The Sex Tape Litmus Test
laverick.org
The Sex Tape Litmus Test
1–10 of 138 posts
Re: The Sex Tape Litmus Test
#2I think that any funny clauses in the contracts should be abolished and the worker/employer relations should only be regulated by law.
This makes me pro-regulation and anti-market, but unfortunately I see exactly zero ways in which market can make contracts better. What are you expected to do in this situation - quit?
Re: The Sex Tape Litmus Test
#3The primary function of a legal department is to provide advice that prevents legally actionable mistakes.
This advice does not have to be sane, or efficient, or indeed have any consideration towards the interests of the company other than "prevents legally actionable mistakes". A few days ago HN saw an article about setting goals and perverse incentives. This is a simple example.
Hypothetically, someone was reviewing the Sony USA employment contract and saw that there were, perhaps, non-video-game related developments which might be valuable. Then they asked the legal department "Please supply contract terms that give us as much as possible." And after an hour or two of research, they did.
The surprising thing to me is that they tried to change language for existing employees out of cycle. If they did it during a regular review cycle, even fewer people would have noticed.
Re: The Sex Tape Litmus Test
#4I think that any funny clauses in the contracts should be abolished and the worker/employer relations should only be regulated by law. This makes me pro-regulation and anti-market, but unfortunately I see exactly zero ways in which market can make contracts better. What are you expected to do in this situation - quit?
Collective bargaining rights was developed to counter exactly this power imbalance with minimum government involvement. Unfortunately I'm not aware of any programmer unions.
Re: The Sex Tape Litmus Test
#5I think that any funny clauses in the contracts should be abolished and the worker/employer relations should only be regulated by law. This makes me pro-regulation and anti-market, but unfortunately I see exactly zero ways in which market can make contracts better. What are you expected to do in this situation - quit?
Negotiate for the removal of these clauses from your contract and don't sign it if they won't remove them. Sometimes this may mean passing on a job but if everyone did this then employers wouldn't try to get away with it.
Re: The Sex Tape Litmus Test
#6I think that any funny clauses in the contracts should be abolished and the worker/employer relations should only be regulated by law. This makes me pro-regulation and anti-market, but unfortunately I see exactly zero ways in which market can make contracts better. What are you expected to do in this situation - quit?
Yes, you can quit and work somewhere else. Also you can read about what Sony does on Hacker News and decide not to apply there for a job in the first place.
I really hope you are not actually against customized employment contracts- there are a lot of cases where they can be useful. What might be better is prohibiting instances of terms you find offensive. For example, California's moonlighting law, which effectively voids such clauses in employment contracts: http://www.quora.com/Legal-Issues/Which-California-laws-prot...
Re: The Sex Tape Litmus Test
#7I think that any funny clauses in the contracts should be abolished and the worker/employer relations should only be regulated by law. This makes me pro-regulation and anti-market, but unfortunately I see exactly zero ways in which market can make contracts better. What are you expected to do in this situation - quit?
I'm not sure a one-size-fits all regulated solution is the answer.
For example , what about a startup that wants to make signing of an NDA a requirement for employment? Would they be expected to just take it on trust that a new employee isn't leaking stuff to their competitors for cash?
What about employments that might deal with highly sensitive/classified information and thus require certain background checks to be performed before & during employment?
Re: The Sex Tape Litmus Test
#8I think that any funny clauses in the contracts should be abolished and the worker/employer relations should only be regulated by law. This makes me pro-regulation and anti-market, but unfortunately I see exactly zero ways in which market can make contracts better. What are you expected to do in this situation - quit?
I'm not sure a one-size-fits all regulated solution is the answer. For example , what about a startup that wants to make signing of an NDA a requirement for employment? Would they be expected to just take it on trust that a new employee isn't leaking stuff to their competitors for cash? What about employments that might deal with highly sensitive/classified information and thus require certain background checks to be…
[deleted]
Re: The Sex Tape Litmus Test
#9I think that any funny clauses in the contracts should be abolished and the worker/employer relations should only be regulated by law. This makes me pro-regulation and anti-market, but unfortunately I see exactly zero ways in which market can make contracts better. What are you expected to do in this situation - quit?
I'm not sure a one-size-fits all regulated solution is the answer. For example , what about a startup that wants to make signing of an NDA a requirement for employment? Would they be expected to just take it on trust that a new employee isn't leaking stuff to their competitors for cash? What about employments that might deal with highly sensitive/classified information and thus require certain background checks to be…
>Would they be expected to just take it on trust that a new employee isn't leaking stuff to their competitors for cash?
Well, make that punishable by law, and no need for an NDA.
Re: The Sex Tape Litmus Test
#10I've brought this up as the "child porn" clause, and had brought it up in an employment contract once many years ago. Basic language was "we own anything you create". I said "I don't really think you want that - if I create some child porn, you're the owners". I seem to remember I had some less restrictive language placed in my contract vs that one, but I don't think it made a change to anyone else's contracts.
Yes, it felt a bit 'nuclear' dropping such a charged statement like that, and even when I bring it up as an example in conversation, some people cringe - a 'sex tape' analogy might be less offensive to some, but the basic premise still stands. Any company that wants to claim ownership of every piece of content or code I 'create' needs to understand what that really entails. It might actually give some people license to work on legally questionable stuff (not child porn so much as, say, banned crypto), knowing that they don't really 'own' it and thinking someone else might be responsible for the consequences.