zlacker

>>andyly+(OP)
In the U.S. legal system, is it possible to create a corporation specifically to do something of uncertain legality, so as to limit the liability?

E.g., could we create a FuckYouMazda corporation, whose sole purpose was to develop this software. And if Mazda successfully sued for copyright damages, the financial liability is limited to the corporation's assets?

>>Coasta+Z8
Corporate protections don't work like that, or every petty criminal would be a corporation.

Knowing, deliberate actions of criminality are sufficient to piece the corporate veil.

>>malfis+v9
Sorry I wasn't clear: I was specifically asking about limiting the liability of possible civil violations of the DMCA.

I.e., the alleged violations are civil rather than criminal, and a reasonable person might believe Mazda's DMCA claims are unjustifiable.

>>Coasta+jd
I think naming your company `FuckYouMazda` and violating their copyright gives a judge plenty of incentive to pierce the corporate veil.

>>malfis+hg
You might be missing my point: the corporation would be premised on its founders' sincere belief that Mazda's DMCA claims were, at best, dubious.

>>Coasta+4h
I don't think that premise really matters.

You could sincerely believe that murder was ok, but that's not going to change how the law would view you murdering someone.

The idea around "piercing the corporate veil" is that you can't just slap a company in front of your actions -- regardless of whether or not you believe your actions are justified or legal -- and avoid legal consequences.