by Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday September 03 2008, @04:53PM (#24865717)
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...
You're a lot braver than I am...it's one thing to 'fess up to watching porn, or lots of it, to but knowing details of the TOS of "many porn and hentai sites"...wow. Good for you.
I'm fairly certain it was actually referring to child pornography. If they actually cut people off for downloading porn, they wouldn't have any customers. Also, Google removed the "all your content are belong to us" clause from the license for Chrome.
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.
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.
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."
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.
a eula is a warm blanket that stockholders and potential investors curl up in, as most of them are very old and have only a vague grasp of what these con-sarnit tubes are about, a little draconian business practice makes everything a bit easier to buy into.
Another fun part, copyright is a strict liability issue. That means that no matter how well Facebook thought they had permission you can sue them anyway for up to $30000/work (as opposed to the 150000$/work for willful infringement RIAA/MPAA wants). That's one of the reasons you go with a stock photo agency - they usually offer some indemnity that their pictures really are cleared to use. Oh yeah and apart from that, there's the model release so unless it's only you in the picture they have to get that too.
Unfair terms in these pre-written contracts are often thrown out by courts precisely because of the unequal bargaining power of the parties. It's not forced as such, but there is certainly recognition that they haven't been agreed between two equal and fully informed parties.
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.
The facebook one is blatantly taking a right that it doesn't have a legitimate reason to take.
From their EULA:
"By accessing or using our web site at www.facebook.com or the mobile version thereof (together the "Site") or by posting a Share Button on your site, you (the "User") signify that you have read, understand and agree to be bound by these Terms of Use ("Terms of Use" or "Agreement"), whether or not you are a registered member of Facebook."
Doesn't mean its enforceable. What if I put a website up that had a TOS that said (which of course you had to go to my website to read.)
"By accessing or using our web site at www.youarenowmyslave.com or the mobile version thereof (together the "Site") or by posting a Slave Button on your site, you (the "User") signify that you have read, understand and agree to be bound by these Terms of Use ("Terms of Use" or "Agreement"), and are my personal slave forever."
Guess what, not enforceable. There are even more issues with EULA stored online (that you have to seek out to read) plus various things about contracts requiring negotiations and consideration.
I think in the case of EULAs, though, people have an intuitive understanding that they can not, or should not be held to the terms of the EULA just because they click OK. They rightly think, "Well, I bought it, and they can't make me agree to anything after the fact, so I'm just going to click OK without bothering to read what they can't enforce."
Or it could just be that people are stupid and lazy and we are correct to feel smugly superior to them.
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.
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 thought it might have something to do with data retention and backups. i.e. preventing someone from suing them because they still have a copy of a deleted video on one of their 2-month-old backup tapes.
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.
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
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.
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).
9.4 Other than the limited license set forth in Section 11, Google acknowledges and agrees that it obtains no right, title or interest from you (or your licensors) under these Terms in or to any Content that you submit, post, transmit or display on, or through, the Services, including any intellectual property rights which subsist in that Content (whether those rights happen to be registered or not, and wherever in the world those rights may exist). Unless you have agreed otherwise in writing with Google, you agree that you are responsible for protecting and enforcing those rights and that Google has no obligation to do so on your behalf.
"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?
Chromium is the open-source project. Google Chrome is a Google product derived from that project, basically by slapping an additional licence or two on top.
I personally have always got a kick out of this particular clause from the iTunes EULA:
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.
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.
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.
Verizon DSL (Score:5, Funny)
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...
Re:Verizon DSL (Score:5, Funny)
Once when I registered for a porn star's discussion forum the terms of use said I couldn't post comments of a sexual nature.
Parent
Re:Verizon DSL (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Verizon DSL (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Verizon DSL (Score:5, Funny)
You realize you're not allowed to use Verizon's services to defame them in any way, right? Careful what you say.
Parent
Re:Verizon DSL (Score:5, Informative)
I'm fairly certain it was actually referring to child pornography.
If they actually cut people off for downloading porn, they wouldn't have any customers.
Also, Google removed the "all your content are belong to us" clause from the license for Chrome.
Parent
Re:Verizon DSL (Score:5, 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.
Parent
Re:Verizon DSL (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
while funny, (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:while funny, (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:while funny, (Score:5, Funny)
More realistically, they try and the consumer has no clue about their rights and they succeed. But even more likely, they never do anything.
Parent
Re:while funny, (Score:5, Interesting)
*Run through my reality filter*
Parent
Re:while funny, (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:while funny, (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:while funny, (Score:4, Informative)
a little draconian business practice makes everything a bit easier to buy into.
Parent
Re:while funny, (Score:5, Informative)
Another fun part, copyright is a strict liability issue. That means that no matter how well Facebook thought they had permission you can sue them anyway for up to $30000/work (as opposed to the 150000$/work for willful infringement RIAA/MPAA wants). That's one of the reasons you go with a stock photo agency - they usually offer some indemnity that their pictures really are cleared to use. Oh yeah and apart from that, there's the model release so unless it's only you in the picture they have to get that too.
Parent
Re:while funny, (Score:5, Insightful)
No designer in their right mind would use even an nth of the shit uploaded on Facebook everyday.
Parent
Re:while funny, (Score:5, Funny)
Don't worry. There are plenty of designers who aren't.
Parent
No problem... (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Parent
Re:No problem... (Score:5, Interesting)
This may have been modded funny, but is actually rather insightful.
Parent
Re:No problem... (Score:5, Funny)
So much for the blonde joke about putting whiteout on the screen... they were way ahead of us all along.
Parent
Re:No problem... (Score:5, Informative)
You don't HAVE to click OK, you can click cancel. And you don't HAVE to use their products. That is the negotiation.
Well, no, actually [wikipedia.org].
Unfair terms in these pre-written contracts are often thrown out by courts precisely because of the unequal bargaining power of the parties. It's not forced as such, but there is certainly recognition that they haven't been agreed between two equal and fully informed parties.
Parent
laughable? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
From their EULA:
"By accessing or using our web site at www.facebook.com or the mobile version thereof (together the "Site") or by posting a Share Button on your site, you (the "User") signify that you have read, understand and agree to be bound by these Terms of Use ("Terms of Use" or "Agreement"), whether or not you are a registered member of Facebook."
My emphasis.
Parent
Re:laughable? (Score:5, Insightful)
So how do I read the Terms of Use?
Go to facebook.com? If I do that, I've already agreed to it!
Parent
Re:laughable? (Score:4, Funny)
"By accessing or using our web site at www.youarenowmyslave.com or the mobile version thereof (together the "Site") or by posting a Slave Button on your site, you (the "User") signify that you have read, understand and agree to be bound by these Terms of Use ("Terms of Use" or "Agreement"), and are my personal slave forever."
Guess what, not enforceable. There are even more issues with EULA stored online (that you have to seek out to read) plus various things about contracts requiring negotiations and consideration.
Parent
Re:laughable? (Score:5, Funny)
or by posting a Slave Button on your site, you (the "User")
Let me suggest a slight change: by posting a Slave Button on your site, you (the "Leather-hooded Gimp")...
Parent
Re:laughable? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think in the case of EULAs, though, people have an intuitive understanding that they can not, or should not be held to the terms of the EULA just because they click OK. They rightly think, "Well, I bought it, and they can't make me agree to anything after the fact, so I'm just going to click OK without bothering to read what they can't enforce."
Or it could just be that people are stupid and lazy and we are correct to feel smugly superior to them.
Parent
Re:laughable? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Something tells me YouTube is not to blame (Score:4, Insightful)
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).
Re:Something tells me YouTube is not to blame (Score:4, Insightful)
I thought it might have something to do with data retention and backups. i.e. preventing someone from suing them because they still have a copy of a deleted video on one of their 2-month-old backup tapes.
Parent
Re:Something tells me YouTube is not to blame (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.
Parent
funny? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:funny? (Score:5, Funny)
the DMCA is laughable too, and we're not laughing
We are. HAR HAR HAR!
Sincerely yours,
the R.I.A.A.
Parent
They're supposedly changing the Chrome EULA (Score:5, Informative)
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
What's Funny One Day... (Score:5, Insightful)
...is scary the next.
Granted, most people ignore the EULAs. But, what happens if the EULAs can actually be enforced?
Not ownership (Score:5, Informative)
Licensing (Score:5, 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!
Oh the 5 most...? (Score:5, Funny)
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..
Google Lawyer must be a plush job (Score:5, Funny)
Copy-paste copy-paste copy-paste
Glad I'm on /. (Score:4, Funny)
How's that for some sh---
[------ACCOUNT BANNED-------]
I don't think so ... (Score:4, Informative)
Seems pretty clear to me. Why the rabble rabble?
EULA for Open Source? (Score:5, 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?
Re:EULA for Open Source? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Sometimes it pays to read the EULA (Score:4, Interesting)
Man Finds $1,000 Prize in EULA
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/23/2315211 [slashdot.org]
Notable Omission (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Indeed. (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Parent
Re:the most amicable terms of service in the unive (Score:5, Informative)
Would you wizz on an electric fence?
Parent
Re:the most amicable terms of service in the unive (Score:5, Informative)
Would you wizz on an electric fence?
It hurts :(
Parent
Re:so what (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent