4 ms·

Epic; in particular, is just handling this situation laughably at best. I can't imagine taking someone to court over my own intentionally sneaky violation of a

Epic; in particular, is just handling this situation laughably at best. I can't imagine taking someone to court over my own intentionally sneaky violation of a company's set of rules. The conversation about Apple's 30% is a valid one. Epic is, intentionally, at this point; taking a sledgehammer to any validity that conversation had. The way Epic handled this situation was with a maturity level of a 6-year-old kid yelling 'no!' to their parents and throwing a tantrum. We need serious, mature discussion over these issues. Spotify, in particular; while a horrible, heartless company to artists like myself, could at least make the excuse that they could funnel more of that 30% to the artists, although I doubt any more than 1% of it would actually go to us. (Spotify CEO is worth $3.8bn and the company claims they can't pay artists more...) I'm not sure wtf leg Tinder has to stand on beyond greed?

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Epic; in particular, is just handling this situation laughably at best. I can't imagine taking someone to court over my own intentionally sneaky violation of a company's set of rules. There's nothing laughable about having a layered strategy of “try not to get caught, and, in case you are caught, have a backup argument that enforcement of the rules is illegal in any case.”
- lostgame 6y ago
  I believe it doesn't uphold the 'spirit' of the law. It's sneaky/sneaking. They could've had a discussion with Apple, or gone to court about it; ahead of time. What they did was sneaking around; plain and simple, and Apple just responded the way they would to any app that suddenly activated a secret backdoor that would violate their terms and conditions. They invalidated their own potential for legal standing by intentionally sneaking around instead of working through the system like, for instance, LGTBQ+ people (I'm lesbian) did. If something is an injustice; you don't just, e.g. walk into a church and try to get married in a state or country that forbids it. You'll be prosecuted or killed. Doesn't matter that it's not fair. Apple's stance isn't as black/white, cut/dry as gay rights. But the point is, these guys took the absolutely wrong approach, have made themselves look like fools, and taken away power from people taking the time to properly (e.g. not intentionally sneaking around, which a backdoor switch to violate their terms and conditions is, by definition) try to move through the legal system and make these changes. All Epic has done is made that harder for real champions of Justice to approach in the future. It's the stuff conspiracy theories are made of. They're not standing for rights. They're standing for profits. Nobody's falling for it, especially not the judges.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > They're not standing for rights. They're standing for profits. The entire reason we have a private right of action for firms (rather than just a public right of action) in antitrust law is that actors selfishly standing up for their own profits will incidentally serve the public interest. The law does not rely on or expect litigants (other than those acting in the direct employ of the government) to seek to serve any interest other than their own narrow interests, instead it is (insofar as it seeks to serve a public interest, which is sadly not always the intent of the law to start with) designed to achieve the public interest by shaping private incentives so that the pursuit of private interest itself moves the public interest forward. So, while what you describe in the above quote about Epic is unquestionably true, that's exactly how the law is supposed to work.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Epic; in particular, is just handling this situation laughably at best. I can't imagine taking someone to court over my own intentionally sneaky violation of a company's set of rules. There's nothing laughable about having a layered strategy of “try not to get caught, and, in case you are caught, have a backup argument that enforcement of the rules is illegal in any case.”

lostgame 6y ago
I believe it doesn't uphold the 'spirit' of the law. It's sneaky/sneaking. They could've had a discussion with Apple, or gone to court about it; ahead of time. What they did was sneaking around; plain and simple, and Apple just responded the way they would to any app that suddenly activated a secret backdoor that would violate their terms and conditions. They invalidated their own potential for legal standing by intentionally sneaking around instead of working through the system like, for instance, LGTBQ+ people (I'm lesbian) did. If something is an injustice; you don't just, e.g. walk into a church and try to get married in a state or country that forbids it. You'll be prosecuted or killed. Doesn't matter that it's not fair. Apple's stance isn't as black/white, cut/dry as gay rights. But the point is, these guys took the absolutely wrong approach, have made themselves look like fools, and taken away power from people taking the time to properly (e.g. not intentionally sneaking around, which a backdoor switch to violate their terms and conditions is, by definition) try to move through the legal system and make these changes. All Epic has done is made that harder for real champions of Justice to approach in the future. It's the stuff conspiracy theories are made of. They're not standing for rights. They're standing for profits. Nobody's falling for it, especially not the judges.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > They're not standing for rights. They're standing for profits. The entire reason we have a private right of action for firms (rather than just a public right of action) in antitrust law is that actors selfishly standing up for their own profits will incidentally serve the public interest. The law does not rely on or expect litigants (other than those acting in the direct employ of the government) to seek to serve any interest other than their own narrow interests, instead it is (insofar as it seeks to serve a public interest, which is sadly not always the intent of the law to start with) designed to achieve the public interest by shaping private incentives so that the pursuit of private interest itself moves the public interest forward. So, while what you describe in the above quote about Epic is unquestionably true, that's exactly how the law is supposed to work.