Worst Terms of Service Ever

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by timothy on Saturday February 7, 2004 @12:59PM from the outside-of-sco's dept.

Popageorgio writes "Yale's Lawmeme features the most oppressive, paranoid web site TOS ever, found at the Central Pacific Railroad Photographic History Museum. 'Additionally, in the event that your actions in violation of this User Agreement result in our being deprived of our exclusive rights . . . you agree to pay us liquidated damages in the amount of five million U.S. dollars . . . . 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.'(Emphasis theirs)." The museum acknowledges this is crazy, too -- read on for more.

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.)

10 of 401 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

It's a JOKE by wobblie · 2004-02-07 13:24 · Score: 4, Informative

see their reply to Yale
A damn good joke too, I might add.
Re:stupid terms of service and the court by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-07 13:36 · Score: 5, Informative

I'm pretty sure your post was in semi-jest, and IANAL, but here's my $0.02.

Terms of service bind you in a contract with a company or individual. These terms, while defined by the company, need to be within reasonable limits and with a justification. For instnace, if you bail out of a cell phone contract early, it is reasonable that they charge you $200 for what you would have brought in over the next 2 years of your contract.

Also, and i may have seen this from watching too much Judge Judy, but because something is in a contract does not mean it is binding. For the obvious example, if someone had a contract that required an illegal activity (like human slavery or prostitution) that contractual agreement is non-binding. However, i am unclear if the entire contract becomes null and void; I believe soley that clause or agreement is voided.

As someone who hardly issues T.O.S. for client's websites, does anyone have a suggestion on a good medium point for T.O.S's?
The CPPRs reply by amembleton · 2004-02-07 13:40 · Score: 4, Informative

Their reply: http://cprr.org/Museum/Rants.html#Yale
Parody by screwballicus · 2004-02-07 13:43 · Score: 4, Informative

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.
No it's not.. by bcore · 2004-02-07 13:53 · Score: 5, Informative

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.
Re:That TOS is WEAK! by Honkytonkwomen · 2004-02-07 14:08 · Score: 5, Informative

Actually, about a thiord of the way down, it says:
" 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."
So I guess /. is screwed ;-)
Re:That TOS is WEAK! by Morgon · 2004-02-07 15:22 · Score: 4, Informative

Actually, that seems that the poster is liable, not Slashdot.

We're on Popageorgio dime, now.

--
[DISCLAIMER: This post is a work of satire and should not be misconstrued as a holy text upon which to base a religion.]
Re:That TOS is WEAK! by bjhonermann · 2004-02-07 15:25 · Score: 4, Informative

Actually, I think we get to bill this all out to Yale's Lawmeme sight. Then again, I'm sort of betting that Yale's law students could get them out of this. -Brian
Source reveals DMCA protected copyright control by pbryan · 2004-02-07 17:02 · Score: 3, Informative

Interesting tidbit when you view source...



<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!
Re:Click on the link to see the agreement... by canthusus · 2004-02-07 20:16 · Score: 3, Informative

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.
You don't even have to visit the website to agree:
"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, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THIS USER AGREEMENT, AND THAT YOU ARE LEGALLY AUTHORIZED TO ASSENT TO BE BOUND TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS PRESENTED IN THIS USER AGREEMENT. "
But that's quite a long way down the 20,000 word document, so you may not have noticed...