The TOS are changing from 1st of June as below: - are your belongings are now ours - please move out of your->our house - you cannot use the service anymore
- All your base are belong to us
US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]
111–120 of 458 posts
Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]
#112The court sounds bought, I hope they paid them well.
OTOH they have a lot inventory of laws to shift before Sundown, so you might get a good price if you act now :-D
Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the power is disproportionally concentrated with one party - the service provider. The users of the service are numerous, comparatively small and uncoordinated. In a situation like that, users have no means of resisting egregious terms, and no you cannot pull up stuff like "if you don't like it, don't buy it". As I wrote, the users are uncoordinated, and would take a huge effort to coordinate. Boycotting serv…
But some terms were claimed to be reasonable. If power being disproportionate is sufficient to void terms, why not those terms too? > The government is not there just to enforce laws, but also to legislate such that the scales are balanced. Otherwise we may as well live in a dictatorship. Should the state just prohibit all agreements between two parties unless the state's adjudicator decides they are exactly equal in…
> If power being disproportionate is sufficient to void terms, why not those terms too?
Power being disproportionate is obviously not sufficient to void terms - that's not what the comment you're replying to said. It is necessary to void terms when there is a power imbalance.
> Should the state just prohibit all agreements between two parties unless the state's adjudicator decides they are exactly equal in "power" and permits it?
This is obviously ridiculous and makes me think you are not arguing in good faith. Terms have to justify their existence according to logical principles that we argue about. It does not follow that there has to be a "state's adjudicator"! I am just describing how democracies come up with laws - it is not some fantasy Orwellian nightmare.
> I get that many people are subservient and would much prefer that
Ironic comment!
Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the power is disproportionally concentrated with one party - the service provider. The users of the service are numerous, comparatively small and uncoordinated. In a situation like that, users have no means of resisting egregious terms, and no you cannot pull up stuff like "if you don't like it, don't buy it". As I wrote, the users are uncoordinated, and would take a huge effort to coordinate. Boycotting serv…
But some terms were claimed to be reasonable. If power being disproportionate is sufficient to void terms, why not those terms too? > The government is not there just to enforce laws, but also to legislate such that the scales are balanced. Otherwise we may as well live in a dictatorship. Should the state just prohibit all agreements between two parties unless the state's adjudicator decides they are exactly equal in…
> Should the state just prohibit all agreements between two parties unless the state's adjudicator decides they are exactly equal in "power" and permits it.
This is a strawman and you know it. Please at least make an attempt to argue in good faith, otherwise there's no point.
Of course there should be a reasonable middle-ground. The current situation with completely bogus ToS is not it.
Let me turn it around: should the state just abandon it's duty of creating an fair and equal playing field between large corporations and clients and let society devolve into a corporatocracy where laws are enforced purely to further corporate interests? Because that's exactly what you seem to be suggesting.
See? Not particularly conductive to discourse, is it :D
Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The key thing well regulated places like Sweden get right, is that in consumer contracts you have minimum bars that you must meet regardless of what you can get the consumer to agree to. So, for instance, return policies, for goods bought online have minimum standards they must meet. Yes, but Swedish contract law actually is like this. A contract is a specific agreement, it can never be "Oh well, you can add provisi…
The workaround is that each change is a new contract. If you don’t accept the changes the existing contract ends and that’s it. But the power is mostly with the provider, you need it more than it needs you, so you will want the new contract. You can also ask and negotiate terms and the provider has the same choice. If there’s healthy competition you have some power, otherwise you are out of luck.
But that would supposed need to have some explicit text stating the expiration of that contract. An existing contract can't just end when provider feels like it, I suppose?
Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]
#116The TOS are changing from 1st of June as below: - are your belongings are now ours - please move out of your->our house - you cannot use the service anymore
Thanks, outlook moved it to spam. Will auto delete it in 30 days.
TOS changes:
Due to our contract with a Nigerian prince who is seeking to exfiltrate his family wealth, your last month's bill of $14.99 will be refunded in its entirety, and the fee schedule from now on will be as follows:
[6 pages of legalese]
$39.99
[3 more pages of legalese]
You can opt out at any time by sending a notarized letter to our legal department at ___. Should you wish to continue using our service, we will auto-renew you at the new rate on your next login.
Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]
#117Gonna try this with my landlord....
Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]
#118The entire notion of being allowed to enforce arbitrary terms of service is absurd. There are probably a handful of terms everyone agrees are reasonable (no attempted hacking, rate limits, do not break laws) and everything else should be unenforceable. Especially garbage like what you're allowed to do with the stuff you get from the service even while not using the service , or about setting up competing products. It…
> It's like McDonald's selling you a burger and telling you how to eat it. and you are not allowed to criticize it or write about the size of it or how much meat there is in it or how filling it is to eat the burger. and you are definitely not allowed to compare it to burgers from other companies.
Please do not inquire about the location of the beef.
Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]
#119The entire notion of being allowed to enforce arbitrary terms of service is absurd. There are probably a handful of terms everyone agrees are reasonable (no attempted hacking, rate limits, do not break laws) and everything else should be unenforceable. Especially garbage like what you're allowed to do with the stuff you get from the service even while not using the service , or about setting up competing products. It…
> The entire notion of being allowed to enforce arbitrary terms of service is absurd. There are probably a handful of terms everyone agrees are reasonable (no attempted hacking, rate limits, do not break laws) and everything else should be unenforceable. Why? Why should a government prohibit private parties from agreeing to anything other than those 3 things? > Especially garbage like what you're allowed to do with t…
"Inequality of bargaining power is generally thought to undermine the freedom of contract, resulting in a disproportionate level of freedom between parties, and it represents a place at which markets fail. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequality_of_bargaining_power
Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]
#120Can I do the reverse now as well? Email a company a unilateral change in the TOS? Or do TOS's have provisions against that as well? "I do not agree with your new TOS and will continue under your old TOS, and I will continue to use your service". And see when they will close your account down.
IMO, this would make a great court case.