The 5 Most Laughable Terms of Service On the Net 399
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."
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.
Re:Verizon DSL (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Verizon DSL (Score:5, Funny)
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.
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.
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.
Re:Verizon DSL (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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...
They'd never enforce something like that - they'd lose 40% of their subscribers overnight.
while funny, (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:while funny, (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:while funny, (Score:5, Interesting)
*Run through my reality filter*
Re:while funny, (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:while funny, (Score:4, Funny)
My brain works.
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.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:while funny, (Score:5, Insightful)
No designer in their right mind would use even an nth of the shit uploaded on Facebook everyday.
Re:while funny, (Score:5, Funny)
Don't worry. There are plenty of designers who aren't.
Re:while funny, (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You should do what Playboy is said to do with their photos. You should invisibly mark the photo by your credentials.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_watermarking [wikipedia.org]
It is said to have no effect on the image and if done right, it is impossible to destroy it. A webmaster friend who got seriously sick of their (expensively paid) graphics stolen by other sites implemented it to everything. I mean it is not some huge stamp or something :)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, it is impossible if professional solutions are used.
I am almost sure there must be cheaper, open source solutions too. The famous "Digimarc" technology is used since 1996
https://www.digimarc.com/solutions/images_pro.asp#ensure [digimarc.com]
It is in Photoshop too. There is no way they won't be warned with address information to contact.
What Playboy does is, watermarking AND hiring companies to spider web for their jpegs. They get alerted and if it is high end enough, they sue them.
The only thing I won't suggest is, us
Re:Have you watched the news lately? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:No problem... (Score:5, Interesting)
This may have been modded funny, but is actually rather insightful.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further"
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.
Actually, I asked my lawyer once... (Score:3, Insightful)
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
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.
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!
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.
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")...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 mont
Re:laughable? (Score:4, Funny)
Damn... One more rotten bill to pay. You'll have to send me your address for the check.
I mean, that post was okay, but not nearly worth the price. But since you said I have to, I guess I'll pay up...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've never been to facebook.com. My wife has, though, and I've seen over her shoulder that one of our mutual friends has posted a picture that includes me.
Were facebook to use that picture in advertising, I'd have them by the balls; I've never agreed to their terms in any way, and I certainly haven't signed a model release.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Its more to cover themselves in corner cases.
E.g. Miss A posts a picture on facebook. Then Facebook hold a conference, and during one session, a speaker demontrates the new search, and that photo appears in the search results. Miss A has explicitly allowed (in the ToS) that photo to be prestented in cases like this, so it stops Miss A (who is a nutter) sueing every time the photo comes up in a Facebook demo.
Use of am image in a magazine or TV advert would probably be outside of the terms, and a judge mi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> The problem is that they put them in legalese, which might as well be japanese for most
> people.
And yet 99.999% click "Agree" without even attempting to read the terms. Only fools agree to contracts which they have not read and understood.
And most are not that hard to understand anyway. "It's legalese and so I can't understand it" is usually code for "I can't be arsed to make the effort to understand it."
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.
Re:laughable? (Score:4, Insightful)
The google one in TFA is not the Chromium one, but instead;
Google reserves the right (but shall have no obligation) to pre-screen, review, flag, filter, modify, refuse or remove any or all Content from any Service.
Which seems to me actually to be fairly reasonable. I know Slashdotters hate any kind of censorship, but if I were Google I'd want the right to take stuff off my branded sites for any reason I wanted without fear of lawsuits. What if someone posts copyrighted material or pornography on youtube and someone complains? They can take them down and sort out the rights and wrongs afterwards. The important thing is, the brand is protected.
I do trust Google not to abuse this clause because of something else that Slashdotters tend to neglect; people who want to make money today will, as a rule, want to make money tomorrow too.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Re:funny? (Score:4, Funny)
We are, too. YO HO HO!
Up yours,
The Pirate Bay
Re: (Score:2)
the DMCA is laughable too, and we're not laughing
Seriously. So, is the chrome EULA "cute" because it's a Google product? I don't care if they copy and paste it - what if they try to enforce it on someone using their browser?
For the apologizers (Score:2)
Before anyone says something along the lines of the following...
But these are private companies, they can do whatever they want. It's there space.
..., please tell me when the last time Youtube told you it would hold your content after you deleted it. Oh right, you had to find that little minuscule footer link that most no one goes to. These are also posted when signing up, but they are in boring, long, law-speak that no one bothers to understand.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 de
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why does it need "terms of service" at all? It's supposedly Open Source.
Re:They're supposedly changing the Chrome EULA (Score:4, Informative)
Chromium is open source. Chrome isn't.
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?
No surprise. (Score:2)
Everyone asks for whatever they think they can get preemptively to reduce their own liability. I mean, imagine Facebook loses all your pictures through some data breach. If they didn't have all the rights to 'em sewn up, this might be a problem.
Likewise the rest. If you have no rights, you can't complain when they get infringed on. The AOL thing is probably more along the lines of pre-justifying the banning of accounts.
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!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's (sort of) my point. You'd be surprised what people believe - or have been led to believe - out there. The guy I was referring to thought that if his company used any FOSS, for any purpose, then everything they'd ever created would have to be open-sourced as well. Beliefs like this aren't at all uncommon, in my experience.
Problem (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Has to do with offline backups... (Score:3, Insightful)
laughable (Score:3, Insightful)
not so much funny "ha ha" as funny "holy crap these companies are all run by people with God complexes."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
YOU agree that your casting of a gaze at the HEADQUARTERS or a BRANCH of a COMPETING COMPANY shall result in your TRANSFORMATION into a PILLAR OF SALT.
Worst Story Submission Ever? (Score:2)
The story submission makes assertions about the claims in the various user agreements and then 'supports' these claims by linking to the entire agreements, leaving it for you to sift through the masses of text yourself, to prove or disprove the claims!
Why not just say something like "User agreements are bad, go google up some EULAs and see for yourself!"
New. Low.
Glad I'm on /. (Score:4, Funny)
How's that for some sh---
[------ACCOUNT BANNED-------]
Nice summary (Score:2)
How about: up to 16 MBit/second (Score:2)
These are far and away worse than the petty restrictions placed in the examples cited in the article.
I don't think so ... (Score:4, Informative)
Seems pretty clear to me. Why the rabble rabble?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:EULA for Open Source? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Why are these funny? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
My favourite EULA (Score:2, Funny)
Easy Chrome Workaround (Score:3, Informative)
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/ [google.com]
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.
Look at the YouTube one again; (Score:4, 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.
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.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
All your base are belong to Google
Sorry (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. My personal EULA is much shorter.
1: Hahaha.
2: I'll see you in court.
Re:the most amicable terms of service in the unive (Score:5, Informative)
Would you wizz on an electric fence?
Re:the most amicable terms of service in the unive (Score:5, Informative)
Would you wizz on an electric fence?
It hurts :(
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Without notice? Your lease sucks.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 la
Re:so what (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
... unless I explicitly transfer the rights over to them ...
Facebook's linked EULA includes:
"... grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose, commercial, advertising, or otherwise, ..."
I suspect that you'd need to prove that either (a) that clause doesn't mean what Valleywag think it does (tricky) or that (b) you were someho
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Could be. Nobody has tested it.
The stock photo sites certainly think a click agreement is good enough to transfer the rights to your photos to their service. Why not Facebook? Do you have to click for each photo? No judge has had the chance to decide yet.