3 ms·

They're selling rights to data. They're not producing work or materials for hire. Anywhere I or anyone else has made this point you haven't responded.

gojomo 8y ago
Because that's a contrived interpretation, especially when the data wouldn't even exist unless the monitoring software was there to create it. The panelists are selling their effort in installing/maintaining the software, and renting out their devices' processor-time/memory/bandwidth to run the monitoring app, and being compensated for any risks/delays such monitoring introduces. In some cases, they're also spending time answering questionnaires! That is, being paid to provide a service – where the delivery of the end-product of that service happens to be data. But even if they were selling rights to data that they normally generate in private, they're still doing it under the terms of a contract, in return for payment, which makes them a contractor for the duration of the time they're delivering the data. For comparison, consider a services company which installs phone-trackers & cameras in a retail location, then provides the resulting data about customer paths/visits to the retailer. That company isn't primarily "selling rights to data". They're selling a service, requiring their equipment and time, where that data is created and delivered. And they're doing it under a contract, and they too are a contractor, not a mere "data vendor". And it's the same with natural persons who enter a legal agreement with FB/Google to run FB/Google's software on their own devices, occasionally answer questions & update that software, obey the other terms of the legal agreement, and report back the resulting data to the corporate contractee.
- eganist 8y ago
  > especially when the data wouldn't even exist unless the monitoring software was there to create it. The data does exist, in transit. It's google's own code which creates new metadata from it; that's not anything each individual vendor/user is doing other than providing access to the data for google to collect. You're a developer; this should be apparent to you. I'm not really here to debate the legal merits with someone when neither of us are qualified to do so (you're not a lawyer, I'm not a lawyer, and existing lawyers have already commented on this to no end and disputed endlessly the idea that anyone in this arena would be considered a contractor). I'm just seeing how much you're willing to flesh out your novel legal theory in association with your public name on the internet.
  - gojomo 8y ago
    Which lawyers have said they're not contractors? (I haven't noticed anyone responding to my queries who's reported legal expertise – but I have quoted a legally-trained reporter who advances the same interpretation.) In what way does a person under contract to perform certain duties, on their own devices, being compensated, in accordance with a legally-enforceable contract not fit this dictionary definition of a 'contractor'? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contractor https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contractor In what ways do they not meet this law dictionary definition? https://thelawdictionary.org/contractor/ https://thelawdictionary.org/contractor/ Or this one? https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contractor https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contractor Compensated research panelists meet all these definitions. Did you know that Nielsen restructured its payments to its similarly monitored panelists, because it knew it'd otherwise have to 1099 them, like any other natural person receiving compensation for services under a contract? https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/36602/nielsen-plan-would-avoid-audits-irs.html https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/36602/nielsen...
    - eganist 8y ago
      What makes them research panelists?
      - gojomo 8y ago
        'Panelist' is just the term for that role in a market research program, and that's also what Google calls them: https://support.google.com/audiencemeasurement/answer/7566134?hl=en https://support.google.com/audiencemeasurement/answer/756613... But this, too, is irrelevant. Is there a contract? (Yes.) Are they being paid pursuant to the terms of that contract? (Yes.) They're contractors. Can you find me a lawyer who's argued otherwise?
        eganist 8y ago
        You realize the debate is whether all counterparties to a contract are considered "internal" to Google, right? You're still missing that. Vendors, Contractors, etc. are all counterparties to Google in their agreements. Vendors are not considered internal to any company unless explicitly stated. And the distinction between vendors v. independent contractors etc. can be found on any number of legal blogs, such as https://legalforgood.com/grantswhatsthedifferencebetweenavendorasub-recipient/ https://legalforgood.com/grantswhatsthedifferencebetweenaven... It's so fascinating watching the machinations in your mind trying to justify that all of these folks are somehow internal to Google. ------- Anyway, it's settled. Google agrees with the notion that the app should not have been operated under Apple's program, which itself is a tacit agreement with the premise that this app is not an internal app by any stretch of the imagination. > "The Screenwise Meter iOS app should not have operated under Apple's developer enterprise program. This was a mistake, and we apologize." https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-shuts-down-iphone-data-gathering-app-this-was-a-mistake-and-we-apologize/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-shuts-down-iphone-data-... The debate's settled. Unless you disagree with Google.

gojomo 8y ago

Because that's a contrived interpretation, especially when the data wouldn't even exist unless the monitoring software was there to create it. The panelists are selling their effort in installing/maintaining the software, and renting out their devices' processor-time/memory/bandwidth to run the monitoring app, and being compensated for any risks/delays such monitoring introduces. In some cases, they're also spending time answering questionnaires! That is, being paid to provide a service – where the delivery of the end-product of that service happens to be data. But even if they were selling rights to data that they normally generate in private, they're still doing it under the terms of a contract, in return for payment, which makes them a contractor for the duration of the time they're delivering the data. For comparison, consider a services company which installs phone-trackers & cameras in a retail location, then provides the resulting data about customer paths/visits to the retailer. That company isn't primarily "selling rights to data". They're selling a service, requiring their equipment and time, where that data is created and delivered. And they're doing it under a contract, and they too are a contractor, not a mere "data vendor". And it's the same with natural persons who enter a legal agreement with FB/Google to run FB/Google's software on their own devices, occasionally answer questions & update that software, obey the other terms of the legal agreement, and report back the resulting data to the corporate contractee.

eganist 8y ago
> especially when the data wouldn't even exist unless the monitoring software was there to create it. The data does exist, in transit. It's google's own code which creates new metadata from it; that's not anything each individual vendor/user is doing other than providing access to the data for google to collect. You're a developer; this should be apparent to you. I'm not really here to debate the legal merits with someone when neither of us are qualified to do so (you're not a lawyer, I'm not a lawyer, and existing lawyers have already commented on this to no end and disputed endlessly the idea that anyone in this arena would be considered a contractor). I'm just seeing how much you're willing to flesh out your novel legal theory in association with your public name on the internet.
- gojomo 8y ago
  Which lawyers have said they're not contractors? (I haven't noticed anyone responding to my queries who's reported legal expertise – but I have quoted a legally-trained reporter who advances the same interpretation.) In what way does a person under contract to perform certain duties, on their own devices, being compensated, in accordance with a legally-enforceable contract not fit this dictionary definition of a 'contractor'? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contractor https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contractor In what ways do they not meet this law dictionary definition? https://thelawdictionary.org/contractor/ https://thelawdictionary.org/contractor/ Or this one? https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contractor https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contractor Compensated research panelists meet all these definitions. Did you know that Nielsen restructured its payments to its similarly monitored panelists, because it knew it'd otherwise have to 1099 them, like any other natural person receiving compensation for services under a contract? https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/36602/nielsen-plan-would-avoid-audits-irs.html https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/36602/nielsen...
  - eganist 8y ago
    What makes them research panelists?
    - gojomo 8y ago
      'Panelist' is just the term for that role in a market research program, and that's also what Google calls them: https://support.google.com/audiencemeasurement/answer/7566134?hl=en https://support.google.com/audiencemeasurement/answer/756613... But this, too, is irrelevant. Is there a contract? (Yes.) Are they being paid pursuant to the terms of that contract? (Yes.) They're contractors. Can you find me a lawyer who's argued otherwise?
      - eganist 8y ago
        You realize the debate is whether all counterparties to a contract are considered "internal" to Google, right? You're still missing that. Vendors, Contractors, etc. are all counterparties to Google in their agreements. Vendors are not considered internal to any company unless explicitly stated. And the distinction between vendors v. independent contractors etc. can be found on any number of legal blogs, such as https://legalforgood.com/grantswhatsthedifferencebetweenavendorasub-recipient/ https://legalforgood.com/grantswhatsthedifferencebetweenaven... It's so fascinating watching the machinations in your mind trying to justify that all of these folks are somehow internal to Google. ------- Anyway, it's settled. Google agrees with the notion that the app should not have been operated under Apple's program, which itself is a tacit agreement with the premise that this app is not an internal app by any stretch of the imagination. > "The Screenwise Meter iOS app should not have operated under Apple's developer enterprise program. This was a mistake, and we apologize." https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-shuts-down-iphone-data-gathering-app-this-was-a-mistake-and-we-apologize/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-shuts-down-iphone-data-... The debate's settled. Unless you disagree with Google.