Post #96565 by Humuhumu on Tue, Jun 15, 2004 6:06 PM

On 2004-06-15 16:47, lanikai wrote:
that's a simplistic naive perspective. They are "out to" appease their stockholders which is to say; develop the bottom line. and if they step on little toes, they have attorneys to dismiss the problem.

It's a fair assessment that I was oversimplifying for the sake of argument, but your assertion that corporations using attorneys to allow them to abuse the rights of very small entities is a bit oversimplified, too. Now isn't the time or place to whip out my dic...er, resume, but perhaps someday we can meet at La Mariana and I can bore you to tears with a description of my business experience over Mai Tais.

While I will certainly grant you that there is no shortage of cases where large entities have ridden roughshod over the rights of smaller entities, the truth still remains that these entities are made up of human beings, not robots, and it's not the boards of directors or the accountants or the legal department who are telling graphic designers it's okay to steal someone else's design rather than take a little extra time to come up with their own. Every individual person in a corporation should be held accountable to do the right thing, and perhaps you would be surprised to learn the extent to which that actually does happen in corporate America. It doesn't happen all the time, but it happens a lot.

If nothing else, remember that those attorneys are pretty goddamned expensive, and even the most corrupt, cynical, grotesque, inhumane corporation doesn't like to spend more than they have to on attorneys.