I wanted to do this in 2006 for delicious.
The problem is that by placing the simplified terms in the same place, they become binding. Since they must differ somehow from the actual terms, then you open yourself to various problems.
500px Terms of Service
71–80 of 101 posts
Re: 500px Terms of Service
#72As much as I think Terms of Service documents are broken, I don't like these supposed simplifications, because invariably they simplify too much. For example, in the real ToS, there's this clause: The license granted to 500px includes the right to use your Content fully or partially for promotional reasons and to distribute and redistribute your Content to other parties, web-sites, applications, and other entities (.…
Exactly, a clear and simple license should be clear and simple, not legalese with "interpretation". If they don't intend that clause to be there it shouldn't be there.
For reference, the GPLv2 (sadly not so much v3) has held up very well now under multiple tests both in and out of court for two decades. And it's very short, and written in clear English. It even describes its intent in the body of the license.
Re: 500px Terms of Service
#73I cannot see half the page because my browser width is 1024px Should people really be expected to horizontally scroll a dozen times to read a page.
This site seems to be the perfect example I was looking for during yesterday's discussion on the ever-increasing size of users' screens.
I know you are a photography site, and you want your photos to be big & beautiful -- but this is not necessary.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3827737
Oh, and one the subject of TOS; I believe a legal document, is a legal document, is a legal document -- trying to "paint over" your terms with "friendly" prose isn't helping the user and is also unnecessary...
Re: 500px Terms of Service
#74FWIW, they posted their response as a blog entry: http://500px.com/blog/114
Re: 500px Terms of Service
#75As much as I think Terms of Service documents are broken, I don't like these supposed simplifications, because invariably they simplify too much. For example, in the real ToS, there's this clause: The license granted to 500px includes the right to use your Content fully or partially for promotional reasons and to distribute and redistribute your Content to other parties, web-sites, applications, and other entities (.…
There are two types of people who generally read the TOS. The type that are specifically looking to make sure that there no deal breakers (for them at least) before using the service. Thes people already have a list of deal breakers and are searching for them.
The second group are reading out of curiosity and just checking to see what's up in the TOS.
Group 1 really benefits from the full text while group 2 just wants a simplified digest version. So I think it's great they did this. Plus having the digest and full text on the same page lets them say later "it's all in the terms" if someone wants to play ignorant.
(There's also a third type of TOS reader. The infamous blogger who skims TOS agreements all day looking for some fake controversy to drum up)
Re: 500px Terms of Service
#76I wanted to do this in 2006 for delicious. The problem is that by placing the simplified terms in the same place, they become binding. Since they must differ somehow from the actual terms, then you open yourself to various problems.
What about simplifying the actual TOS then?
Re: 500px Terms of Service
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The column on the right provides a short explanation of the terms of use and is not legally binding." That's quite clear to me. If I were to try my luck in the courts, I'd be pleasantly surprised if the Judge took the "basically" column as the legal interpretation. Ignorance, as far as I'm aware, is not an acceptable legal defence (as cited by many a judge to people who neglect to pay their taxes). The fact remains…
Ignorance, as far as I'm aware, is not an acceptable legal defence (as cited by many a judge to people who neglect to pay their taxes). Be careful not to confuse criminal law with contracts. It is fundamental to the existence of a contract that both sides understand it. That is one of the few points of law that is pretty much a universal constant, whatever jurisdiction you're in.
The way this was explained to me, and a phrase that I think is very powerful, is that for a contract to be valid there must be a "Meeting of the minds"
(IIRC there must also be two parties (otherwise it is a deed not a contract) and the parties must have "capacity" i.e. the potential to fulfill their obligations)
IANAL - probably painfully obvious to anyone who is.
Law is like code (and magic) - it is a framework that gives real world power to abstract language - maybe this is why HN is so obsessed with legal chitchat
Re: 500px Terms of Service
#78We took the approach of a human readable TOU and Privacy Policy (with a bit of humor thrown in):
Re: 500px Terms of Service
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The column on the right provides a short explanation of the terms of use and is not legally binding." That's quite clear to me. If I were to try my luck in the courts, I'd be pleasantly surprised if the Judge took the "basically" column as the legal interpretation. Ignorance, as far as I'm aware, is not an acceptable legal defence (as cited by many a judge to people who neglect to pay their taxes). The fact remains…
IANAL (but my wife has a JD): it's a fine line; on the one hand, the legal principle of "meeting of the minds" might make the judge rule that the "basically" illustrates the true intentions of the contractual clauses. On the other hand, as you say, judges are often unsympathetic to pleas of ignorance. What you sign in the contract is generally the contract. Most of the time, what this probably means is that judges wi…
It's difficult to compare Terms of Service with typical contracts. In the first place, nothing is being signed, and anyways judges are fully aware that no one reads the TOS. I can imagine a reasonable judge ruling that no one would have read the full TOS, and so the "Basically" column is more binding.
As always, IANAL.
Re: 500px Terms of Service
#80If you can write down your terms of service in a simple and clear manner, why include the obfuscated version?
Legal documents are similar to computer programs in that they must be very precise and follow strict rules of construction. The comments in a program's source code would not suffice as instructions to a computer, and neither would an annotation to a legal document suffice for the document itself.
Except, of course, that legal documents are not nearly as precise as programming languages. And most legal documents have a lot of dead code--nobody really knows or cares if that code path is followed anymore. You don't want to be the guy removing sections from a legal document.