Not a lawyer at all, but it feels for a criminal case you'd need a lot clearer of a causal link between the fraudulent action and the commercial success. I.e., how do you prove that the commercial success was specifically because of the fraudulent claim (and not just because the book is good and the author is a decent speaker)?

Doesn't this entire scheme rely on an attorney of state not asking the obvious follow-up questions? "Plausible deniability" only works if you can provide a plausible alternative story, not just truthfully answer a limited set of pre-cooked questions. "Dear judge, I did most certainly not see Allure strangle the victim [he shot him]" is not plausible deniability.

@shawn22 I don't think that costs really are the problem. The problem is jurisdiction - you simply can't go and interview a person in a foreign country unannounced, and if you already have to work with local police you may as well ask them to do the basic groundwork.

I'm not sure combining the "baby" and "pet" scenarios is good. I'm fairly certain these are completely different circumstances (in that I am afraid police won't care much about your dog going without food for a day). More interesting may be "baby or other dependent that requires constant help", such as an elderly parent or a mentally handicapped brother.

@tuskiomi Trust that the courts uphold the law is what all jurisdiction is based on.

@Therac Also, in the specific case I doubt a court would believe that the name was picked "at random" - the author is an internationally known professor at a business university, the article is about international business, and the author's name is fairly unique. I think it's a tough sell claiming that the name was entirely arbitrary and in no way chosen intentionally to give credit to the article.

@Therac I think it's going to be for courts to decide in the upcoming years to what extent "my AI generated bad thing XYZ for me" flies as an excuse. My suspicion is that whether you or an AI you controlled generated defamatory content will end up making as little difference as whether your fist or your stick hit a person. But honestly this discussion could still go either way.

@turanc This is a battle we have been fighting since the advent of digital products. For the largest part, I would argue we lost and things that used to be products (books, CDs, movies, video game boxes) turned into subscriptions because consumers were willing to trade in more traditional ownership rights for ease of access and cheaper prices.

I feel this is a much better answer than Dale's (currently) higher upvoted one. Yes, TOS are contracts, but you can't just write whatever the heck you want into them. There are limits, although maybe much more generous (to the service provider) ones than what a consumer would want or expect.

@gnasher729 I think your first example (the drug deal "on the streets") falls under what I mean with "within reason". The executive in Sweden is also not stupid.

@gnasher729 My knowledge is second-hand (through defence lawyer friends), but I would be surprised if they can. This kind of "you better confess because we already know everything" kind of lie is exactly what they are not allowed to do. They can and will confront you with evidence they have (drip-fed piece by piece to give the suspect ample opportunity to mess up their story), but they cannot say or insinuate that they have more than what they actually have.

@bob Though "the police is allowed to lie to you" seems to be a rather uniquely American concept. Here in Sweden the police is very much not allowed to lie, and in contrast police and prosecutors are legally obligated to keep you and your representation (within reason) up to date with what they have on you and what they suspect you did. I think it's similar in most of the Western world.

Of course this case was made more or less obsolete before it went all the way through the instances, because a few months in the man was suspected, and found guilty, to have killed his partner in their joint apartment, so this defamation trial quickly became the least of his worries and he withdrew the case.

Article (in German): sueddeutsche.de/panorama/…

There was an interesting relevant case in Austria in 2021. A left-leaning young parliamentarian was sued for defamation by a man because she called him out in her social media about some unwanted saucy and degrading messages he had sent her (and called him an asshole). Much of the trial focused on the question if the man had actually sent these messages or not - he argued that somebody else (an acquaintance that never appeared before court) sent them using his computer. The parliamentarian was found guilty of defamation in first instance, but acquitted later.

The comparison of Holmes and Musk is interesting. Certainly Musk delivers significantly more than Theranos ever has, but beyond that it feels that Holmes' core crime was playing the startup game of over-promise and under-deliver too hard and with bad legal counsel.

I wonder, what makes you think it would not be allowed? Yes, most developers allow streaming (because it's free marketing for them), but surely a developer who sees things differently is free to choose not to allow it? Honestly I'm more surprised that this kind of thing doesn't happen more often with more cinematic / movie-like games. I have personally sometimes watched playthroughs of games because then I didn't need to play them myself anymore, e.g., to follow the storyline of a sequel.

What I'm trying to say is, you are of course correct that not being at your designed place of work can get you reprimanded or fired, but since that does not seem to happen in OP's org, I doubt the company can then use this argument to claim that OP wasn't actually working.