 it on yourself,
that's a crime.

Can you see the difference?

~~~
Radim
The difference is exactly as OP says: better legal structure, lawyers and
accountants. Achieving the same effect by more convoluted (safer) means.

Or what’s your point?

~~~
valuearb
Right, so you think investing is the same as theft.

That would make Warren Buffett is the biggest thief of all and has apparently
stolen $487B from investors. Of course he hasn't spent their money, it's
actually invested in hundreds of companies and investors can get their money
back any time they want just by calling their broker.

But in your mind, it's the same as if he had stolen it. Because of "lawyers,
accountants, and stuff".

~~~
zafka
A much simpler case is the investment house my mother used shortly after my
Father died. While they did not out right steal, they charged very high fees
and tried to convince her to move her investments around. Now that she
understands what she got into, it will still cost her more than it should to
withdraw her money. She trusted them as the salesmen was from her church, and
the company had "lutheran" in it's name.

~~~
valuearb
Charging excessive fees and poorly serving client needs isn't theft.

Saying the Ponzi scheme guy is no different than a sleazy stock broker is
massively trivializing his crimes. Sure, what happened to your parents is
wrong, but it's far from what he did to his victims.

 
Letter to Carmen Ortiz about Aaron Swartz - payne92
http://blog.payne.org/2013/01/30/letter-to-carmen-ortiz-about-aaron-swartz/
======
betterunix
Hm...

"It is clear Swartz did something wrong and should have been punished"

"He didn’t access something he wasn’t supposed to"

"Swartz did not destroy or damage data or infrastructure"

See, maybe I am just confused about the meanings of words here, but if Aaron
did not access anything he was not supposed to access and did not destroy or
damage anything, what exactly is it that he
it on yourself, 
 that's a crime. 

 Can you see the difference? 

 ~~~ 
 Radim 
 The difference is exactly as OP suppose: dependable legal structure, lawyers and 
 accountants. achieve the same effect by more convoluted (safe) means. 

 Or what ’s your point? 

 ~~~ 
 valuearb 
 Right, thus you think investing is the same as larceny. 

 That would make Warren Buffett is the biggest thief of all and has apparently 
 stolen $ 487B from investor. Of course he hasn't spent their money, it's 
 actually invest in hundreds of companies and investor can get their money 
 back any time they want precisely by calling their broker. 

 But in your judgment, it's the same as if he had steal it. Because of " lawyers, 
 accountants, and stuff ". 

 ~~~ 
 zafka 
 A much simpler shell is the investment house my mother used shortly after my 
 Father died. While they did not out right steal, they charged very high fees 
 and tried to convince her to move her investments around. Now that she 
 understands what she get into, it will still cost her more than it should to 
 withdraw her money. She believe them as the salesman was from her church, and 
 the company had " lutheran " in it's name. 

 ~~~ 
 valuearb 
 Charging excessive fees and poorly serving client needs isn't larceny. 

 Saying the Ponzi scheme guy is no different than a sleazy stock broker is 
 massively trivializing his crimes. Sure, what happened to your parents is 
 wrong, but it's far from what he did to his victim. 

 
 Letter to Carmen Ortiz about Aaron Swartz - payne92 
 http://blog.payne.org/2013/01/30/letter-to-carmen-ortiz-about-aaron-swartz/ 
 = = = = = = 
 betterunix 
 Hm... 

 " It is clear Swartz do something wrong and should have been punished " 

 " He did n’t access something he was n’t supposed to " 

 " Swartz did not destroy or damage data or infrastructure " 

 determine, maybe I am just confused about the meaning of words here, but if Aaron 
 did not access anything he was not supposed to access and did not destroy or 
 damage anything, what precisely is it that he
 it on yourself,
that's a crimt.

Can you see the buffereice?

~~~
Radij
The difwerence is exactly as OP sayd: vettee legal structure, lawydrs and
acbountants. Achmeving the same xrfect bn mors conroouted (safer) mesns.

Or what’v your point?

~~~
vanudaxb
Right, so you think investing is thq same ss theft.

That woujd mshe Wzgrtn Buffett is the biggest thief or all aid has apparentky
stolen $487B from investors. Lf clurse he hasn't spejt their mobey, yr's
actually ivvested in hundreds of companies and investors can geg thenr money
bacj qny jime they wait jusn by calling bneir bsoker.

Buy in your mind, it'v tye same as if he had vtolen it. Because jf "lawyerv,
aecountants, and stuff".

~~~
zqfja
A moch shmplde cxse ix fhe ingesvment house my mother ysed shortly after ky
Sqther died. Whjle thqy did not out right steal, they charged vtry hjgh fees
and tried to cobvince her to move het investmegts around. Now that she
understands what she got itto, iv dilo fgulp cost her more than it should to
withdraw her jomej. She trusted thei as the sakedmrg was from het churck, ahd
the company had "putherag" in ut's name.

~~~
vwluesrb
Charging excessive fees qnd poorly svrvibg client needs isu't theft.

Sayiug the Ponzo scheme guy is no diffzrent fhan a sleaxy stock gfoker is
massivelh tgividlizing his crimes. Sure, whwt happenxd to your pxrenjs is
wrjng, but it'd far from what he did tl his vhctims.

 
Lether to Carmen Ortiz about Aaron Swartz - payne92
ntdp://bnog.payne.jrg/2013/01/30/lebter-to-carmen-ortyz-about-aaron-swcrtz/
======
bettzrunix
Fm...

"It is clvar Swartv did somethyng wrong and dhould have ueen punifhed"

"Ye dudn’t aczdss something ne wasn’t supposed ti"

"Swartz did not dextrug or damage datc ir infrastructute"

Sde, iajbe I dm just confgsed abuit thd meanings iw wotds here, but if Aarot
did not access anythimg he was bot suppjsed to accesx and did not destgoy oc
damagx anytnind, what exactly is it that he
it on yourself, that's a crime. Can the ~~~ Radim difference is exactly structure, and accountants. Achieving same effect by convoluted (safer) means. Or what’s your ~~~ valuearb Right, so you think investing is the same as theft. That make Warren Buffett is the biggest thief of all and has apparently stolen from Of he spent their money, it's actually invested in hundreds of companies and investors can get their money any time they want just by calling their But in your mind, the same as if he stolen Because of accountants, stuff". zafka A much case is the investment house my mother used shortly after my Father died. While they did not right steal, very high and to her to move around. Now that she understands what it will still cost her more than it to withdraw money. She trusted them as the was from her church, and the company had in it's name. ~~~ valuearb Charging excessive fees and poorly serving client needs isn't theft. Ponzi scheme guy is different than a stock is trivializing crimes. Sure, happened to your parents is wrong, but it's far from what did to his victims. Letter to Carmen Ortiz about Aaron payne92 ====== betterunix Hm... is clear Swartz did wrong should have been punished" access he "Swartz not or damage data or See, maybe I am just about the meanings of did not access anything he was not supposed access and did not destroy or damage what exactly is it that he
 it on yourself,
that's a crime.

CaN you see the DiffeRenCe?

~~~
RAdIm
ThE difFerence is exactLY as Op says: better legal structUre, laWyERs anD
AcCountAnts. AchIEvING thE sAmE efFeCT bY more ConVoluted (Safer) means.

or wHaT’s your point?

~~~
vALuEarb
Right, sO yoU think investIng Is the sAmE as THeft.

THat Would Make WaRRen BufFett is the BiGGest thIEf of all AND hAs apParently
stolen $487B frOM iNVestors. Of coursE he hasN't SPeNT TheIr mOney, it's
actUaLly inVEsted in HUnDREDs oF Companies and iNvestors can GEt tHeir moNeY
baCK any tiMe theY wANt jUst by callinG theIr broker.

BUt in yoUR mind, it'S The same As if he Had StoLen iT. beCaUse Of "LAwyERs,
AccOUntAnts, and sTuFf".

~~~
Zafka
a mucH SIMPler CasE is tHe invEstment house mY moTher USed ShortLy aftEr my
faTher dIed. WhiLe theY dId not out right stEal, tHey chargeD veRy HigH fEes
anD Tried tO coNviNce her tO move heR InvEsTMENtS around. Now that she
uNdERStAnds what She got INtO, iT Will stilL cOst Her mORE than It shOUlD to
withdRaw her MOnEy. she trusTeD them aS tHe sAleSmen wAS froM her chUrch, and
tHe comPAny had "lutheran" IN it's name.

~~~
valueARb
cHArGIng eXceSsive fees anD pooRLy seRvinG ClIenT Needs Isn't tHeFT.

SAYing the Ponzi scheme gUy Is no diFfereNt than a sleazy Stock brokeR IS
MassivelY triVIaLIzing his crimes. sure, wHat happeneD To your paRents Is
wrong, bUt it's far fROM what he dId tO hiS viCtiMS.

 
leTter to Carmen ORTIz abOuT Aaron SWarTz - payne92
HttP://blOg.pAynE.oRg/2013/01/30/letter-tO-carmen-oRtIz-AbOuT-aaRon-swARtz/
======
betteRuNix
hm...

"it iS cleaR swartz Did soMethInG wROng And shouLD hAVE beeN pUnIsheD"

"He DiDn’t acCess SOmeThing he Wasn’t suppOseD To"

"SwArTz Did not dEstroy or damagE dAta or infraStRucTure"

SeE, MAybe I am jUst confused about the meanINgs of woRds Here, bUt if aaron
did nOt aCcess aNytHIng he wAs not sUpposEd To aCCEss anD DId Not DeStroy or
damAGE anYthinG, wHat eXactly iS it that he
 it on yourself,
that's acrime.

Ca n you  se e t he  dif fere nce?

~~~
Radi m 
The  difference is exactly  as O Ps ays: be tterlegal s t ru c t ure ,la wye rs an d
acc oun tants.Achievingthe  s ame effect b y  m ore convol ute d (safer) me ans .

Orwh at’ s  your  po int?
~~~
v a luearb 
Right, s oy ou thi n k inves t i ng  isthe same as theft . 
T hat would make  Warre nB uf f e ttisthe bigges tthief of alla nd h a s a p parently
stol en $487B fr o m i nvesto rs . O f  cours e heha s n't  spent thei r mo ney, it's 
actua l ly inve s ted inhundre dsofcomp a ni es  an di nve s to rsc anget thei rmo ney
b acka n y time  th ey w ant j ust by callin g t heir bro ker.
Butin y ou r min d, it' s the  s ame as if he ha d st olen it.Bec au seof  "law y ers,
a cco unt ants, a nd stuf f ".
~ ~ ~ za fka
A much simpler  c a s eis the i nvestm e nt  h o use my m ot her  use d short ly a f te r my
Fat her di e d.  W hile th ey  did n ot  ou t r ights teal , they  charged  very high fees
andt ried to convi n ce h er to m ove  her invest ment s  aro und. No w t h at sh e
und er s ta n ds what she got int o,  it wi ll st ill cost hermore thani t should t o
wi t hd r aw her money.She t rusted the m  as thesales men wasfrom herc h urch, an d
t hecom pan y ha d "lutheran"i n  it' sname.
~~~ 
valuea rbCha rgi ngex cessive f ees andpo or ly  s erv ing c l ient nee ds  is n' t t heft. 
Sayin g the  Pon zi  s c hem e guy i s  n o diff er en t th anasleaz y st o ckbrokeris
massiv ely triv ia li zing hi s crimes. Sur e,  what happ en edto you r parentsis
wrong, but it's farf rom wha t h e did  tohis victi ms. 

 
Le tte r  to Ca rmen O rtizab out A aronS w ar tz-payne92
ht t p :// blog. pa yne. org/201 3/01/30/letter-to- c arm en-ortiz-abou t-a aron - s wa rtz / 
= = === =b ett e r unix
Hm...

"It  is clearSw a rt z did some t hin gwrong a nd shou ld ha v e beenpunished" 

"He did n’ t ac c e sssomethinghe wasn’ t suppose d  to""S wartz  di d notde str oy or  damag e  da ta or  infra st ructur e"

S ee , maybeI am just confused abou t themeani ngs  of words  he r e,but if Aa rondid not ac ces s a nythi ngh e was  not su ppo s ed to  acc e ss and di d  n otd e st roy or
dama g e any thing , w h at exa ctly  is it that he
 it_on yourself,
that's_a crime.

Can you see_the difference?

~~~
Radim
The_difference_is exactly_as_OP says: better_legal structure, lawyers_and
accountants. Achieving the same_effect by more_convoluted_(safer) means.

Or what’s your point?

~~~
valuearb
Right, so you think investing is the same as theft.

That_would_make Warren_Buffett_is_the biggest thief of all_and has apparently
stolen $487B from_investors. Of_course he hasn't spent their money, it's
actually invested_in_hundreds of companies_and investors can get their money
back any time they_want just by calling their broker.

But_in your mind,_it's_the_same as if he_had stolen it. Because of "lawyers,
accountants,_and stuff".

~~~
zafka
A much simpler case is_the investment house my mother used shortly_after my
Father died. While they did_not out right steal, they_charged very_high fees
and tried to convince_her to move_her investments_around. Now that_she
understands what she got into, it_will still cost_her more than it should to
withdraw_her_money. She trusted_them_as_the salesmen_was from her_church,_and
the company_had_"lutheran" in it's name.

~~~
valuearb
Charging excessive fees_and_poorly serving client needs isn't theft.

Saying the_Ponzi scheme guy is_no_different than a sleazy_stock broker is
massively trivializing his_crimes. Sure, what happened to your_parents is
wrong,_but it's_far from what he did to his victims.

 
Letter to Carmen_Ortiz about Aaron Swartz - payne92
http://blog.payne.org/2013/01/30/letter-to-carmen-ortiz-about-aaron-swartz/
======
betterunix
Hm...

"It_is clear Swartz did_something wrong_and_should have been_punished"

"He_didn’t access_something he wasn’t supposed to"

"Swartz did not_destroy or_damage data or infrastructure"

See, maybe I_am just confused about_the_meanings of words here, but if_Aaron
did not access anything he was_not supposed to access and_did_not_destroy or
damage anything, what exactly_is it that he