The 5 Most Laughable Terms of Service On the Net

nicholas.m.carlson writes "According to these five terms of service and EULA, Google owns any content you create using its Chrome browser and can filter your Gmail messages if it likes. Facebook says it can sell its users' uploaded images as stock photography. YouTube can keep footage of your kids forever, even after you've deleted it from the site. And AOL can ban you for using vulgar language on AIM. Funny, right? That's why Valleywag calls them 'The 5 most laughable terms of service on the Net.'" Reader dlaudel writes, regarding the previously-mentioned Google EULA for Chrome, "According to Ars Technica, Google's EULA for Chrome was just copy-and-pasted from its EULA for other services, a practice that is apparently common at Google."

Comments

laughable?

[moderatorrater]

Not really. The google one's funny, although wikis which were made with a predominantly chrome-using user base might have a problem with it. The facebook one is blatantly taking a right that it doesn't have a legitimate reason to take.

AIM probably has that in case someone goes crazy swearing at some kids and a bunch of soccer moms get angry, and the youtube one is probably some CYA, since services like that can often store copies that are hard if not impossible to find.

Overall, the terms of service (like most ToS's) are overkill and not something that people would agree to if they actually read it. The problem is that they put them in legalese, which might as well be japanese for most people.

Re:laughable?

[sexconker]

So how do I read the Terms of Use?

Go to facebook.com? If I do that, I've already agreed to it!

Re:laughable?

[Skippy_kangaroo]

Everyone can understand this stuff when you point to the sentences in question.
Then why are there long complex court cases over the interpretation of clauses in contracts? English is not like maths - it can be and is ambiguous.

Care to tell me what the following clause means (it's just English after all):
8. Indemnification ...
(c) Promptly after receipt by an indemnified party under Section 1(g), 8(a) or 8(b) hereof of notice of the commencement of any action, such indemnified party shall, if a claim in respect thereto is to be made against an indemnifying party under such section, give notice to the indemnifying party of the commencement thereof, but the failure so to notify the indemnifying party shall not relieve it of any liability that it may have to any indemnified party except to the extent the indemnifying party demonstrates that the defense of such action is prejudiced thereby. If any such action shall be brought against an indemnified party and it shall give notice to the indemnifying party of the commencement thereof, the indemnifying party shall be entitled to participate therein and, to the extent that it shall wish, to assume the defense thereof with counsel satisfactory to such indemnified party and, after notice from the indemnifying party to such indemnified party of its election so to assume the defense thereof, the indemnifying party shall not be liable to such indemnified party under such Section for any fees of other counsel or any other expenses, in each case subsequently incurred by such indemnified party in connection with the defense thereof, other than reasonable costs of investigation. If an indemnifying party assumes the defense of such an action, (i) no compromise or settlement thereof may be effected by the indemnifying party without the indemnified party's consent (which shall not be unreasonably withheld) and (ii) the indemnifying party shall have no liability with respect to any compromise or settlement thereof effected without its consent (which shall not be unreasonably withheld). If notice is given to an indemnifying party of the commencement of any action and it does not, within ten days after the indemnified party's notice is given, give notice to the indemnified party of its election to assume the defense thereof, the indemnifying party shall be bound by any determination made in such action or an compromise or settlement thereof effected by the indemnified party.

funny?

[CaptainNerdCave]

the DMCA is laughable too, and we're not laughing

Re:while funny,

[Darkness404]

It loses in court and EULAs die and the world becomes a happier place.

What's Funny One Day...

[D Ninja]

...is scary the next.

Granted, most people ignore the EULAs. But, what happens if the EULAs can actually be enforced?

Re:while funny,

[SatanicPuppy]

EULA's are really more for protecting them from liability than they are for trying to steal our junk.

I mean, vis a vis the Facebook thing, there are vast quantities of precedent regarding copyright and liability which make it a bit unlikely that they could actually follow through on some mass appropriation of content...Just as an example, say I'm a professional photographer and someone else puts one of my images on Facebook...does that mean that they own all the rights to my photo? Seriously unlikely; those laws have wicked teeth, and there are very specific things that have to occur for you to transfer rights to your own copyrights to a third party.

Re:while funny,

[DittoBox]

No designer in their right mind would use even an nth of the shit uploaded on Facebook everyday.

Re:while funny,

[Docboy-J23]

Before software, the idea of agreeing to any terms before you even saw the product was ludicrous. Anything that might begin "Upon the opening of this package..." would have been called a "grift."

Re:Verizon DSL

[Bryansix]

Correct you are. The law as it is now is completely inadequate for the information age. We need laws that do prevent Verizon from telling you what you can and cannot download. Data is Data and they need to get out of the business of telling you which kind of data or from where you can download it.