On paper, arbitration is far more efficient and cost effective than court action, and I for one am for it. The problem appears to be the bias involved. If the arbitrator is a neutral third party, who is familiar with the case law/issues, then it would be far more cost and time effective, and provide fair outcomes.
The root problem here IS NOT whether or not you can shoot aircraft, or where you should be able to fly drones, but whether or not it is legal to be a belligerent asshole. Even if the drone was over the shooter's property, was he in immediate danger? Doubtful. Would shooting it be effective way to protect himself if he was? About as effective as shooting the tires of a car headed for you. So then the only real thing he did was piss off his neighbour. That's not the way civilized adults should be handling their problems. Just like it was inappropriate for my neighbour to introduce himself by assaulting me and causing thousands in property damage, because he claimed my mufflered motorcycle was too loud and that's how asshole's solve their problems. INSTEAD we could try having a conversation about it. Then maybe I'd gear up instead of down everytime I drove by from then on, or flown my drone elsewhere instead of suing.
For those that say it needs to not exist until it's perfect, it's like any Beta software. Mostly good but still some kinks. Tesla wouldn't be able to reasonably find all the kinks without help, and you have to Opt-In (with $5000) to try the Beta. You might have a case blaming Autopilot if your Tesla crashed, driving itself, without you in it, but Tesla specifically permits that only on private property for liability. Otherwise it's an imperfect driving aid, though as Tesla points out, has had fewer fatal accidents per 100000 miles than the American average. Don't blame Autopilot because you valued watching DVDs over safe driving practices, like, not hitting semis.
Slashdot Mirror
That's $318 per person, which might half with legal fees. That's pretty reasonable for stealing data.
On paper, arbitration is far more efficient and cost effective than court action, and I for one am for it. The problem appears to be the bias involved. If the arbitrator is a neutral third party, who is familiar with the case law/issues, then it would be far more cost and time effective, and provide fair outcomes.
The root problem here IS NOT whether or not you can shoot aircraft, or where you should be able to fly drones, but whether or not it is legal to be a belligerent asshole. Even if the drone was over the shooter's property, was he in immediate danger? Doubtful. Would shooting it be effective way to protect himself if he was? About as effective as shooting the tires of a car headed for you. So then the only real thing he did was piss off his neighbour. That's not the way civilized adults should be handling their problems. Just like it was inappropriate for my neighbour to introduce himself by assaulting me and causing thousands in property damage, because he claimed my mufflered motorcycle was too loud and that's how asshole's solve their problems. INSTEAD we could try having a conversation about it. Then maybe I'd gear up instead of down everytime I drove by from then on, or flown my drone elsewhere instead of suing.
For those that say it needs to not exist until it's perfect, it's like any Beta software. Mostly good but still some kinks. Tesla wouldn't be able to reasonably find all the kinks without help, and you have to Opt-In (with $5000) to try the Beta. You might have a case blaming Autopilot if your Tesla crashed, driving itself, without you in it, but Tesla specifically permits that only on private property for liability. Otherwise it's an imperfect driving aid, though as Tesla points out, has had fewer fatal accidents per 100000 miles than the American average. Don't blame Autopilot because you valued watching DVDs over safe driving practices, like, not hitting semis.