It wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for DRM. That's their hammer.
I carefully read the iTunes ToS (which was tiny compared to now) back in the days of DRM, and it said essentially that they could cancel your service (cut off your access to the DRMed songs you paid for) for any little reason; they didn't even have to tell you the reason. It persuaded me not to buy any music until they stopped with the DRM.
They finally did get rid of it for music, but not for videos, books, and software. DRM does nothing positive for the customer, but can potentially be quite negative. The ToSs leave you completely at their mercy, and now they're so damned long it's hard to pick out the meaningful parts.
So you can give up the right to sue? I thought things like that are often the sort of unlawful portions of a contract thrown out in court when someone decides to sue anyway. Next thing you know employers can have terms of employment that take away the right to sue even if they deny you any workers comp or such when you are permanently injured on the job.
Only lazy if you consider forgoing several years of law school and the few weeks of research into state and local laws needed to properly understand the things to be lazy. For every simple, easy to read EULA there are a dozen longer than the U.S. constitution and filled with legalese undecipherable to normal people.
Even if everyone read and understood them it wouldn't change a thing. Almost every company uses these things and has restrictions people would find objectionable. Short of becoming a hermit in the woods, it is impossible to avoid these sort of agreements.
Yet, people do not beleive that when you told them. They think that they need to ask your permission and pay you. They also think that if you delete the stuff then they must legally stop using it... This is why we have such things: people are too stupid to understand the real implication of all. Or just don't care. Or maybe they love to be f**ked up...
From my own understanding, I think you may have been right initially. I don't think that part of the agreement is considered legally binding. It doesn't give the company free reign to do whatever it pleases, legal or otherwise, with no ramifications, so you do still have the option to sue. I think the main purpose of that portion of a TOS is to give the impression that you can't sue for the majority of people who don't know better, which would cut down on the number of actual lawsuits the company would face.
bdbrFeb 16, 2012Buried
It wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for DRM. That's their hammer.
I carefully read the iTunes ToS (which was tiny compared to now) back in the days of DRM, and it said essentially that they could cancel your service (cut off your access to the DRMed songs you paid for) for any little reason; they didn't even have to tell you the reason. It persuaded me not to buy any music until they stopped with the DRM.
They finally did get rid of it for music, but not for videos, books, and software. DRM does nothing positive for the customer, but can potentially be quite negative. The ToSs leave you completely at their mercy, and now they're so damned long it's hard to pick out the meaningful parts.
ben7337Feb 16, 2012Buried
So you can give up the right to sue? I thought things like that are often the sort of unlawful portions of a contract thrown out in court when someone decides to sue anyway. Next thing you know employers can have terms of employment that take away the right to sue even if they deny you any workers comp or such when you are permanently injured on the job.
esc27Feb 16, 2012Buried
Only lazy if you consider forgoing several years of law school and the few weeks of research into state and local laws needed to properly understand the things to be lazy. For every simple, easy to read EULA there are a dozen longer than the U.S. constitution and filled with legalese undecipherable to normal people.
Even if everyone read and understood them it wouldn't change a thing. Almost every company uses these things and has restrictions people would find objectionable. Short of becoming a hermit in the woods, it is impossible to avoid these sort of agreements.
deomo899Feb 16, 2012Buried
About the image hosting thing, this is one of the main reasons why I host my own stuff. I don't want some company to own my work.
thephantom1492Feb 16, 2012Buried
Yet, people do not beleive that when you told them. They think that they need to ask your permission and pay you. They also think that if you delete the stuff then they must legally stop using it... This is why we have such things: people are too stupid to understand the real implication of all. Or just don't care. Or maybe they love to be f**ked up...
trainingcoimbatoreFeb 16, 2012Buried
Until There Are People To Be Cheated There Will Be People To Cheat
rogue100Feb 16, 2012Buried
From my own understanding, I think you may have been right initially. I don't think that part of the agreement is considered legally binding. It doesn't give the company free reign to do whatever it pleases, legal or otherwise, with no ramifications, so you do still have the option to sue. I think the main purpose of that portion of a TOS is to give the impression that you can't sue for the majority of people who don't know better, which would cut down on the number of actual lawsuits the company would face.