4 ms·

Lawyers tend to love it when their opponents think they've found a cute legal hack.

by _jal 5y ago

Judgmentality 5y ago
IANAL, but I'm curious if you are. In my experience, lawyers tend to get a lot done by intimidation. Remember all those ridiculous lawsuits from the RIAA over downloading illegal music? Well, it turns out when people actually took them to court they won every time. But people settled out of fear. Sure, if the lawyers are actually trying to do things legally first and adhering to the letter of the law, I'm sure they're happy to have their efforts challenged. But I have never, ever, in my life encountered a lawyer who worked this way (and I have lawyers in my family, I've been to court, I've personally hired several, blah blah blah). I am not saying they don't know the law, but they use their greater knowledge of the law to their advantage. Their goal isn't transparency, it's submission.
- kiba 5y ago
  Actually people lost. But it doesn't matter anyway because the RIAA can't collect it, and the debt was basically the lowest priority.
  - Judgmentality 5y ago
    Do you have a link? I'm trying to dig up stories on it, but it's so stale. As far as I can tell almost everybody settled, and the few that fought in court eventually won. https://www.wired.com/2010/05/riaa-bump/ https://www.wired.com/2010/05/riaa-bump/
    - mentalpiracy 5y ago
      This woman did. https://www.wired.com/2007/10/riaa-jury-finds/ https://www.wired.com/2007/10/riaa-jury-finds/
- _jal 5y ago
  I am not. I work with lots of them. I think we're talking about two different things. Yes, the RIAA was running an intimidation campaign. By and large they didn't care about any particular case. That's quite different than a plaintiff coming at a car manufacturer over sketchy click-wrap agreements.
  - Judgmentality 5y ago
    Your comment was about lawyers. I gave a random anecdote. We're not talking about different things at all, unless your comment was only about specific lawyers which you failed to mention. Anyway, I don't care enough to comment anymore.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - _jal 5y ago
      I'll remember not to care to reply in the first place.
- majormajor 5y ago
  > Remember all those ridiculous lawsuits from the RIAA over downloading illegal music? Well, it turns out when people actually took them to court they won every time. But people settled out of fear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_Inc._v._Thomas-Rasset https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_Inc._v._Thoma... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_v._Tenenbaum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_v._Tenenbaum These were widely covered because most people just settled, and there were high hopes for something putting a damper on the lawsuits... from the page about the second case " It was only the second file-sharing case (after Capitol v. Thomas) to go to verdict in the Recording Industry Association of America's (RIAA) anti-downloading litigation campaign" So 2 for 2 there were found in favor of the RIAA, for huge damages even after appeal. More recently, even ISPs are getting hit hard: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/06/1-billion-piracy-ruling-could-force-isps-to-disconnect-more-internet-users/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/06/1-billion-piracy...
  - at-fates-hands 5y ago
    As I remember those times, they didn't go after people for simply downloading music, they were going after the people who were actively distributing music on file sharing services. There's a much harder burden of proof for the RIAA when they sue people over simply downloading songs or albums when the user can easily make the case for fair use. I mean, how many albums, 8-tracks, cassettes and CD's did you buy of the same artist and album? I know I did it thousands of times. The burden gets a lot easier when you can show the person was actively distributing essentially pirated music to other users - propagating what is by legal definition, illegal activity.
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      > As I remember those times, they didn't go after people for simply downloading music, they were going after the people who were actively distributing music on file sharing services. As I remember, at least some cases were complete BS. Some people hardly knew what file sharing was.
lamontcg 5y ago
Most people don't seem to understand that the laws are interpreted by human beings that have spent their entire lives studying and applying the law. Particularly us geeky folk often seem to think that you can find a buffer overflow exploit in the literal wording of the law and the judge will have to let you go. That usually isn't how it works (although the odd case where someone successfully exploits the actual verbiage in the law tends to make headlines and make it seem like that is how it works).
- jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
  So much this. Judges tend to respond very poorly to "but you didn't say Simon Says" style arguments.
  - numpad0 5y ago
    How can we transform the society to fix that then? /s
    - adrianN 5y ago
      Simple, replace judges with AIs. Possibly on the blockchain. Code is law.
      - jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
        I really hope this is just sarcasm :)
pessimizer 5y ago
That's not a cute legal hack. Not retaining any information that is not useful and has the potential to be incriminating, unless legally required to, is what every smart company or government agency does. You find the relevant laws, then you write a retention policy.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  It's not about information, it's about the user being harassed untill someone clicks "accept" button, which is not compatible with "dealing in good faith" Do you have proof they clicked it, and not their kid? Did they intend to consent, or click the button by accident/ spilled coffee on the touchscreen? How can we trust your code at all, if all users say the rejected the contract multiple times, and you claim they accepted it and you are the one that stands to benefit from their acceptance, maybe you are lying? Maybe your system is unreliable? Is it even legal to use the user's property - i.e. their car - to disturb their peace? If you were to post them a letter, you do it at your expense, but now you are doing it at their expense, they are paying to electricity and data to display those pixels for your benefit.
- watt 5y ago
  Sorry, on who's side are you really on?

Lawyers tend to love it when their opponents think they've found a cute legal hack.

by _jal 5y ago

Lawyers tend to love it when their opponents think they've found a cute legal hack.

IANAL, but I'm curious if you are. In my experience, lawyers tend to get a lot done by intimidation. Remember all those ridiculous lawsuits from the RIAA over downloading illegal music? Well, it turns out when people actually took them to court they won every time. But people settled out of fear. Sure, if the lawyers are actually trying to do things legally first and adhering to the letter of the law, I'm sure they're happy to have their efforts challenged. But I have never, ever, in my life encountered a lawyer who worked this way (and I have lawyers in my family, I've been to court, I've personally hired several, blah blah blah). I am not saying they don't know the law, but they use their greater knowledge of the law to their advantage. Their goal isn't transparency, it's submission.

kiba 5y ago
Actually people lost. But it doesn't matter anyway because the RIAA can't collect it, and the debt was basically the lowest priority.
- Judgmentality 5y ago
  Do you have a link? I'm trying to dig up stories on it, but it's so stale. As far as I can tell almost everybody settled, and the few that fought in court eventually won. https://www.wired.com/2010/05/riaa-bump/ https://www.wired.com/2010/05/riaa-bump/
  - mentalpiracy 5y ago
    This woman did. https://www.wired.com/2007/10/riaa-jury-finds/ https://www.wired.com/2007/10/riaa-jury-finds/
_jal 5y ago
I am not. I work with lots of them. I think we're talking about two different things. Yes, the RIAA was running an intimidation campaign. By and large they didn't care about any particular case. That's quite different than a plaintiff coming at a car manufacturer over sketchy click-wrap agreements.
- Judgmentality 5y ago
  Your comment was about lawyers. I gave a random anecdote. We're not talking about different things at all, unless your comment was only about specific lawyers which you failed to mention. Anyway, I don't care enough to comment anymore.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - _jal 5y ago
    I'll remember not to care to reply in the first place.
majormajor 5y ago
> Remember all those ridiculous lawsuits from the RIAA over downloading illegal music? Well, it turns out when people actually took them to court they won every time. But people settled out of fear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_Inc._v._Thomas-Rasset https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_Inc._v._Thoma... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_v._Tenenbaum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_v._Tenenbaum These were widely covered because most people just settled, and there were high hopes for something putting a damper on the lawsuits... from the page about the second case " It was only the second file-sharing case (after Capitol v. Thomas) to go to verdict in the Recording Industry Association of America's (RIAA) anti-downloading litigation campaign" So 2 for 2 there were found in favor of the RIAA, for huge damages even after appeal. More recently, even ISPs are getting hit hard: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/06/1-billion-piracy-ruling-could-force-isps-to-disconnect-more-internet-users/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/06/1-billion-piracy...
- at-fates-hands 5y ago
  As I remember those times, they didn't go after people for simply downloading music, they were going after the people who were actively distributing music on file sharing services. There's a much harder burden of proof for the RIAA when they sue people over simply downloading songs or albums when the user can easily make the case for fair use. I mean, how many albums, 8-tracks, cassettes and CD's did you buy of the same artist and album? I know I did it thousands of times. The burden gets a lot easier when you can show the person was actively distributing essentially pirated music to other users - propagating what is by legal definition, illegal activity.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > As I remember those times, they didn't go after people for simply downloading music, they were going after the people who were actively distributing music on file sharing services. As I remember, at least some cases were complete BS. Some people hardly knew what file sharing was.

lamontcg 5y ago

Most people don't seem to understand that the laws are interpreted by human beings that have spent their entire lives studying and applying the law. Particularly us geeky folk often seem to think that you can find a buffer overflow exploit in the literal wording of the law and the judge will have to let you go. That usually isn't how it works (although the odd case where someone successfully exploits the actual verbiage in the law tends to make headlines and make it seem like that is how it works).

jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
So much this. Judges tend to respond very poorly to "but you didn't say Simon Says" style arguments.
- numpad0 5y ago
  How can we transform the society to fix that then? /s
  - adrianN 5y ago
    Simple, replace judges with AIs. Possibly on the blockchain. Code is law.
    - jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
      I really hope this is just sarcasm :)

pessimizer 5y ago

That's not a cute legal hack. Not retaining any information that is not useful and has the potential to be incriminating, unless legally required to, is what every smart company or government agency does. You find the relevant laws, then you write a retention policy.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
It's not about information, it's about the user being harassed untill someone clicks "accept" button, which is not compatible with "dealing in good faith" Do you have proof they clicked it, and not their kid? Did they intend to consent, or click the button by accident/ spilled coffee on the touchscreen? How can we trust your code at all, if all users say the rejected the contract multiple times, and you claim they accepted it and you are the one that stands to benefit from their acceptance, maybe you are lying? Maybe your system is unreliable? Is it even legal to use the user's property - i.e. their car - to disturb their peace? If you were to post them a letter, you do it at your expense, but now you are doing it at their expense, they are paying to electricity and data to display those pixels for your benefit.
watt 5y ago
Sorry, on who's side are you really on?