"I have read and agree to the Terms" is the biggest lie on the web. We aim to fix that.
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 the cloud without backups. Or have the assumption that my data will be held private.
It's all just occupational therapy for lawyers.
In the U.S., Web site terms of service / terms of use can indeed be a legal, binding contract:
+ If you click on "I agree" or something like it, then it's very likely to be binding, as more than one user has discovered to his chagrin. [1]
+ If you continue to use the Web site, and the site has a sufficiently-prominent notice that terms apply, then those terms are likely to be binding. [2]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clickwrap
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browse_wrap; see also the Ninth Circuit's extensive discussion and citation of cases in http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/08/18/12...
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" the program in the first place and used it without license. In both cases I wonder which "crime" would have the lesser consequences.
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.
I see two hypotheses.
1. Because you don’t care about your rights at all > Then this project is not for you, move on.
2. Because you think the terms and privacy policies of services you use online are not “binding”? > Then you’re very naive and a bit ignorant about the law.
It’s alright to not know how the law and how contract works exactly, that’s why you need this project even more; because that’s what it does: it makes things simpler to understand for you.
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.
That's interesting. Do you have any sources on that? Why do these services even bother having ToS?
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];
[0]https://developer.linkedin.com/documents/branding-guidelines
I consider that kind of restriction inherently unconsionable, regardless of the nature of the parties involved.
EDIT: I should also note that you appear to be violating them in your post, as I did not see an exception for such pages as that, though "deep linking" is one of those vague things that means whatever they want it to mean. Anything but the home page can be argued to be "deep" but different people have very different ideas on the subject and there's no inherent or technological meaning behind how deep a link must be before being considered a "deep link." So they don't even give you proper notice of which links they do and do not forbid.
So not only is it dumb in general, it's vague enough to make every link not pre-approved by Linked-In suspect, which is something I would object to for that very reason.
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.
At least one person has been imprisoned for exactly that.
On the Information Sharing section it says: Ello does not have any affiliated companies right now. But if we do in the future, we may share information with them, too.
But I guess everyone on HN already knew it was nothing but publicity.
edit: wrote trello instead of ello
Just wanted to point out that everything is on https://github.com/tosdr and there are easy stuff to work on to help us: https://github.com/tosdr/tosdr-build/labels/LowHangingFruit
Everything we make is Free Software (and open data) and we’re a not-for-profit.
We recently put online: https://tosdr.org/submit-point.html which is supposed to help increase contributions to the site so that we have more data and more relevant information. Please help us test, debug and contribute :-)
One last thing, we’re also running https://tosback.org/ -- all of this is a lot of work, and we definitely need more contributors :-) (opened another discussion about Tosback: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8396361)
"Nothing here should be considered legal advice. We express our opinion with no guarantee and we do not endorse any service in any way. Please refer to a qualified attorney for legal advice. Reading ToS;DR is in no way a replacement for reading the full terms to which you are bound."
Even criticism of legalese requires legalese.
http://www.ycombinator.com/legal/
Really? That's it?
Also, we should clearly file a class action suit for breach of contract the next time HN goes down. Would be tough to show damages though. My productivity would probably go up.
A rating service like this actually sounds like a very good idea- even one worth paying a small amount for (they very well will need money to protect themselves from lawsuits due to bad ratings). You pay the rating service about what you pay the web service- almost nothing.
Anyway, how else can a class push back against ToS that are not worth reading?
If we're all supposed to push our data from an internet of things into the cloud the community needs to hold companies accountable as nobody else is going to. I shudder to think what facebook would be doing right now if it hadn't been for public outcry over things like their "Beacon" program.
Looks like they shut it down last year though. https://www.docracy.com/tos/changes
Is there anything out there (template or affordable service) to help a website owner construct a sane and simple ToS for their site/wepapp?
"it's been around for years" doesn't add much value.
The problem with this website is that 99% of the users will never run into an issue with the TOS, and the 1% that do, will need a lawyer, not a TL;DR website. It's not very needed, nor does it do a good job at presenting the info it should.