Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Findaway's new terms of service are unacceptable

mwl.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 84 posts

Re: Findaway's new terms of service are unacceptable

#41

Post by Nilocshot »

jijijijij wrote: post #25
torlok wrote: post #14

You definitively should do that, but I doubt that it will prevent your data from being trained on. It sucks, but that's the reality now. I stopped using Spotify a while ago. Never using it again for sure.

What's your alternative? I enthusiastically do not care for podcasts, news and social "features". Recommendation for a just (all the) music, no shenanigans type of service?

I currently use Tidal, though their player is not as polished as Spotify's is unfortunately. Still very usable, just a few bugs here and there.

Re: Findaway's new terms of service are unacceptable

#43

Post by eadler »

hash872 wrote: post #26
sneak wrote: post #2

I'm waiting for these sorts of unilateral "we have updated our terms of service, by doing nothing, you agree to these new terms" contractual edicts get eliminated as a whole class of behavior. I'm not a lawyer so I'm not sure if it stops when enough of them get invalidated in court, or ifwhen the legislature steps in. It's insane that it's accepted as normal that someone can send you an email with notice of a contrac…

Agreed. Here's my question (because I'm assuming Spotify's ToS also includes mandatory arbitration): What happens if you try to challenge insanely overbroad terms in arbitration? Because you almost certainly signed away your right to sue. I'm not super-worked up about attorneys putting the most restrictive language that they can in a contract, knowing that in 'real' court a judge will simply throw a bunch of it out f…

Arbiters have the same power as judges in court and could, in theory, rule the contract unconscionable. In practice, arbiters are less likely to do so because

- they don't realise they are allowed to do so.

- they are biased towards the businesses who pay them.

- it potentially invalidates the entire contract.

- one of the only valid reasons to appeal an arbitration award is "going outside the terms of the contract". If the arbiter invalidates portions of the contract then it potentially opens the entire decision up for appeal.

The really weird part of arbitration is that you're allowed to delegate "arbitrability" itself to the arbiter (whom may rule that it must go back to court)

I haven't come across any specific studies but this is my understanding from my reading [0] (n.b. I am not a lawyer).

[0] https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/references/

Re: Findaway's new terms of service are unacceptable

#44

Post by ziddoap »

hash872 wrote: post #26
sneak wrote: post #2

I'm waiting for these sorts of unilateral "we have updated our terms of service, by doing nothing, you agree to these new terms" contractual edicts get eliminated as a whole class of behavior. I'm not a lawyer so I'm not sure if it stops when enough of them get invalidated in court, or ifwhen the legislature steps in. It's insane that it's accepted as normal that someone can send you an email with notice of a contrac…

Agreed. Here's my question (because I'm assuming Spotify's ToS also includes mandatory arbitration): What happens if you try to challenge insanely overbroad terms in arbitration? Because you almost certainly signed away your right to sue. I'm not super-worked up about attorneys putting the most restrictive language that they can in a contract, knowing that in 'real' court a judge will simply throw a bunch of it out f…

>because I'm assuming Spotify's ToS also includes mandatory arbitration

Yep, they do (of course). It's in the very first section of the terms and, surprisingly, in all capitals so you can't miss it (assuming someone reads the terms, which, who ever really does).

The fun part of their forced arbitration clause is this friendly reminder:

>IN ARBITRATION THERE IS LESS DISCOVERY AND APPELLATE REVIEW THAN IN COURT.

Re: Findaway's new terms of service are unacceptable

#45

Post by 1f60c »

The clause quoted in TFA is broad, but fairly standard (businesses need it to provide their services). The moral rights stuff is interesting, though, and I'm also not sure what "[n]othing in these Terms prohibits any use of User Content by Spotify that may be taken without a license." means.

Re: Findaway's new terms of service are unacceptable

#47

Post by ecshafer »

This is an excessively broad grant in the tos, and is absolutely absurd.

Under this tos if I were an author and read a book for the audio book spotify could:

1. Use my voice for a reading of Mein Kampf, Turner Diaries, etc. advertise it and not compensate me.

2. Sell an AI version of my voice such thst its indistinguishable for any book, for no compensation.

3. Have some kind of ai generated versions of my book sold, for no compensation.

Re: Findaway's new terms of service are unacceptable

#48

Post by hk__2 »

mistermann wrote: post #24
naitgacem wrote: post #6

I wonder how much of the highlighted clause you hereby grant Spotify a non-exclusive, transferable, sublicensable, royalty-free, fully paid, irrevocable, worldwide license to reproduce, make available, perform and display, translate, modify, create derivative works from (such as transcripts of User Content), distribute, and otherwise use any such User Content through any medium is actually necessary for the service t…

> Why is this even legal anywhere ? I attribute it to: - our hilariously primitive and archaic "implementation" of "democracy" (which most formal/legal matters are invisibly downstream of) - our hilariously primitive and non-self-aware culture(s), whose individual members tend to be more inclined to insist on maintaining the very status quo that they constantly complain about (and from which mostly everything else is…

That’s a hilariously primitive and archaic auto-ironic comment.

Re: Findaway's new terms of service are unacceptable

#49

Post by muwtyhg »

HillRat wrote: post #22
Fraterkes wrote: post #10

IANAL but this seems like a textbook example of the kinde of tos abuse that will not be enforcable. "If you click this checkbox you give us usage rights of your IP in perpetuity for free".

I'm not sure that I'd bet on this being found unconscionable, especially since it's a grant to Spotify, not a restriction on the customer, which is where most of the existing case law (AFAIK) rests. The argument, from Spotify's point of view, is that its customers are freely signing a contract to distribute their audiobooks through Spotify's marketplace, and they are choosing to accept ... whatever the fuck it is Spo…

How can they choose to accept something they are told they already accepted by receiving the email?

Re: Findaway's new terms of service are unacceptable

#50

Post by ryandrake »

ziddoap wrote: post #39
ryandrake wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this kind of crap in basically every TOS though? These things are written by company counsel to be as one-sided as possible and to grab as much as possible. "We give ourselves the right to do anything we want, forever, worldwide, and permanently, and you waive everything you have, forever, permanently." Sprinkle in a severability clause, so that everything the company claims has to be litigated separately, and…

Terms of service are generally pretty shitty, yes. But this is egregiously shitty. https://tosdr.org/ is a good site to compare. Any service over Grade E (Spotify, Facebook, the usual suspects are all Es) is (very likely to be) less bad. DeviantArt for example is a D, and doesn't include waiving your moral rights among some of the other overreach. Some service terms are actually quite good (DuckDuckGo, Mullvad, off t…

Cool site, thanks! So many "Grade E" though. You'd think they'd add another Grade F though, to help differentiate even greater levels of evil...
Post reply on HN