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."
I skimmed the terms of use when I started my Verizon DSL account several years ago, and I'm quite certain it said something about downloading pornography being prohibited. Um, yeah, sure -- click "agree" to continue...
what happens if these companies decide to try enforcing the EULAs?
not only is time travel possible, it's irrelevant.
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.
These days, laws force people that store data to keep a copy of that data for 'forensic puropses'.
OTOH, when posting anything to The Internets, don't be surprised if it shows up in some odd places (like a google search by your boss).
"I was in love with a beautiful blonde once, dear. She drove me to drink. It's the one thing I am indebted to her for."
the DMCA is laughable too, and we're not laughing
In order to keep things simple for our users, we try to use the same set of legal terms (our Universal Terms of Service) for many of our products. Sometimes, as in the case of Google Chrome, this means that the legal terms for a specific product may include terms that donâ(TM)t apply well to the use of that product. We are working quickly to remove language from Section 11 of the current Google Chrome terms of service. This change will apply retroactively to all users who have downloaded Google Chrome.
Rebecca Ward, Senior Product Counsel for Google Chrome
...is scary the next.
Granted, most people ignore the EULAs. But, what happens if the EULAs can actually be enforced?
Lol 3rd Pots! err opst ...stop
Fuck it.
Content created with Google Chrome. By reading this post you acknowledge and agree that Google (or Google's licensors) own all legal right, title and interest in and to the post, including any intellectual property rights which subsist in the post (whether those rights happen to be registered or not, and wherever in the world those rights may exist). You further acknowledge that the post may contain information which is designated confidential by Google and that you shall not disclose such information without Google's prior written consent.
The Google EULA states that you grant them a non-exclusive right to store and reproduce your stuffs where necessary for the use of Google's services, which is a necessity because otherwise they'd be infringing on your IP rights by storing your files and serving them up to you. You retain copyright, ownership, blah de blah, as stated at the top of that part of the EULA. For Chrome, it's already been revised to only include the "you retain your rights" clause.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
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!
The question should be: when was the last time YouTube said they wouldn't keep your home movies forever?
If you just make pessimistic assumptions until you are proven wrong by a legal document (ignoring the possible invalidity of many EULA clauses) then you don't have to worry about this stuff.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Most people don't actually read all of the Terms of Service, including myself. The problem is we don't feel that large companies (such as the ones expressed in the article) would take advantage of us in their EULA and just agree to anything. But if we did read and find it (such as now) are we going to stop using these services? Probably not.
Anything and Everything about the Net
Tomorrow we'll see the 10 fastest ... and then the 20 worst ... and then the 100 funniest ...
And on the day I read a headline like "the 50 hottest nerds" on the frontpage, I'll digg that story. (and promote it on every other page I can find too).
Slashdot will need it, by then. Sigh..
Copy-paste copy-paste copy-paste
I think that these kind of clauses in the TOS (particularly the YouTube one listed) have to do with the fact that they aren't going to go through all their data backups and guarantee they delete your video submissions, even if you delete it from the site. When you think of it in that context, it makes a lot of sense for them to cover their asses.
not so much funny "ha ha" as funny "holy crap these companies are all run by people with God complexes."
ôó
How's that for some sh---
[------ACCOUNT BANNED-------]
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
WARNING: the above link leads to a nasty GNAA page, and it's the same one you all have seen, so don't click it out of curiosity.
Would you wizz on an electric fence?
Seems pretty clear to me. Why the rabble rabble?
"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
Would you wizz on an electric fence?
It hurts :(
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Man Finds $1,000 Prize in EULA
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/23/2315211
The lunatic is in my head
You also agree that you will not use these products for any purposes prohibited by United States law, including, without limitation, the development, design, manufacture or production of nuclear, missiles, or chemical or biological weapons.
I always make it a point to alter the EULA to my terms. Really, if a forced, non-negotiated contract can be valid, I've got them by the balls.
A simple yellow Post-It note with my terms stuck to the screen allows me to click "OK" to the presented terms.
I'm not sure how I'm going to get Google to send me all of their 2008 profits in exchange for testing their browser, though.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
All your base are belong to Google
I definitely agree. Considering where your data is going and what might happen to it will almost always prevent these problems.
I think my main point is about the people on Youtube who don't read Boing Boing and /. Mostly, all of the videos on Youtube are crap that no one has to worry about. But there have to be some cases where someone makes a mistake. One may forget to edit something embarassing out, or leave something personal visible in the edge of a scene. Some YouTube users will assume that the delete switch can fix this. They probably have no idea that this information is going to stay in storage somewhere practically indefinitely.
Now, before I get caught up in the uber paranoid every-large-corporation-is-evil groupthink, it's probably safe to say that YouTube isn't going to do anything with this embarassing/personal information that the user thought was deleted. But the possibility is there and it's something to consider.
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
and it's total BS. I actually had this conversation with a friend that owns some 350 properties. It was quite an eye-opener for me. Evicting is not easy, not swift, and not free.
In numerous cases, he has simply told them "be out of here in three days and so long as you haven't trashed the place I'll even give you your deposit back." In the long run it works out far better for him than the 2 or so months of lost rent trying to get them through the eviction process, plus the cost to serve the notice, the time to go to court, etc. Evicting you is the last option the landlord wants to take. (unless you are a complete terror)
He really doesn't like evicting people. From his discussions with other landlords, in most cases, the tenant never shows up in court. But for his experience, EVERY SINGLE TENANT has shown up for court, drives him crazy. Every one of them fought it.
There are quite a lot of laws on the books to make eviction a long process, and you as a tenant cannot waive those rights by signing anything. Although it is legally possible to sign away any of your rights short of those in the constitution, there are laws forbidding contracts from including the surrender of certain rights. It doesn't nullify the rest of the lease agreement, but that part that says he can kick you on the street without warning, that part of the contract is void.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Is for the Dunhill web site. Dunhill makes expensive stuff for people who earn bags of money. In their EULA, it says that you are not allowed to link to their web site unless you get written permission. You can read that http://www.dunhill.com/en/terms-and-conditions/ Be sure to forward that to a few people.
This looks like a bashing that went wrong. Complain about Googles bad EULA and they turn around on a dime and change it to the better the very next day. It must be very very hard to run a smear campaign against a company like that. Sucks to be Microsofts astroturfers nowadays.
HTTP/1.1 400
Quite interesting, I clicked it out of curiosity after reading your post to see if it could do any harm since I consider myself protected enough by using Firefox on Linux with some restrictive settings. *Sigh*... The only way to get rid of it was to issue "killall firefox" - so much for the pop-up blocker. I guess using NoScript is not that paranoid after all.
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?
Just go to their original open-source site and download it from there. No EULA at all other than the BSD one(which is fairly non-intrusive)
http://code.google.com/chromium/
You will need to compile it, though, but I suspect a compiled non-EULA version of it will be available for Windows very very soon.
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.
None of these are as good as this one: http://www.dvorak.org/blog/html/terms.html
Sorry, but our systems have detected that you posted the above using Google Chrome. Therefore, the content of your first post are belong to us, along with any rule-ness benefits ownership implies.
When I was preparing to market some software, my own lawyer and I talked about it. This was several years ago but oddly enough I don't think the situation has changed much since.
The subject was "Click Through Agreements" be they on the web or on software installation programs. According to her (and she's the lead partner for IP in a fairly prestigious firm) the funny thing about click-through agreements is that they're entirely untested.
While everyone in the IP industry sort of goes along assuming they'll hold up, there remains this possibility that if someone ever did go to court the entire practice could get thrown out as invalid. We all declare that these agreements have meaning, and as long as we all pretend to admire his outfit, the emperor is treated as if fully clothed.
Any misunderstanding of my interpretation of this is down to me, not the lawyer who is quite good at her job.
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
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.
The article summary (and orginal Valleywag article) are misleading. They both fail to note that the Facebook EULA allows you to revoke the license by removing your content: "If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire..." Facebook could never create a stock photography site -- it's customers can cause the license to the content to expire at any time. Frankly, the Facebook EULA is quite reasonable. Facebook needs rights to the content that it has on the site, and that is what it asks for.