Comments on: Adjusting morals to suit markets

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 11:09:38 +0000

You must not have heard about the DirectTV smartcart incidents then which was actually worse then what the RIAA is doing. While the RIAA does not know if all the people its suing have actually purchased any legal music, DirectTV tried to extort money out of over 170,000 of its own paying customers, eventually suing over 24,000 of them.

http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2005_11.php

As long as a company believes that an action they take will bring them some kind of financial gain that outweighs any damage to their public image, they will take it. Their obligations to their stock holders demands that they do, even if that means stealing a little girls college fund or an old mans retirement fund.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 04:46:36 +0000

“It’s right that lawyers defend all comers in court. In this case, even when their client is obviously a scumbag, that person still deserves a defence.”

The problem is that the idea has been inverted to mean that everyone that can pay will get legal representation to shaft the innocent. Take the lawyers that have sued Santangelo and others, who either did nothing or in the worst case did what we all use to do in the age of LP records and cassettes, we copie music, frequently because the recording was no longer available.

Do record companies that want to make a criminal of an innocent person deserve to have legal representation? Of course not. And if they get legal representation, it it is from a promiscuous lawyer, the type that will sue his/her mother for sister for copying a CD.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 04:31:56 +0000

“This brings up one thing I see on P2Pnet a lot. Namely, the portrayal of the “big four” music labels as being things like the most evil people on the planet, etc… I don’t disagree with this other than the implication that the music biz is somehow worse than other major corporate interests.”

Not really. The music labels are suing and criminilizing youth and their own customers. I do not recall any industry or firm that has ever done such a bizzare thing, all for the purpose of forcing sales down the custome’s throat. And to boot it is self destruction. Sony stock alone has depreciated to about 25 percent of what it was a few years ago. There must be a reason for this drop in value. The reason: Worthless business advice from the persons that understand the least about business, the lawyers.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 19:33:37 +0000

It’s right that lawyers defend all comers in court. In this case, even when their client is obviously a scumbag, that person still deserves a defence. Lawyers mustn’t lie, but it is not unethical for them to present the defendant’s case.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 06:46:24 +0000

Very good point. Did you see a film called “The Corporation” by chance? Very informative.

This brings up one thing I see on P2Pnet a lot. Namely, the portrayal of the “big four” music labels as being things like the most evil people on the planet, etc… I don’t disagree with this other than the implication that the music biz is somehow worse than other major corporate interests. They are (almost) all utterly contemptible simply because of their “profits & stock values above ALL else” aproach to EVERY situation. It is the corporation’s fatal flaw. Greed machines run amok that will blindly destroy their own markets in their relentless, inflexable pursuit of profits.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 06:31:11 +0000

The only true limit corporations have is public image. They must make it at least appear they somewhat follow the moral code of their customer base or the customer base will feel uncomfortable supporting them with their business. Government regulations really do not matter to corporations, as the government can be bought to look the other way. A good example of this is when Microsoft was hit with anti trust suits by the USDoJ in the 90’s when they were not contributing heavily to political campaigns. The USDoJ actually defended Microsoft when South Korea recently fined them for the exact same thing (except with windows media player). They must have learned their lesson and started paying the blood money.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 05:52:15 +0000

It makes no sense to expect corporations to have any ethics at all. They are money-making machines, not human beings. Considered as people, they are sociopaths. So it should not surprise anyone that they do whatever they can get away with. The only limits on their behavior are those imposed by governments.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 01:48:50 +0000

Have lawyer ethics standards, the really flexible ones, ever stopped lawyers from profiting from the drug trade and the activities of the mafia by defending the criminals in court?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 19 Dec 2005 23:46:36 +0000

“…the firms ‘have flexible ethical standards…”

Ummmm, I think that really means the firms DON’T have ethical standards, right? IMHO when it comes to “corporate ethics” (pretty much an oxymoron in itself), if the standards are “flexable” then there really are no standards for practical purposes. No big news flash there…