Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The 5 Most Laughable Terms of Service On the Net

Posted by timothy on from the until-you-cry dept.

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."

12 of 399 comments (clear)

  1. while funny, by mistahkurtz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    what happens if these companies decide to try enforcing the EULAs?

    --
    not only is time travel possible, it's irrelevant.
    1. Re:while funny, by khellendros1984 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It loses in court and EULAs die and "they" come up with something even worse.

      *Run through my reality filter*

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    2. Re:while funny, by umStefa · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I am a professional photographer, and I do have clients who have posted pictures that I hold the copyright on to facebook.

      I have serious doubts as to facebook ever actually using posted pictures commercially, much less moving to sell them. The reasons are 1)there is no way for facebook or any purchaser to confirm that the uploader actually owned the copyright (thus exposing them to the statutory $150,000 penalty on images with a registered copyright... in this case thank you US congress!) and 2)even if the copyright holder uploaded the images any sort of commercial usage requires a model and/or property release if any identifiable persons or property are in the image, which facebook will not have thus exposing them to lawsuits from those depicted in the images.

      --
      Technology is most abused by the very people it was created to help
  2. Licensing by drooling-dog · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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!

  3. EULA for Open Source? by John+Hasler · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "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.
  4. Sometimes it pays to read the EULA by floydman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Man Finds $1,000 Prize in EULA
    http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/23/2315211

    --
    The lunatic is in my head
  5. Re:Something tells me YouTube is not to blame by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  6. Re:so what by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?
  7. Look at the YouTube one again; by jabithew · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
  8. Re:No problem... by jabithew · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This may have been modded funny, but is actually rather insightful.

    --
    All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
  9. Re:Have you watched the news lately? by BungaDunga · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  10. Re:Verizon DSL by hansamurai · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.