This is actually not hard to understand at all.

Many web people got their start freelancing. You may know some. It is not uncommon to incorporate when doing that. The idea is if you fuck up their site somehow (or more likely - they claim you did) they can't try and go after your personal bank account or your car or your house. Only what is held by your company. You also get other benefits, like tax breaks for being such an industrious member of society.

The same incentives are being set up on both sides. Because generally it is good for society when people start companies. A company as a liability shield is only a bad thing if you think personal assets should be at risk because someone is unhappy about what you did at work. If someone wants to sue you over something that happened as part of business deal, why should they be able to threaten the house your family lives in?

Seems sensible to me. While there may be problems as the scale of the company (and remuneration of its officers) increases, the underlying principle isn't exactly hard to understand. If you shot up a public area and then tried to claim that was a business activity, you would obviously not have an argument. It isn't plausible on its face. So I'm really not sure what point you're making.

If it's just complaining that it is hard to prove things in court when massive companies are involved, then tough. It is also relatively hard to convict people who shoot off guns in public even if a whole bunch of people saw them. In simpler times a mob would have simply formed and executed them. We don't get to do that anymore, because we don't want to live under mob rule.

That's what rule of law demands.

▲

skinfaxi an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> If you shot up a public area and then tried to claim that was a business activity, you would obviously not have an argument. It isn't plausible on its face. So I'm really not sure what point you're making.

I'm running a terrorist training simulation and unwitting participants entered the area! Whoops! You haven't addressed the point of a company (composed of people) creating something that exceeds its bounds. Is a company liable if they are working on nuclear power and delete the city they are operating out of? Why would a software company be treated differently when it causes harm to a third party?

▲

godwinson__4-8 an hour ago | parent [-]

> I'm running a terrorist training simulation and unwitting participants entered the area! Whoops!

There is already precedent on more or less this exact scenario. Except you usually don't call people under your own jurisdiction "terrorists". That sort of term is reserved for people running those businesses in certain other places. By the way, it is an interesting feature of the American legal system that this sort of incident could spawn many proceedings, where a civil suit against the company in question could be one among many.

> Is a company liable if they are working on nuclear power and delete the city they are operating out of?

In theory, obviously. You still have to prove it in court.

> Why would a software company be treated differently when it causes harm to a third party?

They wouldn't. Again, you still have to prove it in court.

▲

skinfaxi an hour ago | parent | next [-]

What point are you making? This hasn't been brought to court yet and I am lamenting the fact that charges have not been brought.

> There is already precedent on more or less this exact scenario. Except you usually don't call people under your own jurisdiction "terrorists". That sort of term is reserved for people running those businesses in certain other places. By the way, it is an interesting feature of the American legal system that this sort of incident could spawn many proceedings, where a civil suit against the company in question could be one among many.

I don't have a jurisdiction as I am not the judiciary nor law enforcement. I'm really not sure what you're driving at.

▲

godwinson__4-8 40 minutes ago | parent [-]

> I don't have a jurisdiction as I am not the judiciary nor law enforcement. I'm really not sure what you're driving at.

If you were shot or a member of your family got "deleted" and you had sufficient control of the estate, then you would have standing.

Obviously, if you aren't involved you shouldn't be able to sue and be compensated because something happened to someone else that doesn't relate to you at all.

▲

skinfaxi 37 minutes ago | parent [-]

>If you were shot or a member of your family got "deleted" and you had sufficient control of the estate, then you would have standing.

> Obviously, if you aren't involved you shouldn't be able to sue and be compensated because something happened to someone else that doesn't relate to you at all.

Crimes don't require standing wtf are you on about? Prosecutors bring charges not individuals.

▲

godwinson__4-8 29 minutes ago | parent [-]

> Prosecutors bring charges even if the estate doesn't pursue.

Simply wrong. In criminal cases, the government may not elect to bring charges for all sorts of reasons. The civil courts will still be available to you. That will be true whether there are charges or not. Whether that results in a conviction or not.

The government can also initiate a civil suit. Criminal charges against businesses are rare. I'm not sure any would apply here. Perhaps you'd like to volunteer a statute?

	▲	skinfaxi 14 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> Prosecutors bring charges even if the estate doesn't pursue. > Simply wrong. You didn't refute my point :P Wait so I only need to make a company and use AI to hack US banks and anyone else I want?

▲

hackable_sand 35 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

I think they wanted an actual answer

▲

gnopgnip 33 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> It is not uncommon to incorporate when doing that. The idea is if you fuck up their site somehow (or more likely - they claim you did) they can't try and go after your personal bank account or your car or your house. Only what is held by your company.

This is a common misconception. A corporation doesn’t protect you from personal liability. If you intentionally or negligently damage someone’s property they can sue you personally. In many cases they can sue both, and it’s easier to collect from an established business, but that doesn’t do you any good as a freelancer.

Nuisance lawsuits aren’t much of an issue because insurance covers the legal defense and indemnifies you

	▲	godwinson__4-8 a few seconds ago \| parent [-]
		> If you intentionally or negligently damage someone’s property they can sue you personally. Yes, there are also other ways to pierce the corporate veil. In the vast majority of cases, they do not apply or would not be provable. Bringing up exceptions to the rule doesn't mean the rule is misconceived. As most devs know, sites can get fucked up for all sorts of reasons. A client relationship may deteriorate to the point they may think you are negligent. The chances of a court agreeing to pass liability through to you personally on that basis are likely 0. As such, incorporating itself still offers protection. Just like if a CEO shoots someone while on the clock and tried to say it was a business activity, and got personally indicted, doesn't therefore mean incorporation was a waste of time. Essentially the theory behind piercing the veil is that some aspect of the alleged crime was not a legitimate business activity. Such as fraud. > Nuisance lawsuits aren’t much of an issue because insurance covers the legal defense and indemnifies you. There is that too. Although if you are running a small software business this step is often not worth it. Yes, anyone can make outlandish claims. It doesn't mean incorporation as a personal liability shield is not highly valuable and well established.

▲

cyphar an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

You're talking about limited liability companies, which is a legal structure relevant for civil claims.

Someone committing crimes "on behalf" of a company is not protected by the corporate veil and absolutely will get prosecuted individually (well, for small companies -- big companies get to play with different rules, which was the point GP was making).

Also the corporate veil is not absolute, it can get pierced in a few cases, and not everyone incorporates when they do contract work (in which case you need indemnity / private liability insurance).