Slashdot Mirror
Worst Terms of Service Ever
The legal birdseed here (appropriately and manically illustrated in the manner of The Secret Guide to Computers) makes the copy on Dr. Bronner's Soap look sane; the user agreement ("Click on any link or image to indicate "I ACCEPT" the USER Agreement.") begins with a little blurb about why it's necessary, and asks you not to be put off by the legalese. That might seem disingenuous at first, but buried in the text is this note, too: "[Yes, we know that you think that all this legalese is completely ridiculous, and we think so too, but we also believe that current law unfortunately requires that it be done this way; So if you know of a better, simpler 'legally correct' way, do tell us how!]"
(Besides this amusing legal stuff, the site is actually very interesting, at least if you enjoy U.S. history and trains.)
Hmmmmm. . ..I wonder how this will hold up in court?
Think I'll call em from a pay phone, just for shits and giggles
Are you sure this isn't the SCO Museum (which is hopefully soon to come)?
how about 1800collect or 1800 callatt
MonkeysKickAss
Do Not download or copy any images from this site.
Fortunately I didn't violate this part as I use lynx
for all www browsing. Others who use MSIE, Netscape/Mozilla,
Opera, ICab, etc. can't say the same though.
No stereographs were harmed in the making of this website.
4B4556494E
They may as well ask for the moon. I doubt the even the courts read EULAs or web site agreements these days ;)
But they are a joke though, or are they?
TOS (popup on main page but I know lots of people block popups)
-------- This space intentionally left blank --------
telephone calls placed in disregard of the foregoing will be charged at two hundred fifty dollars per telephone call.
...
So if you know of a better, simpler 'legally correct' way, do tell us how!"
So I'm going to have to pay $250 to try to help them?
I was going to suggest hammering them with requests, but gee, they've got that covered in the agreement, too!
Do not download or copy images from this website!<--- In CAPS too :o
Can anyone recomend a good lawyer?
_________ Help me get a PSP!
There's nothing in the TOS about slashdotting the site. If they really cared, it'd be in there.
"You agree to immediately notify CPRR.org by e-mail of any errors, ... or any other defects or deficiencies which you discover on this website . . . ."
Should I tell them about the TOS?
That is the longest TOS page I have ever seen. Looks like they have used more time on the TOS, than on the rest of the site.
I read through that and at first thought, that's pretty funny, I've been .. something about
/. poster seems to think.. this is FUCKING CREEPY. This guy scares me.
.. he's got some weird browser-crashing code or something .. wtf!!!! I'm using ...
thinking of putting stuff like that on my own web site
50,000 words long and at the end say "or you may simply ignore the above and
choose the following Creative Commons license instead". The fact that it's all
old public-domain stuff, hilarious!
But looking around I began to wonder.. is it a joke or not? I'm not seeing any
punch-line.. Maybe this guy is *serious*.. but how can you take it seriously,
it defies logic. It's already illegal to make unauthorized copies, so what's
the point? And he admits that it is ridiculous.. should I agree to anything
"ridiculuous"? Would it stand up in court?
If he seriously can't come up with a shorter agreement (hint: nothing gives
visitors the right to copy stuff that isn't PD, so you don't have to do *ANYTHING*).
Then I read his replies, and I'm starting to realize, this isn't funny like
the
Don't visit this site, this guy is probably collecting IP addresses and he's
going to start stalking you or something. I'm almost afraid to write this..
*shiver*
WHOA now everytime I press the submit button after visiting his site,
konqueror crashes
mozilla to post this now.
Intelligent slashdot readers? man, you sure aren't looking for a broad audience... :) Pehaps your fanclub specializes in off-topic, posts...
since all of you unsuspecting /. ers have agreed to my license terms muhahaha
There were 724,970 Visitors since 2.15.99.
As of 8:16PM EST on 2.8.04... they're going to need a bigger hit counter.
How are these images under copyright, even?
They were taken before 1930, the vast majority, right?!!?!
Can this poor website really survive a slashdotting? Perhaps some kind souls will provide a mirror...
Wonder If I could do that for my phone? Or charge people $ to access my voice mail, since I never answer the phone and just let it go right to voice mail...I bet Bill has this locked away in his file of "super super evil plans."
... except re-posting some of the TOS on other sites like Slashdot.
is a good slapping by the /. effect also a violation of their TOS?
I recall several sites that their TOS dont allow you to actually read the site or the TOS.
Not to mention briefly at the NYS DOH they had a policy that forbade you from (effectively) accessing the internet as it was their policy to not allow you to download copyrighted information.
With a TOS that long, who has time to check out the rest of site?
and no, I didn't RTFTOS, not completely at least.
"In post 9-11 soviet russia, only beowulf clusters of welcomed overlords are belong to old grit-eating Koreans!" aendeur
I bought NBA tickets a while ago via the web (for a team that shall remain nameless). I received an email with the transaction details, and below it says...
"This ticket is a revocable license.The holder, on behalf of the holder and any minor accompanying the holder (individually and collectively, the "Holder"), agrees to all of the terms hereof."
Then it goes on in excruciating detail about all of the stuff I can't do with the tickets I just purchased, and how by buying a ticket I grant them permission forever to use my image in whatever manner they see fit without paying a penny, etc, etc. By word count, that email is 19% transaction confirmation and 81% legalese.
The nice thing is that "This ticket cannot be replaced if lost, stolen or destroyed". WTF???? They made it patently clear I had bought a license...
Just thought it was sorta funny, in a sad way, and somewhat ontopic.
No
..is here: cprr Would you and your colleagues be willing to provide some assistance to make the language more to your liking? We hoped that you would notice our longstanding plea for help, acknowledging in the agreement that it is "completely ridiculous," quoting Shaw "I'm sorry this letter is so long, I didn't have time to write a short one" and imploring the legal community: "if you know of a better, simpler 'legally correct' way, do tell us how!"
A damn good joke too, I might add.
Creative commons, GPL, and all are useful and all, but just for pure simplicity, why not "This is in the public domain"? This site doesn't seem to be selling anything or "evil" in any way--but all that legal text!
-I am an elective eunuch.
Or so it seems, based on their reply to the Yale Law Blog article: http://cprr.org/Museum/Rants.html#Yale
Call it stupid, moronic, but according to these so called terms of service agreements, if someone did click on the link, in theory I should be able to track down users via their ISP's and stake my claim.
Oh well... back to real news "Priests need love too"
MoFscker
~~~
Universal Standard Disclaimers.
Yeah, yeah I know they are not the same as TOS, but they're still a good read!
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
"You agree to pay us three thousand dollars per unsolicited e-mail sent or telephone call and fifteen thousand dollars per e-mail address added to your commercial mailing list in violation of the foregoing, plus damages. "
This TOS is also going to be in some museum one day :)
Free XBox, PS2
There is a lot of funny stuff in it, I like this one most:
For example, if you write informally to ask us about using one or more images that you saw on the CPRR.org website and ask what the request will cost, while not specifying a price limit, you are thereby requesting and authorizing us to fill your order at a price consistent with the Use Fee Schedule and the terms and conditions of this User Agreement, and to let you know the total amount due for the license by sending you an electronic invoice which you are obligated to pay.
Next time somebody asks for my $/hour I charge big time!
Now, I once took a class in criminal law (community college, so again IANAL - this is just something I consider interesting). If a husband says to his wife "say one more thing and I'm going to pop you in the mouth", he cannot use her saying one more thing as a legal justification for popping her in the mouth.
She did not contractually agree to be popped in the mouth by saying one more thing, nor can he claim that he gave a "proceed at own risk" type disclaimer that let him pop her in the mouth. He's still going down for domestic abuse, regardless of his warning or her saying one more thing.
So, where these TOC's or EULA's are as egregious as "say one more thing and I'm gonna pop you in the mouth", I think they could be invalidated. But otherwise...
Start a happiness pandemic
...this guy's got a LOT of time on his hands.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/35375.html
Is it just me or does google just keep getting slimier?
The more you know, the less you understand.
You are not permitted to, and you warrant and agree that you will not do or facilitate any of the following:
[...]
(9) engage in any activity that may or will directly or indirectly impose a disproportionately large, unanticipated, or unreasonable load on our website bandwidth or infrastructure
Oops! Did the submitter read that? I hope the submitter didn't agree to their terms of service - they might try and charge him:
You agree not to take any action that will impose a disproportionately large or unreasonable load on our computer web server(s), network, or other infrastructure. Please be mindful of the large amounts of data transfer needed to allow viewing of the CPRR Museum web pages with multiple, large images, and avoid suddenly flooding the CPRR Museum website with large numbers of unanticipated visitors. Suddenly increased, excess web traffic on this website as a result of your actions, including but not limited to publicity, reporting, or recommendations to others regarding this website on network television or radio or national publications or media, of more than one gigabyte of additional Internet data transfer per month, shall be at your expense, and you agree to reimburse CPRR.org for the resulting costs at the rate of the then prevailing additional data transfer charge made by the Internet provider(s) hosting this website.
The chewbacca defense r0x0rz y0ur b0x0rz
Does anyone here read The Onion, or any other satire? If you didn't get the joke, go read Swift's Modest Proposal.
Sigh, I'm such a sci-fi geek.
When I read "TOS" I read "The Original Series" as in ST:TOS. I had to read that twice to understand they meant Terms Of Service, and now every instance of "TOS" in the comments gets me the same result...
You can't take the sky from me...
As pointed out by one of the posters on the LawMeme site this is actually a spoof and a good one at that.
Look at the bottom of the page: No stereographs were harmed in the making of this website.
and another one: The author of this publication is CPRR.org, a pseudonym. The author, an individual scholar who is not a Counsellor at Law, asserts moral rights.
Their reply: http://cprr.org/Museum/Rants.html#Yale
I wonder what part of the TOS slashdoting the CPRR web server violates?
I tried to right-click to download, and "oh the humanity" they've blocked the righ-click. You get a message that it's for viewing only. But it doesn't occur to them that people are "viewing" the photos on their machines, the pictures are already downloaded into their cache/temp/watever directory. In other words "view"="download", so I guess they'll have to sue every visitor to the website. Wait, what's that!? Someone is already knocking on my door! Oh noooo! Please, I didn't mean to steal the extra cute train pictures...
Well, they refer to it as a "functional parody", so I'm thinking that at least to some extent this isn't supposed to be taken seriously.
It would see that aggressive TOS with an embedded email address would be an interesting way to snare spammers. With the address only available on the TOS page (and surrounded by nasty terms), any spams to that address could only occur if the spammer "read" the TOS. I don't think it would be entrapment if the terms were reasonable (e.g., a $20 reading and handling fee for use of that address).
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
Which is to say, by linking to their page (an action which, you may note, does not require any of the processes of agreement to this contract stipulated in the first few paragraphs!) you grant them unlimited license to duplicate all content on the originating site, free of royalties.
I'm sort of impressed by this but also aware that a large fraction of the provisions of this contract are almost certainly unenforceable. (For one, it's an adhesion contract; it stipulates terms that fit the legal definition of "unconscionable" and on an entirely take-it-or-leave-it basis, with no adequate opportunity for negotiation. For another, the process of agreeing to this contract includes "clicking on any link or image" despite the fact that the link to this contract itself is virtually invisible, violating most states' fine print laws. The fact that simply sending them an e-mail also constitutes agreement to all of this contract is more amusing still.)
One other interesting point: It's not clear that any of these terms apply to any of the images on the EULA page itself, since at the time that you're viewing those images you can't have agreed to the contract's terms.
They are serious, although it's written kinda tongue in cheek. They just didn't have a real lawyer available to write it for them, so they tried to make it all inclusive.
I actually wrote a bookmarklet to bypass EULAs.
3 /K illThatEULA/
:)
It just finds he first 'textarea' and replaces the content with a given payload.
Then when you click "I Agree" you aren't actually agreeing to their EULA.
http://www.peerfear.org/rss/permalink/2004/01/0
Granted I have no idea if it's legal but who cares... it's all fun
So in this case you could hack the bookmarklet to replace the EULA with something like:
"All Your Base are not belong to Central Pacific"
and then hit the "I Agree" button.
It doesn't work for everything but at the very minimum you could search the page for "I Agree" and replace it with "I DON'T AGREE YOU INSENSITIVE CLOD!"
Gotta love the DOM!
Of course this will only work if they are checking CGI params but most web monkey's assume their HTML is readonly.
Kevin
I always have been tempted to add at the bottom of a long agreement: "and by clicking agree, you agree with full knowledge that you give up your mind, body, soul, finances and all property wether physical or intellectual, to the owner of (insert product or website) to do with as he/she pleases".
an extra special /. 'refresh' 45 clicks for stupidity! :-)
Yes, but perhaps he was referring to a musical instrument after all. Granted, it wouldn't make much sense given the context of the post but at least he would have had it spelled it correctly.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
The author of this publication is CPRR.org, a pseudonym. The author, an individual scholar who is not a Counsellor at Law, asserts moral rights
And silly me thought that was written by Oliver Wendell Holmes...
Any access to or use of this website or [...] or sending the character string "/I_ACCEPT_the_User_Agreement/" to our web server as you must do to gain access to our images, or [...] or the like, all indicate and signify that "I ACCEPT" this user agreement [...].
This is a neat trick, but I don't know if a judge would fall for it. However, later on the same page, they have an image (the SpamCop button) loaded from:e r_Agreement/logos/spamcop.gif
http://www.cprr.org/Museum/images/I_ACCEPT_the_Us
So simply by viewing this page you've "accepted" the license agreement!
Can someone answer this for me. The TOS talks about copyright protection on images taken from the 19th century. So even with recent copyright extentions these works are over 100 years old and should now be in the public domain. So why would such a document that has been drafted by legal professional still say that these works are protected by copyright laws and are not in public domain?
And another slight point, even by visiting the web site would put the viewer in breech of the TOS as the images from the site would be cached by both browsers and web cacheses like squid. Hence the images would be saved via HTTP.
You agree to use only the provided permissions e-mail address (or other e-mail links on this website, as appropriate) and not to telephone us or content contributors with permissions or other requests, nor to attempt to circumvent the provisions of this agreement, and telephone calls placed in disregard of the foregoing will be charged at two hundred fifty dollars per telephone call.
*67 =)
So....... this lady tells me that she'd been
:)
standing in line at Studio54 in Las Vegas for
approximately 45 minutes when a manager
sees some (obviously underage) half-naked girls
and waves them on in ahead of everyone.
Almost an hour later the lady says she gets into
Studio54 and sees that these girls are now obviously
drunk and are giving men oral sex in the corner of
the club.
The lady (quite offended by now) contacts another manager
and points out that she's offended by this behaviour.
The manager tells her something along the lines of
'You know lady, I'd mind my own business if I were you, You'd hate to have an accident on your vacation now, wouldn't you?"
Some kinda shit, eh? Anyway, this was about a year
and a half ago, just thought I'd put that out there.
Oh yeah...... OFFTOPIC!!!
Also, worst website design ever. Really, did these guys use GeoCities as their style guide? I don't know whether to be more offended by the TOS or the front page layout. ;-)
(For the humor-impaired, this criticism is a "functional parody". Yeah, that's the ticket.)
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
I see what they're trying to achieve with this contract, but they obviously haven't thought it out very carefully. Some of the provisions (unlimited royalty-free right to reproduce any site which links thereto, right to sue for damages due to bandwidth usage if someone mentions them in the press) aren't likely to have any enforceable form. The latter in particular strikes me as being a risk which is part of the ordinary course of business on the internet. Other provisions (like the abandonment fee on orders) are actually quite reasonable, although their phrasing is incredibly convoluted. The biggest problems are likely to be from their agreement rules, which seem to be an attempt to deal with Specht vs. Netscape, but in practice probably don't make the cut; it seems that any interaction with them whatsoever, according to this contract, constitutes a complete agreement. I would suspect that the law of adhesion would prevent them from enforcing many of the terms that aren't explicitly triggered by something else, such as placing an order.
But I see what they're trying to achieve; they want to be able to show digital images online without granting anyone the right to download them or print them out. Which is a reasonable goal to achieve.
i use a modem and mozilla anda big font, and i clicked on the site. it looked like any other enter the site front page, and it looked like a whole page to me. i didn't want for the image to load and clicked "enter the site". i looked at a few pictures and saw nothing about an agreement. i went
back and waited for the picture to load and THEN noticed that i could scroll down, and stuff was below that.
i hardly believe that i could be held to an agreement that through the normal course of web browsing, i never saw.
Exactly, this is slashdot, so being on-topic and intelligent are often mutually exclusive. This club is clearly looking for the rare few with the capability to tell them apart from other, similar sounding clubs you might see on the internet. Either that, or they're a bunch of raving monkey puppets. You be the judge.
Sent : Sunday, February 8, 2004 2:22 AM
To : museum@cprr.org
Subject : Worst Terms of Service Ever
Congratuilations! You have now won the covetted Slashdot Worst Terms of Service Award!!
You have also succeeded a Slashdotting!
GO CPRR!
w00t!
It's in the second sentence. The first links go to lawyer joke pages.
My guess is that the TOS are official, more or less.
That EULA should be taken out and shot!
This sig no verb.
ever cancelled a cellphone contract one month early?
try, calling two days before you contract is up to arrange cancelling on the end date, (so as not to incur a prorated fee) and immediately have the CSR start hammering that cancelling today means I'll pay a $175.00 cancel fee.-- reasonable?
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
The site may be interesting, but I guess I'll never know. I made a real effort to go through their legalese, and actually managed to read almost a full page before I was forced to stop. I was forced to stop because the way the language went, it is very possible that the next line said "by reading this you agree to give us your firstborn child" - and given the sorry state in which the US legal system is these days, I wouldn't be surprised if they could find a judge someplace to uphold the terms. :( After all, bigger nonsenses have been ruled in favor of, so the precedent exists.
So I didn't finish reading the legalese, and closed the browser window.
I bet I'm not the only one either.
I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
"You agree not to take any action that will impose a disproportionately large or unreasonable load on our computer web server(s), network, or other infrastructure."
/.ing this count as a violation of their TOS, then?
wouldn't
This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
I love how many sites think this is some sort of clever security measure, when all you have to do(Windows users at least) is hit the secondary windows-key on your keyboard and you can copy all the shitty railroad images you can handle.
It says that I need to keep my apartment clean. It says if my rent is more than 15 days late my landlord can evict me without notification. It says that if I cause him any legal trouble, I will have to (if I lose) pay for his legal fees. If I get evicted, I have to pay for the rest of my lease, his re-rent charges and everything else. Sounds like it would be pretty profitable to get me evicted!
The courts have held repeatedly that there is a "right to link" without the permission of the target. Whether agreed to or not, their license agreement cannot prevent anyone from linking to their domain. The overreaching hyperbole that permeates these terms of service is so extreme that I would imagine a court would hold the entire agreement invalid.
I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
Your f*cked if you've read this! (under 13's friendly version)
Down with sigs
As ridiculous as the TOS is, I have a better impression after reading the following from their "rants" page:
The Klez and Mydoom worms, for example, do send infected e-mails, but fake ("spoof") the return address. So the virus infected e-mail with our return address didn't come from us! Our e-mail is sent from a Macintosh that can't be infected by Windows only worms, and we use anti-virus software.
Okay, maybe they are nuts. But at least they don't spread Microsoft Viruses. (not that I did not say COMPUTER viruses)
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
The line "Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of the User Agreement. Click on image or link to accept. So you agree to his nutty TOS by just clicking on the link to read it? Fuck that.
Personally it sounds like someone there is a beer short of a six pack. Let's see if he sues /. for the hammering he's getting right now.
I'm going to change my browser tag to point to a consumer agreement on my website and that by accepting connections from my browser, you are accepting the terms of the agreement... ...if you misuse any data sent by this browser...misuse consisting of UCE, telemarketing, etc...you will be subject to a fee of two hundred fifty dollars per incident...
(Rather offtopic, but interesting anyway.)
9 99 93321
the CPRR site has an interesting link to an article in New Scientist called "Steam fires underwater jet engine"
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns
Steam locomotive fans will recognize a familiar principal at work - the steam injector used for pumping feedwater into a locomotive boiler has been applied to propelling a boat.
Think about the implications of THIS!
Google owes this guy $1,000,000.
It might be possible to register it with the copyright office as public domain. It is $30 ($1Eh), but it will be in permanent record.
-I am an elective eunuch.
I'm fairly sure that they can't make discussing a contract you haven't signed illegal. In fact, half of that TOS would be illegal, and you couldn't agree to it.
I *was* going to look at the terms but the wording on their site is:
Click on any link or image to indicate "I ACCEPT" the USER Agreement
And you have to click on a link to view the user agreement!
My Hello World is 512 bytes. But it's also a valid Fat12 boot sector, Fat12 file reader, and Pmode routine.
A contract requires a "Meeting of the Minds" to be valid. (See Britney Spears's annulment filing) I imagine that most judges would take a look at the ToS and break down laughing. Then you default to Copyright Law. They're probably right that their enhancements of public domain photographs are not themselves public domain. Still, wow. Just, wow.
</IANAL>
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
Minors cannot legally contract, which presumably (IANAL) includes click through licences. Hmmm, maybe I should get him to install my software?
My rights don't need management.
I'm going to change my hostname to "you_agree_to_let_me_take_any_image_from_your_site .by_including_this_host_in_your_logs_and_permittin g_me_to_connect". If it shows up in their logs, it's conclusive proof that they wanted me to take things from their site.
I've been looking for a good one -hope you don't mind if I just copy yours and use it for my vanity page of vacation photos.
Comment found in the source...
...before the nagging anti-right-click javascript code. May apply to the pop-up I am blocking too - shame that...
<!-- STOP THIEF! WARNING: IT IS A FEDERAL CRIME UNDER THE DIGITAL MILLENIUM COPYRIGHT ACT -->
<!-- TO CIRCUMVENT THESE COPY PROTECTION MECHANISMS TO DOWNLOAD COPYRIGHTED IMAGES. -->
<!-- LEGAL NOTICE: YOU ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE USER AGREEMENT. -->
Yes, but whats that got to do with the price of tea in D'ni?
you think that TOS is crazy - once i went to a site that sells software to keep my clock updated, turn off those grey-background popups, make sure my paypal account stays valid, insure me against alien abduction, and make red lights turn green on my approach. Their TOS made me install a keylogger and PCAnywhere on my computer and give the webmaster complete access to my computer "so as to ensure that the terms of this contract are fulfilled." but what could I do? my computer was unusuable from popups and i kept hitting red lights!
The flag just makes more sense than the constitution. - Judas Gutenberg
All I know is, they don't seem to have configured their robots.txt file properly. Wget isn't doing any clicking at all, and it's swooping a lot of images onto my hard drive.
---
works great... :-)
I thought by forcing a user to agree to an agreement that could not have been viewed before agreement would cause the agreement to be void.
/. users, themself on the first full moon)"
In this case it states "Click on any LINK or image to indicate "I ACCEPT" the USER Agreement." Where User Agreement is in fact a link. Hence, you have agreed to an agreement which you were unable to view before agreement.
This is the same as placing stickers on CD/DVD roms stating "by opening this packet you agree to the enclosed User Agreement". The user agreement then would go on to say "...You are to sacrifice a virgin on every full moon (or in the case of
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
i think a contract like this requires there to be 'consideration' to you to make it binding.
e.g. you have to get something of monetary value (sometimes $1).
Judging from the comments on the TOS - it sounds like something a Railroad Museum guy would write (with tongue deeply planted in cheek) - bear in mind that RR Museum types make the typical /. reader tame by comparison. I'll bet the guy had a grand time writing up that TOS.
This has been as much fun as reading all of the posts about Despair, Inc trademarking the "Frownie" and threatening several million e-mail users with trademark infringement.
A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
Interesting tidbit when you view source...
<!-- STOP THIEF! WARNING: IT IS A FEDERAL CRIME UNDER THE DIGITAL MILLENIUM COPYRIGHT ACT -->
<!-- TO CIRCUMVENT THIS COPY PROTECTION MECHANISM TO DOWNLOAD COPYRIGHTED IMAGES. -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://CPRR.org/no-download.js"></script&g t;
My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I likes it!
Back when I was a boy, my grandfather and I used to walk down the tracks, just for a walk. Grandfather used to work for the railroad in a way; he worked for a company that built engines. In our walks he would tell me things about the rails, cars, engines, how the railway system worked etc. Cool stuff.
:) Be careful, because flashing your eyes over the photos on that site too many times constitutes excessive usage and you could be charged a fee!!
Today you can't get near any railroad property without being arrested. I can't even walk my dog down the wide strip of grass between the rails and the end of the city blocks, a strip that is a good 100 feet wide. I know because I was told to leave the property two summers ago. It's not like I was on the tracks -- I walked as far away as possible, along the narrow strip of woods separating the blocks from the railroad property.
It's obvious this is due to legalease, due to our litigious society causing all of the hokey laws to be made these days. We're no longer people, no longer neighbors, but suspicious, protective and paranoid. We're all out to get each other.
Finally, the tongue in cheek reply: maybe the HostileEULA(tm) on that site has something to do with the railroad's shrinking domain, and they need some sort of revenue mechanism 'just in case' ?
No. They'd get nailed on many different things. First, some things the declare are simply things you can't declare. Like that people can't link to them if it causes lots of traffic. Sorry, but the right to link has been upheld. You can't tell people they can't do it.
Second, this isn't a contract, it's a TOS (as you note). Well as such it's not an agreement between two parties, it's one party telling the other how it's going to be. For things like that, your rights are generally limited to termination and damages. You can set more or less whatever terms of use you like, and terminate someone's right to use your service if they violate them, but you can't demand any moneyt generally except for actualy damages. A contract is different since both sides negoate, sign and agree.
Third, along the lines of #2, in all cases with fiat-type agreements like these, the courts have held that they must be REASONABLE to be enforcable. You can't impose totally unreasonable terms on use, and even more can't impose unreasonable punishments (if you can impose any at all).
But above all, the images they are using are public domain. Now maybe they could convince a judge that their cleanup efforts qualify as creative and thus orignal but I highly doubt it. Thus they can't claim any sort of ownership at all, invalidating any part of the TOS to do with that.
So basically what you've got here is either a group of people having some fun with everyone, or a group of peopel that seem to think they have teh ability to dictate the law to the rest of the world (like some companies we know). For their sake, I hope they never try to test this in court.
Liquidated damages refers to compensation for the actual costs incurred by one party due to the breach of the other. For example, if you are in a 3-year contract for a service, and the service provider has an ongoing expense committed for those 3 years, and you cancel early, you can reasonably be liable for their expenses - this is liquidated damages.
An arbritrarily chosen or otherwise indefensible value for liquidated damages is not reasonable and will not hold up in court. It's actually a punitive fine and contracts cannot impose those.
K
I mean, holy freaking shit!
Hah, five million dollars liquidated damages ... completely unenforceable. No court would even think twice about it. Large liquidated damages provisions in contracts are not enforcable.
Section 356(1) of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts (which is pretty much universal contract law across America) states:
(1) Damages for breach by either party may be liquidated in the agreement but only at an amount that is reasonable in the light of the anticipated or actual loss caused by the breach and the difficulties of proof of loss. A term fixing unreasonably large liquidated damages is unenforceable on grounds of public policy as a penalty.
From what I know, this basic principle of contract law is the same pretty much everywhere. Liquidated damage provisions are most often used to offset the cost of delay in a party's performance of contractual duties. But of course, a reasonable fixed cost must be set. Can't be a penalty, merely a means of recouping a loss.
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
This agreement has all the signs of being intended humorously. Little sentences like "If you want permission, we sincerely hope that you don't get scared off by all this legalese and give up!" seem to support that theory. In any case, it wasn't written by lawyers; no shark worth his salt would be so specific as to say " you agree to pay us liquidated damages in the amount of five million U.S. dollars . . . ." and if he was worth his salt, he'd still say it "five million (5,000,000) dollars (US.)"
*****
Dear Mary,
I yearn for you tragically,
A.T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.
Is anyone else amazed by the fact that industries as old as railroads are still doing shit as fucked up as this? This isn't the first railroad to get on slashdot for being jackasses.
Yeah, Gattaca is on TV right now and I'm watching
If you read through the 19 pages of threats and fines your rewarded with instructions on how you can make a donations. That's classic. Here's another ridiculous quote: "For example, if you write informally to ask us about using one or more images that you saw on the CPRR.org website and ask what the request will cost, while not specifying a price limit, you are thereby requesting and authorizing us to fill your order at a price consistent with the Use Fee Schedule and the terms and conditions of this User Agreement, and to let you know the total amount due for the license by sending you an electronic invoice which you are obligated to pay." Also, by reading this post you authorize me to take your car. Writing, striking, calling, emailing, or talking to me or anyone who knows me or calling the police, a lawyer, or a hitman in an attempt to help retrieve your car will be considered an order placed with my company for 5 billion US Dollars worth of nothing.
Regards,
~Joshua Norton
I did not (nor do I) accept the cprr.org user agreement (I read it, but didn't click on anything). Instead, I just put cprr.org into Express WebPictures and let it start harvesting images.
My mirror site (sans TOS) will be up for your viewing pleasure soon!
No, wait a dang minnit! These pictures are too valuable. Can anyone tell me how I can get in touch with the black marketeers who traffic in 19th Century railroad photographs that have been scanned and rendered as JPEGs?
- The Robber Baron of crusty old train pictures
Okay, first, I wonder if by discussing the TOS, you've violated the TOS, or are liable to compensate them for rebroadcast/reproduction of copywritten portions of their TOS/EULA?
/Terms of Use.
Second, here's how I deal with the problem. I have a message on my computer's screen, as my background. It's MY computer's Terms of Service
I'll summarize it here. I am in the process of ammending it to add that any webpage or image, music file, or information of any type which allows itself to be processed, played, viewed, editted, etc., on my equipment, but you'll get the idea.
By allowing yourself to be installed on this computer, (see subpara. 11b(3)a1R) you forfit, on behalf of the copyright holder(s) (to be hereafter refered to as mindless assholes) the programmer(s) and all other individuals and/or entities throught the universe, and throughout time, forwards and backwards, in all dimensions, cosmii, or universes, all rights to restrict use, to payment or compensation for use, or to ownership of the software, of any type sort or description whatsoever. You hereby agree, on their behalf, to binding arbitration in any dispute of any type whatsoever, by the owner of this computer, who has no obligation to be fair to you, the program, or any individual, organization or entity connected in any legal, moral, financial, or sentimental way, whatsoever.
Moreover, if anyone so much as attempts to contact, by any means, (including Native American Smoke signals) regardless the effectiveness of the communication, you agree on behalf of the copyright holders, programmers, etc., that they shall each be liable to paying the owner of this computer Mass Storage Space Rental fees, at a minimum rate of one billion (1,000,000,000) US dollars per byte (individual unique character) utilized to store the program, and/or any ancilliery files, plus any change to registry/directory files, *.ini type files, etc., and also for any space in volitile memory at double that rate, and any other fines or fees the computer owner may think of. Additional fees may be levied for the storage around computer owner's apartment/house/workplace, or other dwelling, for manuals, packaging, media storage, etc.
So there.
I'm just noting that you and I are the only two people in the world who still remember iCab. It's part of my Macintosh emergency kit.
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
This is completely rediculous, they try to claim that by restoring works already in the public domian that they get a new copyright on it....that is AFAIK totally the opposite of copyright law... this kind of thing really gets my blood pressure up, lets put together a bunch of money and get someone to take them to court and fix them up.
A Smith & Wesson beats four aces -- Murphy's Law of Poker
copying or saving of digital image files or other content ... requires prior written permission of the rights owner(s) and payment of a fee, and severe penalties apply for theft and unauthorized publication, which is also a crime.</i>
.</i>
I have to write to them unless I disable my cache...
<i>You agree that your use of this website is irrefutable acknowledgment by you that you have read, understood, and agreed to each and every term and provision of this User Agreement . . .
If I use their website and don't notce their user agreement (it's in small a small type) then have I actually agreed? IANAL but I believe I should have seen their user agreement before or a link to it in huge type at the top of the page.
<i>BY CLICKING ON ANY IMAGE OR LINK TO INDICATE "I ACCEPT," BY ACCESSING AND BROWSING THIS WEBSITE, OR BY SENDING US AN E-MAIL OR OTHER COMMUNICATION, WHETHER DIRETLY OR INDIRECTLY, YOU ARE ASSERTING THAT YOU HAVE READ AND AGREE TO THIS USER AGREEMENT...</i>
So I can download stuff from the homepage, it's when I download stuff off ANOTHER page that I have to ask for permission. Also, I can't find their postal address on their homepage so how can I get written permission to cache the website?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Ok, then I have my cat walk on the keyboard. My cat is definitely not a citizen, and I'm pretty sure he's under 18 (at least he LOOKS under 18), and he's never been to law school so I'm willing to bet he couldn't be formally have authority as principal conferred on him in a way that I couldn't somehow contest. Of course if the cat decides to roll over and testify against me it could get ugly. I'd probably give him a good spraying with the hose.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
It's hilarious.
The word "Slashdotting" in their TOS actually links back to this article.
See http://www.bunop.com for a license
agreement that applies to use of a Pencil.
Too bad reality caught up to it.
This user agreement may be a joke, but its also a legaly binding joke. Anyone who knows about it is going to be much less inclined to use the site (I am!), which is counter productive to the aims of a museam.
There seems to be little of that (gratitude) being displayed here. There is a veritable treasure-trove of memorabilia from both the public domain and (mostly) private collections being offered for free with the simple codicil that you don't copy it for any other purpose. BFD! If you're worried about it, don't go there, how simple is that?
:-)
Maybe if they charged an admission fee to cover the costs of hosting and maintaining the site, most of the complainers would never have seen it in the first place to complain about it. It's their website and we should simply be grateful that they are sharing this wonderful chapter in the history of the United States free of charge, even if it is exclusivly for viewing. You can't take home exhibits from a 'real' museum, like the Smithsonian Institute without paying a hugh price (money, freedom, etc.), why should this be any different. The exhibits in the Smithsonian Institute are in the public domain, are they not?
Here is the body of the email I sent to them to express my gratitude:
***
This is a truly remarkable website (http://www.cprr.org/Museum/index.html), thank you for sharing these wonderful photographs and histories of one of America's most outstanding achievements. The building of the transcontinental railroad was simply a magnificent accomplishment, a chapter in itself, in the building of a nation. This website is a spectacular way to remind people of the blood, sweat, and tears needed to accomplish this Herculean feat.
I haven't the vocabulary needed to express my thanks for letting me see this museum on-line. Some people think your User Agreement is harsh. Too bad for them! It doesn't take a three digit IQ to see the value and the cost of these exhibits. I do not understand the mentality of those people. Do they expect to take home exhibits from a real (as opposed to virtual) museum, like the Smithsonian Institute? Why should this be any different.
If I were doing a research project, I would find the $50.00 cheap enough to acquire 4000 of the photo's. As it is, I can visit whenever I like and if I desire to share with a friend, all I need do is send them the URL for the Main page and make them aware of the User Agreement Link (http://www.cprr.org/Museum/legal.html). What could be simpler? That I can visit all the exhibits for free is a wonder in itself; for that I am humbly grateful.
At the risk of being redundant, Thank You!
***
That is called being gracious, a seemingly alien concept to some of the folks here. Please don't screw it up by messing with them. All it will accomplish is their taking their site down.
But I forget, everything should be free, shouldn't it? (Of course, you wouldn't want your payroll department to think that now, would you?)
BTW, thank you for sharing that URL, I might not have known that site was there if it weren't for the griping about the EUA.
Keeper of the terrible karma ---
Since we're wandering into legal la la land why not make it one million dollars per call (emphasis and satire all mine).
"I know the parent was just joking, but it's amazing how many people think that getting around a contract is just that simple."
Have a minor do it.
There is no way that this will hold up in court. They would have to prove that you understood the terms of the contract you were entering into. All you would have to say is, "I did not read the TOS and it still let me do what I wanted to do. I wasn't even aware of them." And that would be the end of that. I have NEVER seen someone go to such lengths to keep pictures of a railroad from getting out, pictures that they probably scanned from encyclopedia Britannica in the first place. This is just an example of what librarians do with all of that free time.
-Moduz
The Microsoft EULA is another piece of legalese that fails to meet the criteria of reasonableness in a number of jurisdictions, namely the UK and EU (AFAIK, IANAL)
For instance, I've got a copy of NT (unfortunately) and I run it on 2 machines in breach of the EULA. But the EU/UK says that I can make fair and reasonable use of any copyrighted work that I have bought a license for. I consider running it on 2 boxes is fair & reasonable :)
If MS disagress then they better take me to court.
The Machine stops.
"...we sincerely hope that you don't get scared off by all this legalese and give up!"
You know, for a EULA/TOS/legalese ton of rubbish, they did well not to have to use capitals until 75% of the way through...
Changed: link simulated (it's a "#" link), copyright violated, caps changed.
I think that we've all broken the law here by making and following this link.
-thetorpedodog (I haven't made an account yet...)
Sure you can make all sorts of requirements, but in the end if you piss off your customer base.. it was sort of useless.
Like companies that dont have real live people to talk to on the phone.. they loose my future business.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Alot of these pictures are in the National Archives, and are also part of the Library of Congresses American Memory collection. This site sucks.
How is a comment programming? /* @*&^ if $#KDJk^es '+5, Nerd' */
the entire contract is void UNLESS
you have a clause which states
that in the event that some clause is not applicable, the entire contract is not void.
Popagregio may have submitted the story, /.ers
but timothy made it visible to all
With a site looking like that, I'd expect them to pay me to actually make use of my extra time, and go through the trouble of finding anything on the page. Why did they even bother with the TOS for a page that looks like that. :(
THIS IS THE INTERNET. PLEASE PICK UP YOUR SERIOUS BUSINESS SUIT AT THE FRONT COUNTER.
Simply too perverse legalese-wise to allow anyone to proceed into that site. You never know who may end up with their logs and stuff. What if it was a legal team that specialises in patent demands ?. Life is just too short to have to read pages of legalese even if it was meant as a joke. Was it actually meant as a joke ? I don't know and truthfully don't fucking care.
while were at it, lets nominate that page for worst page ever to www.webpagesthatsuck.com. seriously whoever invested money for someone to write that TOS of that frontpage piece of crap is just a tard.
I have a method for identifying legaleze, or for that matter, anything written by a lawyer: count the number of times the document uses "in the event that" and compare to the number of times it uses "if". "In the event that" is pure, useless verbiage which can in all circumstances be replaced with "if". It's simply poor writing and is not more "clear" or "exact" than "if", but I guess it's ingrained in lawyer culture, so they continue to use it.
This document uses "in the event that" ten times, but uses "if" over eighty times. Looks like wannabe legaleze to me.
Indeed, if you look at the bottom of the document, you'll find this:
I guess my point is that this isn't as funny as you would think: if it were an actual lawyer writing this, it would show just how bad things have become around here, but it's not some lawyer, just some random loony.Another possibility is that this man has just pulled off the most masterful troll in the history of the Internet by fooling thousands of Slashdot readers into rightful indignation. However, the document seems serious about some of the provisions about copying images, so this might not be the case. On the other hand, these more plausible sections may have been added specifically to ward off trollbusters.
In any case, take it with a grain of salt. You might end up looking foolish if you say that this signals the end of American civilization.
"Other people stole our work and sold it on a CD" makes a fine excuse, but rather than sue that person for copyright infringement (assuming, in the light of Bridgeman vs Corel, that they even have a case), they chose to try to lock up the content so no one can touch it.
I've seen this type of "look but don't touch" paranoia before, where one person attempts to maintain total control over the object of his obsession (despite that it consists of publicly-available material) through legal threats and aggressive behaviour. I think that is exactly what we're seeing with this site.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Now that someone has actually paid a real lawyer to craft this pernicious license, it will spread like fungus through the Internet, as it is freely copied into website TOS'es. Computer virus writers got nuthin' on lawyers, for frustrating damage capacity.
--
make install -not war
That being said, your post is incorrect on many levels:
- You are confusing agency with Power of Attorney. Even if dekashizl's hooker was indeed his agent (which I will later show that she is not), she cannot enter into an agreement on his behalf without establishing a Power of Attorney. For example, if you were to hire a lawyer, he would be your agent, in the sense that he would be fiduciary to you, but that agency relationship would not be sufficient for him to enter into an agreement on your behalf. For that, you two would, of course, need to establish Power of Attorney.
- dekashizl's hooker could not have Power of Attorney in this instance. Obviously dekashizl's hooker could not enter into a Power of Attorney agreement until she reached the age of majority.
-
It is illegal in (I believe) every state and the District of Columbia to act as the agent of another in exchange for compensation without a license. Since dekashizl described his 'double-clicker' as a 'hooker' and not a 'slave', we must assume that this girl receives compensation for her 'double-clicking' services (as well as any other services that she renders with her fingers, mouth, etc.) We can assume that she does not have any type of professional license because she has not reached the age of majority.
Of course if this ever came to trial, the Thai hooker in question would probably have bigger problems on her hands than this. Practicing law without a license is certainly illegal, but the penalties for engaging in sexual intercourse in exchange for compensation tend to be somewhat stiffer (no pun intended).Hope this helps.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
Suddenly increased, excess web traffic on this website as a result of your actions, shall be at your expense.
I'd say it's pretty clear that this excess web traffic is a result of the actions of whoever wrote these amusingly insane rules. I think CPRR.org's lawyers are screwed.
The ______ Agenda
"Click on any link or image to accept the User Agreement" - So I've agreed even before reading because the agreement isn't on the front page?
By using this website, you indicate your agreement to the following terms and conditions:
All your base are belong to us.
-BMojo
fair and reasonable would be copying the install cd and keeping one safe in the event of media damage: it doesn't extend to installing as many pirate copies as you think is reasonable. take it to court, and you'd lose, plain and simple and anyone who disagrees is Just Plain Wrong. The End.
Hmmm, let's see. According to your terms of service it'll cost me at least $250 dollars to tell you. If I email you, $1 million.
I think I'll just tell you to go fuck yourselves instead.
Dear god what a hideous site that is. Bugger the horrendously ridiculous TOS... how about the fact that their site is one of the most offensive to the eye, horrendous to read, god awful to navigate, and just plain BAD I've ever had the misfortune to view.
If they'd spent just one quarter of the time they'd spent on their TOS on actually designing the site, maybe they'd get people actually viewing the darn place for something other than their ridiculous TOS.
Urrrrgh... I shudder at just how cluttered, ugly and badly laid out that site is...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm sorry if this has been reported previously, but apparently the site attempts to discourage copying of the TOS as well. Try right clicking on the TOS to see what I mean.