181–190 of 227 posts
I can hear the lawyers huddled around a conference table rolling the bones and chanting the sacred words to come up with that "get out of trouble free" card. It told your son he had terminal cancer and should kill himself... sorry, it clearly says for Entertainment Purposes only.
As far as I can tell, this is only for the free personal plan, not any of the business offerings (ie not Copilot for M365) and Github Copilot is under a separate set of terms. “These Terms don’t apply to Microsoft 365 Copilot apps or services unless that specific app or service says that these Terms apply.” Think of Copilot being a suite of different products under the same overall banner and it starts to make (a bit…
If it is for entertainment purposes only, why am I not laughing when I use it?
Lawyers are playing Calvinball again. I have no idea why the law finds this kind of argumentation compelling. "I clearly intentionally deceived, but I stashed some bullshit legalese into a document no one will read so my deception is completely OK."
Some 20 years ago there was a story about a guy who was opening a bank account. The bank sent the contract, the guy ameneded it with things like "you will give le unlimited credit that I do not need to repay" (if my memory serves me right). He signed, sent both copies, got his bank signed copy back Went yo the bank, the bank sued him, he won (the judge told the bank that when you play dirty games you sometimes loose)…
That wouldn't work in the U.S. Changes to material terms in a contract generally informed consent (meaning, that the modifications are actually disclosed to the counterparty before they sign) or specific consent (such as a initializing the sections of the contract where the modifications occur). This is a basic part of the UCC, which all states have adopted in some form.
There are a lot of people on the internet claiming that you can get away with surreptitious material changes to a contract before it is signed. None of them are lawyers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Employees often make mistakes that cost companies thousands of dollars. And there's no shortage of stories where employees cost companies tens of thousands and millions. When a construction guy messes up measurements and thousands of dollars of work has the be removed and redone, no one thinks of taking the employee to court. Why would you want to take your Ai to court?
what the hell are you on about? Have you ever been employed? Employees do got reprimanded because of their mistakes. Employers just don't sue via the courts for the same reason you don't sue your spouse first thing when they break a plate. They settle via internal penalties first. (Not only that, employees who got a reprimand too heavy handed can sue back. Plenty of cases around.) "AI" company provides a service. The…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Employees often make mistakes that cost companies thousands of dollars. And there's no shortage of stories where employees cost companies tens of thousands and millions. When a construction guy messes up measurements and thousands of dollars of work has the be removed and redone, no one thinks of taking the employee to court. Why would you want to take your Ai to court?
When the construction worker messes up a job that then causes injury or damages the property they absolutely get sued. The state can even get involved if the mistake is deemed criminal negligence. In your example the owners will often take the construction company or small business owner to court. Most trades people negotiate and redo the work for free or much reduced cost to avoid this. In office settings if you exp…
We were talking about people sueing AI for mistakes.
Employees do not get sued by their employer for mistakes. If your employer wants you to dig a foundation per plan, and you measure it wrong and dig it in the wrong orientation on the lot, you might get fired, but you will not pay the $50k+ to rip out the cement and put a new foundation.
Copilot is for entertainment purposes only.
- Tarot cards[1]
- Reality TV shows
- Psychic hotlines
Caveat emptor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ha out of curiosity I loaded that same consumer terms URL on both a USA and a UK VPN exit node - sure enough, the UK terms inject that extra clause you quoted banning commercial usage that is not present for USA users. diff of the changes between US and UK: https://www.diffchecker.com/BtqVrR9p/ There's the usual expected legal boilerplate differences. However, the UK version injects the additional clause at line 134…
Wow, if you brought a paper contract to court that mutated itself depending which way you look at the paper, I wonder what a judge would think of that? Personally I would crumple it up and pitch it out the window. I don't know why they can't simply be clear about what clauses apply to which geographies. An IP address should not be assumed as a reliable indicator of the jurisdiction in which an end-user resides. (Eg.…
Even within the US, employment contracts with the same organisation may contain different wording depending on the state in which the employment is occurring.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, if you brought a paper contract to court that mutated itself depending which way you look at the paper, I wonder what a judge would think of that? Personally I would crumple it up and pitch it out the window. I don't know why they can't simply be clear about what clauses apply to which geographies. An IP address should not be assumed as a reliable indicator of the jurisdiction in which an end-user resides. (Eg.…
It's perfectly normal for contracts in different jurisdictions to use different wording and include different clauses. Even within the US, employment contracts with the same organisation may contain different wording depending on the state in which the employment is occurring.
Before signing, yes, but once signed the contract stays constant. Mutating terms of service are weird - I would expect them to be locked to a canonical URL at least, like "https://.../tos?region=eu" or ideally something that locks the version too, like "https://.../tos?version=eu-002".
Let me pose a question from a different angle - these are legal contracts we are talking about, and the version they present to the user apparently changes based only on the client IP address. So if the terms in the EU ToS are better than in the US ToS, what would prevent me from signing up with an EU IP Address the first time? I would expect to be bound to the contract I actually agree to, not just the one they "intended" to show me.