• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

How to Support Audio Science Review

Jimbob54

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
2,080
Likes
1,474
#81
That's pretty much irrelevant though. Even though this particular case really has nothing to do with it these companies need to stop getting away with pretending they aren't common carriers.
"Common carriers"- not a term I understand in this context. You mean Patreon try and deny responsibility for the content / people/ products that are on there? Or that they are duty bound to provide their service regardless of what the person is saying/ selling?
 

anmpr1

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 11, 2018
Messages
1,561
Likes
2,272
#82
"Common carriers"- not a term I understand in this context. You mean Patreon try and deny responsibility for the content / people/ products that are on there? Or that they are duty bound to provide their service regardless of what the person is saying/ selling?
As I understand it (just from reading about the action), the original TOS required arbitration as a means for settling disputes, but then Patreon filed a court action against some of its members that were asking for arbitration, and in fact changed the TOS in the middle of the arbitration in order to deflect the plaintiff's argument.

It appears to me the court ruled that if the TOS calls for dispute arbitration then the matter has to be settled by an arbitrator, not a court, and further that TOS can't be adjusted mid-course in order to suppress a potential or on-going arbitration.

PS: Evidently the reason this could be devastating to Patreon is that under California law, arbitration fees have to be paid up front by the company. My guess is that this provision of the law was made in order to allow potential victims of fraud etc. to be able to seek redress even if they don't have any money. That is, the financial onus is on the company and not the user, as far as the costs of the original arbitration goes. As with all law I'm sure there are a lot of nuances I don't know about.

In any case, I use other means than Pateron for donating to ASR. Because of its importance, I certainly encourage all readers to send something. That's just my opinion, but I think ASR is definitely worth the sub price of Stereophile, or any other hi-fi magazine for that matter.
 
Last edited:

maverickronin

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 19, 2018
Messages
1,120
Likes
1,009
Location
Midwest, USA
#83
Or that they are duty bound to provide their service regardless of what the person is saying/ selling?
Pretty much. I did a little googling and it looks like the term is a little different in the UK, but in the US it can also apply to telecommunications.

AFIK in telecommunications it originally came into being so that for example, the phone company is not responsible if you plot a murder over the phone. By the same token, they can't just cancel your service because they don't like what you say over the phone. If a person is actually doing something illegal with the service it's a problem for the courts and the service provider will cooperate after suitable warrants are obtained. If it's not illegal, it's none of their business.

This all went to hell with the internet and companies basically dance back and forth between whatever suits them best at the moment.

Although once again, this case doesn't bring that point up at all. It's Patreon's on TOS coming back to bite them in the ass, which is still plenty amusing in its own right.
 
Top Bottom