3 ms·

> Isn't much of the legal stuff just a way to cover their tails? Sure, but most of it puts your tail on the line instead. They've decided that they somehow hav

by timv 11y ago

> Isn't much of the legal stuff just a way to cover their tails? Sure, but most of it puts your tail on the line instead. They've decided that they somehow have enough power to make you do their job, and make sure you do it in a way that protects their legal interests over yours. You'd be a fool to agree to it. > Do they really want your content? Yes. Their lawyer told them that it was a good idea to make sure their license agreement gave them (and I quote) all right, title, and interest (section 3) to any materials displayed or performed on the Service (definition of "Content" in section 1). They thought it was a good idea to follow said lawyers advice, because it was easier for them if they could just do whatever they wanted with your content. So, yes, they want it. That's probably not because they want to run off with it, but because it's easier (for them) that way and they don't care about you. It's much easier for a business to evolve and grow when they know that they can just do whatever they feel like and don't have to stick within the narrow terms of an existing agreement. Open "give me all your stuff" agreements are much simpler to use. > Why bother reading the legal stuff? Because they could be bothered writing it, so they obviously think it's important. And it gives them all the rights that they could possibly want for nothing in return. If it's not important, then it didn't need to exist in the first place. If it needs to exist, then it's worth reading. We're not talking about a simple end-user here, this is Maciej's company and full time job, and IFTTT seems to want to use this license for B2B integrations. Crazy!

gexla 11y ago
I feel like there are two sides you can take on this. There is the "ideal" side where we read all the fine print and stay away from services which violate X elements which we individually consider as going over the line. Then there is the boots on the ground reality which is what really happens vs. what could happen. I don't think either side is right or wrong. I see people like RMS as being on the extreme end of the ideal side. He may be right. His tech usage habits from his beliefs may work for him. But I'm not willing to go that far. I think leverage may be a silent force in this case. If X service has terms I hate but I feel like I really need the traffic I can generate from that service (so that I can eat) then I'm probably going to jump on it. If I feel like I don't need the service, then I may not bother. I may complain about the terms, but being unwilling to put in the effort for something I feel I don't need might be the greatest force. In the Philippines, all businesses are on Facebook because Facebook is the internet. Facebook plays similar games with their terms (as does a long list of services). But if you want to advertise to locals, you don't have much choice but to give in. I would like to see someone who is expert in this area weigh in on why these services come up with these terms. IFTTT isn't going to be selling or using user generated content. I don't see that Pinboard has any content to lose of their own (all of their content is user generated?) I'm sure I'm wrong, but the only reason I can come up with is to cover your ass if someone sues you for content which goes through your wires and potentially gets displayed on your site. Covering your ass isn't evil. Attempting to remove the right for one side to sue in the normal operation of the service is attempting to create a lopsided relationship (one side gains powers while the other side loses powers.) But they may be necessary for a service which has received funding and could be a target for court battles. I don't agree with much of your logic. > If it's not important, then it didn't need to exist in the first place. If it needs to exist, then it's worth reading. I have a spam folder in my email which I would submit as evidence to refute this point. I could also submit my Facebook feed, Twitter feed and a whole bunch of other sources.
- adekok 11y ago
  > I would like to see someone who is expert in this area weigh in on why these services come up with these terms Obligatory IANAL. But I don't need to be. IFTTT came up with these terms because they believe the terms to be beneficial to them. It's that simple. They could have put terms in which said "integration with IFTTT means you're giving us permission to connect to your service, and to copy and redistribute the data without limit". After all, that's what they do, technically. Instead, they're claiming ownership over the data. Your data. That's something very different.
danielweber 11y ago
There are lawyers who write contracts that the other side will agree with. Then there are lawyers who write contracts to see what the other side will stupidly agree to. (And bill additional hours for all the rewrite they need to do.) You can choose either kind of lawyer for your business, but be aware that the people with whom you do business will judge you for it.

by timv 11y ago

gexla 11y ago

I feel like there are two sides you can take on this. There is the "ideal" side where we read all the fine print and stay away from services which violate X elements which we individually consider as going over the line. Then there is the boots on the ground reality which is what really happens vs. what could happen. I don't think either side is right or wrong. I see people like RMS as being on the extreme end of the ideal side. He may be right. His tech usage habits from his beliefs may work for him. But I'm not willing to go that far. I think leverage may be a silent force in this case. If X service has terms I hate but I feel like I really need the traffic I can generate from that service (so that I can eat) then I'm probably going to jump on it. If I feel like I don't need the service, then I may not bother. I may complain about the terms, but being unwilling to put in the effort for something I feel I don't need might be the greatest force. In the Philippines, all businesses are on Facebook because Facebook is the internet. Facebook plays similar games with their terms (as does a long list of services). But if you want to advertise to locals, you don't have much choice but to give in. I would like to see someone who is expert in this area weigh in on why these services come up with these terms. IFTTT isn't going to be selling or using user generated content. I don't see that Pinboard has any content to lose of their own (all of their content is user generated?) I'm sure I'm wrong, but the only reason I can come up with is to cover your ass if someone sues you for content which goes through your wires and potentially gets displayed on your site. Covering your ass isn't evil. Attempting to remove the right for one side to sue in the normal operation of the service is attempting to create a lopsided relationship (one side gains powers while the other side loses powers.) But they may be necessary for a service which has received funding and could be a target for court battles. I don't agree with much of your logic. > If it's not important, then it didn't need to exist in the first place. If it needs to exist, then it's worth reading. I have a spam folder in my email which I would submit as evidence to refute this point. I could also submit my Facebook feed, Twitter feed and a whole bunch of other sources.

adekok 11y ago
> I would like to see someone who is expert in this area weigh in on why these services come up with these terms Obligatory IANAL. But I don't need to be. IFTTT came up with these terms because they believe the terms to be beneficial to them. It's that simple. They could have put terms in which said "integration with IFTTT means you're giving us permission to connect to your service, and to copy and redistribute the data without limit". After all, that's what they do, technically. Instead, they're claiming ownership over the data. Your data. That's something very different.

danielweber 11y ago

There are lawyers who write contracts that the other side will agree with. Then there are lawyers who write contracts to see what the other side will stupidly agree to. (And bill additional hours for all the rewrite they need to do.) You can choose either kind of lawyer for your business, but be aware that the people with whom you do business will judge you for it.