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

US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]

cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 458 posts

Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]

#251

Post by killbot5000 »

throwaway27448 wrote: post #242
everdrive wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every single ToS is written to benefit the company, and when necessary, harm the consumer. The answer is to enter into as few service contracts as possible. Use open source software. Control when your software updates. Really, never use the cloud version of anything whatsoever except where unavoidable. (eg: email and such) They feel like the legal equivalent of Calvin Ball. So long as you just stash it in a ToS, you…

> The answer is to enter into as few service contracts as possible Even the idea that TOS qualifies as accepting a contract makes a farce of the entire concept of contract law.

Right? A “contract” that only one party needs to abide by is not a contract… it’s an abusive relationship.

Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]

#252

Post by 3form »

WarmWash wrote: post #232
juleiie wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t live in US or five eyes so I pirate all the stuff basically Scot free. I understand that it’s not so easy for Americans whose internet activity is constantly scrutinized. I’ve had the privilege of choosing exactly who and what I pay. I usually don’t subscribe to any streaming service, but when I do choose to pay for something, my money goes to smaller entities that I don’t actively want to see fail. In my boo…

>In my book, none of the Hollywood deserves a single cent. It’s an amazing feeling to be in the power to dictate this. Then you don't consume it...you boycott it. Freeloading on honest consumers isn't some kind of moral high ground. If Hollywood is corrupt and full of shitheads, letting someone else pay for your ticket doesn't make you a morally pure viewer. It's fine if you just own that you don't want to pay for wh…

>But don't try and paint yourself like some kind of saint, lol

They didn't do that. Listed considerations were purely practical.

Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]

#253

Post by quesera »

stinkbeetle wrote: post #102
short_sells_poo wrote: post #93

Earlier 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…

> The government is not my guardian and does not do my thinking for me.

This is a quaintly (US) American perspective.

The government is and does literally both of those things, and the arguments in these threads are about the fine details of the manner in which they should continue doing so in the future.

Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]

#254

Post by jmull »

The precedents around TOS law is so clearly and obviously wrong.

Here, the court applied an “objective-reasonableness standard” to find there was “unambiguously manifested assent”.

Which could only be true if we give new, contrarian definitions to the words “objective”, “reasonableness”, “unambiguously” and “assent”.

What’s actually happening here is companies have been given the power to write arbitrary, custom laws defining their liability and responsibilities to their customers. It’s a bad situation because it’s not possible for people to actually know what the deal is. It’s not even that good for the companies in the long run, because they all end up coming off as used car salesmen

You win a case, but now Tile/Amazon === sleazy.

When your product is tracking locations there’s a trust barrier you need to overcome. How much would you trust Tile (Amazon) now?

Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]

#255

Post by bombcar »

silvestrov wrote: post #78
danlitt wrote: post #59

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. 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.

Apparently a bunch of luxury brands make you beg and apply to buy, and if you ever disparage them, you never get to buy from them again.

So eventually that'll apply to McDonalds.

Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]

#256

Post by thephyber »

killbot5000 wrote: post #251
throwaway27448 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The answer is to enter into as few service contracts as possible Even the idea that TOS qualifies as accepting a contract makes a farce of the entire concept of contract law.

Right? A “contract” that only one party needs to abide by is not a contract… it’s an abusive relationship.

If the company violates their ToS, you can take them to court (or arbitration).

It is bi-directionally enforced contract, just not a symmetrically beneficial one.

Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]

#257

Post by stinkbeetle »

ahartmetz wrote: post #156
stinkbeetle wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

This is one of these cases like gun crime where: USA: There is no solution! Rest of world: slightly embarrassed look There are legal terms and concepts like good faith, expected and unexpected terms, reasonable expectations, abuse of a legally unsophisticated party and so on. In other countries, neither the fiction that everyone reads or is expected to read the 10-page "dining contract" of a restaurant exists nor is…

Is it your contention that the rest of the world has solved the case of terms of service? That the alleged solution is restricting possible clauses to those OP enumerated? Or that USA does not have any limits or regulations around fairness in contract law? I'm fascinated.

> This is one of these cases like gun crime where:

This is going off topic but I don't think that's going to go anywhere interesting, so why not...

> USA: There is no solution!

> Rest of world: slightly embarrassed look

Well presumably not the 20 odd countries with higher gun homicide rate than USA, but sure. One that did used to be counted among those ranks was El Salvador. El Salvador used to top the list just a decade ago and it was not even close! Today it's around par with New Zealand. Amazing! That is perhaps the most recent and dramatic case of a solution to gun crime being found. You are right that rest of the world is indeed embarrassed about that for some reason. You would have thought everybody would be overjoyed, praising it, looking to emulate it, all the self-proclaimed "experts" admitting they were wrong... but no. It's strange, everybody just has this slightly embarrassed look about it.

On the other hand, if the goal is to restrict the peoples' access to firearms, the solution to that in most other countries was not constitutional violations by their governments of course. So presumably the same solution for that in USA would be to amend the constitution so that such firearms restrictions could be implemented. Also very obvious. I strangely have not heard of any serious efforts by mainstream political parties toward this solution though. I can see there would be second hand embarrassment for them for not seeing the obvious solution to what they want.

Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]

#258

Post by jmye »

juleiie wrote: post #195
dfc wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think Hollywood content is worthless why bother pirating it at all? It seems like you would just not consume it.

I don’t think it’s totally worthless. I think people who make it, producers, are extremely corrupted friends of Jeffrey Epstein with each one sooner or later turning out to be a sex offender. There is a difference. If you have any sort of conscience you simply don’t want to fund these people. Don’t enable them. Let it wither. Nothing of particular value will be lost.

> Don’t enable them. Let it wither.

Then why consume the stuff at all? What a weird stance. "They're all vile and evil, but I like watching shows, so whatever, tee hee - piracy is morally good now as long as I have this invented fiction in my head!"

Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]

#259

Post by palmotea »

killbot5000 wrote: post #251
throwaway27448 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The answer is to enter into as few service contracts as possible Even the idea that TOS qualifies as accepting a contract makes a farce of the entire concept of contract law.

Right? A “contract” that only one party needs to abide by is not a contract… it’s an abusive relationship.

> Right? A “contract” that only one party needs to abide by is not a contract… it’s an abusive relationship.

I think you're absolutely right morally, but I think you've made a pretty important technical error: they're not abusive because "only one party needs to abide...by the contract", they're abusive because only one party can unilaterally change the deal. The companies that make these "contracts" can actually follow them, but since they can change them at a whim, it only really binds the other party.

Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]

#260

Post by tialaramex »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #235
seabass-labrax wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that a bit extreme? As a counterpoint, I find it useful to be able to pay for a train journey by tapping my card on an electronic reader - no representative of the company is there or otherwise witnesses me doing so - but I have entered into a contract whereby I am entitled to travel to a distant location. And I do want it to be a contract, because the transport company agrees to get me to my destination someho…

>but I have entered into a contract whereby I am entitled to travel to a distant location. I'm not sure why you drape this in the clothing of "legal contract". If the train fails to take you to your destination, they certainly aren't in breach. It seems really one-sided. Why do they need it to be a contract? Will you come and claw back the fare from them with them having no legal recourse?

In the UK, where I live, it's completely usual to treat this as a contractual obligation. If there's a problem which means the train can't take you there, the operating company will do everything reasonable to achieve the offered service, exactly because otherwise they'd be in breach.

Example: there are a series of scheduled trains from London (St Pancras) to Nottingham. One day maintenance works meant the line would partly close overnight and the last train would run very slow. Since tickets were already sold the company intended to get passengers to Nottingham by Taxi, reasoning that few would take this already slow train and so a coach hire or other arrangement weren't cost effective.

Unfortunately an unavoidable incident elsewhere meant instead of a half dozen sleepy passengers arriving at the blocked line and being allocated a few taxis, hundreds of us turned up on that last train. The employee paid to order taxis made a few calls and was told too bad, the company will just have to eat the cost of hundreds of taxi fares, call all the city's taxi firms.

Post reply on HN