One possible solution are private persistent rooms. For example: http://joinclubhouse.com/chr1sa - build up a membership list - admin it like Slack or any other private chat - have an optional public landing page with times of shows Maybe eventually add audio QR code equivalents.
-
-
MaskOn Retweeted MaskOn
MaskOn added,
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
If the recorded speech is taking place in a two-party consent state — including CA, where many Clubhouse members are located — the person recording can be prosecuted regardless of where they're physically located. The critical issue is whether or not CH convos are "confidential"
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Actually, I think your first point might be wrong. “A good rule of thumb is that the law of the jurisdiction in which the recording device is located will apply,” Matthiesen Wickert & Lehrer says.https://www.rev.com/blog/phone-call-recording-laws-state …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
It's at least true for CA, where the state supreme court specifically ruled on the issue in 2006https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/california-two-party-consent-law-applies-to-recording-of-calls-made-from-other-states.html …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Just because the California supreme court creates a law does not mean it has jurisdiction over the case. When a business does business in multiple states it registers an entity in the state which means it can be sued locally even the recording happened in a one party state but
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @backspaceTab22 @webdevMason and
if it's just an individual in a different state California can't just assume jurisdiction.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
This question was the entire basis of the SC case, and the ruling determined "that the complaint was properly governed by California law" and could be prosecuted in CA despite the recording party calling from Georgia.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @webdevMason @backspaceTab22 and
"The California decision confirms that states with restrictive eavesdropping laws will not hesitate to enforce those laws against interstate callers."
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I get it, I'm just saying that I highly doubt this law applies to individuals. As I said I agree that it can apply to companies because they usually have a local entity that you can legally serve.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
That's just not how this case was evaluated or the ruling determined. It's not a bad theory, but it's not the precedent that was set.
-
-
Replying to @webdevMason @backspaceTab22 and
One thing you take from 1L civ pro is that it’s only a slight exaggeration to think of jurisdiction as “wherever you want the case to take place”. See: literally every patent troll case happens in the Eastern District of TX
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @alecfwilson @webdevMason and
Is “you” the plaintiff or defendant?
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.