Home Artists Posts Import Register

Downloads

Content

Today's episode runs wild with an in-depth look a the CLOUD Act slipped in to the latest omnibus spending bill.

First, however, we break down the recent viral video from Deadspin showing dozens of Sinclair-owned TV stations reading pro-Trump talking points on the air.  How did this happen?  What leverage does Sinclair have over your local newscaster?  Listen and find out.

During the main segment, the guys break down the CLOUD Act and what it means for international data privacy.

After that, we answer a listener question about the WWE and independent contractors.

Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #70 about contracts.  Don't forget to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!

Recent Appearances

None!  If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

  1. Click here to watch the viral video from Deadspin; you can see excerpted bits from the Sinclair contract sent out via Twitter here and here.
  2. This is the text of the CLOUD Act, and you can click here to read the EFF's warnings about it.
  3. Finally, for guidance about independent contractors vs. employees, you can check out the Department of Labor's Fact Sheet 13 as well as the guidelines promulgated by the IRS.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

Don't forget the OA Facebook Community!

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Files

Comments

DakkaDakkaWAAGH

Isn't it a little late for this? He has already said far too much about the details behind the case and had his records of it seized. Please tell me that the 5A isn't retro-active!

Anonymous

The discussion of "what an eployee is" versus "what a contractor is" made me wonder about Uber. My understanding is that the Uber app determines the route a driver should take, and that drivers are required to follow that route. If that were the case, that sounds a lot like specifying not only what will be done (take this person to this place), but also how it will be done (take this precise route). Could drivers argue that they are really employees and not independent contractors based on the fact that Uber specified the routes they had to drive?