Slashdot Mirror
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."
what happens if these companies decide to try enforcing the EULAs?
not only is time travel possible, it's irrelevant.
Heh heh... Just the other day an acquaintance was telling me that his company won't use open source software because the GPL is "too restrictive" (huh?). So I suggested that he actually read the EULAs for the software they do use there. He just mutters something about communism and the conversation is over!
is none of them are legally enforcable
by reading this post and moving your mouse or touching your keyboard
you agree to assign all property to me forever
"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."
Why the hell do they think they need an "EULA" or "TOS" for a supposedly Open Source program at all? Doesn't Google run these things pas their lawyers? Or do they and this is the result?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
And the scope of that is severely limited by very many state, county and city regulations, unless you happen to live in a libertarian "paradise". This is why contracts always have a clause like "If a portion of this contract is void due to conflict with laws, the remaining portions of the contract will still be in full effect." Contracts are not only legal instruments; like all human communication, they are also used to intimidate and establish a notion of security. Do yourself a favor and read up on the law; it takes about an hour at the library or online, and it can save you $thousands and a lot of pain...
For example, I remember reading in the Seattle city code (in the late 90s), that if you ask the landlord for permission and funding to do reasonable minor renovations to your apartment, and don't hear anything within 30 days, it is an implied agreement. You may proceed, and if you present receipts, the landlord is legally required to reimburse you for costs up to something like $200. (I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice, simply my recollection of my own experiences.)
The difference is, the online realm doesn't have these community standards yet.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
Man Finds $1,000 Prize in EULA
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/23/2315211
The lunatic is in my head
This is why anonymity is so important on the internets. If you hold a magnifying glass up to anyone's life you are bound to find something objectionable if you look hard enough. So, multiple identities and anonymity is the only way to remain safe online.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
As far as deleting content, we all know that is BS. These users voluntarily unloaded the content. Not one forced them. They uploaded the content onto a free service and expect some privacy? That is like allowing some random house painters to paint you house for free, and expect all you stuff to be there when you get back.
I have much more sympathy for the TOS when a product is free than when the product has a real cost. The free service has to protect itself from intellectual theft and harassment by lawsuit. If a video sharing site did not own the content, or at least a license to it in perpetuity, then these services surely would be sued by young teen unmarried mother who was foolish enough to post a video of her naked baby running around the house, only to be chided by her mother that such pictures were not good publicity.
OTOH, the publicity of the TOS are good because they help educate the populous that nothing is truly free. The pictures, videos, and words you post can be used if and when there is a need for someone to so do. I am wondering if this is the year when a sex video has political ramifications. At least with words, you can say you were just playing around. So, I think as people get used to these free services, we will see a more sane approach to the situation. Honestly, this tech is just too new for social norms to have developed around them.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
What strikes me as interesting is that Facebook thinks they can sell your photos you upload. IANAL, but I am pretty sure that unless I explicitly transfer the rights over to them I maintain all ownership and copyright control over any photos (that I took myself) uploaded to them. I don't think a blanket EULA can revoke my right to the copyrights. Am I wrong here?
Y'know, I think that the UK would be a much happier place if everyone knew what "This Does Not Affect Your Statutory Rights" meant. It's everywhere in consumerland, at the bottom of every product guarantee for example. What it means in that context is that the guarantee is only in addition to your existing rights under the Sale of Goods Act, and doesn't affect those rights in the least. Lots of store managers and customers don't realise what massive power they have if they're sold a lemon. That's just one example. Some basic consumer rights should be taught at high school.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
You understand and agree, however, that YouTube may retain, but not display, distribute, or perform, server copies of User Submissions that have been removed or deleted. The above licenses granted by you in User Comments are perpetual and irrevocable
So they can keep it, but not watch it, broadcast it or transfer it elsewhere? Seems to me this is just to make sure you can't sue them for not wiping the file from their servers the nanosecond you tell them to.
All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
This may have been modded funny, but is actually rather insightful.
All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
Guess what, that was my point :)
If I send you a link to a jpg stored on their server, and you click it, you're accessing their content. No big difference between that and viewing a website with an image hotlinked from them (I have no idea if they've blocked hotlinking or not, and I don't really care).
"The EULA is not only more ridicilous than we imagine, it's more ridiculous than we can imagine". (Haldane, I'm sorry)
BTW, by reading this post you agreed to send me £100 monthly for ever and ever.
Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors!
Wasn't there a case of a news program basically ripping off someone's YouTube video, then the same guy uploaded to YouTube a recording of the original video being used on the program, and then got slapped with a DMCA notice.
Verizon can stop their customers from downloading whatever they want, as those customers can drop Verizon and go somewhere else. Violating the First Amendment is a government issue.
Reviewing just the first hour of video games.