Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Panama Papers: Here’s What We Know

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 54 posts

Re: The Panama Papers: Here’s What We Know

#41

Post by wastedhours »

snassar wrote: post #29
wastedhours wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "trial by media" point is a fairly common one, insofar as media can influence the public's perception of any activities before any legal wrongdoing is established. I.e. in the UK, Cameron is on the front pages for his father's activities, regardless of whether he had any part/they're genuine/benefited etc... "Trial by media" is less a witch hunt, and more influencing the zeitgeist.

I am not sure what you mean by "trial by media" being a common point. Common where and used by whom? I am also not sure what you mean. Are you taking the view that "influencing the zeitgeist" should only happen in the court system?

"Trial by media is a phrase popular in the late 20th century and early 21st century to describe the impact of television and newspaper coverage on a person's reputation by creating a widespread perception of guilt or innocence before, or after, a verdict in a court of law." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_media

Not saying that it should only happen in the court system, just saying that since the media has the widespread ability to do so, they need to hold themselves to a certain account and be satisfied that their definition of "in the public interest" is worthy enough.

Re: The Panama Papers: Here’s What We Know

#42

Post by mdpopescu »

Ensorceled wrote: post #40
ewzimm wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand that you're simplifying, but I don't think social ill is the right word. It's more like a social good which is ill for the copyright holder. The question in that case is balancing the benefit to society against the benefits to the company which claims copyright or intellectual property. It's a social good in the sense that public domain is a social good when society can benefit, but also a deeper social…

> I understand that you're simplifying, but I don't think social ill is the right word. It's more like a social good which is ill for the copyright holder. The question in that case is balancing the benefit to society against the benefits to the company which claims copyright or intellectual property. Copyright is a limited monopoly, granted by society, to provide incentive for the creation of content; breaking that…

If society is indeed the one granting that monopoly then society can also withdraw it, right?

Re: The Panama Papers: Here’s What We Know

#43

Post by talmand »

iamcurious wrote: post #30
netrus wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do not mention that the existence of property is meant to benefit the society as a whole. Copyright provides us with blockbusters. We can discuss about fair use, expiration, fines etc, but let's not pretend that STAR WARS would have happend without copyright law.

Plenty of works of art were created without copyright law. Would we have STAR WARS? No idea. Would we have awesome films? Definitely.

But, would those plenty of works of art were created before copying such things became incredibly easy? It seems to me that the concept of copyright became stronger over time as the ability to make money off the work of someone else became easier over time.

Re: The Panama Papers: Here’s What We Know

#44

Post by iamcurious »

talmand wrote: post #43
iamcurious wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty of works of art were created without copyright law. Would we have STAR WARS? No idea. Would we have awesome films? Definitely.

But, would those plenty of works of art were created before copying such things became incredibly easy? It seems to me that the concept of copyright became stronger over time as the ability to make money off the work of someone else became easier over time.

Sure, see all the graffiti everywhere? Laws aren't protecting that art, au contraire.

The concept of copyright became stronger as lobbying and surveillance state became stronger.

Creative people will create regardless. Creative people who have ample free time and who don't have to think about bills much, will create more and, more importantly, more accessible works. The sophisticated thing to do is to allow copying anybody's ideas¹ and give people a guaranteed income².

¹ I think plagiarism, ie not giving credit where its due, should be punished. I'm not sure if it should fall in the realm of the law though, maybe it could be kept check under social pressure.

² If it can't be universal, then make it scholarship based, subject to renewal, or something.

Re: The Panama Papers: Here’s What We Know

#45

Post by karmelapple »

A question I find myself wondering if society will seriously consider as a result of this leak:

Should shell corporations be outlawed everywhere?

There are certainly legitimate reasons[1] for wanting a shell corporation, but is society more demanding of transparency and willing to reject the idea of shell corporations as a legitimate net good for society?

[1] http://www.vox.com/2016/4/5/11361992/panama-papers-authorita...

Re: The Panama Papers: Here’s What We Know

#46

Post by marcosdumay »

karmelapple wrote: post #45

A question I find myself wondering if society will seriously consider as a result of this leak: Should shell corporations be outlawed everywhere? There are certainly legitimate reasons[1] for wanting a shell corporation, but is society more demanding of transparency and willing to reject the idea of shell corporations as a legitimate net good for society? [1] http://www.vox.com/2016/4/5/11361992/panama-papers-authori…

What is a shell company?

Because most of them are obviously shells, but if you want to outlaw something, you must define it first, and if you don't want your law being used to persecute whoever the police/government wants, you'd better have an objective and clear definition.

Re: The Panama Papers: Here’s What We Know

#47

Post by cromulent »

justsaysmthng wrote: post #18

The way I understand it, the offshore companies exist for the purpose of funneling money out of "onshore" companies and out of the country. Extraction of dirty money (from bribery) is also very easy to do with offshore companies. The third reason is to add confusion about ownership of companies and real estate. More simply, offshore companies help rich people pay less taxes. Why do countries permit offshore companies…

There was a recent Planet Money show on this topic.

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/03/30/472452808/episo...

I was interested to hear the example they had for a legal reason:

JOFFE-WALT: But again, Daniel and David emphasized they do not help people launder money or do anything illegal with offshore entities. There are lots of legal reasons to have companies like these. They would repeat again and again as we spend time with them. For instance, they said, imagine, you know, you have a international T-shirt making company, and you have investors from Canada and Mexico and China, all over the world. So sure, you could set up your company here in the U.S. But if you do that, then the Canadian and Mexican and Chinese investors, they all have to file tax paperwork in the U.S. And sometimes it's just easier to set up the company offshore, have the company file all the paperwork. You know, the same amount of taxes gets paid, but ultimately, it's just less paperwork for all the investors.

Re: The Panama Papers: Here’s What We Know

#48

Post by Ensorceled »

mdpopescu wrote: post #42
Ensorceled wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I understand that you're simplifying, but I don't think social ill is the right word. It's more like a social good which is ill for the copyright holder. The question in that case is balancing the benefit to society against the benefits to the company which claims copyright or intellectual property. Copyright is a limited monopoly, granted by society, to provide incentive for the creation of content; breaking that…

If society is indeed the one granting that monopoly then society can also withdraw it, right?

Agreed! People who think copyright is some kind of actual human right drive me crazy.

Re: The Panama Papers: Here’s What We Know

#49

Post by gknoy »

iamcurious wrote: post #44
talmand wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But, would those plenty of works of art were created before copying such things became incredibly easy? It seems to me that the concept of copyright became stronger over time as the ability to make money off the work of someone else became easier over time.

Sure, see all the graffiti everywhere? Laws aren't protecting that art, au contraire. The concept of copyright became stronger as lobbying and surveillance state became stronger. Creative people will create regardless. Creative people who have ample free time and who don't have to think about bills much, will create more and, more importantly, more accessible works. The sophisticated thing to do is to allow copying a…

> See all the graffiti everywhere? Laws aren't protecting that art, au contraire.

Is that really true? I would have thought that the art itself is still copyrighted, but the artist is unlikely to pursue redress as that would effectively be giving evidence of a crime (graffiti).

Re: The Panama Papers: Here’s What We Know

#50

Post by jandrese »

sickbeard wrote: post #8

I'm uncomfortable with trial by media instead of trial by court room. If they did something illegal get a prosecutor to sue them, we shouldn't be quick to bring out the pitch forks because of an accusation of wrongdoing.

The options seem to be "trial by media" or "gets away scot free" in this case. Politicians weren't prosecuting this, in some cases they were a party to it! Also, the whole point of these companies is to hide from the government, so if it were easy for the government to prosecute they wouldn't be used.

Leaks like this are about the only way it was realistically going to come to light.

Post reply on HN