4 ms·

We don’t need more laws. We need to repeal the arbitration act, and let things like this get resolved in court, where we can establish a precedent against this

We don’t need more laws. We need to repeal the arbitration act, and let things like this get resolved in court, where we can establish a precedent against this kind of stuff.

contravariant 2y ago
While we're at it let's get rid of the anti-circumvention part of the DMCA as well.
teeray 2y ago
Yeah, but it is so much work to litigate and it takes so much time, even for small claims. We can’t really expect a reasonable fraction of the owners of these devices to sue Spotify, then maintain the wherewithal to bring that suit to a judgement, then actually collect on it. The other legal mechanism, class actions, often just enrich the lawyers litigating them.
- goodluckchuck 2y ago
  I would tend to disagree about civil litigation being that much work, because it takes far less effort than other approaches when measured by effectiveness. I’ve had situations where I’ve reported crimes to the authorities. Most of the time these reports go ignored. In one major instance they refused to even take a police report. I’ve put cases together will all the evidence needed for a conviction, and only once did they actually arrest the person (and even then adjudication was withheld). So yeah, leaving it up to the government is less work, but there’s a good chance nothing will happen (particularly if they’re not politically aligned on the issue / it would offend donors / etc.). Then when there is a “major” enforcement, it’s usually a slap on the wrist and no the victims get less than they would have from a class action.
micromacrofoot 2y ago
Do you have any reason to believe that "open unsupported hardware" would be a bad law? Resolving this in court every time a company decides to drop support seems worse.
- goodluckchuck 2y ago
  Courts are pretty good at not stirring up unnecessary trouble. So they are currently “resolving” all the many cases where a company dropped support and the customer doesn’t really mind because the device is old. They’re doing a great job resolving this Spotify case where Spotify is offering refunds and people are getting their money back. The vast majority of the time, there’s no need for a lawsuit and everyone works it out… that’s better than statutes which often stir up unnecessary disputes. “Open” “unsupported” hardware would be hard because frankly I don’t know what that means. People who have the Spotify thing are pretty much free to do what they want with it. There are some DRM and anti-circumvention laws… but those are bad laws regardless of whether the device is supported or not. Again, just repeal those statutes as well.
crazygringo 2y ago
No, courts don't just make up precedent out of thin air. Courts follow laws as written, and make decisions and establish precedent whenever laws are vague, in edge cases, or when laws conflict. But for stuff like this new laws are absolutely required. Why would you prefer unelected judges to be making stuff up, instead of democratically elected lawmakers whose literal job it is to decide these kinds of policies with input from constituents?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- School-Cotton 2y ago
  At least in the U.S., I (like most people) trust unelected judges much more than the (quasi-democratically at best) elected legislature.
  - autoexec 2y ago
    I suspect that the more you looked into what specific judges do the less you would trust them. It's rare that a judge gets much media attention outside of major scandals ('cash for kids' for example) and most people would struggle to even name one who wasn't a supreme court justice. We're far more familiar with the shortcomings of our representatives so we're less trusting of them. That doesn't make judges more worthy of trust though.
- throwaway48476 2y ago
  Differences of interpretation effectively are making up precedent. Circuit splits exist because of this.
  - crazygringo 2y ago
    That's what I said -- "whenever laws are vague". And it's not "effectively" -- that's a major part of what precedent is.
    - 2y ago
lupire 2y ago
Arbitration costs Spotify more than the refund. What's wrong with mass arbitration?
- goodluckchuck 2y ago
  Arbitration doesn’t really create precedent. When one person wins a lawsuit, it reduces the cost for all who follow (on the same facts). The evidence gathered in one case can be re-used in another. A million arbitrations means a million arbitrary results, where one claimant doesn’t know what evidence was uncovered in the other cases. Most importantly punitive damages. Arbitrators almost never impose real punishments, which means more companies commit fraud / act maliciously towards customers.
- eadler 2y ago
  https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/problems/#mass-arbitration https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/problems/#mass-arbit... has some details. I also need to some detail about how companies are trying to enforce MDL-like bellwether and mass-arbitration rules in order to further reduce costs and chance of success.

We don’t need more laws. We need to repeal the arbitration act, and let things like this get resolved in court, where we can establish a precedent against this kind of stuff.

contravariant 2y ago

While we're at it let's get rid of the anti-circumvention part of the DMCA as well.

teeray 2y ago

Yeah, but it is so much work to litigate and it takes so much time, even for small claims. We can’t really expect a reasonable fraction of the owners of these devices to sue Spotify, then maintain the wherewithal to bring that suit to a judgement, then actually collect on it. The other legal mechanism, class actions, often just enrich the lawyers litigating them.

goodluckchuck 2y ago
I would tend to disagree about civil litigation being that much work, because it takes far less effort than other approaches when measured by effectiveness. I’ve had situations where I’ve reported crimes to the authorities. Most of the time these reports go ignored. In one major instance they refused to even take a police report. I’ve put cases together will all the evidence needed for a conviction, and only once did they actually arrest the person (and even then adjudication was withheld). So yeah, leaving it up to the government is less work, but there’s a good chance nothing will happen (particularly if they’re not politically aligned on the issue / it would offend donors / etc.). Then when there is a “major” enforcement, it’s usually a slap on the wrist and no the victims get less than they would have from a class action.

micromacrofoot 2y ago

Do you have any reason to believe that "open unsupported hardware" would be a bad law? Resolving this in court every time a company decides to drop support seems worse.

goodluckchuck 2y ago
Courts are pretty good at not stirring up unnecessary trouble. So they are currently “resolving” all the many cases where a company dropped support and the customer doesn’t really mind because the device is old. They’re doing a great job resolving this Spotify case where Spotify is offering refunds and people are getting their money back. The vast majority of the time, there’s no need for a lawsuit and everyone works it out… that’s better than statutes which often stir up unnecessary disputes. “Open” “unsupported” hardware would be hard because frankly I don’t know what that means. People who have the Spotify thing are pretty much free to do what they want with it. There are some DRM and anti-circumvention laws… but those are bad laws regardless of whether the device is supported or not. Again, just repeal those statutes as well.

crazygringo 2y ago

No, courts don't just make up precedent out of thin air. Courts follow laws as written, and make decisions and establish precedent whenever laws are vague, in edge cases, or when laws conflict. But for stuff like this new laws are absolutely required. Why would you prefer unelected judges to be making stuff up, instead of democratically elected lawmakers whose literal job it is to decide these kinds of policies with input from constituents?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
School-Cotton 2y ago
At least in the U.S., I (like most people) trust unelected judges much more than the (quasi-democratically at best) elected legislature.
- autoexec 2y ago
  I suspect that the more you looked into what specific judges do the less you would trust them. It's rare that a judge gets much media attention outside of major scandals ('cash for kids' for example) and most people would struggle to even name one who wasn't a supreme court justice. We're far more familiar with the shortcomings of our representatives so we're less trusting of them. That doesn't make judges more worthy of trust though.
throwaway48476 2y ago
Differences of interpretation effectively are making up precedent. Circuit splits exist because of this.
- crazygringo 2y ago
  That's what I said -- "whenever laws are vague". And it's not "effectively" -- that's a major part of what precedent is.
  - 2y ago

lupire 2y ago

Arbitration costs Spotify more than the refund. What's wrong with mass arbitration?

goodluckchuck 2y ago
Arbitration doesn’t really create precedent. When one person wins a lawsuit, it reduces the cost for all who follow (on the same facts). The evidence gathered in one case can be re-used in another. A million arbitrations means a million arbitrary results, where one claimant doesn’t know what evidence was uncovered in the other cases. Most importantly punitive damages. Arbitrators almost never impose real punishments, which means more companies commit fraud / act maliciously towards customers.
eadler 2y ago
https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/problems/#mass-arbitration https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/problems/#mass-arbit... has some details. I also need to some detail about how companies are trying to enforce MDL-like bellwether and mass-arbitration rules in order to further reduce costs and chance of success.