How many startups are currently facing legal action?
Do you really want to know the answer to this question? Tons of startups are breaking the law either intentionally or purposely trying to disrupt it. I think we've established long ago that something being "legal" or "illegal" doesn't necessarily mean it's "right" or "wrong."
Tons of startups are breaking the law? I find that highly unlikely, mostly due to the fact I spend at least an hour a week talking to my attorneys about EVERYTHING we do and making sure it's all above board and legally covered.
While I can't speak for all the other startups out there, I can say without a doubt that mine hasn't broken any laws.
I can guarantee that you violate copyright law every day. Ever play music at work? Did you acquire the performance right/license for that? Ever fwd someone's email? Depending on content most email is copyright protected. Do you really think you haven't violated terms of service of any software/website you've used. I'd be surprised if you even have read them all.
Most those laws are enforced only against egregious offenders. Dude offering me a candy bar so I don't have to stop by corner store is not egregious.
I doubt that it's possible for you or your attorneys to understand every single law that applies to your situation, so you are almost certainly breaking some law or regulation somewhere. The difference between you and this guy is that he probably knows that he's breaking the law, but you don't.
I'd estimate that about 1/8 to 1/4 of the purpose of the laws he's breaking is to protect commuters from harassment and the remainder is to protect the profits of businesses like the kiosks that sell candy, drinks, and newspapers on some of the platforms. Basically, I find those laws to be more of a bug than a feature.
I disagree. Based upon other commenters' experience with this exact fellow, he often turns abusive to people who don't want to buy what he's offering.
When it comes to public transit, strict limitations are really nice for the masses. Riding trains in Japan, where nobody chats on their cellphone next to you, buskers don't assault your ears, and vendors are limited, efficient, and polite, is a wonderful thing.
And, Indiana also requires licensure for money transmission.
IC 28-8-4-20 (a) A person may not engage in the business of money transmission without a license required by this chapter.
Therefore, Paypal is illegal in Indiana. But the only reason why I think they haven't been 'busted' is because nobody has complained yet to the appropriate Indiana authorities.
edit: I've been heavily criticised by OstiaAntica for this comment for being "anti-hacker". But I'm simply stating facts, and an opinion as why I think why. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3088836
More likely, Indiana doesn't have any legal jurisdiction over Paypal. Just because something is a law in one place doesn't mean it's a law in another place, even if you have customers that are covered by the law.
> I can say without a doubt that mine hasn't broken any laws.
I hope that's merely your own misinformed conclusion and not what your attorneys actually told you. Because if they did guarantee this, you should probably look into getting new ones.
Assuming you're in the US, your congress already invented* laws it's illegal to know whether they affect you or whether you are guilty of them.
Of course those are coming for terrorists, so you don't need to speak out/worry because you're not a terrorist.
So while it's very likely that your company might not be breaking any laws, if your attorneys guarantee it, they're either lying/ignorant or breaking the law themselves.
OK so how's this relevant to the guy selling candy? The point is, it doesn't matter whether it's legal for him to sell these candies, the big deal is whether it's right for him to do so.
These attorneys you're hiring, are not for guiding you on the Right Path of being a "good" company, you hired them to protect you from the Beast of the Law.
*blatantly copied the idea from Kafka, who had prior art, the thieving bastards
I don't know about "breaking the law intentionally" but here are some examples of things startups have done that other people have thought were illegal. In some of the cases people have thought that so strongly that they've filed lawsuits.
Somewhat bullshit legal action, though. All they need to do is move their company out of San Francisco and then the City can't do anything about it. Cars for people in California can arranged from anywhere in the world with phone lines and intarwebs, and I doubt the City of San Francisco has much jurisdiction over people in, say, Russia.
Almost all startups, small companies, and even large companies that I've worked at have had some level of software piracy in their organization. Of course, I could just be unlucky in where I've worked, but it's always been rationalized away in some capacity ("once we start making money, we'll buy legitimate licenses").
Through 2009 Zynga made money from lead generation advertising schemes, whereby game participants would earn game points by signing up for featured credit cards or video-rental services. These were criticized as being less cost-effective than simply buying game points, and in some cases, being outright scams that would download unwanted software or unwittingly sign up for a recurring subscription.[38] One ad signed up players for subscriptions to expensive and unwanted text-messaging services.[39]
On October 31, 2009, Michael Arrington of TechCrunch said that Zynga intentionally worked with scam advertisers, and that lead generation made up a third of Zynga's revenue.[64] Arrington also alleged that Facebook was complicit in this.[65] On November 2, 2009, CEO Mark Pincus announced a reform in its offers: Tatto Media, a major offer provider that enrolled users into recurring cell phone subscriptions, would be banned, all mobile offers would be removed, and offer providers would be required to pre-screen offers.[66]
Arrington continued to question Pincus' role in the scams, republishing a video of a speech by Pincus.[67] In the speech, Pincus said:
"So I funded [Zynga] myself but I did every horrible thing in the book to, just to get revenues right away. I mean we gave our users poker chips if they downloaded this Zwinky toolbar which was like, I don't know, I downloaded it once and couldn’t get rid of it. laughs We did anything possible just to just get revenues so that we could grow and be a real business." —Mark Pincus, Speech from Startup@Berkeley
In response, Pincus noted that after offering the Zwinky toolbar, his team of ten decided to remove it since it was a "painful experience".[68]
Several days after the Techcrunch story, Zynga's most recent Facebook game FishVille, was temporarily taken offline by Facebook on claim of advertising violations. According to Zynga, Fishville had 875,000 users within two days of launch. A release from Facebook on its reasons for taking the game offline read that "FishVille will remain suspended until Facebook is satisfied that Zynga demonstrates compliance with Facebook restrictions – as well as Zynga’s own restrictions – on the ads it offers users."[69] FishVille was later un-suspended at midnight November 9–10.[70]
Several suits were filed against Zynga for promoting such offers,[71][72] including the class-action lawsuit Swift v. Zynga in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California for violation of the Unfair competition law and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, after the lead plaintiff's credit card was billed more than $200 for offers she completed to receive YoVille currency.[73][74][75]
Pincus later said that he had been too eager to increase company revenues through advertising, and that operating in reactive mode by taking down ads only after receiving complaints had not worked. The company removed all ads for a time, relying only on direct purchase of game currency, then began reintroducing third party ads only after they had been screened.[38]
You are debating against rocks. The reason I say this is because once people decide some one is wrong. They are wrong for life. Nothing you write here will convince people that this peddler is right in doing what he is doing.
Being right is not always synonymous with legal.
Society is so unfair, when some uses unfair means to game the system and make lots money, he is termed 'intelligent'. Because big money is glamorous. Here we are a guy at the subway making same kind of average money your average developer might make, now suddenly hell breaks loose. 'How dare he?', I mean the reactions are basically 'How dare this guy? without any college education without learning and reading? make the same average amount of money as I do?' So obviously they end up with 'All this is illegal so it doesn't matter'.
Go check your life, you will find you are doing N number of things every day which might not be complying 100% with the law. Yet you can do it without harming any one.
The problem here and reason with many problem here is clear. No body likes the idea that a poor un educated guy is making the same money as they are. Doing less intellectual work. And yet here they are, after all those high aspirations and that intellectual work still the same as a subway peddler. So what really is the difference between them and a candy peddler in the subway.
Its this thing that is really giving all the invisible pain. Not the illegality of the selling candy in the subway.
If only the number were not $50,000 and way lesser than that, you would see a totally different thread.
Some time back people here were angry with a VC for a making a comment on the 'Google Chef' who got rich in an IPO. The same situation here.
Subway candy peddler is to these hackers what the 'Google Chef' was to a VC.
Do you really want to know the answer to this question? Tons of startups are breaking the law either intentionally or purposely trying to disrupt it. I think we've established long ago that something being "legal" or "illegal" doesn't necessarily mean it's "right" or "wrong."