be more plausible if VCs weren't spending billions openly trying to create the sort of market dominance that lets them exercise outsized pricing power. The book Super Pumped , for example, shows clearly that Uber was seeking a monopoly. They only got a duopoly in which they're the dominant player, but from a pricing perspective that's nearly as good. It follows from VC efforts that market dominance produce…
... are you assuming the US = world? Uber didn’t get a monopoly... and there are a bunch of competitors in lots of different countries. And Uber is paying for this with epic losses every year... where is the anti trust?
We were talking about US-based tech companies speaking to the United States Congress about possible anti-trust violations in US markets. A bunch of competitors in other countries doesn't mean anything for US markets. And epic losses are a sign of the antitrust violation: they're burning capital unsustainably to buy market share from which they can extract oligopoly rents.
Re: Ticketmaster admits it hacked Songkick before it went out of business
#327Earlier quoted context omitted.
The shareholders are the right people to hold accountable though. Otherwise you incentivize hiring fall guys to do a crime and go to prison, while the shareholders profit off of their crimes
Because there are many investors that have no input in day to day operations or simply had no influence or knowledge of the particular offenses. If the state takes over they will certainly have to take a huge loss. Take your bank as an example. You gave them the money they used to commit whatever illegality and you profited from it. Now imagine the state takes over and only pays you a fraction of your deposits. Worse…
The investors have plenty of input. They don't have to own any of that stock, and can choose to own stuff where they do have control. Knowing is their responsibility. If they want to shirk it, sure, but that doesn't mean they aren't on the hook for what they should have done, which is to have control over what their money is doing.
Otherwise the argument "companies need free speech and rights because they're just extensions of the owners few speech and rights" makes no sense, because the owners have no actual say in what's going on
------
Why would investors sue the ceo when nothing bad will happen to them? How do they even have standing when the ceo does wrong if shareholders are indemnified?
In this banking example, it would be my fault for picking a poor quality bank? I'd also expect that the fine isn't going to be that much more than double the profits I made, so maybe $100-$1000? It's not like im making much money on my savings in a bank.
Re: Ticketmaster admits it hacked Songkick before it went out of business
#328Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's unrealistic to expect the CEO to even know that that local walmart exists Maybe, just maybe we then should not have so large entities that nobody can be responsible for? Limited liability is a massive handout from society to the owners of the Limited liability company and should be priced accordingly. (I do not propose banning limited liability. I propose being more selective how and which operations actually…
That would be nice in a way but then we couldn't have complicated products like laptops or iPhones. Abstraction barriers aren't optional when managing sufficiently complex processes.
"I propose being more selective how and which operations actually deserve limited liability"
Re: Ticketmaster admits it hacked Songkick before it went out of business
#329Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Not in this universe anyway, nothing close to 35 years was ever on the table. To suggest otherwise is deliberate disinformation. The prosecutors office was working to pile on even more charges for a theoretical max of 50 years. The offer was a plea deal which the prosecutor thought was an appropriate sentence yet she hounded him with as many charges as possible anyway guaranteeing him years in jail if he did not acc…
yet she hounded him with as many charges as possible anyway Why? What does she get out of it? I honestly do not understand. It is one thing pile charges on a violent murderer - not that it makes it right, at least it is debatable. Why would she think decades in jail makes sense in this case? I honestly do not understand. How do these people sleep at night?
She offered Swartz 4 months for his crimes, why should she have any difficulty sleeping at night over this?
Re: Ticketmaster admits it hacked Songkick before it went out of business
#330Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a certain sympathy for the SovCit people, because while 99 times out of 100 they're trying to evade their legal responsibilities, they are making a valid point that such evasion is in many ways institutionalized in our society as long as you can throw some money at the problem ahead of time.
I have sympathy for the concept, but not the people. All the videos I've seen of them arguing their cases are so mind-numbingly stupid that it pisses me off just that they're wasting taxpayer money taking up law enforcement and court time with their bullshit "tactics". Reality doesn't fly out the window just because they want something to be true.
Some of them are stupid and mean, but some are just stupid and think they've found a secret code or way to 'hack the legal system'. I agree they're time-wasters and the people who sell them on the scam are legal fraudsters, but I also think it highlights a problem of excess complexity in our legal system to the point of seeming arbitrary and impenetrable. The sad thing about most sovereign citizens is that they're not usually trying to accumulate big fortunes or run elaborate criminal schemes, they're trying to get off the hook for petty criminal or administrative violations that have disproportionately impacted their lives.
I kind of agree with Plato that a society with too many laws ends up becoming tyrannical because it's impossible for the average person to keep up with them all. Also, in our modern society every wrong thing you do follows you around forever, and our bureaucracies tend to be Kafkaesque (also due to stupidity rather than malice). While I do not agree with the trope that 'most people commit three felonies a day', simplicity and clarity would be a good foundation for better civics education.