Joe Q Moron who is the majority really isn't the problem. John Q. Goldenturd is the problem and the senator is really cutting taxes for him not Joe. John Q. Goldenturd has more money than thousands or even millions of Joes and in the process of getting that money he consumes thousands or millions of times the government resources that Joe does.
You could cut taxes to zero for the 99% and still not be able to tax the goldenturds enough to prevent their wealth from growing or have an impact on more than paper. The real secret is to stop taxing income and start taxing entrenched global wealth. Joe doesn't have any wealth, even if he "owns" his home goldenturds bank actually owns it. Goldenturd systematically makes all his income invisible via continuous floating using things like 1031 exchanges.
It isn't just business school ethic. It's legal ethic is anything. Every for-profit business is now incorporated with a mission/objective that is something to the effect of "have the purpose of engaging in and may engage in any lawful business activity". This is actually suggested by the individual states in their paperwork to incorporate.
So every employee is part of a team whose primary objective to seek profit in any manner that is technically legal. Every board member, exec, officer, manager, and grunt on the floor is bound to pursue this objective. Legally, they are bound to seek profit and the only ethics that can legally trump that pursuit is the law.
I haven't heard of any business schools where they teach that a business should behave in the same manner that would be considered ethical for a human being. Mostly I hear more along the lines of ethics in terms of consequences for action. For example, it is commonly taught that breaking a contract is a business decision and it is fair to make if you are willing to accept the consequences but when an individual does this it is considered lying, breaking your word, failing to uphold your obligation, etc.
The biggest problem isn't what is taught in business school. A company isn't a person, it isn't even the top people. Everyone in a for-profit entity is tasked with pursuing the goals of that organization, its purpose, and the reason that pretty much every for-profit entity is incorporated these days is something to the effect of "pursuing profit by any means allowed by law
Business doesn't hesitate to play that game in reverse by claiming that actions were ethical because they didn't break the law. They do it all the time. Every time they break a contract for instance because it makes more economical sense to break their word.
Agreed, no fees for drivers licenses and plates and marriage licenses. No tolls or other charges. All this crap is just a way to avoid using the tax system to pay for government services.
Its made to SOUND fair, the people using the service pay the fee, but if you are pulling in a few billion a year its far more preferable to pay a $50 fee for your license plate* than to pay your fair share of the cost to provide everyone with plates under the progressive tax system. Who pays the difference between your million dollar fair share of that cost and the $50 you paid instead? The single mother of four whose kids went hungry last night, she works in a factory owned by the billionaire.
Because nobody's time is worth billions. Those billions represent the labor of millions of fellow citizens and those citizens needed millions of license plates in order to produce those billions. The guy who ends up with the billions should pay for the license plates it represents, not the fellow citizens who did the work.
*Analogy is slightly flawed since license plates exist primarily for the purpose of systematically charging fees and really should be gotten rid of.
P.S. For anyone who isn't watching closely enough I've asserted only the negative, IP is not the cause of increased innovation, which is the logical default. The burden of proof is upon those who claim the positive, that IP is the cause of the increased innovation. So far the only support for the positive offered is correlation which doesn't establish that one is the cause of the other. The correlation isn't even a good one, the technology was already advancing at an exponential rate that can be clearly seen as starting in the renaissance which is well before copyright.
All IP is a form of government granted monopoly and Microsoft and Google have tons of IP. Government granted monopolies ARE illegal. We largely went to war with England because of government granted monopolies on tea.
Nobody is pretending. IP has NOT encouraged innovation. Correlation isn't causation. The rapidly increasing rate of technological innovation is an effect of the technology previously innovated building on itself. NONE of the credit for that rests in the hands of IP.
No but you can read harry potter, make an outline of the entire story, using the same names, and rewrite the book in your own words from the outline. At least from the perspective of copyright (Don't do this, you'll be trademarked into oblivion).
This is no different than artists sitting in the Louvre copying the paintings of the masters.
As someone else pointed out, you quoted a section saying the proceeds have to come from unlawful activity. The funds can come from illegal activity or the source and destination hidden for illegal intent but you can't have money laundering without another crime.
Your definition is incorrect:
"Money laundering is the process by which funds from source A are made to appear as if they came from source B."
You omitted the fact that there must be illegal activity happening at some point aside from disguising the source of funds before it becomes money laundering. If I disguise the source of funds to hide activity from my wife that is NOT money laundering.
Putting this back in context, if the other activities aren't a crime then no money laundering has occurred and that wouldn't be valid grounds for extradition.
I'm the guy who said the proceeds need to come from some form of unlawful activity. 3(c) wouldn't apply in this case either. So bottom line, if their actions weren't a crime, then the proceeds weren't from illegal activity and what they were doing wasn't money laundering therefore money laundering wouldn't be valid grounds to extradite.
Without copyright you can disassemble the executable back to source in a fairly trivial fashion. Without copyright you have the right to modify that source and then distribute your modified program freely, without any permission.
"
1956. Laundering of Monetary Instruments (a) (1) Whoever, knowing that the property involved in a financial transaction represents the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, conducts or attempts to conduct such a financial transaction which in fact involves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity— "
Sorry but you are mistaken. Money laundering is BY DEFINITION processing funds from a criminal activity and making them appear to come from a legal activity. Here is one of many sites giving a legal definition and ALL of them agree that the funds must be illegal or illicit. If you engage in the same process but with the intent of committing the crime on the other end, like for tax evasion then that is just tax avoidance not money laundering.
"Of course they would. How does that contradict also prosecuting people that do business with US companies and host their servers in the US?"
Other than completely contradicting the argument that legitimate jurisdiction belongs to the nation where the servers are located? Attempting to prosecute cases where the servers AREN'T located in the US is a direct contradiction to this argument.
It doesn't contradict their real intention of using any flimsy excuse as a thin mask for strong arming the nations and people of the world on behalf of their copyright cartel overlords.
The point is that neither the servers NOR the operators were in the US and this didn't stop the US from hunting them down like dogs and finally bribing Swedish officials to get the job done.
Slashdot Mirror
Joe Q Moron who is the majority really isn't the problem. John Q. Goldenturd is the problem and the senator is really cutting taxes for him not Joe. John Q. Goldenturd has more money than thousands or even millions of Joes and in the process of getting that money he consumes thousands or millions of times the government resources that Joe does.
You could cut taxes to zero for the 99% and still not be able to tax the goldenturds enough to prevent their wealth from growing or have an impact on more than paper. The real secret is to stop taxing income and start taxing entrenched global wealth. Joe doesn't have any wealth, even if he "owns" his home goldenturds bank actually owns it. Goldenturd systematically makes all his income invisible via continuous floating using things like 1031 exchanges.
"If the government wants to steal there money and ours, I would prefer plain old taxes. No speed traps, crazy fines.. etc"
I was responding to this. The rest should be obvious.
It isn't just business school ethic. It's legal ethic is anything. Every for-profit business is now incorporated with a mission/objective that is something to the effect of "have the purpose of engaging in and may engage in any lawful business activity". This is actually suggested by the individual states in their paperwork to incorporate.
So every employee is part of a team whose primary objective to seek profit in any manner that is technically legal. Every board member, exec, officer, manager, and grunt on the floor is bound to pursue this objective. Legally, they are bound to seek profit and the only ethics that can legally trump that pursuit is the law.
I haven't heard of any business schools where they teach that a business should behave in the same manner that would be considered ethical for a human being. Mostly I hear more along the lines of ethics in terms of consequences for action. For example, it is commonly taught that breaking a contract is a business decision and it is fair to make if you are willing to accept the consequences but when an individual does this it is considered lying, breaking your word, failing to uphold your obligation, etc.
The biggest problem isn't what is taught in business school. A company isn't a person, it isn't even the top people. Everyone in a for-profit entity is tasked with pursuing the goals of that organization, its purpose, and the reason that pretty much every for-profit entity is incorporated these days is something to the effect of "pursuing profit by any means allowed by law
Currently that would be the IRS and congress.
Business doesn't hesitate to play that game in reverse by claiming that actions were ethical because they didn't break the law. They do it all the time. Every time they break a contract for instance because it makes more economical sense to break their word.
Agreed, no fees for drivers licenses and plates and marriage licenses. No tolls or other charges. All this crap is just a way to avoid using the tax system to pay for government services.
Its made to SOUND fair, the people using the service pay the fee, but if you are pulling in a few billion a year its far more preferable to pay a $50 fee for your license plate* than to pay your fair share of the cost to provide everyone with plates under the progressive tax system. Who pays the difference between your million dollar fair share of that cost and the $50 you paid instead? The single mother of four whose kids went hungry last night, she works in a factory owned by the billionaire.
Because nobody's time is worth billions. Those billions represent the labor of millions of fellow citizens and those citizens needed millions of license plates in order to produce those billions. The guy who ends up with the billions should pay for the license plates it represents, not the fellow citizens who did the work.
*Analogy is slightly flawed since license plates exist primarily for the purpose of systematically charging fees and really should be gotten rid of.
P.S. For anyone who isn't watching closely enough I've asserted only the negative, IP is not the cause of increased innovation, which is the logical default. The burden of proof is upon those who claim the positive, that IP is the cause of the increased innovation. So far the only support for the positive offered is correlation which doesn't establish that one is the cause of the other. The correlation isn't even a good one, the technology was already advancing at an exponential rate that can be clearly seen as starting in the renaissance which is well before copyright.
I'm prepared to support my assertions. Are you prepared to dispute them?
"regardless of the use of all caps."
I used selective caps LIKE this. THIS IS ALL CAPS. Note how one has some caps to highlight specific key words and the other is ALL caps.
All IP is a form of government granted monopoly and Microsoft and Google have tons of IP. Government granted monopolies ARE illegal. We largely went to war with England because of government granted monopolies on tea.
Which is beside the point. Even without trademarks you can't do this. Copying is illegal regardless of profit motive.
Nobody is pretending. IP has NOT encouraged innovation. Correlation isn't causation. The rapidly increasing rate of technological innovation is an effect of the technology previously innovated building on itself. NONE of the credit for that rests in the hands of IP.
No but you can read harry potter, make an outline of the entire story, using the same names, and rewrite the book in your own words from the outline. At least from the perspective of copyright (Don't do this, you'll be trademarked into oblivion).
This is no different than artists sitting in the Louvre copying the paintings of the masters.
Thought there was supposed to be seven items?
As someone else pointed out, you quoted a section saying the proceeds have to come from unlawful activity. The funds can come from illegal activity or the source and destination hidden for illegal intent but you can't have money laundering without another crime.
Your definition is incorrect:
"Money laundering is the process by which funds from source A are made to appear as if they came from source B."
You omitted the fact that there must be illegal activity happening at some point aside from disguising the source of funds before it becomes money laundering. If I disguise the source of funds to hide activity from my wife that is NOT money laundering.
Putting this back in context, if the other activities aren't a crime then no money laundering has occurred and that wouldn't be valid grounds for extradition.
I'm the guy who said the proceeds need to come from some form of unlawful activity. 3(c) wouldn't apply in this case either. So bottom line, if their actions weren't a crime, then the proceeds weren't from illegal activity and what they were doing wasn't money laundering therefore money laundering wouldn't be valid grounds to extradite.
"As I replied before there is no requirement that the money be illegally obtained in the first place."
Okay, lets ignore the part of my comment that specifically addressed your example, the legal definition, and the actual text of the statute.
Yes, that was my point.
Without copyright you can disassemble the executable back to source in a fairly trivial fashion. Without copyright you have the right to modify that source and then distribute your modified program freely, without any permission.
Better than the legal definition is the statute.
18, U.S.C., Section 1956, shown here:
"
1956. Laundering of Monetary Instruments
(a)
(1) Whoever, knowing that the property involved in a financial transaction represents the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, conducts or attempts to conduct such a financial transaction which in fact involves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity—
"
Sorry but you are mistaken. Money laundering is BY DEFINITION processing funds from a criminal activity and making them appear to come from a legal activity. Here is one of many sites giving a legal definition and ALL of them agree that the funds must be illegal or illicit. If you engage in the same process but with the intent of committing the crime on the other end, like for tax evasion then that is just tax avoidance not money laundering.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/m/money-laundering/
"Of course they would. How does that contradict also prosecuting people that do business with US companies and host their servers in the US?"
Other than completely contradicting the argument that legitimate jurisdiction belongs to the nation where the servers are located? Attempting to prosecute cases where the servers AREN'T located in the US is a direct contradiction to this argument.
It doesn't contradict their real intention of using any flimsy excuse as a thin mask for strong arming the nations and people of the world on behalf of their copyright cartel overlords.
The point is that neither the servers NOR the operators were in the US and this didn't stop the US from hunting them down like dogs and finally bribing Swedish officials to get the job done.
If politicians weren't corrupt media cartel cronies this would be a civil case as well.
"It has nothing to do with law or censorship. If YouTube gives Universal the ability to delete videos at whim"
Also, it has everything to do with the law as the law allows any copyright holder to FORCE youtube to delete videos at whim.