6 ms·

The terms also don't define "intellectual property". Or "respect". Or "that". Reasonable belief is a well understood concept. It doesn't need a definition in t

The terms also don't define "intellectual property". Or "respect". Or "that". Reasonable belief is a well understood concept. It doesn't need a definition in the terms of service. A judge reviewing a complaint by a party against Samsung will understand what "reasonable belief" means. > But you still have no digital rights. I think you're confused. It seems like you want Samsung to not have digital rights. You have digital rights, but not to use someone else's system in a manner which they don't want. If they operate a system, they have a right to specify how users can and can't utilize the system. You have the same rights.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
cryptonector 4y ago
The problem here is that due process is extremely expensive to obtain. Let's say you have reverse engineered something, but the IP holder claims you stole it, so the provider shuts you down, and now you're losing money and you have to file a lawsuit in a possibly-hostile, far flung jurisdiction, and it may take weeks to get injunctive relief (if you get it), and months or years to settle the case, and all of this while having lost your income and having to foot hefty legal bills. Few will bother. The effect is chilling. Thus, "reasonable belief", while a legal term of art, is pretty meaningless to users. > It seems like you want Samsung to not have digital rights. I wrote nothing of the sort. But now that you put me on the spot, I'll tell you what I want: either that users get better access to due process, or that common carriers to have less power over what they carry (not zero power, just less), or both. While it's true that there are expensive, abusive users out there, we need to strike a better balance for all the users who aren't.
- googlryas 4y ago
  What would "access to due process" look like to you?
  - cryptonector 4y ago
    Excellent question. First, I'd like users to get a reasonable amount of time to challenge any suspensions or bans before they take effect, using an internal appeals process. Second, I'd like users to get a reasonable amount of time to further appeal lost appeals, again, internally. Thirdly, I'd like there to be some civil and criminal liability for making false reports, and some civil liability for common carriers acting on false reports. I.e., the costs to common carriers of acting rashly should be a great deal greater than they are currently.
    - googlryas 4y ago
      In this system, should Facebook be forced to keep serving child porn, while the child pornographer is going through the internal appeals process?
      - Jiro 4y ago
        The appeals process is what determines that it's child porn. Also, not all of the things described even count as "forced to keep serving child porn". For instance, civil liability for acting on false reports doesn't force Facebook to keep serving child porn.
        googlryas 4y ago
        So a moderator sees a video of 5 year old being raped. Your system needs this content to stay up for a reasonable amount of time for someone to challenge it, and for it to go through an appeals process before the moderator can say that this really is child porn and they can remove the content? I'm responding to this part: > First, I'd like users to get a reasonable amount of time to challenge any suspensions or bans before they take effect, using an internal appeals process
        boondaburrah 4y ago
        I would like to point out that at some point in this debate the goalposts were moved from a civil case to a criminal one, and the liabilities (and harm) are entirely different.
ThrowawayR2 4y ago
> "It seems like you want Samsung to not have digital rights." Never thought I'd see the day people would be arguing vehemently for the rights of multi-billion dollar international conglomerates with an army of highly paid legal staff so that they can arbitrarily mistreat consumers. Has the world gone mad?
- googlryas 4y ago
  But they can't arbitrarily mistreat customers. Which is what the ToS is about. And I'm merely reminding OP that companies, as just a group of people with a common goal, have rights too, because OP seemed to have forgotten that. I'm not out here shouting it in the drive thru line at a Wendy's.
  - cryptonector 4y ago
    > But they can't arbitrarily mistreat customers. Which is what the ToS is about. Users have almost no way to enforce what little the ToSes grant them, and no injunctive relief w/o a great deal of effort beyond the reach of most users. > And I'm merely reminding OP that companies, as just a group of people with a common goal, have rights too, because OP seemed to have forgotten that. Stop ascribing to me things I did not write and about which I've already corrected you. Keep things civil please.
- int_19h 4y ago
  Well, people have been arguing that monopolies benefit consumers for literally decades now. The world has gone mad a long time ago.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

cryptonector 4y ago

The problem here is that due process is extremely expensive to obtain. Let's say you have reverse engineered something, but the IP holder claims you stole it, so the provider shuts you down, and now you're losing money and you have to file a lawsuit in a possibly-hostile, far flung jurisdiction, and it may take weeks to get injunctive relief (if you get it), and months or years to settle the case, and all of this while having lost your income and having to foot hefty legal bills. Few will bother. The effect is chilling. Thus, "reasonable belief", while a legal term of art, is pretty meaningless to users. > It seems like you want Samsung to not have digital rights. I wrote nothing of the sort. But now that you put me on the spot, I'll tell you what I want: either that users get better access to due process, or that common carriers to have less power over what they carry (not zero power, just less), or both. While it's true that there are expensive, abusive users out there, we need to strike a better balance for all the users who aren't.

googlryas 4y ago
What would "access to due process" look like to you?
- cryptonector 4y ago
  Excellent question. First, I'd like users to get a reasonable amount of time to challenge any suspensions or bans before they take effect, using an internal appeals process. Second, I'd like users to get a reasonable amount of time to further appeal lost appeals, again, internally. Thirdly, I'd like there to be some civil and criminal liability for making false reports, and some civil liability for common carriers acting on false reports. I.e., the costs to common carriers of acting rashly should be a great deal greater than they are currently.
  - googlryas 4y ago
    In this system, should Facebook be forced to keep serving child porn, while the child pornographer is going through the internal appeals process?
    - Jiro 4y ago
      The appeals process is what determines that it's child porn. Also, not all of the things described even count as "forced to keep serving child porn". For instance, civil liability for acting on false reports doesn't force Facebook to keep serving child porn.
      - googlryas 4y ago
        So a moderator sees a video of 5 year old being raped. Your system needs this content to stay up for a reasonable amount of time for someone to challenge it, and for it to go through an appeals process before the moderator can say that this really is child porn and they can remove the content? I'm responding to this part: > First, I'd like users to get a reasonable amount of time to challenge any suspensions or bans before they take effect, using an internal appeals process
        boondaburrah 4y ago
        I would like to point out that at some point in this debate the goalposts were moved from a civil case to a criminal one, and the liabilities (and harm) are entirely different.

ThrowawayR2 4y ago

> "It seems like you want Samsung to not have digital rights." Never thought I'd see the day people would be arguing vehemently for the rights of multi-billion dollar international conglomerates with an army of highly paid legal staff so that they can arbitrarily mistreat consumers. Has the world gone mad?

googlryas 4y ago
But they can't arbitrarily mistreat customers. Which is what the ToS is about. And I'm merely reminding OP that companies, as just a group of people with a common goal, have rights too, because OP seemed to have forgotten that. I'm not out here shouting it in the drive thru line at a Wendy's.
- cryptonector 4y ago
  > But they can't arbitrarily mistreat customers. Which is what the ToS is about. Users have almost no way to enforce what little the ToSes grant them, and no injunctive relief w/o a great deal of effort beyond the reach of most users. > And I'm merely reminding OP that companies, as just a group of people with a common goal, have rights too, because OP seemed to have forgotten that. Stop ascribing to me things I did not write and about which I've already corrected you. Keep things civil please.
int_19h 4y ago
Well, people have been arguing that monopolies benefit consumers for literally decades now. The world has gone mad a long time ago.