My pay went from $240k to $0(mstdn.social)
mstdn.social
My pay went from $240k to $0
https://mstdn.social/@Devilstower/110299576469326182
188 comments
For me, the most frustrating part of our legal system is the bastardization of jury trials.
The entire point of a jury trial is to let a group of peers decide whether they were willing to punish a citizen for the crime they were committed of. Laws come down to moral opinion, and jury trials are a way for the public to answer the question of what the general moral opinion of the time is. The jury decides (a) was a law broken, (b) dotthey agree with the law, and (c) are they willing to punish someone for it. This creates case law and ultimately should impact laws on the books - if people continue to acquit convictions because the crime isn't worth punishing, eventually the law should be changed.
Instead lawyers and judges have done an extremely effective job flipping the tables and telling juries their only job is to read a list of laws the court deemed relevant, hear evidence the court deemed important, and decide if the logic between fact and law holds true. Juries are pushed to consider only the statutes in question as written and aren't expected or asked to consider for themselves if the crime is something they even think matters.
The entire point of a jury trial is to let a group of peers decide whether they were willing to punish a citizen for the crime they were committed of. Laws come down to moral opinion, and jury trials are a way for the public to answer the question of what the general moral opinion of the time is. The jury decides (a) was a law broken, (b) dotthey agree with the law, and (c) are they willing to punish someone for it. This creates case law and ultimately should impact laws on the books - if people continue to acquit convictions because the crime isn't worth punishing, eventually the law should be changed.
Instead lawyers and judges have done an extremely effective job flipping the tables and telling juries their only job is to read a list of laws the court deemed relevant, hear evidence the court deemed important, and decide if the logic between fact and law holds true. Juries are pushed to consider only the statutes in question as written and aren't expected or asked to consider for themselves if the crime is something they even think matters.
Interesting. If you google "jury nullification", google provides a helpful "answer" at the very top
> There is no such thing as valid jury nullification[.] You would violate your oath and the law if you willfully brought a verdict contrary to the law given to you in this case.
However, the link this is sourced from paints a very different picture. Right after those two sentences, the source says:
> the Kleinman court found [these] two sentences to be error because they suggested that nullification could be punished and that an acquittal resulting from nullification would be invalid.
Seems google didn't do a good job at providing a helpful summary of jury nullification.
> There is no such thing as valid jury nullification[.] You would violate your oath and the law if you willfully brought a verdict contrary to the law given to you in this case.
However, the link this is sourced from paints a very different picture. Right after those two sentences, the source says:
> the Kleinman court found [these] two sentences to be error because they suggested that nullification could be punished and that an acquittal resulting from nullification would be invalid.
Seems google didn't do a good job at providing a helpful summary of jury nullification.
Lawyers I know are very anti jury nullification and they claim it's for well rationed reasons (that I don't recall) and not just group think in that it makes the lives of lawyers more difficult. I tend to want to believe them, but at the same time find our justice and punishment system horrific and sort of don't care if JN isn't ~theoretically~ the best thing to do in our legal system
JN is an escape hatch, similar to those built into programming tools.
You really cannot and should not take away the ability of people to step back from a situation and realize the the law, when applied, leads to a perverse outcome that is truly abhorrent. The jury is how you factor in a "gut check" into your system.
To be sure, this can fail. You get a bunch of jurors who are ignorant or evil in a coherent way, who decide to ignore the law and effectively lynch a man because he's black or back up the school administrator who wants to teach creationism or Jewish space lasers or whatever. Personally, I think that's an acceptable risk, in part because if you take the application of the law away from sentimental flawed rational animals you have to give it to someone else - someone (or something) with power and sitting in the seat of authority. In a sense one way to characterize democracy is as a constant struggle between jury (electorate) and judge (political leader). The way the jury system is supposed to work, the fact it was written into the Constitution, is indeed very important and I'm glad for this sub-thread is talking about it.
To be sure, this can fail. You get a bunch of jurors who are ignorant or evil in a coherent way, who decide to ignore the law and effectively lynch a man because he's black or back up the school administrator who wants to teach creationism or Jewish space lasers or whatever. Personally, I think that's an acceptable risk, in part because if you take the application of the law away from sentimental flawed rational animals you have to give it to someone else - someone (or something) with power and sitting in the seat of authority. In a sense one way to characterize democracy is as a constant struggle between jury (electorate) and judge (political leader). The way the jury system is supposed to work, the fact it was written into the Constitution, is indeed very important and I'm glad for this sub-thread is talking about it.
I agree. The discussion has merit.
I hate to say it, but there are times when something is illegal, but the scenario challenges that in a super compelling way. JN both brings that to light and gives a jury that opportunity to support an actor who has a valid basis for their actions.
I feel similar dynamics surround mandatory sentencing.
I hate to say it, but there are times when something is illegal, but the scenario challenges that in a super compelling way. JN both brings that to light and gives a jury that opportunity to support an actor who has a valid basis for their actions.
I feel similar dynamics surround mandatory sentencing.
Yeh I mean as a general rule, probably don't read algorithmically-generated summaries of any content, ever. It's never going to be a good idea to rely on software to try to contextualize human-written text. Unless you like arbitrary falsehoods and misinformation sprinkled into half of your beliefs/thoughts, I guess.
The error is not that someone read what google presented. The error is that google presented something wrong.
Yeah agree with sibling comment: both. Never trust a machine, an algorithm, a piece of software. Maybe unless it has been built to extremely stringent specifications that are publicly available and verifiable -- which is blatantly not the case for proprietary closed-source search engines.
Both?
I'm not a lawyer (would love to hear a more professional take) but I think this is vaguely related to the Common Law vs Roman Law divide. The main difference is how they handle ambiguity in the law:
Common (US, UK): research past cases -> argue based on precedent -> build new precedent
Roman (most of Continental Europe): research law -> argue based on law -> amend laws to avoid ambiguity
Under Roman Law precedent plays a much smaller role. This also means there's a lot less riding on any given case, since judges aren't bound to follow the decisions of past courts. What comes along with it is a need for very clean cut laws.
They accomplish mostly the same thing, with the critical difference that under common law you need ready access to past case law to have any fighting chance. Unfortunately, while technically public information, most good case law databases are behind very expensive subscription fees that only make sense if you're a lawyer.
So my take (again, not a lawyer, would love to hear how this picture is incomplete or outright wrong) is that the US legal system will remain biased against the poor until there's either:
- heavy public investment in free case law databases, or
- a shift toward a less ambiguous legal code (i.e. Roman Law) which is comprehensible to ordinary people
Common (US, UK): research past cases -> argue based on precedent -> build new precedent
Roman (most of Continental Europe): research law -> argue based on law -> amend laws to avoid ambiguity
Under Roman Law precedent plays a much smaller role. This also means there's a lot less riding on any given case, since judges aren't bound to follow the decisions of past courts. What comes along with it is a need for very clean cut laws.
They accomplish mostly the same thing, with the critical difference that under common law you need ready access to past case law to have any fighting chance. Unfortunately, while technically public information, most good case law databases are behind very expensive subscription fees that only make sense if you're a lawyer.
So my take (again, not a lawyer, would love to hear how this picture is incomplete or outright wrong) is that the US legal system will remain biased against the poor until there's either:
- heavy public investment in free case law databases, or
- a shift toward a less ambiguous legal code (i.e. Roman Law) which is comprehensible to ordinary people
The two systems may accomplish much the same thing, but over the years I've come to realize how much the divide between Common vs Roman law influences not only the respective legal frameworks but the political systems right down to things like personal, life philosophy. But the distinction is rarely discussed, and the situation across Europe is not helped by everyone thinking we must have a Common law system (since that's what we see on TV).
It probably like discussing Arsenal vs Liverpool to try and compare the two systems; one tends to like the home team. But since you extoll the virtues of Roman law I have to submit: it is in my view afflicted by some variant of naïve realism [0], the notion that one can capture the many-faceted reality in script, and then apply it across board. There is very little room for interpretation regarding the circumstances: the rules rule. Which can lead to absurd situations in the extreme, i.e. the case where a bus driver was deemed to be in the right (followed the rules) when he dumped a 6-year old in the middle of no-where because he didn't have a ticket (example from Sweden). In that regard a Common law system is preferable in my view.
But in all honesty, both systems are imperfect, and would probably benefit from some sort of blending. And yea - perhaps not so lawyer dependent.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism_(psychology...
It probably like discussing Arsenal vs Liverpool to try and compare the two systems; one tends to like the home team. But since you extoll the virtues of Roman law I have to submit: it is in my view afflicted by some variant of naïve realism [0], the notion that one can capture the many-faceted reality in script, and then apply it across board. There is very little room for interpretation regarding the circumstances: the rules rule. Which can lead to absurd situations in the extreme, i.e. the case where a bus driver was deemed to be in the right (followed the rules) when he dumped a 6-year old in the middle of no-where because he didn't have a ticket (example from Sweden). In that regard a Common law system is preferable in my view.
But in all honesty, both systems are imperfect, and would probably benefit from some sort of blending. And yea - perhaps not so lawyer dependent.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism_(psychology...
No one likes "rules are rules" as justification. But, (again, not a lawyer) you also get some equally absurd situations with the "precedent is precedent (as long as you can afford a lawyer to establish it)" situation in the US.
I really don't mean to imply that one system is better than the other. My point is that they both suck in different ways, and they both need to be fixed in different ways. You treat any social system like a machine and people will get caught in the gears.
I really don't mean to imply that one system is better than the other. My point is that they both suck in different ways, and they both need to be fixed in different ways. You treat any social system like a machine and people will get caught in the gears.
Precedent can be weaponized also. That's why corporations are currently given the same legal rights as 'people'. This wasn't the original intention.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2018/03/corpora...
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2018/03/corpora...
> Juries are pushed to consider only the statutes in question as written and aren't expected or asked to consider for themselves if the crime is something they even think matters.
Doing otherwise is known as nullification and you'll never sit on a jury if you even imply you know such a thing exists. Here's Paul Newman's character in the The Verdict arguing for it though:
https://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechth...
(The movie is well worth watching and pairs well with 12 Angry Men, both directed by Sidney Lumet.)
Doing otherwise is known as nullification and you'll never sit on a jury if you even imply you know such a thing exists. Here's Paul Newman's character in the The Verdict arguing for it though:
https://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechth...
(The movie is well worth watching and pairs well with 12 Angry Men, both directed by Sidney Lumet.)
Its lower on my list of complaints of the legal system, but I also don't like the jury selection process itself. Juries are meant to be a random sampling of peers in the community, jury selection gamifies that process and muddied the water.
A random selection of citizens can get 12 KKK members on the jury for the murder of a black man. I mean this isn't just supposed to be mob rule, this is supposed to be impartial people applying the established law. The input for opinion comes when voting for the legislature.
It sure can, the legal system will never be perfect though I'd seriously question where you live if there's any feasible chance of randomly selecting an entire jury of KKK members
What is the point of a jury in your opinion, if not to act as a check on the legal system itself? If all we want is a list of the current laws as written and someone to compare evidence against it as a checklist, why bother adding potential inaccuracies by asking a jury of people who aren't trained in the law?
What is the point of a jury in your opinion, if not to act as a check on the legal system itself? If all we want is a list of the current laws as written and someone to compare evidence against it as a checklist, why bother adding potential inaccuracies by asking a jury of people who aren't trained in the law?
> What is the point of a jury in your opinion, if not to act as a check on the legal system itself?
The check on the legal system is appealing to the higher courts. They can strike down laws that are against the constitution. Trials aren't referendums.
> If all we want is a list of the current laws as written and someone to compare evidence against it as a checklist, why bother adding potential inaccuracies by asking a jury of people who aren't trained in the law?
To avoid the consolidation of power in the hands of a few deciders. Especially as the deciders may come from a certain section of society (eg upper-class educated, and thus may unduly disregard the poor) they may have incentives or biases or connections that may influence their impartiality of their evaluation.
The check on the legal system is appealing to the higher courts. They can strike down laws that are against the constitution. Trials aren't referendums.
> If all we want is a list of the current laws as written and someone to compare evidence against it as a checklist, why bother adding potential inaccuracies by asking a jury of people who aren't trained in the law?
To avoid the consolidation of power in the hands of a few deciders. Especially as the deciders may come from a certain section of society (eg upper-class educated, and thus may unduly disregard the poor) they may have incentives or biases or connections that may influence their impartiality of their evaluation.
(related to the thread linked by a sibling post as well)
> To avoid the consolidation of power in the hands of a few deciders
Without jury nullification, I'm not quite sure how a jury actually avoids this. If the model is that the jury is tasked specifically and exclusively with listening to the specific laws deemed relevant by the lawyers, hear the evidence, and determine whether the combination of the two justify the charges then an unskilled jury is a risk. A seasoned judge would have a better ability to parse the case law and evidence to make this determination.
Without giving the jury the responsibility to deviate from what may technically have been a crime, why are they there? Do they really have a better skillet to determine whether the evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt that the law(a) were broken?
> To avoid the consolidation of power in the hands of a few deciders
Without jury nullification, I'm not quite sure how a jury actually avoids this. If the model is that the jury is tasked specifically and exclusively with listening to the specific laws deemed relevant by the lawyers, hear the evidence, and determine whether the combination of the two justify the charges then an unskilled jury is a risk. A seasoned judge would have a better ability to parse the case law and evidence to make this determination.
Without giving the jury the responsibility to deviate from what may technically have been a crime, why are they there? Do they really have a better skillet to determine whether the evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt that the law(a) were broken?
> A seasoned judge would have a better ability to parse the case law and evidence to make this determination.
In many places the accused has the right to request a trial by judge. This can be done if, for example, the charges are so shocking that the accused feels that a juror cannot be trusted to be impartial.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bench_trial
In many places the accused has the right to request a trial by judge. This can be done if, for example, the charges are so shocking that the accused feels that a juror cannot be trusted to be impartial.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bench_trial
I appreciate you talking the time to share your thoughts here, by the way. This is a tricky subject and one that I've seen devolve into really unhelpful arguments, I'm genuinely curious to learn more about how other people view the problems in our legal system and how they think it should work
Hey, we were having a similar convo on a different sub-thread and in one comment I addressed these concerns: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35817197
The (even) bigger problem is that almost no one gets a jury trial these days.
From memory, 96% of cases are decided by plea bargaining.
From memory, 96% of cases are decided by plea bargaining.
98% of people currently incarcerated in the U.S. have not had a trial. In fact, around 25% of them haven't even been convicted of a crime as they're being held in pre-trial detention (usually a misnomer because, as mentioned, most of them will make a plea bargain before going to trial.)
This website has a really great visualisation of the U.S. prison population: https://mkorostoff.github.io/incarceration-in-real-numbers/
And see here for its sources: https://github.com/MKorostoff/incarceration-in-real-numbers/...
This website has a really great visualisation of the U.S. prison population: https://mkorostoff.github.io/incarceration-in-real-numbers/
And see here for its sources: https://github.com/MKorostoff/incarceration-in-real-numbers/...
Think plea bargaining is just the US?
Where else is it used? In some countries it’s considered a human rights violation because of the asymmetry of power.
The site that I linked to in my other comment [0] claims that "No other country [than the USA] on earth incarcerates so many people without trial. While many countries around the world have rushed to adopt American style plea bargaining in recent years, not a single one uses it for such a large portion of cases."
If you follow the sources it takes you to this 80-page report, which I haven't read, but I assume the numbers are in there: https://www.fairtrials.org/articles/publications/the-disappe...
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35814578
If you follow the sources it takes you to this 80-page report, which I haven't read, but I assume the numbers are in there: https://www.fairtrials.org/articles/publications/the-disappe...
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35814578
> if people continue to acquit convictions because the crime isn't worth punishing, eventually the law should be changed
That idea kinda falls apart on areas that are or were particularly racist. When folks were consistently getting away with all sorts of crimes because of the color of their skin and consistent color of their victim's skin, deriving law from "the general moral opinion of the time" doesn't work.
That idea kinda falls apart on areas that are or were particularly racist. When folks were consistently getting away with all sorts of crimes because of the color of their skin and consistent color of their victim's skin, deriving law from "the general moral opinion of the time" doesn't work.
Oh I'm in no way trying to imply that the legal system is unbiased or could be simply by juries approaching trials differently.
As far as I see it, laws are entirely based on moral opinion and that itself is always going to be biased. The best we could do is have a set of laws that represents the majority moral opinion for any topic codified into law (or don't have the law at all). History is is full of examples where the majority moral opinion was bigoted, unfortunately.
As far as I see it, laws are entirely based on moral opinion and that itself is always going to be biased. The best we could do is have a set of laws that represents the majority moral opinion for any topic codified into law (or don't have the law at all). History is is full of examples where the majority moral opinion was bigoted, unfortunately.
Jury nullification doesn’t exactly have a spotless history. Although I do agree with the sentiment.
The legal system itself doesn't have a spotless history.
I just don't see the point in a hurry trial if we aren't asking representatives of the community to weigh in on the law and punishment itself. If all we want is a system where legal statues are presented and evidence is compared against it, we really don't need a jury at all and might as well let the judge or OpenAI decide on what if basically boiled down to a mathematical equation.
I just don't see the point in a hurry trial if we aren't asking representatives of the community to weigh in on the law and punishment itself. If all we want is a system where legal statues are presented and evidence is compared against it, we really don't need a jury at all and might as well let the judge or OpenAI decide on what if basically boiled down to a mathematical equation.
While I appreciate the thought, it seems unrealistic.
> I'd like to see short contracts, arbitration, and reasonable support for pro se representation in court
The problem is in "short contracts". Short contracts are only helpful when both sides are "willing to work together" and the "spirit" of the contract is friendly. An example is a YC term sheet compared to Business Loan contract.
Once you get into an us vs them, you better hope your contract spells out exactly what happens to you and that it is in your favor.
If the contract is short, it leaves a lot of details open ended and all of a sudden interpretation sets in, "spirit of contract" sets in and the judge becomes the arbiter of how your contract gets decided. Better hope that particular judge likes you.
Instead of hoping that the judge/jury likes you, which is a game of dice, you write it into the contract up front and thusly we're back at complex, lawyer ridden contracts.
> I'd like to see short contracts, arbitration, and reasonable support for pro se representation in court
The problem is in "short contracts". Short contracts are only helpful when both sides are "willing to work together" and the "spirit" of the contract is friendly. An example is a YC term sheet compared to Business Loan contract.
Once you get into an us vs them, you better hope your contract spells out exactly what happens to you and that it is in your favor.
If the contract is short, it leaves a lot of details open ended and all of a sudden interpretation sets in, "spirit of contract" sets in and the judge becomes the arbiter of how your contract gets decided. Better hope that particular judge likes you.
Instead of hoping that the judge/jury likes you, which is a game of dice, you write it into the contract up front and thusly we're back at complex, lawyer ridden contracts.
The problem is courts falsely find that there was a meeting of the minds when a corporation with a legal team writing a 15 page agreement even when they are contracting with someone that has a 5th grade reading level.
If courts were strict about limiting the ability of those with legal representation to write advantageous terms that give them advantage over those without council, there wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue.
If courts were strict about limiting the ability of those with legal representation to write advantageous terms that give them advantage over those without council, there wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue.
They are pretty strict about what can be in employment contracts, particularly in states like NY and CA.
The contract at issue here wasn't an employment contract, it was a copyright license. That license was likely written with lawyers on both sides and clients who are informed about the tradeoffs.
The contract at issue here wasn't an employment contract, it was a copyright license. That license was likely written with lawyers on both sides and clients who are informed about the tradeoffs.
This is largely true of contracts that are wide spread enough where it affects a non trivial amount of the general public.
Housing loans, standard employment contracts, car loans, etc.
Housing loans, standard employment contracts, car loans, etc.
I understand the sentiment and agree with it, but I think you have the cause backwards.
It's not so much that lawyers win when people fight, the problem is lawyers.
It's that people fight. The problem is people.
And life is complicated, so when people fight, all of the simplification you desire - short contracts, arbitration, support for people to represent themselves - will very quickly succumb to the myriad of edge cases life will throw at it. So over time, you'll get complicated long contracts and complex procedural dispute resolution processes, requiring someone with specialised, deep knowledge of the process and precedents and who will advocate on your behalf, for a fee.
You know, lawyers.
People fight. That's why lawyers win.
It's not so much that lawyers win when people fight, the problem is lawyers.
It's that people fight. The problem is people.
And life is complicated, so when people fight, all of the simplification you desire - short contracts, arbitration, support for people to represent themselves - will very quickly succumb to the myriad of edge cases life will throw at it. So over time, you'll get complicated long contracts and complex procedural dispute resolution processes, requiring someone with specialised, deep knowledge of the process and precedents and who will advocate on your behalf, for a fee.
You know, lawyers.
People fight. That's why lawyers win.
You have to be joking if you don't think arbitration is a massive gift to moneyed interests. Why are they all cramming it down everyone's throat if not?
This depends on the arbitration.
An example of pro-consumer arbitration is the Tenancy Deposit Scheme in the UK. All tenancy deposits must be either stored with the UK-wide scheme, or at least insured by the scheme (at the landlord's expense). This is a non-governmental body, but use of it is mandated by legislation.
When it comes time to get your deposit back, if the landlord decides to keep some, the tenant can challenge that, and what happens is essentially just arbitration. It doesn't go to court, it's decided by the TDS.
The benefits are that the whole process is designed around deposit resolution, so it's much more streamlined than going to court. Also it doesn't require any outlay by either side to initiate a challenge, so it's effectively free. Both of these are much better for tenants and indeed for many landlords than navigating a costly court process.
The TDS happens to be considered very pro-tenant, but ultimately this is just perception. I strongly suspect that the only reason it is considered so is because landlords tend to over-state damage or attempt to keep deposits for unreasonable things, and therefore the TDS ends up siding with the tenants more (I've heard ~80% anecdotally).
Is there any difference here? I guess it's government mandated and funded by mandated fees, rather than needing to appeal to or sell to companies, and therefore the incentive structure is better?
An example of pro-consumer arbitration is the Tenancy Deposit Scheme in the UK. All tenancy deposits must be either stored with the UK-wide scheme, or at least insured by the scheme (at the landlord's expense). This is a non-governmental body, but use of it is mandated by legislation.
When it comes time to get your deposit back, if the landlord decides to keep some, the tenant can challenge that, and what happens is essentially just arbitration. It doesn't go to court, it's decided by the TDS.
The benefits are that the whole process is designed around deposit resolution, so it's much more streamlined than going to court. Also it doesn't require any outlay by either side to initiate a challenge, so it's effectively free. Both of these are much better for tenants and indeed for many landlords than navigating a costly court process.
The TDS happens to be considered very pro-tenant, but ultimately this is just perception. I strongly suspect that the only reason it is considered so is because landlords tend to over-state damage or attempt to keep deposits for unreasonable things, and therefore the TDS ends up siding with the tenants more (I've heard ~80% anecdotally).
Is there any difference here? I guess it's government mandated and funded by mandated fees, rather than needing to appeal to or sell to companies, and therefore the incentive structure is better?
That seems more like a government agency whereas arbitration is usually a privately-run system and, yes, the incentive structures are bad because often the company is paying for it. It also negates the possibility of class-action suits, which are the only reasonable way anyone can get slapped for small harms to many people.
In this case the TDS is a private, for-profit company. They are also paid for by landlords.
The difference is that the government requires that landlords use them, they don't have a choice, and I believe TDS is under contract from the govt so is incentivised to effectively implement the legislation, not to pander to landlords.
> It also negates the possibility of class-action suits, which are the only reasonable way anyone can get slapped for small harms to many people.
If the arbitration is effective then this would be unnecessary though. I'm not saying that arbitration is always, or even often good, but I don't think it's by-definition a bad idea, and I think TDS is a great example of where it can be quite pro-consumer.
Another pro-consumer idea is small-claims courts. They typically have a small fixed fee, explicitly don't require a lawyer for the claimant and have processes designed to be manageable by non-lawyers, and usually claim back the fee if the claimant wins. This would also make class-action lawsuits unnecessary.
Stepping back a bit... I think this might all be being viewed from a US-focused lens where class-action suits are the only option, small claims courts are less effective, and arbitration is near universally poorly implemented. This isn't how it needs to be though, and many countries make these concepts work fine and don't need to rely on things like class-action lawsuits (I'm not even sure we have them in the UK).
The difference is that the government requires that landlords use them, they don't have a choice, and I believe TDS is under contract from the govt so is incentivised to effectively implement the legislation, not to pander to landlords.
> It also negates the possibility of class-action suits, which are the only reasonable way anyone can get slapped for small harms to many people.
If the arbitration is effective then this would be unnecessary though. I'm not saying that arbitration is always, or even often good, but I don't think it's by-definition a bad idea, and I think TDS is a great example of where it can be quite pro-consumer.
Another pro-consumer idea is small-claims courts. They typically have a small fixed fee, explicitly don't require a lawyer for the claimant and have processes designed to be manageable by non-lawyers, and usually claim back the fee if the claimant wins. This would also make class-action lawsuits unnecessary.
Stepping back a bit... I think this might all be being viewed from a US-focused lens where class-action suits are the only option, small claims courts are less effective, and arbitration is near universally poorly implemented. This isn't how it needs to be though, and many countries make these concepts work fine and don't need to rely on things like class-action lawsuits (I'm not even sure we have them in the UK).
I'm less familiar with other countries' systems, of course, but, for instance, if I get ripped off for $15, it's hardly worth even taking a day off of work to go pursue that. But ripping off tens of thousands of people for $15 is hugely profitable, so there's a benefit to class action in that sense. I'm not sure how other countries approach that problem but would-be reformers here generally just want to make each person have to waste their time.
Being capable of spending millions on lawyers doesn't mean a rich company wants to spend millions on lawyers.
In many (if not most) cases, loosing at a fair arbitration would be cheaper for the company than winning in court by outspending on lawyers.
Of course, there's also the 'stopping class actions' thing.
In many (if not most) cases, loosing at a fair arbitration would be cheaper for the company than winning in court by outspending on lawyers.
Of course, there's also the 'stopping class actions' thing.
Sure, but winning at an unfair arbitration, or discouraging the plaintiff from even pursuing the claim because of the greater barriers and penalties for failure, is even cheaper.
Arbitration involves less lawyers and therefore less legal fees.
Yeah, so would a guy just breaking your legs every time you tried to make a complaint.
Ok, but there’s a set of laws called the federal arbitration act and everyone agreed to it. There isn’t a federal guy-breaking-your-legs act because that would not be a good idea.
The situations in which employers, credit card issuers, and more entities you are more or less obliged to deal with can impose mandatory arbitration on you have been dramatically expanded by the Supreme Court in recent years in ways I don’t think we “all agreed to.”
Surely you agreed to it more than you agreed to getting your legs broken, right? I mean you still live here, and you voluntarily enter into contracts with arbitration agreements.
I guess I can avoid the shorthand and say we all agreed except for monastic hermits and people who fled the country in search of the land of milk, honey, and unlimited jury trials.
I guess I can avoid the shorthand and say we all agreed except for monastic hermits and people who fled the country in search of the land of milk, honey, and unlimited jury trials.
I don't consider myself to have agreed to a bunch of unpopular decisions shoved down our collective throats by unelected bureaucrats for life just because I didn't flee the country, but if you do then I guess there's not much to talk about.
not saying i disagree, but arbitration free's up court time.
That's hardly the concern of companies sticking mandatory arbitration agreements everywhere though.
1> There are too many situations in our society where money wins because they hire better lawyers.
2>The solution is not to make more money to hire better lawyers, but to change the system so such a step isn't necessary.
3> I don't know if people have noticed, but lawyers win when people fight, and the more they fight, the more complicated the law and the case, the more wealth is transferred to the legal profession.
4 (Everyone go limp here, please! No fighting in court, ok? Just don't) ???
5 Profit!!! (Nobody stopped fighting. Nobody stopped being in court. You wanted that? Sucker! Someone profited from your noninvolvement.)
Seriously? Yes we need reform, but if lawyers are the most powerful bloc, how do we get them onboard? Would you convince them to treat law like golf, with handicaps? Would you somehow motivate other goals more than winning (at the risk of subverting justice)? What?
2>The solution is not to make more money to hire better lawyers, but to change the system so such a step isn't necessary.
3> I don't know if people have noticed, but lawyers win when people fight, and the more they fight, the more complicated the law and the case, the more wealth is transferred to the legal profession.
4 (Everyone go limp here, please! No fighting in court, ok? Just don't) ???
5 Profit!!! (Nobody stopped fighting. Nobody stopped being in court. You wanted that? Sucker! Someone profited from your noninvolvement.)
Seriously? Yes we need reform, but if lawyers are the most powerful bloc, how do we get them onboard? Would you convince them to treat law like golf, with handicaps? Would you somehow motivate other goals more than winning (at the risk of subverting justice)? What?
Going through a family court case now and your take is spot on.
> reasonable support for pro se representation in court
I've sat and watched about 100 cases. I've noticed if both parties are pro se, judges are usually reasonable.
If one party is pro se and the other is not, well I've never seen the pro se party get even a fair chance.
> lawyers win when people fight, and the more they fight, the more complicated the law and the case, the more wealth is transferred to the legal profession
A friend is a Federal Judge and told me they have a term for it the "Family Law Cartel". He said he can describe Family Law Court with one word: "Cesspool".
> reasonable support for pro se representation in court
I've sat and watched about 100 cases. I've noticed if both parties are pro se, judges are usually reasonable.
If one party is pro se and the other is not, well I've never seen the pro se party get even a fair chance.
> lawyers win when people fight, and the more they fight, the more complicated the law and the case, the more wealth is transferred to the legal profession
A friend is a Federal Judge and told me they have a term for it the "Family Law Cartel". He said he can describe Family Law Court with one word: "Cesspool".
> If one party is pro se and the other is not, well I've never seen the pro se party get even a fair chance.
Depends what you mean by a fair chance, a lot of the pro se stuff I have seen the judges effectively hold the hands of the pro se litigant and effectively interpret everything they say very favourably.
Being pro se doesn’t mean you get to just chat with the judge to litigate the suite it’s meant to mean that you take on the role of a lawyer and are held to the same standards.
Depends what you mean by a fair chance, a lot of the pro se stuff I have seen the judges effectively hold the hands of the pro se litigant and effectively interpret everything they say very favourably.
Being pro se doesn’t mean you get to just chat with the judge to litigate the suite it’s meant to mean that you take on the role of a lawyer and are held to the same standards.
This whole "pro se" being treated well by judges is not the reality I have experienced. I have been involved in a few cases over the last several years as a pro se litigant and I lost almost every motion I filed, despite the other (represented) side's position being obviously frivolous. However, I also ghostwrote motions for attorneys in those cases as well, and when those motions are signed by an attorney they succeeded every single time. It seems like unless a lawyer signs a filing it will be outright ignored by many judges.
It’s important to acknowledge that judges, politicians, and lawyers are aware of this and design the legal process to feed their ecosystem. In that context this isn’t a tough problem, it is unsolvable.
What exactly are you proposing here?
> I don't know if people have noticed, but lawyers win when people fight
People have disagreements. It's inevitable. It seems like you want people to never disagree on anything. But it's unclear how that can ever be possible.
> Judges cannot and should not look down on self-representing litigants
Is that not already the case? Is there anything preventing anyone from representing themselves?
> I don't know if people have noticed, but lawyers win when people fight
People have disagreements. It's inevitable. It seems like you want people to never disagree on anything. But it's unclear how that can ever be possible.
> Judges cannot and should not look down on self-representing litigants
Is that not already the case? Is there anything preventing anyone from representing themselves?
One idea would be getting back to how the country was founded. It's amazing that some of the most critical legal concepts in our nation are written down in a sentence or two. There is indeed ambiguity that the courts are left to sort out but, in many ways, that's a feature more than a bug. For instance this is the entirety of the 1st Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
If that was written today, it would be 700 pages long and packed with irrelevancies and obfuscation. The goal of those 700 pages was, at some point, to provide clarity, but that's obviously been an abysmal failure. In practice nobody knows exactly what they mean, even including the people signing it into law. And even those who do study those 700 pages will frequently come up with radically different interpretations. So you gain nothing, but make things completely incomprehensible to near 100% of the population.
And the same is true of contracts and the like. People are increasingly governed and compelled by language that may as well be Greek.
[1] - https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/full-text
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
If that was written today, it would be 700 pages long and packed with irrelevancies and obfuscation. The goal of those 700 pages was, at some point, to provide clarity, but that's obviously been an abysmal failure. In practice nobody knows exactly what they mean, even including the people signing it into law. And even those who do study those 700 pages will frequently come up with radically different interpretations. So you gain nothing, but make things completely incomprehensible to near 100% of the population.
And the same is true of contracts and the like. People are increasingly governed and compelled by language that may as well be Greek.
[1] - https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/full-text
Self-represented litigants are treated extremely unfairly compared to represented litigants.
I have been involved in three trial court cases where I represented myself ("pro se"). I won about 10% of dozens of motions I wrote and personally signed. Worse, in most of those cases the other side's lawyer was arguing a position obviously contrary to law, won anyway, and forced me to engage in extremely time consuming appeals process to correct the error.
Amazingly, I have ghostwritten about a dozen motions for co-parties represented by counsel and their counsel signed it. The success rate of those motions has been 100%.
At least with the three judges I have had, it seems like my filings were outright ignored and not read. As soon as a lawyer affixed their signature to my writing, the judge read it and took it seriously enough to apply the law correctly.
I know there is a lot of propaganda about self-represented litigants being treated fairly or with kid-gloves, but my personal experience suggests this is false.
I have been involved in three trial court cases where I represented myself ("pro se"). I won about 10% of dozens of motions I wrote and personally signed. Worse, in most of those cases the other side's lawyer was arguing a position obviously contrary to law, won anyway, and forced me to engage in extremely time consuming appeals process to correct the error.
Amazingly, I have ghostwritten about a dozen motions for co-parties represented by counsel and their counsel signed it. The success rate of those motions has been 100%.
At least with the three judges I have had, it seems like my filings were outright ignored and not read. As soon as a lawyer affixed their signature to my writing, the judge read it and took it seriously enough to apply the law correctly.
I know there is a lot of propaganda about self-represented litigants being treated fairly or with kid-gloves, but my personal experience suggests this is false.
There are too many situations where minor semantic quibbles are blown up into huge behavior problems; technicalities they lawyers would call them.
It happens across social contexts.
I’m convinced human language is good for nothing but the human equivalent of prompt injection.
Humanoids went millions of years before language intuiting “enough” food, warmth. We evolved to measure the gradients that make up our emotions. Social philosophy short circuits that connection to self.
Religion forced humans to serve a shared hallucination. Nation states are a similar constraint on human state.
There’s evidence in neuroscience teenage brains devalue moms voice for new info sources. Does not seem unreasonable this could be a lifelong thing. 13-14 years ago cloud and crud apps took off, now we’re moving onto AI.
Pop culture trends seem to fluctuate around similar timelines, though I admit to not measuring it. Just thinking out loud.
Obligation to preserve social language norms may one day be found to be a cause of much mental illness. We evolved for quite a while without them.
It happens across social contexts.
I’m convinced human language is good for nothing but the human equivalent of prompt injection.
Humanoids went millions of years before language intuiting “enough” food, warmth. We evolved to measure the gradients that make up our emotions. Social philosophy short circuits that connection to self.
Religion forced humans to serve a shared hallucination. Nation states are a similar constraint on human state.
There’s evidence in neuroscience teenage brains devalue moms voice for new info sources. Does not seem unreasonable this could be a lifelong thing. 13-14 years ago cloud and crud apps took off, now we’re moving onto AI.
Pop culture trends seem to fluctuate around similar timelines, though I admit to not measuring it. Just thinking out loud.
Obligation to preserve social language norms may one day be found to be a cause of much mental illness. We evolved for quite a while without them.
Another solution is to make the law stiff and closed.
In France we have a labour law that codifies everything. There is no place for negotiation and for a typical contract you barely need to read it as it has to be according to the law. Notice period, vaction, all this is fixed.
Same when you buy a house. You get a contract that is always the same and where you cannot put unexpected clauses.
There are more similar cases so the everyday life of a generic citizen is legally predictable.
In France we have a labour law that codifies everything. There is no place for negotiation and for a typical contract you barely need to read it as it has to be according to the law. Notice period, vaction, all this is fixed.
Same when you buy a house. You get a contract that is always the same and where you cannot put unexpected clauses.
There are more similar cases so the everyday life of a generic citizen is legally predictable.
Surely not every house?
There are thousands of edges cases surrounding real property, so I can't imagine the standard contract has thousands of clauses.
There are thousands of edges cases surrounding real property, so I can't imagine the standard contract has thousands of clauses.
I do not know about every case of course, but in any case I know it was a long read ay the notary office where the content was the same each time.
I owned three apartments and it was all the same every time. My brother bought two houses - same. Similar for friends.
I am not sure what can vary from house to house which is not handled by the regulation. The pre-contract and contract elements are all very strict (who pays what, what the engagements are and it is not negotiable), the the house must adhere to the code except when listed, there is a time where you can raise issues that must be fixed etc.
To be clear, I do not doubt that there are edge cases but in the, say, 50 cumulated cases I know of there has never been a deviation from the standard contract. The value of the notary in France is to gather evidence, check that everything is there and read the contract over an hour or so. If it was more digitalized, I think we could bypass that part entirely for standard purchases.
I owned three apartments and it was all the same every time. My brother bought two houses - same. Similar for friends.
I am not sure what can vary from house to house which is not handled by the regulation. The pre-contract and contract elements are all very strict (who pays what, what the engagements are and it is not negotiable), the the house must adhere to the code except when listed, there is a time where you can raise issues that must be fixed etc.
To be clear, I do not doubt that there are edge cases but in the, say, 50 cumulated cases I know of there has never been a deviation from the standard contract. The value of the notary in France is to gather evidence, check that everything is there and read the contract over an hour or so. If it was more digitalized, I think we could bypass that part entirely for standard purchases.
The American way. Look at the political system. Campaign finance reform will never happen because the establishment and corruption are synonymous with the pretense of lobbyists making delivering cash not under a table seem seemly.
I would think legal ambiguity is at the benefit of those who have good lawyers. So changing the system could mean: better legislation and better protection for regular citizens and employees.
They have small claims court for claims up to $10K or so depending on state which works great. Problem is if you go over that, then it's real court and $100K (or more) in fees to take something to trial. We need a medium claims court to bridge the gap for claims up to maybe $500K where it's still reasonably cheap to bring a case. Our civil courts are set up to be very good at resolving large complicated disputes between rich people or corporations, but it just doesn't work for regular people.
*American society.
Not to say the problem is nonexistent in other countries, but American society minimizes laws (due to worries about government overreach) and hand-waives away concerns because either the legal system, or worse "the free market" will decide and make everything just.
It incentivizes a complete lack of individual ethics in any decision. "Is it legal? Then we should do it." is the only question being asked.
Not to say the problem is nonexistent in other countries, but American society minimizes laws (due to worries about government overreach) and hand-waives away concerns because either the legal system, or worse "the free market" will decide and make everything just.
It incentivizes a complete lack of individual ethics in any decision. "Is it legal? Then we should do it." is the only question being asked.
> American society minimizes laws
Not sure that is true.
Moreover, contracts, legal threats, laws and liabilities are involved in most transactions, to a far higher extent than many other countries with more reasonable legal systems and laws.
The USA is renowned for being an exceptionally litigious society.
The USA is also known for its inequitable legal system where you can often win by spending more, and you can often lose just because you are poor.
Eminent domain, plea bargains, 3 strikes, harsh minimum sentences, cowboy cops, frivolous lawsuits, ridiculous liabilities, lock and forget, zero rehabilitation, two speed society, defunding, Civil Forfeiture, Bankruptcy, IP laws, etcetera. Even assuming you have minimised laws (I really don’t think that is the case), the emergent effects of your legal structures are perverse and damaging to the US as a whole.
The USA isn’t the worst in the world, but it is a long way from being good or fair.
Not sure that is true.
Moreover, contracts, legal threats, laws and liabilities are involved in most transactions, to a far higher extent than many other countries with more reasonable legal systems and laws.
The USA is renowned for being an exceptionally litigious society.
The USA is also known for its inequitable legal system where you can often win by spending more, and you can often lose just because you are poor.
Eminent domain, plea bargains, 3 strikes, harsh minimum sentences, cowboy cops, frivolous lawsuits, ridiculous liabilities, lock and forget, zero rehabilitation, two speed society, defunding, Civil Forfeiture, Bankruptcy, IP laws, etcetera. Even assuming you have minimised laws (I really don’t think that is the case), the emergent effects of your legal structures are perverse and damaging to the US as a whole.
The USA isn’t the worst in the world, but it is a long way from being good or fair.
It's true when it comes to criminal law. We don't enforce much of code unless someone outright admits to a crime or it's really high-profile.
Civil law though? You need a private army of lawyers.
Civil law though? You need a private army of lawyers.
Your statement doesn't even make sense. How is "minimizing laws" make sense when people ask "Is it legal? Then we should do it."
Sounds like following the letter of the law, not minimizing it.
Sounds like following the letter of the law, not minimizing it.
I think the parent meant minimizing the aspects of the law that aren't written down with letters.
Such as the moral/ethical component, and so on.
Such as the moral/ethical component, and so on.
> American society minimizes laws (due to worries about government overreach)
Not sure how you come to that conclusion. Here's just one example of the opposite - almost 30% of US workers need a government license just to do their job: https://isps.yale.edu/news/blog/2013/11/is-the-us-%E2%80%9Co...
Not sure how you come to that conclusion. Here's just one example of the opposite - almost 30% of US workers need a government license just to do their job: https://isps.yale.edu/news/blog/2013/11/is-the-us-%E2%80%9Co...
That’s part of the same trend: instead of writing laws, the government just says “you must be licensed by x group” and then that group writes the rules.
And if you have enough money you buy a supreme court justice.
To be perfectly honest, if you're planning on making a few hundred thousand dollars a year, you probably should be happy to spend a few thousand on a lawyer to help you with it, no matter how simple or where you are.
The math just works out a lot better to spend the money upfront to prevent "gotcha" moments than to lose tons of money on the backend either to a loophole or over having to sue.
This is a textbook case where an ounce of prevention is worth several pounds of cure. If you are signing or writing a contract worth 6 figures, get a lawyer/solicitor involved early. It's worth it.
The math just works out a lot better to spend the money upfront to prevent "gotcha" moments than to lose tons of money on the backend either to a loophole or over having to sue.
This is a textbook case where an ounce of prevention is worth several pounds of cure. If you are signing or writing a contract worth 6 figures, get a lawyer/solicitor involved early. It's worth it.
True, but impractical. You're essentially saying every employee should have a lawyer look over their employment contract every time they get a new job?
They _SHOULD_, but is it really practical to expect people to?
They _SHOULD_, but is it really practical to expect people to?
Everyone should spend 1-2% of their yearly salary on a lawyer whenever they sign an employment contract?
The world is so fucked.
The world is so fucked.
Do you want to spend 1% upfront or 100% later? As I said in another comment, employment contract review is often $300-1000, and lawyers will do it for free if they like you.
That’s not the calculation. It is, do you want pay 1% now or have a 0.5% chance of paying 100% later.
Most people don’t have a lawyer look over their employment contract, and most people don’t get screwed over like this when they don’t.
That is not a cut and dry situation.
Honestly, some kind of insurance would probably be more cost effective.
Most people don’t have a lawyer look over their employment contract, and most people don’t get screwed over like this when they don’t.
That is not a cut and dry situation.
Honestly, some kind of insurance would probably be more cost effective.
Most people do not have an employment contract. If you do, a lawyer should definitely review it.
In the past, the employer's lawyer would negotiate with the union's lawyer, but we can't have nice things.
And you paid 3%/year for that union lawyer to write a contract that suits her friends (union insiders), probably at your expense.
I'll pay the 1% once, thanks.
I'll pay the 1% once, thanks.
You're literally just pulling numbers out of thin air here.
It's not hard to check union dues avg a few percent of income per year. Over a 5 year job this is an order of magnitude more paid out of your salary than the once paid alternative listed here.
The collective weight of the union as a counterweight to employer power and overreach is also wirth something. In a dispute with your employer, HR is never on your side, but the union is.
People need to stop going to HR with their problems, in general. A nice letter from whoever did your contract review works a lot better if you aren't at a union shop, and also isn't very expensive.
The 1% is from the comment I responded to (and is actually higher than my past experience - employment contracts are really easy to read). The 3% is from an average of union dues.
peyton(1)
Even more impractical, this would imply that the legal team at the company would need to negotiate terms with every single new hire's lawyer. Would be very expensive.
I am not from the US, but I always have a union lawyer look at my employment contracts before I sign them. It's part of my union's service. If you ask me, "expert legal team on retainer" is one of the primary reasons for being part of a union.
Yes?
It's pretty cheap if it's a standard contract. If you're friends with a lawyer they will do it for free. They will generally tell you where the pitfalls are, even when you can't negotiate your contract.
It's pretty cheap if it's a standard contract. If you're friends with a lawyer they will do it for free. They will generally tell you where the pitfalls are, even when you can't negotiate your contract.
There is something for that, it's called unions. Where I work, my employment contract had my name, my salary, where in the organization I was going to work and with what role, and a reference to a massive standard contract negotiated by a powerful union with all the companies in the country who would hire me for that role. That was it, two pages, it was basically a form.
I did read the massive contract with the union that effectively set the terms of my employment, because, of course. But I knew it wouldn't be too bad, because, well, numbers.
Tangential, there are some things that we humans can still do better than an AI, but it's not a given is going to remain like that forever. If things continue the way they go, people will still need food, shelter, healthcare and everything else, but economic organizations that provide those things may not need people. So, we should definitely be having a debate about the current social contract and how we will arrange the future to benefit us.
I did read the massive contract with the union that effectively set the terms of my employment, because, of course. But I knew it wouldn't be too bad, because, well, numbers.
Tangential, there are some things that we humans can still do better than an AI, but it's not a given is going to remain like that forever. If things continue the way they go, people will still need food, shelter, healthcare and everything else, but economic organizations that provide those things may not need people. So, we should definitely be having a debate about the current social contract and how we will arrange the future to benefit us.
Yeah but for most roles you just aren't in a position to negotiate, even with a lawyer. Most software engineers, for example, are seen as fungible by large companies.
In my experience, there is a lot you can negotiate if you need to, even with big tech. Small companies will accept redlined contracts if you need a small change, too.
They complain about it because it's inconvenient to do, but it is very possible if you make it clear that it's what they have to do to hire you.
This contract wasn't a simple employment contract, though. It was a copyright license. A lawyer was probably involved, and custom provisions were probably expected.
They complain about it because it's inconvenient to do, but it is very possible if you make it clear that it's what they have to do to hire you.
This contract wasn't a simple employment contract, though. It was a copyright license. A lawyer was probably involved, and custom provisions were probably expected.
[deleted]
The entire residuals model in content is a giant scam. Most people have no option to negotiate real money: its based on accounting firms returns on investment to the (shell) company which makes the content.
they hide most of the profit in wierd finance games. So, the residuals? they dont have to be paid: its not "profitable"
Alec Guinness is an example of somebody smart enough to make his residuals work in Star Wars. He is said to have been overjoyed at the income, but continued to be underjoyed (tm) in the product.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/alec-gui...
they hide most of the profit in wierd finance games. So, the residuals? they dont have to be paid: its not "profitable"
Alec Guinness is an example of somebody smart enough to make his residuals work in Star Wars. He is said to have been overjoyed at the income, but continued to be underjoyed (tm) in the product.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/alec-gui...
Another example: The Tolkien Estate got into a lawsuit with New Line because the movie rights came with a stipulation that they would receive a modest 7.5% of profits, if any.
Notice the “if any.” The lawsuit was because New Line had used crazy accounting to argue that the whole Lord of the Rings movie series was unprofitable. Of course that’s absurd on its face (no profit on $6 billion of revenue?), but don’t underestimate accountants. New Line had so butchered the accounting, they even had the audacity to claim that LOTR was responsible for “horrendous losses.”
Edit: Initially said Warner, because New Line is owned by Warner, but they weren’t back then and the lawsuits were involving New Line.
Notice the “if any.” The lawsuit was because New Line had used crazy accounting to argue that the whole Lord of the Rings movie series was unprofitable. Of course that’s absurd on its face (no profit on $6 billion of revenue?), but don’t underestimate accountants. New Line had so butchered the accounting, they even had the audacity to claim that LOTR was responsible for “horrendous losses.”
Edit: Initially said Warner, because New Line is owned by Warner, but they weren’t back then and the lawsuits were involving New Line.
As the 1990's cartoon 'Freakazoid!' taught us:
> Always ask for a piece of the gross. Not the net; the net is fantasy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHL91HQzhuc
> Always ask for a piece of the gross. Not the net; the net is fantasy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHL91HQzhuc
Hollywood Accounting is a world of its own. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
I wish they'd rename this from "hollywood" to "fraud"
Coming To America was the original "wildly successful movie that made no profit"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buchwald_v._Paramount
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buchwald_v._Paramount
Nope, goes back way farther than that. Return of the Jedi is another movie that never made a profit supposedly, despite ~$400M on a $32M budget. David Prowse, the guy who played Darth Vader in the suit, apparently pretty much never got paid for Return of the Jedi because of that.
I'm aware of Prowse's claims, however, they are just that, claims, which weren't even made public until around 2009.
Paramount actually demonstrated its CTA accounting practices in court in 1990, such practices were found to be "unconscionable" by a judge, and the plaintiff Art Buchwald was permitted to proceed with a tort suit.
So while the practice itself obviously goes back a long way, Coming to America was the movie that revealed such practices to the general public, and even to Hollywood insiders -- thus, I'm sticking with my original statement.
Paramount actually demonstrated its CTA accounting practices in court in 1990, such practices were found to be "unconscionable" by a judge, and the plaintiff Art Buchwald was permitted to proceed with a tort suit.
So while the practice itself obviously goes back a long way, Coming to America was the movie that revealed such practices to the general public, and even to Hollywood insiders -- thus, I'm sticking with my original statement.
[deleted]
I mean, that's just embarrassing from The Tolkien Estate. Random bus drivers in third world backwaters know about Hollywood accounting. They should have negotiated for 7.5% of revenue.
The Tolkien Estate’s hands were tied because the movie rights were sold to United Artists for $75K + 7.5% by Tolkien himself in 1969.
At the time it seemed like a good deal to Tolkien. A lot of money for something unfilmable with late-60s technology; but it would also help pay the heavy taxes his children would bear upon his death (which was, for him, the primary motivation).
This was just movie rights though. When Amazon wanted TV Show rights, the Estate squeezed out $250M. The Estate has also never sold any Silmarillion-related material.
At the time it seemed like a good deal to Tolkien. A lot of money for something unfilmable with late-60s technology; but it would also help pay the heavy taxes his children would bear upon his death (which was, for him, the primary motivation).
This was just movie rights though. When Amazon wanted TV Show rights, the Estate squeezed out $250M. The Estate has also never sold any Silmarillion-related material.
>The Estate has also never sold any Silmarillion-related material.
Why not? That was one of the big problems with Amazon's show: it couldn't use any material from The Silmarillion, only the appendices from RotK. Why wouldn't the estate want to capitalize on that, perhaps with some clauses to make sure it doesn't get butchered too much? They capitalized on the extra LotR material (to the tune of $250M as you said), so why stop there?
Why not? That was one of the big problems with Amazon's show: it couldn't use any material from The Silmarillion, only the appendices from RotK. Why wouldn't the estate want to capitalize on that, perhaps with some clauses to make sure it doesn't get butchered too much? They capitalized on the extra LotR material (to the tune of $250M as you said), so why stop there?
[deleted]
I wonder if they already optioned the rights to someone who's just sitting on them.
> At the time it seemed like a good deal to Tolkien. A lot of money for something unfilmable with late-60s technology
Heh. Unfilmable didn't stop United Artists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings_(1978_fi...
(tongue firmly in cheek)
Heh. Unfilmable didn't stop United Artists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings_(1978_fi...
(tongue firmly in cheek)
> Unfilmable
Pedantically, since it was animated, it wasn't "filmed" thus fulfilling the "unfilmable" part.
Pedantically, since it was animated, it wasn't "filmed" thus fulfilling the "unfilmable" part.
Since we’re being pedantic… Wait’ll you find out what happens after they do the drawings.
They draw them in real time at 24 fps? Wow.
Huh; so indirectly estate taxes got us some of the best fantasy movies of the last couple generations. Meanwhile, an IP well controlled by the author’s family got us some… decent but basically bland Amazon show (I honestly thought the Amazon show was perfectly fine background TV).
>decent but basically bland Amazon show
That's the most accurate description of that show I've read yet. But I will hand it to them: their depiction of the orcs was fantastic.
That's the most accurate description of that show I've read yet. But I will hand it to them: their depiction of the orcs was fantastic.
The Orc story line and the Durin/Elrond bromance are the only redeeming aspects of the show.
For story lines, those are huge parts of the show... Probably at least half the screen time, I'm guessing.
Anyway, I'm just talking about the visual depiction of the orcs. Compared to the LotR movies and Hobbit trilogy, they're utterly fantastic in this show; exactly what Tolkein himself probably would have imagined. The costuming there was just superb.
Anyway, I'm just talking about the visual depiction of the orcs. Compared to the LotR movies and Hobbit trilogy, they're utterly fantastic in this show; exactly what Tolkein himself probably would have imagined. The costuming there was just superb.
Off topic but I understand that LOTR will enter the Public Domain in India, New Zealand and a a few other countries next year. I want to see if anyone does anything about it
IIRC Tolkien sold the movie rights back in the 60s, so decades ago.
Off topic but this is the first time I’ve seen a Mastodon post hit #1 on HN. Interesting datapoint re Twitter’s self-imposed mortal wound.
First time I've ever looked at a Mastodon post. The level of visual elements on the page is overwhelming. Not clean at all. Commensurate with its reputation for being overly complicated.
Check out elk.zone:
https://elk.zone/mstdn.social/@Devilstower/11029957646932618...
It's a Mastodon frontend that's super simple/clean.
https://elk.zone/mstdn.social/@Devilstower/11029957646932618...
It's a Mastodon frontend that's super simple/clean.
Seems to have been hugged to death [edit: but back now]
(Also from previous testing, it doesn't correctly support non-Mastodon instances which is depressing.)
(Also from previous testing, it doesn't correctly support non-Mastodon instances which is depressing.)
If I didn’t see the url at the top of the page I would think I was looking at a twitter post.
The web interface assumes that you want some kind of tweet deck type thing. Most of the apps are very minimal, clean.
Reasonable assumption, but not for a first-time user who isn't logged in :)
I agree the default UI is a little bit... Weird. I'd highly recommend checking out alternate ones. Despite it's quirks, "The grass is greener" is definitely true for the larger network.
I do not use Twitter (nor Mastodon) and have exactly the same feeling when I incidentally open a Twitter post.
That was my first Mastodon post, too! I was thinking that I was late to the party, but at least we all arrived together!
I think I've had a couple of my posts from https://ioc.exchange/@invisv end up on the front page, though I don't think #1.
I feel this is more indicative of the content rather than the platform. If this was posted on linkedin or a personal website would we also be implying twitter is dying?
I honestly was subconsciously wondering why Twitter looked so weird. It did not register with me that I was not on twitter.
I read it as 'msdn.social', only now I see it's mastodon.
Does "per broadcast episode" not mean "per episode that was broadcast"? The irregular verb "broadcast" is the same whether present or past tense. Or is there some definition of "broadcast" specified at the top of the contract to make sure it's not interpreted as a past-tense verb? Or something? That said, good luck fighting it in court regardless I guess...
"Broadcast" in this context means over-the-air terrestrial television, i.e. free networks like NBC, ABC and CBS. Sci-Fi (now Syfy) is a cable channel and writers have historically been paid less for cable shows.
Yeah. I mean, the point is he got cheated on a technicality, but my take away is "I want to know more about the technicality"
Yeah exactly -- just how badly did he get screwed over? Or was it nearly "obvious" this might happen, knowing the industry? Contracts suck when it's an individual vs. a $multi-billion corporate behemoth.
[deleted]
The Back button on Mastodon takes you back to your previous page in your history stack interestingly.
Web pages have the ability to fire a “back event” that (I am pretty sure) works identically to clicking the back button on your browser. I imagine they’re using this because it’s very simple, you just put
onClick(History.back)
on the button and you’ve implemented a fully functional back button.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/History/bac...
Many sites will of course eschew this simple solution in favour of custom back button logic (usually to the mild detriment of the user experience).
Many sites will of course eschew this simple solution in favour of custom back button logic (usually to the mild detriment of the user experience).
Found the offending logic here [1]. Looks like it uses React Router's history.goBack method [2], which probably defaults to the browser history method you mentioned when there's nothing else. That if statement should be conditioned on the react router history, not window.history. I submitted a PR to fix this [3]
[1] https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/blob/ff3b7069cf9dd8fc3f...
[2] https://v5.reactrouter.com/web/api/history
[3] https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/pull/24835
[1] https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/blob/ff3b7069cf9dd8fc3f...
[2] https://v5.reactrouter.com/web/api/history
[3] https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/pull/24835
On the other hand: why? Browsers already have a back button that works that way. Users are used to back buttons on the page moving up some in-app hierarchy, which, admittedly maybe they oughtn’t be used to because maybe it’s not a good pattern in the first place.
But instead of reimplementing the browser’s one and potentially confusing the users, why not remove the button entirely and have people use their browser’s more consistent UI? If the extra space is awkward surely there’s something else that can go there.
There are useful cases for history.back, but I’m not sure a back button is it.
But instead of reimplementing the browser’s one and potentially confusing the users, why not remove the button entirely and have people use their browser’s more consistent UI? If the extra space is awkward surely there’s something else that can go there.
There are useful cases for history.back, but I’m not sure a back button is it.
There are good uses for app-specific back buttons, for sure!
Two cases I’ve seen - one is a site with “single page app”ish flow for reading sequential posts, where rather than reloading the entire site it fetches just the JSON data for next and previous posts and updates the HTML; the back button here uses the already-fetched data rather than getting the whole site again. The other case used custom back logic on their site’s back button on form pages to avoid “re-sending form” pop-ups and to avoid losing entered form data.
When I said “mildly detrimental” I was thinking of a specific example (go back to the previous page that is on the same domain, implemented solely to improve metrics), so perhaps I shouldn’t have said “usually”.
Two cases I’ve seen - one is a site with “single page app”ish flow for reading sequential posts, where rather than reloading the entire site it fetches just the JSON data for next and previous posts and updates the HTML; the back button here uses the already-fetched data rather than getting the whole site again. The other case used custom back logic on their site’s back button on form pages to avoid “re-sending form” pop-ups and to avoid losing entered form data.
When I said “mildly detrimental” I was thinking of a specific example (go back to the previous page that is on the same domain, implemented solely to improve metrics), so perhaps I shouldn’t have said “usually”.
I thought this was a joke on how many sites high-jack the browser back button, joking that "my back button takes me back!" is a novel thing on the modern web.
But there is a link on the page that says "back", which acts just clicking the browser back button.
I think this has been an available feature to web developers for well over a decade.
But there is a link on the page that says "back", which acts just clicking the browser back button.
I think this has been an available feature to web developers for well over a decade.
> I think this has been an available feature to web developers for well over a decade.
window.history.back() is as old as JavaScript I think. It was supported in Firefox 1 which was released in 2002.
window.history.back() is as old as JavaScript I think. It was supported in Firefox 1 which was released in 2002.
Seems like there shouldn't even be a back button there if I have nowhere to go back to on Mastodon.
What are the odds there are missing details in this story?
Let's re-phrase that same, fair question.
What are the odds that a story of hollywood skulduggery ripping off the non-famous is actually dishonestly maligning hollywood execs & deal makers?
Possible, sure. My prior on hollywood execs turning out to actually be honest is pretty damn low. Yours?
What are the odds that a story of hollywood skulduggery ripping off the non-famous is actually dishonestly maligning hollywood execs & deal makers?
Possible, sure. My prior on hollywood execs turning out to actually be honest is pretty damn low. Yours?
A lot. But it would not make reddit/HN headlines.
If OP had negotiated the contract in good faith, I don't think this would have been an issue, but if there were lot of assholery in getting that contract, the network is happy to stick it back
If OP had negotiated the contract in good faith, I don't think this would have been an issue, but if there were lot of assholery in getting that contract, the network is happy to stick it back
Is this bait and switch actually legal?
I almost had something similar happen to me with music production & licensing (I was contracted to help build out an e-store library of sweet tunes and FX for Flash websites and interactive CD-ROMs, lol). It's a matter of perceived power and often some perceived norms as well.
Fortunately somebody in my family had previously warned me about...was it Winston Groom? Anyway, I read the contract and got suspicious, and saw money being redirected in all kinds of sneaky ways before it would finally trickle in the direction of the actual creator, me! I called an attorney.
The attorney was super upset about it after some review, so I ended up pushing back in the negotiations with what amounted to way too much effort. The attorney was new, but at least they were on my side...
The contract was then handed off to someone with more time on their hands to negotiate with me. This person happened to be irritated by sneaky moves in general (lucky me) so he drafted a brief, completely new letter contract on the spot, right there with both of us in the office, and I signed it immediately.
At the time this creative effort was meant to pay my rent, and to think I almost did a bunch of work for no reasonable recompense and therefore almost couldn't make rent despite hours and days and weeks spent on the project made me really angry. I still really feel for people who end up in that same kind of situation.
If you are a creator you should at the very least know your industry groups. Whether you become an official member or not.
Working in music and 3D animation more regularly a bit later on in my early career, I was surprised to find the Graphics Artist Guild Pricing and Ethical Guidelines handbook extremely helpful. It had a lot to say about contracts as well, IIRC, and the organization also put on helpful webinars on contracts even in the early 2000s.
Few things felt quite as helpful around this topic as having someone who had negotiated hundreds of contracts with the Disney Corps of the world saying to you, "you are right to ask about that, and here are some ways to negotiate those terms" or just "that's a ridiculous thing to see in a contract, strike it out and give them my number if they complain".
Fortunately somebody in my family had previously warned me about...was it Winston Groom? Anyway, I read the contract and got suspicious, and saw money being redirected in all kinds of sneaky ways before it would finally trickle in the direction of the actual creator, me! I called an attorney.
The attorney was super upset about it after some review, so I ended up pushing back in the negotiations with what amounted to way too much effort. The attorney was new, but at least they were on my side...
The contract was then handed off to someone with more time on their hands to negotiate with me. This person happened to be irritated by sneaky moves in general (lucky me) so he drafted a brief, completely new letter contract on the spot, right there with both of us in the office, and I signed it immediately.
At the time this creative effort was meant to pay my rent, and to think I almost did a bunch of work for no reasonable recompense and therefore almost couldn't make rent despite hours and days and weeks spent on the project made me really angry. I still really feel for people who end up in that same kind of situation.
If you are a creator you should at the very least know your industry groups. Whether you become an official member or not.
Working in music and 3D animation more regularly a bit later on in my early career, I was surprised to find the Graphics Artist Guild Pricing and Ethical Guidelines handbook extremely helpful. It had a lot to say about contracts as well, IIRC, and the organization also put on helpful webinars on contracts even in the early 2000s.
Few things felt quite as helpful around this topic as having someone who had negotiated hundreds of contracts with the Disney Corps of the world saying to you, "you are right to ask about that, and here are some ways to negotiate those terms" or just "that's a ridiculous thing to see in a contract, strike it out and give them my number if they complain".
I'm hearing mixed thoughts on the general legality. Of course, even if it's illegal there's the practicalities of workers rarely being able to stand up for themselves, I guess outside of a union.
> I still really feel for people who end up in that same kind of situation.
But regardless, I think our systems have failed if such a contract can exist legally, or without repercussions (because you aren't breaking the law if you don't get caught)
> I still really feel for people who end up in that same kind of situation.
But regardless, I think our systems have failed if such a contract can exist legally, or without repercussions (because you aren't breaking the law if you don't get caught)
There are some legal differences in terms of relevant laws from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But you might be surprised by just how much of a given agreement may end up de facto legal due to a variety of practical factors.
Not the least of which is the question of whether a judge or even mediator will ever even see the terms.
At least here in California there are also unfortunately no roaming sets of contract cops meting out street-contract-justice.
Not the least of which is the question of whether a judge or even mediator will ever even see the terms.
At least here in California there are also unfortunately no roaming sets of contract cops meting out street-contract-justice.
Feels like the system is working as designed, we have a long history with one-sided contracts and obligations in this country.
That doesn't matter.
What matters is having enough money or power to hold someone responsible for wronging you, without it ruining your life.
What matters is having enough money or power to hold someone responsible for wronging you, without it ruining your life.
We need to get used to describing things as legal only when there is reasonable access to the legal system to achieve justice. The laws should be judged according to what the actual outcomes are, not what some written law says.
"Single-digit millionaires have no effective access to the US legal system."
I suspect even with attorneys you have another risk of alienating yourself among producers and studios. If you have a bad reputation (like having the audacity to demand pay for your work) you find yourself unhireable.
You take the hit for actually suing, but if you look like you can afford to sue and win, you'll find that parties are magically more reasonable when you flag something unjust.
That's part of the double prejudice-- that if you're in the class that looks like it can get its way you get your way without the costs. If you're not and you scrape together the resources, you'll actually have to spend them and be thought of a trouble maker for it.
That's part of the double prejudice-- that if you're in the class that looks like it can get its way you get your way without the costs. If you're not and you scrape together the resources, you'll actually have to spend them and be thought of a trouble maker for it.
Makes sense. We have laws & a justice system to protect workers, I suppose, but the workers just can't apply them in this hostile system. Man. This isn't news of course, but a nice reminder.
I'm sorry, honestly...it sucks shit to write.
If they still wanted him to do work for the series after the switchover it would be slavery / indentured servitude.
If they ever replayed the show on broadcast television I think he'd have a case for backpay.
If they ever replayed the show on broadcast television I think he'd have a case for backpay.
Which is why unions exist. No individual could fight back against "Hollywood", but combined they're able to.
No, because the way he explains it, there is no consideration in the contract. "You give us something, and we give you nothing" is not a a valid contract.
I bet there is something more to it than what he posted. Like, he got paid a certain wage, and would have received a bonus if the show was picked up by a major broadcaster.
I bet there is something more to it than what he posted. Like, he got paid a certain wage, and would have received a bonus if the show was picked up by a major broadcaster.
IANAL. I imagine he could win if he sued, because "broadcast" should be understand as, well a cast, i.e. distribution, transmission (technology agnostic), that is broad, i.e. to many people.
If he is not the only person this has happened to, then such people could form a group and sue together.
If he is not the only person this has happened to, then such people could form a group and sue together.
Yes you are not a lawyer. These type of terms were very common and it is likely the contract even defined broadcast as being broadcast over the airwaves. There was not much money in other forms of distribution at that time. Also
, this was probably a dummy contract (as in, only a dummy would sign it) but that was also probably the only offer on the table and most writer don’t have much, if any, leverage in these negotiations.
The creator and show runner of Babylon 5 has talked extensively about these issues over the years and has commented on how much of the cast and crew only see residuals from the show being run on broadcast TV. A huge part of the previous writer strike was over these issues.
The creator and show runner of Babylon 5 has talked extensively about these issues over the years and has commented on how much of the cast and crew only see residuals from the show being run on broadcast TV. A huge part of the previous writer strike was over these issues.
Some of that bit from JMS on B5 can be found at http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/misc/cc-leave.html regarding residuals, contracts, and Claudia Christian's departure from the show.
Broadcast, at least in some contexts means a radio or television transmission. Maybe it depends how old you are?
The studio lawyers say this is perfectly legal, why do you ask?
It probably was. I rarely defend unions but this is a case where a standard contract could help. If you do the work you should get paid.
The PATRIOT Act. Read it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2Wdo4J7uy0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2Wdo4J7uy0
I’m not sure I understand the difference or technicality. Could someone help explain?
Broadcast means an over-the-air on public airwaves and typically also implies a huge viewership, definitely so in 1999.
The Sci-Fi channel was a cable television station and therefore not a "broadcast" station.
However, broadcast can also mean, in a general sense, to air a show.
I'm speculating here, but saying you will pay someone residuals if you "broadcast their show" may not have been a term that was equally understood by everyone. The writer and NBC both seem to have interpreted that term differently, to an amount that means nothing to NBC and a lot of money to an individual person.
The Sci-Fi channel was a cable television station and therefore not a "broadcast" station.
However, broadcast can also mean, in a general sense, to air a show.
I'm speculating here, but saying you will pay someone residuals if you "broadcast their show" may not have been a term that was equally understood by everyone. The writer and NBC both seem to have interpreted that term differently, to an amount that means nothing to NBC and a lot of money to an individual person.
Unrelated but I find it amusing that your “however” sentence uses the definition “to air a show” that is clearly a reference to broadcasting something using air as a medium but in this context you were using it more broadly to include both air and cable.
Presumably "Broadcast episode" means an episode shown on broadcast TV, which means "transmitted via radio waves" and is distinct from cable TV (channels only available via cable TV)
I am guessing that broadcast means 'over the air' and Sci Fi Channel is on cable. So they were not 'broadcast'. His contract was per 'broadcast' episode.
I thought it was some tech dude who got laid off, but this is so much worse.
If people are watching it then it is being broadcast so I’d dispute that. Clearly moving it to a different channel would be covered in the contract.
Not getting it.
Why would his salary change?
Or is this again a waitress issue? Instead of paying them proper money they get nothing and royalty?
Why would his salary change?
Or is this again a waitress issue? Instead of paying them proper money they get nothing and royalty?
[deleted]
Capitalism at work? Seriously, why am I not surprised if they can get away with saving fees they wouldn’t? Big corps are ruthless, the calculations are cold. Unlike if you work for me personally for example I wouldnt want to screw someone that bad if I can help it
breck(1)
Of course, lawyers represent the single most powerful political bloc in the nation, so it's a tough road.