The Web's Longest Disclaimer

Hide the Real Stuff by e8johan · 2002-11-03 20:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is probably a way of hiding 'offensive' paragraphs. I'd say that most end-user agreements are too long. A solution to this would be a legal phrasing and a readable phrasing (i.e. a shorter, readable form with the main points).

Re:Hide the Real Stuff by The_Shadows · 2002-11-03 21:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

Right, but then, of course, who's to say what the important parts are? The company likely wants certain things hidden. They will certainly tell the lawyers what is "important" and what is "not."

I mean, the company may consider it important to let you know that you're forbidden to sell their content. However, they may consider it an unimportant footnote that by entering you grant them power of attorney.
Re:Hide the Real Stuff by Patik · 2002-11-03 21:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

A solution to this would be a legal phrasing and a readable phrasing (i.e. a shorter, readable form with the main points).
Then you'll run into all sorts of legal problems. Who decides what is necessary to tell the user, and what he needs to know? A user may read the paraphrased EULA, then perform an action with the software not specifically outlined in that paraphrased form, while the action is clearly described as illegal in the full legalese EULA version.
Even worse, malicious companies can abuse paraphrasing to hide important information. For example, the shortened EULA for Kazaa (etc) can tell the user what can be done with the software (share and download "files"), but conveniently leave out the legal issues ("files" means only non-copyrighted material). You'll either end up with a bunch of innocent people in trouble with RIAA, or a mess of lawsuits between Kazaa and RIAA because they trick users into clicking "I agree" to an over-simplified statement without explaining the laws in full to the user.
Re:Hide the Real Stuff by Eivind · 2002-11-03 21:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

Certainly. But in such an "agreement" all the phrasing is 100% in their favour. The entire thing only says they have all rigths, you have none whatsoever.
Let's look at a few examples:
Engage in any other conduct that is, or that American Airlines deems to be, in conflict with this Agreement.
Now this one is the killer. Notice the OR in there. This one simply says that any conduct which they dislike is in violation of the agreement, whether such conduct is prohibited by the agreement itself or not. In effect this single statement renders the rest of the text meaningless.
American Airlines specifically denies you permission to hyperlink or provide references to the Site, unless you are allowed to do so under a separate written agreement with American Airlines.
Nonsense ! By putting up a website they implicitly allow linking to it. If they don't want people to link to it, they can take it down. "Provide reference" is even more ridiculous. Does this mean it's forbidden for me to tell anyone where to find the site ? If not, what does it mean ?
American Airlines will not treat as confidential any communications you send to us by electronic mail or otherwise. American Airlines has no obligation to refrain from publishing, reproducing, or otherwise using your communications in any way and for any purpose. Again nonsense. They assert that simply by accessing their website, I have to consent to their "agreement". What stops me from sending them "communications" with a similar assertment in it ?
You understand that American Airlines owns any and all information or material that you post on a Forum. You agree that you waive all of the rights you have to any information or material that you post on a Forum. American Airlines has the right to do whatever it wishes with that information or material, including but not limited to deleting or editing for any reason any posting by you.
So they own everything, yet in the next paragraph they say that whatever you post to the site is fully your responsibility and they have no obligations whatsoever. Now, which will it be ? Is it *their* material or *my* material ?
You agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless American Airlines and its affiliates from and against any and all claims, demands, proceedings, suits and actions, including any related liabilities, obligations, losses, damages, deficiencies, penalties, taxes, levies, fines, judgments, settlements, expenses (including legal and accountants' fees and disbursements) and costs (collectively, "Claims"), based on, arising out of or resulting from your use of the Site,
This says that (among other things) if you buy a ticket on the site, and they make a profit, leading to the need to pay taxes, you need to pay those taxes for them. Really. Read it again !
It goes on, but I think further commenting is needless, the "agreement" is clearly bunk, and I'd like to believe it'd never be upheld in any court in the world. Possible exception for the USA, I recommend people unlucky enough to live there to seek asylum elsewhere.
Re:Hide the Real Stuff by jesterzog · 2002-11-03 22:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

What they don't realize however, is that these agreements probably wouldn't stand up under any light.

I find it hard to believe that this is why disclaimers are written in this way. They are lawyers who write these things, after all. Of course they know what is and isn't enforcable.

Personally I think it's far more likely that they hope that other people won't realise that they wouldn't stand up under any light. As long as 99% of people don't realise what parts of disclaimers (and EULA's) are enforcable, 99% of people will arrange their use of a product or service in exactly the way the vendor wants them to.

Even if people suspect that it's over the top, it's not worth most people's time, money or effort to find out in an extended legal battle.
Re:Hide the Real Stuff by ptbrown · 2002-11-03 22:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

And then at the end of it all, there's the biggest CYA: You may not: S. Engage in any other conduct that is, or that American Airlines deems to be, in conflict with this Agreement.

I'm imagining an onUnload handler that checks if the site you're going to is some other airline and pops up a warning saying you're in violation of the EULA.

American Airlines will not treat as confidential any communications you send to us by electronic mail or otherwise. American Airlines has no obligation to refrain from publishing, reproducing, or otherwise using your communications in any way and for any purpose.

They probably outsource their email and crm services. This is the problem with panaceas like P3P: the limitations are overly-broad so you either have to be completely paranoid and not be able to do anything online, or relax the standards and allow for the possibility of someone abusing your trust. The only way to prevent people from using your personal data without your permission is to make it outright illegal. Too bad the people who want to do such things have a lot of friends in congress.

You agree that Texas law governs this Agreement's interpretation and/or any dispute arising from your access to, dealings with, or use of the Site, without regard to conflicts of law principles.

There's UCITA at work. Wasn't there a big fuss about a hundred and fifty years ago about one state's laws being enforced in another? That and something about those who forget the lessons of history...

--
Any sufficiently advanced civilization is indistinguishable from Gods.
Re:Hide the Real Stuff by Repton · 2002-11-03 22:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

If I cut out some of the synonyms from the clause (which seems like it should be OK, as I'm only making it say less, not more), I get:

You agree to [...] indemnify [...] American Airlines [...] from and against any and all [...] taxes [...] resulting from your use of the Site,

It still seems to me that the earlier poster's interpretation is consistent with the clause: If I use the site (to buy a ticket), and taxes arise from this use of the site (as they would) then I agree to indemnify (compensate) American Airlines for those taxes.

If that's not what it means, then it is not very clear ...

--
Repton.
They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle.
Re:Hide the Real Stuff by cicadia · 2002-11-03 23:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

I read the whole thing. There's nothing particularly bad in there.
Are you sure? You'd better read it again.
It's still okay? Well, you'd better read it again tomorrow, just to be sure.
From the agreement:
American Airlines reserves the right to change this Agreement and to make changes to any of the products or programs described in the Site at any time without notice or liability. Any such revisions are prospectively binding on you and therefore you should periodically visit this page when you use the Site to review the then current Agreement that binds you.
After reading this far, I came to the conclusion that there's no point reading any further, since they can change the agreement at any time, and you agree to let them.
They could conceivably have changed the entire text of the agreement between the time you get the original text and the time you post your acceptance. (This is especially likely given the amount of time it would take to read and understand the entire agreement).
I don't know about your experience with these things, but this looks like about the most offensive language I've ever seen in a set of terms and conditions like this.

--
Living better through chemicals
Re:Hide the Real Stuff by Erik+Hollensbe · 2002-11-04 00:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

The job of a lawyer isn't that it's enforcable, but that it's enforcable enough to keep it out of court.

I mean really, who calls up their lawyer everytime they're given a EULA? And second, who calls them when they've been told the EULA has been violated?

I'm sure there are some, but they are in the distinct minority simply because:

1) Those who do not have the money to fight giant corporations don't, and
2) Those who do are so protective of their money it's better to cut your losses and run.

So, unless you're getting pro bono help by someone worth their weight in bar admissions, it's just not happening.
Re:Hide the Real Stuff by douglas+jeffries · 2002-11-04 01:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

EULAs are supposed to be used to impose some conditions on the user (reverse engineering) that somehow affect the creators of the tool.

in this case, it does because without such a clause the authors might be help responsible for what the users are doing (by providing a crime-enabling product). the clause is there to prevent that from happening by transferring whatever legal liability they might have to the users.

this is why your car analogy isn't so good. no one's going to say the car company is responsible for the kidnapping, because most people understand the automotive industry well enough to distinguish between a product and its usage. most people (and especially the law) do not understand the software industry that well.

AAs AllAdvantage Program or Website? by spacefight · 2002-11-03 20:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's about AAs frequent flyer program, not about the whole site (the title and the URL says it):

If you choose not to accept these terms, you may enroll in the AAdvantage program offline by contacting AAdvantage Reservations/Customer Service.

They wrote it for a reason by hoegg · 2002-11-03 21:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

I decided to scroll around it for a minute and happened upon this gem:

You agree and understand that you will not bring against AMR Corporation, American Airlines, or any of its affiliated entities, agents, directors, employees, and/or officers any class action lawsuit related to your access to, dealings with, or use of the Site.

I mean, that's stupid. If your incompetent network admin leaks the travel schedules of me and 10,000 other Americans, we "voluntarily" waive the right to sue you?

If I was me (and I am), I would simply choose another airline who doesn't want to try and hoodwink me into something I will regret.

Re:They wrote it for a reason by Tomster · 2002-11-04 01:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

Somewhat off-topic, it really bothers me that EULAs and most legal documents are, well, written in abstruse legalese. Is anyone aware of a movement in the US to limit the use of complex legalese in favor of plain engligh?
Somewhat off-topic, it really bothers me that most computer documents are, well, written in abstruse 'technicalese'. Is anyone aware of a movement in the US to limit the use of complicated 'technicalese' in favor of plain engligh?
Somewhat off-topic, it really bothers me that most medical documents are, well, written in abstruse 'medicalese'. Is anyone aware of a movement in the US to limit the use of complicated 'medicalese' in favor of plain engligh?
Legalese is painful to read, but it exists for a good reason, just like 'technicalese' or 'medicalese' or other 'ese's. I feel your pain though, I do a little patent work in our office and that stuff is a nightmare.
-Thomas
Re:They wrote it for a reason by Auzure · 2002-11-04 02:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

"It's very much a case of the lawyers building a wall around their own industry to keep the common person out." if you really believe this, let me ask you a question: If legal contracts were to include a plain language section -- which would be legally enforcable? The legalese, or the plain language? If it is the plain language, why even include the legalese? If it is the legalese, then the plain language would be superfluous at best, and misleading at worst.

Re:probably makes it the most useless agreement by Sn4xx0r · 2002-11-03 21:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

I mean you could accidentally hit 'I agree'.

Shut up. If, the next time we need to go past an EULA, we need to type some kind of word shown as an image that can only be read using a mirror, a prism, and polaroid glasses, we all know you're to blame!

--
Got brain?

If they screw up by Mika_Lindman · 2002-11-03 21:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

"You agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless American Airlines and its affiliates from and against any and all claims, demands, proceedings, suits and actions, including any related liabilities, obligations, losses, damages, deficiencies, penalties, taxes, levies, fines, judgments, settlements, expenses (including legal and accountants' fees and disbursements) and costs (collectively, "Claims"), based on, arising out of or resulting from your use of the Site, including without limitation any Claims alleging facts that if true would constitute your breach of this Agreement."

So if you book a ticket online, and they screw up, you can't get your money back?

The law is lacking by weiyuent · 2002-11-03 21:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is a perfect example of how inadequate laws make life cumbersome for both corporations and their customers.

From the company's standpoint, EULA's could be a real headache, because the company has to hammer out pages upon pages of legalese to cover its own arse.

From the consumer's perspective, ever-expanding EULA's are just as much a nuisance as a potential pitfall when not read properly. It becomes impractical to read them, yet the less you read them before agreeing, the more you expose yourself to being taken advantage of.

The solution is more laws and better laws, and this is where the government CAN do good. If most things that are common sense can be nailed down in public law (i.e. we're not responsible if you scald yourself with hot coffee, we will not spam you, etc.), then EULAs could be trimmed and focused on the unique essentials of a particular situation. That would benefit both consumers and corporations. The only losers in this situation would be all the parasitic lawyers and the sneaky folks with dubious EULAs (*cough* Microsoft *cough*).

Re:Slashdotting Forbidden ! by tulare · 2002-11-03 21:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

Touche - I thought they must have had a /. clause in there somewhere. Of course, there's also this line further down:

American Airlines specifically denies you permission to hyperlink or provide references to the Site, unless you are allowed to do so under a separate written agreement with American Airlines.

Heh.

--
political_news.c: warning: comparison is always true due to limited range of data type

Jesus, enough already! by tulare · 2002-11-03 21:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

I mean, come on. Has it dawned on anyone else out there that these butt-covering disclaimers are becoming meaningless? What I'd really like to see would be a court opinion to the general idea of "the agreement was written in Legalese, which is no more readable to the person agreeing to the contract than Latin or Esparanto. Given that the person agreeing to the contract could not reasonably be expected to hire an attorney to understand his or her rights before clicking OK in order to buy airline tickets (or install Windows, ahem), the EULA as given is essentially an unenforcable abrogation of constitutionally protected rights. Therefore, the EULA in its entirety is invalid."

Of course, some fucknut tort lawyers would have to get real jobs, but I promise to lose 10^-30 seconds of sleep over that one.

Yeah, I know, I'm dreaming. Is that my alarm clock?

--
political_news.c: warning: comparison is always true due to limited range of data type

Re:This article is probably illegal :) by Performer+Guy · 2002-11-03 21:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

Nobody posted any of the contents. Of course it's legal to mention it. Besides, you don't have to accept the agreement to read it, or comment on it so you are not bound by it in any way.

Re:Hide the Real Stuff-EULAS by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-03 22:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

"The last paragraph, however, is the greatest laugh-inducer:

If any provision of this Agreement is found to be invalid or unenforceable, then the invalid or unenforceable provision will be stricken from this Agreement without affecting the validity or enforceability of any other provision.

So, they could essentially put "You must name your first child after American Airlines", have it be struck down as idiotic, but the rest of the agreement still stands...nice :)"

You must get a lot of laughs then, because I've seen that clause in a LOT of online and offline agreements. Basically if the law says a particular clause doesn't hold up in court the rest isn't invalid. IANAL of course so I can't say how legal that position is.

Re:Slashdotting Forbidden ! by syylk · 2002-11-03 22:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

I thought they must have had a /. clause in there somewhere.

What's the problem?

Timothy simply didn't agree to the terms of service!

Voila'!

Re:"So don't accept... by KjetilK · 2002-11-03 22:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

Hehe, yeah, I did that too.

Perhaps, if a lot of people click "I don't accept", they might get the message...

--
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid

Re:As long as this? by lightweave · 2002-11-03 22:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

Actually this is not an EULA it rather is a FAQ. If you read the subjectlines of the paragraphs you see that this is not about binding a customer, rather it is to explain what happens in certain circumstances. I'd say that this is actually a good document.

Mailorder privacy by newfoundry · 2002-11-03 23:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

[from their privacy policy...] "Protecting your privacy. Your privacy is important to us... " [unless you've read the eula...] "American Airlines will not treat as confidential any communications you send to us by electronic mail or otherwise. American Airlines has no obligation to refrain from publishing, reproducing, or otherwise using your communications in any way and for any purpose." [and if you want to opt out you'll need a stamp and a lot of patience...] "While we believe this disclosure of your information will result in opportunities that may be of interest to you, you have the right to tell us not to give your information to any third party. If you want American to keep all of your information confidential and not share it with any third party, please mail your written request to American Airlines AAdvantage Program; P.O.Box 619688; DFW Airport, Texas 75261-9688. Your request must include your name, AAdvantage number, mailing address and must be signed. Please allow six weeks to process your request. "

Airmail, anyone?

You agree that you can agree with the agreement by Anarchofascist · 2002-11-03 23:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

I only read as far as "By using the Site, you represent and warrant that you are 18 years of age or older and possess the legal right and ability to enter into this Agreement..." before my brain exploded and I had to go out the back and install a spare.

So, am I to understand that by using the site I agree that I am legally allowed to agree to this agreement? <fx src="explode.wav" /> bugger there goes another one.

The lawyers who wrote this crap are clearly a waste of valuable oxygen, water, energy and trace elements.

--
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!

I refused to sign... by wbean · 2002-11-04 00:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

I have lots of miles on AA and I refuse to sign that disclaimer. As a result I have to use their call center to get at my AA Advantage account. I've made several complaints about the language in the disclaimer, including a letter to the Chairman. All of them have been shrugged off without a substantive reply. My next step is going to be to concentrate on building up miles on another airline. Signing that agreement is simply not an option.

27 of 380 comments (clear)