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

Terms of Service; Didn't Read

tosdr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 64 posts

Re: Terms of Service; Didn't Read

#11

Post by captainmuon »

dctoedt wrote: post #9
ifuck wrote: post #5

As a non-technical person from a completely different industry, my take on TOS is this: I don't care. Why would anyone care? Is it a legal binding contract between me and the comany? No. It might be taken into account if we go into court, but if they have it in their TOS that I bought an elephant from them - it will not hold. If they grant me any rights in their TOS - do I trust them? No. I would never keep data in t…

> Is it a legal binding contract between me and the comany? No. In the U.S., Web site terms of service / terms of use can indeed be a legal, binding contract: + If you click on "I agree" or something like it, then it's very likely to be binding, as more than one user has discovered to his chagrin. [1] + If you continue to use the Web site, and the site has a sufficiently-prominent notice that terms apply, then those…

I wonder if you can click on "I agree", and lie. Then you wouldn't be bound by the terms, because you didn't consent to them, but your wrongdoing would have been to access the service without permission.

It's a bit like violating the GPL: If you modify a GPL program and distribute it without source, you violate the license between you and the person you obtained the program from. But one could also argue you "stole" the program in the first place and used it without license. In both cases I wonder which "crime" would have the lesser consequences.

Re: Terms of Service; Didn't Read

#12

Post by dctoedt »

captainmuon wrote: post #11
dctoedt wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it a legal binding contract between me and the comany? No. In the U.S., Web site terms of service / terms of use can indeed be a legal, binding contract: + If you click on "I agree" or something like it, then it's very likely to be binding, as more than one user has discovered to his chagrin. [1] + If you continue to use the Web site, and the site has a sufficiently-prominent notice that terms apply, then those…

I wonder if you can click on "I agree", and lie . Then you wouldn't be bound by the terms, because you didn't consent to them, but your wrongdoing would have been to access the service without permission. It's a bit like violating the GPL: If you modify a GPL program and distribute it without source, you violate the license between you and the person you obtained the program from. But one could also argue you "stole"…

> I wonder if you can click on "I agree", and lie. Then you wouldn't be bound by the terms, because you didn't consent to them ....

It doesn't work that way --- courts look to objective manifestations of consent, not subjective intentions.

In kids' terms: Crossing your fingers behind your back doesn't get you off the hook.

Re: Terms of Service; Didn't Read

#13

Post by EGreg »

dctoedt wrote: post #9
ifuck wrote: post #5

As a non-technical person from a completely different industry, my take on TOS is this: I don't care. Why would anyone care? Is it a legal binding contract between me and the comany? No. It might be taken into account if we go into court, but if they have it in their TOS that I bought an elephant from them - it will not hold. If they grant me any rights in their TOS - do I trust them? No. I would never keep data in t…

> Is it a legal binding contract between me and the comany? No. In the U.S., Web site terms of service / terms of use can indeed be a legal, binding contract: + If you click on "I agree" or something like it, then it's very likely to be binding, as more than one user has discovered to his chagrin. [1] + If you continue to use the Web site, and the site has a sufficiently-prominent notice that terms apply, then those…

I think they would be regarded as an other contracts of adhesion, and many provisions would be unenforceable (such as unconscionable terms)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_form_contract

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscionability

Re: Terms of Service; Didn't Read

#14

Post by reacweb »

vitoreiji wrote: post #10
ifuck wrote: post #5

As a non-technical person from a completely different industry, my take on TOS is this: I don't care. Why would anyone care? Is it a legal binding contract between me and the comany? No. It might be taken into account if we go into court, but if they have it in their TOS that I bought an elephant from them - it will not hold. If they grant me any rights in their TOS - do I trust them? No. I would never keep data in t…

> Why would anyone care? Is it a legal binding contract between me and the comany? No. It might be taken into account if we go into court, but if they have it in their TOS that I bought an elephant from them - it will not hold. That's interesting. Do you have any sources on that? Why do these services even bother having ToS?

When I read the EULA of softwares sold in France, they often contain restrictions on reverse engineering. In France, reverse engineering is a protected right for interoperability purpose. If some parts of the EULA are illegal, how can it be a legal binding contract.

Re: Terms of Service; Didn't Read

#15

Post by jnbiche »

jychang wrote: post #6
ia wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

cool. how about a comment on its usefulness? code quality? breadth of TOS it has ratings for? "it's been around for years" doesn't add much value.

Website's user design is bad- opening "more details" in a new tab, for example, just redirects to the homepage. It's also not very filled out- major services like DuckDuckGo and Instagram just have stub pages. The problem with this website is that 99% of the users will never run into an issue with the TOS, and the 1% that do, will need a lawyer, not a TL;DR website. It's not very needed, nor does it do a good job at…

You missed the (fairly obvious) point of the website, which is to advocate for better terms of service through public ratings and advocacy, not help people with individual legal issues.

And the reason why opening "more details" isn't doing what you want it to is that it's not another web page, it's a modal dialogue -- ie, part of the current web page. You can argue (reasonably) that modals aren't good design, but it's definitely doing what it's intended to do.

And what potential stub pages are you even talking about?

Re: Terms of Service; Didn't Read

#16

Post by cpa »

reacweb wrote: post #14
vitoreiji wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why would anyone care? Is it a legal binding contract between me and the comany? No. It might be taken into account if we go into court, but if they have it in their TOS that I bought an elephant from them - it will not hold. That's interesting. Do you have any sources on that? Why do these services even bother having ToS?

When I read the EULA of softwares sold in France, they often contain restrictions on reverse engineering. In France, reverse engineering is a protected right for interoperability purpose. If some parts of the EULA are illegal, how can it be a legal binding contract.

Because in France, a judge may very well decide that some part of the contract is illegal but consider that the remaining still holds. That happens all the time.

Re: Terms of Service; Didn't Read

#17

Post by rev_bird »

One of my favorite ToS items is from LinkedIn: You aren't allowed to "deep-link to our sites for any purpose, (i.e. creating or posting a link to a LinkedIn web page other than LinkedIn’s home page)".[1] The act of linking to a publicly available website is against that website's terms.

[1]https://www.linkedin.com/legal/user-agreement

Re: Terms of Service; Didn't Read

#18

Post by kristiandupont »

There is a lot of legal stuff that I don't understand but one thing in particular stands out: "Terms may be changed any time at their discretion, without notice to the user". Unless I am missing something, that basically says "we got your signature once, and we can now put it on whatever we like".

Re: Terms of Service; Didn't Read

#20

Post by grabeh »

reacweb wrote: post #14
vitoreiji wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why would anyone care? Is it a legal binding contract between me and the comany? No. It might be taken into account if we go into court, but if they have it in their TOS that I bought an elephant from them - it will not hold. That's interesting. Do you have any sources on that? Why do these services even bother having ToS?

When I read the EULA of softwares sold in France, they often contain restrictions on reverse engineering. In France, reverse engineering is a protected right for interoperability purpose. If some parts of the EULA are illegal, how can it be a legal binding contract.

EULAs like most standard terms will contain severability clauses which basically say that even if one clause is invalid the remainder still holds...
Post reply on HN