I bet that a lot of cases will be prescribted yet (after 4 or 10 years) and that this information is known since many years so, the most interesting question here is... why now?
The Panama Papers: Here’s What We Know
51–54 of 54 posts
Re: The Panama Papers: Here’s What We Know
#52I'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.
And in a million years, don't mistake legal for ethical. Even more so when the people writing the rules for what's legal (the politicians) are the very ones playing this game.
Re: The Panama Papers: Here’s What We Know
#53Earlier 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…
I would say that copyright does indeed cover graffiti, it just not likely for the original artist to sue you for selling copies of their artwork because they also possibly illegally damaged private property. Some of the Banksy stuff brings up interesting discussions around that idea.
The lobbying part I can understand, and agree, but I'm lost on your surveillance state thing.
All those creative people with all their creativity is covered by copyright as soon as they get done being creative. In the US at least. But whether they make money from their copyrighted creativity, that's a different problem. Copyright doesn't help me make money but it helps me prevent you from making money off my work.
Re: The Panama Papers: Here’s What We Know
#54A 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.
Fair question! Is there an accepted definition?
I'd think something like a company that has, say, less than 3 employees, and/or has no discernible "customers." But I'm taking a wild guess.