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!
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.