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

21–30 of 64 posts

Re: Terms of Service; Didn't Read

#21

Post by Retric »

dctoedt wrote: post #12
captainmuon wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is however a reasonable chance the person clicking I agree is not the end user. Setup a Facebook account for your grandparents who never click agree. Are they then bound by the TOS?

In the end TOS are generally weakly enforceable. If facebook adds a 10,000$ annual fee in the fine print and there unlikely to be able to collect.

Re: Terms of Service; Didn't Read

#22

Post by teachingaway »

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…

>> if they have it in their TOS that I bought an elephant from them - it will not hold.

Correct. Sneaking crazy shit into a TOS will not hold. They legal theory is called "unconscionability" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscionability

But contract terms can be pretty damn severe before they're "unconscionable."

One to watch out for is "you agree not to participate in a class action" against the website. If a website screws over thousands of users for $100 each, they can't do much individually. And if they've all agreed not to participate in a class action, there isn't much they can do collectively either.

Re: Terms of Service; Didn't Read

#25

Post by snlacks »

rev_bird wrote: post #17

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

What if they find out that you just linked to a "deep-link?"

Seriously though, is it made unenforceable when the usage by both parties (linkedin and users) actually encourage this? (Share this on facebook!) It sounds like a "catch-all" "don't like you" clause.

Re: Terms of Service; Didn't Read

#26

Post by snlacks »

Retric wrote: post #21
dctoedt wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

There is however a reasonable chance the person clicking I agree is not the end user. Setup a Facebook account for your grandparents who never click agree. Are they then bound by the TOS? In the end TOS are generally weakly enforceable. If facebook adds a 10,000$ annual fee in the fine print and there unlikely to be able to collect.

Adding a fee would be a material change, and would require further consent... also, the clauses about deleting content and restricting access are all made with future cash charges as a possibility.

Said another way: these are set up with the ability to charge you later in mind.

Re: Terms of Service; Didn't Read

#27

Post by RKearney »

rev_bird wrote: post #17

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

You seemed to have cut off an important part of that clause.

    10.2. Don’t undertake the following:
    
    17 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) unless expressly authorized in writing by LinkedIn
       or for the purpose of promoting your profile or a Group on
       LinkedIn as set forth in the Brand Guidelines[0];
You can link to your own profile or group to promote it. While still silly, it is in no way as limiting as you made it out to be.

[0]https://developer.linkedin.com/documents/branding-guidelines

Re: Terms of Service; Didn't Read

#28

Post by gambiting »

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?

In the EU pretty much any of the online T&Cs as well as EULAs are completely invalid. They can say literally whatever, if you haven't signed an actual piece of paper it's not going through in any court.

Re: Terms of Service; Didn't Read

#29

Post by at-fates-hands »

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…

You really should read your TOS, if not at least skim it. Most have language like this in it:

THIS IS A CONTRACT. PLEASE READ THESE TERMS CAREFULLY. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THESE TERMS DO NOT USE THE SERVICE AND CONTACT US IMMEDIATELY TO TERMINATE IT.

source: https://www.verizon.com/FORYOURHOME/GOFLOW/MyVerizonNew/Acco...

By specifically stating what you are agreeing to is a contract, you're legally bound by the terms set forth therein. Whether a court of law and judge agrees with that is a separate matter. However, for simplicity, it is a binding, legal contract.

Re: Terms of Service; Didn't Read

#30

Post by gambiting »

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.

If France(as is in pretty much everywhere in the EU) any EULA that is accepted by default by opening a product(think MS Windows packaging) is void by default, because courts ruled that opening a package does not constitute entering a legally binding contract,no matter what the packaging says.
Post reply on HN