3 ms·

Fwiw, you sue in public courts where Google loses by default if they don't appear. Google does not yet run its own parallel court system and star chamber. EDIT

Fwiw, you sue in public courts where Google loses by default if they don't appear. Google does not yet run its own parallel court system and star chamber. EDIT: On second thought, if their services require binding arbitration, they do. Arbitration in contracts of adhesion should be flatly illegal.

jessaustin 6y ago
Would a copyright owner who doesn't use YouTube be subject to such binding arbitration? Presumably such an owner could hire a third party to discover hypothetically infringing content?
- tehjoker 6y ago
  All parties involved would have to have agreed in writing to binding arbitration, so yes any non-party can do whatever they want. EDIT: IANAL and this is not financial advice. ;)
hellbannedguy 6y ago
I don’t think people realize how companies/people use binding arbitration to their advantage? These companies pay the arbitrators. It’s usually done by mail, and their usually is no investigation into your case. The little guy wins only in egregious situations, and I have never met anyone who won especially going up against a big company? I get arbitration agreements for small companies, but not for huge monopolies, and scummy high interest rate card it cards. I had a run in with Columbia Credit Services, and still have a judgement following me over a credit card. Someone decided to look into the arbitration process of this company, and something like 99.9 percent of the time the customer lost. Even hired process servers whom would lie about serving the papers. All over a credit card sent in the mail. (Judgements last 10 years, and can be renewed. They tick away at 10% per year, if the creditor can’t immediately your life miserable, and take your stuff with a warrant.)
- tehjoker 6y ago
  I think it can be okay with companies large or small if the contract is something that is negotiated with real opportunity for making changes like removing such agreements. Arbitration when done with the real consent of both parties and with the choice of a neutral party that isn't expecting more business from one of them can save time and money. However, it's tyrannical for both large and small companies to just force these things on people regardless of how vulnerable their business model is. I'd note that it has never occurred to me that arbitration would ever have been in my own interest.

jessaustin 6y ago

Would a copyright owner who doesn't use YouTube be subject to such binding arbitration? Presumably such an owner could hire a third party to discover hypothetically infringing content?

tehjoker 6y ago
All parties involved would have to have agreed in writing to binding arbitration, so yes any non-party can do whatever they want. EDIT: IANAL and this is not financial advice. ;)

hellbannedguy 6y ago

I don’t think people realize how companies/people use binding arbitration to their advantage? These companies pay the arbitrators. It’s usually done by mail, and their usually is no investigation into your case. The little guy wins only in egregious situations, and I have never met anyone who won especially going up against a big company? I get arbitration agreements for small companies, but not for huge monopolies, and scummy high interest rate card it cards. I had a run in with Columbia Credit Services, and still have a judgement following me over a credit card. Someone decided to look into the arbitration process of this company, and something like 99.9 percent of the time the customer lost. Even hired process servers whom would lie about serving the papers. All over a credit card sent in the mail. (Judgements last 10 years, and can be renewed. They tick away at 10% per year, if the creditor can’t immediately your life miserable, and take your stuff with a warrant.)

tehjoker 6y ago
I think it can be okay with companies large or small if the contract is something that is negotiated with real opportunity for making changes like removing such agreements. Arbitration when done with the real consent of both parties and with the choice of a neutral party that isn't expecting more business from one of them can save time and money. However, it's tyrannical for both large and small companies to just force these things on people regardless of how vulnerable their business model is. I'd note that it has never occurred to me that arbitration would ever have been in my own interest.