Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 1562498" data-attributes="member: 19675">By and large, they do not.  They do, however, contribute more in ABSOLUTE sums than small businesses.  Economies of scale allow things like that to happen.Business 1 is a megacorp operating on a 2% profit margin.  They can contribute $100's of M's of money to charities and not even feel the pinch.  Even in an economic downturn that sucks up their profit margin, the megacorp will still be floated enough credit to survive, even while continuing to make those charitable donations and operating at a loss.  Even absent credit floats, the megacorp can sell off portions of itself- real property, physical plant, layoffs, etc, to raise cash to keep afloat while still making charitable donations in order to maintain its public goodwill (a VERY valuable commodity).Business 2 is a small business operating on a 2% profit margin.  They may only be able to contribute a couple of hundred dollars a year to charities.  Any economic downturn is a potential extinction level event that will result in all optional expenditures ending immediately, including charitable donations.  If your only employees are your wife and your son, and your only real property is the store itself, you don't have many options.The classic example of this is the struggle for civil rights equality of blacks in the USA.  There, people were denied equal protection under the law.In the case of theft of IP, this is not true.  ANYONE who creates IP is protected equally.  They have the right to try to make a profit from their IP.  This allows someone to rationally undertake the research to create a new drug, or spend their retirement savings trying to write the next great novel because they know that if they succeed, their rights to attempt to profit from their efforts are protected.A distinction without a difference.  If the victim is somehow "different and undeserving of protection," then the victim obviously has qualities you don't like.  If you can rationalize non-enforcement on such grounds rather than on the facts of the case, the law has no legitimacy, no power.  Arbitrary laws or arbitrary enforcement erode the fabric of society.  Such erosion can be serious or minor, but it is erosion just the same.For example, if we don't protect the right of the KKK to have parades and espouse their message of hate because we find them disgusting, then EVERYONE's rights of free assembly and free speech are in jeaopardy because they exist only at the whim of the persons in power and law enforcement.Similarly, if IP owned by a corporation is not protected the same as a human's IP, or IP owned by the rich is not protected the same as IP owned by the poor, your IP protection rules are arbitrary and cannot be relied upon for future planning.I have clients who are constantly in fear of having their IP stolen, so they hold onto their music with a deathgrip.  They won't play their demos for anyone, even for focus groups, so valuable feedback and other opportunities are lost-those guys will NEVER make it.But I understand their fears.  It is possible to get a perfect digital recording at someone's demo listening and have that song copied by another artist within days.  Once this happens, the legitimate creator may be unable to do anything, especially an unsigned or undiscovered artist.  Release their version-get labeled a derivative copycat; sue (if they can afford it)-risk ridicule and possible blackballing within the industry.Nope-only insofar as they are treated as persons under certain laws.  A corp can't murder someone, but it can be guilty of negligence that results in deaths.In the eyes of the law, property crimes are property crimes, regardless of the victim</blockquote>

Verification