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

261–270 of 458 posts

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

#261

Post by gs17 »

JR1427 wrote: post #134

The current state of terms and conditions is a clear failure of modern law. No one is reading them, and it would be practically impossible to do so. Signing something you cannot practically read and understand clearly does not mean you actually accept them. How can we wake people up to this absurdity? The law should exist to help society. When it is not helping, reform it.

Worse, it's almost pointless to do so even if you had the time and knowledge, since they can just immediately change it after you read it.

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

#262

Post by juleiie »

bombcar wrote: post #244
juleiie wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You let it wither by not consuming it at all; saying "At least I didn't pay for the corrupt sex-propaganda" isn't really an amazing high-ground.

I actively derive pleasure from stealing it and watching for completely free.

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

#263

Post by 3form »

klempner wrote: post #186
misnome wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's like McDonald's selling you a burger and telling you how to eat it. Or Disney telling you they are exempt from killing someone in their theme park restaurants because you signed up to Disney+… https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8jl0ekjr0go

Except it is a stretch to say it is "their theme park restaurant". This story was dramatically oversimplified in the media and Disney's position was nowhere near as unreasonable as everyone understands it to be. The argument was not "they agreed to a EULA 5 years ago and therefore mandatory arbitration in all disputes with Disney". This is a privately owned restaurant at a glorified shopping mall within the larger Wa…

>Disney's position was nowhere near as unreasonable as everyone understands it to be.

>Now, the Disney lawyers also tried to argue that the Disney+ EULA would actually (at least plausibly) be relevant.

Well, you know, they also could have not done _that_. With it they deserve all the flak that they've got and more, simply because they resorted to a scummy tactic, whatever the reason.

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

#264

Post by ndriscoll »

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…

I don't consume it because it's crap, but IMO someone who doesn't give money to Disney (a company that pushes gambling on people and is a major reason our copyright laws are broken in the first place) is more moral than someone who does, and the downloading itself is amoral. So if you're going to watch it, might as well pirate.

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

#265

Post by juleiie »

jmye wrote: post #258
juleiie wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!"

[flagged]

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

#266

Post by tialaramex »

malfist wrote: post #226
NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The answer is to enter into as few service contracts as possible. Any contract where the other party performs so little seeking of my agreement (none at all really) that no representative talks to me in person or even electronically in an individual capacity, where no one witnesses me put my mark on the paper or hears by verbal assent, is in fact no contract at all. Despite what the courts may say. Should they say o…

> Despite what the courts may say When the rubber meets the road, what the courts say is all that matters.

The reason for that phrase is that no, Mother Nature's laws are all that matters, unlike our puny laws, hers are inherent properties of the universe, no need for enforcement because you literally can't break them. A court can insist that up is down, but it ain't.

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

#267

Post by stinkbeetle »

gorjusborg wrote: post #136
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…

I know discussing HN behavior is off topic, but parent's comment is a perfect example of something unpopular that adds to conversation. We shouldn't use votes to squelch opinions we don't hold. We should use them to improve the discourse.

It's funny. When I have a topic I am interested and passionate about, and want to find an improvement or solution, I welcome the chance to have my ideas questioned. To explain them, to in turn question the alternatives others put forward.

In their frothing haste to put down my heresy here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47307056, not one single commenter took just a second to understand what I actually wrote. Most of the responses aren't even coherent on their own, much less address my questions. I did not advocate for the status quo, I did not even assert OP was wrong. I invited them to provide some reasoning for their proposal. Quite troubling, even cultish behavior.

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

#268

Post by quietbritishjim »

hrimfaxi wrote: post #126
quietbritishjim wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess it's an instance of a more general principle: sending an email doesn't guarantee it gets to the user's inbox, never mind that it gets read. Even if you are OK with the idea that a user can be presented updated TOS with no option to disagree (I don't, but put that aside for a moment), it should still require a mechanism that actually guarantees (or at least verifies) that the user has seen that the terms are u…

If registered mail is sufficient and that only requires proof of delivery/receipt, why would the same thing for email be insufficient?

Email with proof of receipt (e.g. Outlook's read receipts) would be fine. But sending an email and hoping for the best doesn't meet that condition.

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

#269

Post by macintux »

tclancy wrote: post #118
silvestrov wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I fear that reference may be too dated for this site's dominant demographics.

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

#270

Post by philipwhiuk »

softwaredoug wrote: post #123

The issue is the consumer here doesn’t want to be forced into arbitration. There is legislation proposed to end forced arbitration in consumer contracts like ToS. https://hankjohnson.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/re...

It's not a bipartisan bill so I would be skeptical on it's ability get signed into law.
Post reply on HN