111–120 of 255 posts
One thing I’d like to see outlawed is forced arbitration. Waiving someone’s right to a lawsuit is just wrong and only serves to benefit the company.
True of legalese in contracts, but also Law in general has multiplied like Gremlins. Hammurabi's code of laws, was written in common language, and was brief enough every subject could understand them. It makes no sense that we should be subject to a volume of law that we could never even read, let alone understand. Musk is correct in insisting that laws should expire, and it should be easier to remove a law than add…
> It makes no sense that we should be subject to a volume of law that we could never even read, let alone understand Why does that not make sense? The law must cover everything from "dont kill certain species" to "don't commit this very specific type of fraud". Society is so advanced we need more laws. Of course Hamurabi's code was short because it didn't need to stop investment bankers committing fraud or voting law…
True of legalese in contracts, but also Law in general has multiplied like Gremlins. Hammurabi's code of laws, was written in common language, and was brief enough every subject could understand them. It makes no sense that we should be subject to a volume of law that we could never even read, let alone understand. Musk is correct in insisting that laws should expire, and it should be easier to remove a law than add…
> Musk is correct in insisting that laws should expire This is a terrible idea. Stability and gradual, generally understandable, evolution in response to real world conditions are positive attributes of the current precedent-based system that has grown out of the common law.
How can PayPal rationalize closing accounts because users opened them years ago when they were too young? Is that really an issue for a 28 year old? Contract or no, PayPal looks really bad here. One would think they would be looking for good will rather than this kind of press in such a competitive market.
Yeah, why wouldn't they just contact her and lock her account until she re-signs? That way they both win. She's clearly of legal age now and penalizing her so severely for something she did as a child is really unnecessary. When my landlord discovered she didn't have a rental agreement on file for the garage space I was renting from her she didn't evict me, she left a note on my door.
Paypal is a lot like shady ad networks in that they let you accrue a balance while waiting for you to do something they can justify terminating you for. When that happens, they lock you out and keep your money.
Unlike your landlord, Paypal profits from eviction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't typically have my lawyer review the TOS of each website I sign up for, but I did have him review my mortgage. Everyone picks a different place to draw the line between careful understanding (or hiring out a review from someone with careful understanding), and just blindly signing on the dotted line. For me that is somewhere between purchasing a tractor and purchasing a house. The point is the no sane person i…
Curious if you tried to change any of the boilerplate terms and if you did, how did it work out?
For whatever reason, they then said it would be fine if the bank never sent them more advertising rather than actually trying to get a free house.
For a slightly more reliable story, Argakov v Tinkoff seems fun. At least the first round, the reports I’ve seen are a bit dated and further escalation and retaliation may be less fun.
True of legalese in contracts, but also Law in general has multiplied like Gremlins. Hammurabi's code of laws, was written in common language, and was brief enough every subject could understand them. It makes no sense that we should be subject to a volume of law that we could never even read, let alone understand. Musk is correct in insisting that laws should expire, and it should be easier to remove a law than add…
Do you think allowing programs to be specified in plain English is a good idea? We have "legalese" for the same reason we have programming languages. Terms have specific, sometimes slightly different or more narrow meanings to promote better understanding of intent in languages meant to specify a set of rules. Specifying laws in "plain English" makes about as much sense to me as programming in English. You'll quickly…
True of legalese in contracts, but also Law in general has multiplied like Gremlins. Hammurabi's code of laws, was written in common language, and was brief enough every subject could understand them. It makes no sense that we should be subject to a volume of law that we could never even read, let alone understand. Musk is correct in insisting that laws should expire, and it should be easier to remove a law than add…
> Musk is correct in insisting that laws should expire This is a terrible idea. Stability and gradual, generally understandable, evolution in response to real world conditions are positive attributes of the current precedent-based system that has grown out of the common law.
Plenty of laws are relevant only to a specific point in time, but they rarely, if ever, get repealed.
Take the US Chicken Tax. It was put in place in the 60s to deal with economic concerns with France and West Germany at the time (which no longer exists as such!). Why shouldn't it have been given an expiration date? Instead, it remains in perpetuity, with its provisions twisted every few years to suit the interests of auto industry lobbyists. This is perverse.
> If a typical user wouldn’t understand the [user agreement documents], the consent that companies rely on for their business activities would be legally invalid. I’ve not had time to read the GDPR, so this is news to me.* Especially surprising, because it’s exactly what I want the law to say, and I’m not used to that. I’d also like that principle to apply to the law as a whole, but I appreciate that’s as much wishfu…
If agreement for a contract requires easily understood English, what does that mean for my mortgage?
I’d like mortgages etc. (and insurance) to be forced to use easy-to-understand language: It’s basically life changing if a financial instrument goes wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When you upload pictures, you have to give us the right to make as many copies of the pictures as we want, modify them however we'd like, and send those copies to whoever we want anywhere in the world. But isn't it precisely what the legalese means? I mean, unless otherwise restrict by some law other than the copyright laws, Imgur can use those images for anything. The statement does not limits the use to "reasonab…
It's precisely what the legalese means, and carries connotations which are absolutely nothing like what Imgur intends. They claim unlimited rights not because they don't want to be bothered to restrict them, but because the structure of the Internet makes it impossible to write a simple description of when copies will be made. They could try going into detail: > We can send copies of your image to anyone who, followi…
But how do we know this? If they intend something, they should write that down in the contract. I am having hard time imagining that their lawyers cannot draw a contract which waives only the copyright requirement for the purposes of image hosting and restricts the images from being used for other things. The principle of charitable interpretation tells me to believe what people/company write in their contract. In my opinion, the expansive definition in the contract is there to
a) Save their ass when they do something which does not seems kosher to the public.
b) Allows them to pivot to other use of the data which might have nothing related to their current business model.
c) It is cost effective to draw up the contract in this way, given the current legal system and its requirements.
Note that I am not saying that Imgur is doing something immoral or whatever. I am just saying that if they wrote down this
> When you upload pictures, you have to give us the right to make as many copies of the pictures as we want, modify them however we'd like, and send those copies to whoever we want anywhere in the world.
as the simplified legalese, that it is the current interpretation. I contend that the average Joe will have better understanding of the _current_ contract with the simplified statement. I also think that Imgur (and other services) will find money to draft a better contract if they were required to make a simplified language version.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Musk is correct in insisting that laws should expire This is a terrible idea. Stability and gradual, generally understandable, evolution in response to real world conditions are positive attributes of the current precedent-based system that has grown out of the common law.
I disagree. Of all ideas, I think this is his best one.