I don't think that's what they're claiming at all. I think what they're claiming is that it's far easier for individuals to be corrupt if their CEO is similarly corrupt, which is a completely different claim.
As far as I can tell, this can't actually work, because the return type of `fn next(&'a mut self)` should actually live for some lifetime `'b` that is shorter than `'a`, instead of at least as long as `'a`; mostly because `next` borrows `self` mutably.
Because filing that counter-notice requires you to provide personal information, in case the person who filed the original DMCA wants to serve you with a legal notice.
> [...] To be effective, a counter-notice must contain substantially the following information:
> (iv) the user’s name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that the subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located, or if the subscriber’s address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which the service provider may be found, and that the subscriber will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) or an agent of such person.
It'd be interesting if someone set up a series LLC that would stand in for the original user by assignment, fund legal defense as much as the original user is willing to, and would just declare insolvency in the event of a bad judgement.
Sure, but the LLC wouldn't need to know the meatspace identity of the user. And for the LLC management it would be a bona fide arms length business. So the troll would be stuck doing discovery on the online account, which if things were setup correctly (likely for the situations where having to dox yourself is problematic), it wouldn't lead back to the user either.
1. multiple creators assign their works to one LLC. This would probably avoid the piercing the corporate veil problem, but it would be a pretty juicy target for litigators. If they successfully win the lawsuit, they can potentially seize all works that were assigned to it, and take them down or resell them. If this happens to a video you spent weeks working on, I think I'll be pretty pissed.
2. each video/creator assign their works to one LLC. This would avoid the "juicy target" issue described above, but you'll have to be super careful to avoid piercing the corporate veil .
I'm arguing that (2) should be fine. Piercing the veil is only a concern if the managers/owners of the overarching LLC could be found liable. But this would be a bona fide business for them, so why should they? Piercing the veil of an individual series to go after the original uploader would be a definite possibility, but the whole point of this setup is for the original uploader to not have have to dox themselves to file a counterclaim.
Pooling like (1) might be an interesting approach to strengthen things further. You don't need to own a copyright to defend against a copyright claim, so the work merely needs to be licensed to the LLC series. A nontransferrable license to upload a work to a web host has little commercial value. In the worst case, a successful claimant would get the ability to contact webhosts to seize control of other accounts it then owns, and the ability to disrupt defense of other claims by seizing incoming funding. But given how useless such results would be, would it even be worth it for a troll to press that far?
You could add additional interested parties into the mix by playing the public good angle. Donate to this foundation to protect user generated content against SLAPPs, etc.
I can somewhat understand the point of the employees here, but ultimately, I think it's a symptom of a larger problem - of easy propagation misinformation, with very little oversight. When someone makes a veritably false claim, like "they've arrested left-wing people for lighting those forest fires," it is incredibly difficult to retract that statement; and even now, retracting such statements doesn't change the impact the original statement had. People are still going to believe the original statement, regardless of its truth, or they won't see the correction - especially when, in this case, the original audio was not corrected, and the apology issued separately. The original could remain unchallenged in the original audio, and someone who doesn't know the context or follow the content creator may not know that the claim was false - assuming good faith. Or, the clip could be pulled out of context, with no apology or correction, to tout that statement, to push an agenda. So now, even with a veritably false claim, you can potentially demonize the "left-wing people" intentionally or not - and I would argue that the original intention does not matter.
Joe Rogan has been given a platform, and he needs to use it responsibly. I'm still on the fence over whether or not Spotify should enforce that he uses the platform responsibly. When do you draw the line? At what point does his right to use Spotify as a platform outweigh the consequences of using the platform irresponsibly, potentially - or indirectly - causing harm? Inviting guests that promote transphobic onto his platform seems innocent enough, but transphobia is a major issue contesting the country, even ignoring veritably false claims being made about transpeople, and people have died over this conflict. If the platform is used irresponsibly, and veritably false information is propagated by the guest on his platform, is Joe Rogan responsible for that? What if that misinformation is what causes someone to commit a crime against transpeople? At what point should Joe Rogan, the one who promoted misinformation on a platform he controls, and that many people listen to, be held responsible for the consequences of what (and how) he disseminates to the people? Does his right to say false things outweigh the right of others to live without fear or persecution?
I have yet to come up with an answer, because I don't know what the best solution is yet.
"Does his right to say false things outweigh the right of others to live without fear or persecution"
No one has granted a right to live without fear. Fear is an emotional response.
I don't think a general non-persecution right exists.
A right to free speech exists from government persecution. A right to be treated equally based on gender exists at the government level.
The key point is spofity has a right to offer Joe money to use their platforms. Employees who disagree based on politics and threaten to quit working is new. If the company decides to replace them I don't believe they are in a legal position to strike.
> I don't think a general non-persecution right exists.
Yes, and no; one can be criticized for membership of a social group, but when people take action against the social group, I believe that can start to step into the territory of hate crimes, but I don't know if I'd consider that implying a right.
> The key point is spofity has a right to offer Joe money to use their platforms. Employees who disagree based on politics and threaten to quit working is new. If the company decides to replace them I don't believe they are in a legal position to strike.
This, I agree with. My original post was about the morals of the move, both on Spotify's part, and the Employees' part, but I have very little doubt about the legal aspect of it.
Spotify can offer Joe Rogan money. The employees can protest this. Spotify can perform editorial control. The question is, should they?
If the employees are protesting in good faith and not employing violence to coerce their employer, why shouldn't they?
If Spotify feels editorial control is in their business interests, and it doesn't violate their contract with Joe Rogan, why shouldn't they exercise it?
It's odd that so many people are complaining so vehemently about a situation in which the rights that Hacker News usually considers sacrosanct - voluntary contracts, capitalism and free speech, are not actually being undermined.
If spotify management wishes to end an agreement with Joe they will. Why should spotify management end that agreement? Because a group of employees want it?
Let's say that happens. But another group of employees may feel the opposite and start protesting for Joe. Now what do you?
>Let's say that happens. But another group of employees may feel the opposite and start protesting for Joe. Now what do you?
There's no obligation that Spotify management consider or concede to all future employee demands if they choose to consider or concede to any group's demands in the present. They'll do whatever makes the best business sense to them at the time, which today might mean breaking this agreement, and tomorrow might mean defending another one.
> Employees who disagree based on politics and threaten to quit working is new
labour strikes have existed for decades. Primarily for better working conditions of course, but also environmental issues or equal civil rights and so on.
What's new isn't that employees use their bargaining power for political or social causes, it's that they have more success with it in tech or other knowledge sectors. That's a function of there being relatively few workers. The managerial and professional class has become aware of the fact that they're hard to replace, and employers actually can't fire them all, in other words the top 15% have figured out that they don't actually share any goals with the top 0.1% percent, but that they're in quite a unique position to demand what they think is right.
“Given” a platform? Spotify is a downgrade from the reach he had before; Spotify paid for The Joe Rogan Experience, with terms, in order to expand their audience and you don’t think they might want to preserve what they paid for? The solution is probably to not tell other people how to live their lives and what to do with their businesses. A controversial proposition these days, I know.
Whether or not Spotify is a downgrade is not the point here; the point is that Joe Rogan has a platform that allows him to propagate his message to the mass, and that Spotify has a role in that. That is all. The same could be said if he was uploading videos to YouTube, or hosting a website. At some point, some company helped him disseminate the message he wanted to spread - in the case of hosting a website, for example, a hosting provider, or a domain name service, or an ISP. I think it's nonsensical and potentially dangerous to say an ISP is responsible for what Joe Rogan has said, but on the other end of the spectrum, YouTube or Spotify has to do some sort of filtering on the content they help disseminate. How should they decide, then?
The problem with the latter part of your comment is that it assumes that everyone lives on separate islands, and that what one person does has no impact on the other people around them. It does. It's alright to say that we shouldn't dictate peoples lives or businesses, but there's a point that that breaks down - if we can't dictate people's lives, why do we jail people?
We don’t have laws to dictate people’s lives; we have laws to hold people to a standard and clarify process. This has nothing to do with law though, this is an internal dispute in a private organization that certainly has no business telling others how to live, in particular the guy they signed on to help expand their audience and their corporation’s paying customers.
The contract between Spotify and Joe Rogan represents a consensual trade: money for exclusive distribution of The Joe Rogan Experience. YouTube choosing to host The Joe Rogan Experience prior to this was also a trade of sorts, both made money from the arrangement, but it was a bit less airtight because YouTube has and does try to present itself as a platform just about anyone can publish on and doesn’t often make these deals. The distribution wasn’t the especially valuable part though, it was the man himself and the show Joe put together. Spotify didn’t approach Joe with a dump truck full of money to serve as Joe’s neutral platform of choice wherein Joe will follow all the same platform policies as the other shows. They approached Joe with a dump truck full of money because that was how much they valued him and the show he put together and he didn’t do anything that especially offended them (where “them” would be the people that own and control Spotify).
I don’t want to tell you what to do with your life, but I prefer to tend to my own garden before worrying about the state of another’s for I find that the sorts of people that tell others how they should live are charlatans keeping their own unkempt gardens out of sight. Nobody can nor has the moral right to control the actions of another.
The purpose of `chain_err` here is to add on top of the previous error, to explain what you were trying to do, instead of passing up the previous error (in this case, `std::num::ParseIntError`).
If you don't like that, you can do something like this:
use std::boxed::Box;
use std::error::Error;
fn some_func(v: &str) -> Result<u32, Box<Error>> {
v.parse::<u32>().map_err(|e| Box::new(e))
}
TC39 is the standard body for ECMAScript, which JavaScript implements. smoosh was a proposed alternative name (see: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-flatMap/pull/56) for flatten (and smooshMap for flatMap) due to incompatibilities with older libraries (namely, Mootools).
