2 ms·

I like the point about the UCC. I have thought about standardized contracts myself, though I didnt think to compare it to the UCC. "But until terms of service

I like the point about the UCC. I have thought about standardized contracts myself, though I didnt think to compare it to the UCC. "But until terms of service are both standardised and codified with users' interests in mind" But what about sites with a different revenue model? Say an image hosting site meant for personal photos, and an image sharing site meant as a platform for artists to sell their work. You would not want the former allowing any sort of copyright transfer, but the latter cannot function without it(at least without the ability for the site to take payment and provide a license). Im not sure how we could standardize everything. Especially if consumers are not willing to pay a subscription. "In particular, ordinary transactional terms are limited by:" 1. But this would be an ongoing relationship, assuming they continue to use the service. 2. Again, subscription fees would be needed to sustain the business. Otherwise advertising is the only way. And there's an old joke in advertising: half of all advertising budgets are wasted, the trick is figuring out which half. I do see your point about a drivers license number not being needed for a long period of time.

dredmorbius 10y ago
There was an attempt to come up with a UCC for services, within the US, though it failed to garner sufficient support: UCITA. It's not clear to me how some breadth of interests couldn't be addressed. The usual T&C generally address limits on liability of the site's owners, occasionally try to impose binding arbitration or limits on class action suits (among my complaints against the so-called "Kinder, gentler Reddit", Imzy), jurisdiction, reverse-engineering clauses, etc. Allowing users to specify licenses for submitted works would address much of your concerns. A standard set of merchandise clauses, including, say, escrow, liability, and chargeback terms, might be among the boilerplate additions to a standard contract which might be made. But the point is to make the contracts themselves standard and modular. There might be a base services contract, a base merchant contract, and a base rights-for-sale contract, but not infinite variations on each. Also limits on what sites or users might carve out as grantable or transferable rights. My point in noting that ordinary commerce is limited to a single sale transaction is just that: that these are simple transactions and hence the associated legal binding is also simple. Ongoing relationships are inherently more complex. There are alternatives to advertising and subscriptions, including non-market constructs. In the example I posed, the value of the drivers license as a hire surity is that the hirer is quitely likely to return for it. The disadvantage, today, is that the license has not only the attributes of "valuable to the owner", but "hive of data which can be used to draw additional relations". Some years ago I discovered that the purchase of certain over-the-counter medications required, by store policy though not by local law, presentation of a drivers license. I held up my license for the clerk to visually examine. He tried to take it from my hand, which I refused. He wouldn't close the sale without scanning the card. I walked off without paying and without product. I've been insisting on respecting my privacy rights for some time, and am not above forgoing business, taking my business elsewhere, or making others pointedly uncomfortable for asking questions I won't answer. Sadly, I am an exception.

dredmorbius 10y ago

There was an attempt to come up with a UCC for services, within the US, though it failed to garner sufficient support: UCITA. It's not clear to me how some breadth of interests couldn't be addressed. The usual T&C generally address limits on liability of the site's owners, occasionally try to impose binding arbitration or limits on class action suits (among my complaints against the so-called "Kinder, gentler Reddit", Imzy), jurisdiction, reverse-engineering clauses, etc. Allowing users to specify licenses for submitted works would address much of your concerns. A standard set of merchandise clauses, including, say, escrow, liability, and chargeback terms, might be among the boilerplate additions to a standard contract which might be made. But the point is to make the contracts themselves standard and modular. There might be a base services contract, a base merchant contract, and a base rights-for-sale contract, but not infinite variations on each. Also limits on what sites or users might carve out as grantable or transferable rights. My point in noting that ordinary commerce is limited to a single sale transaction is just that: that these are simple transactions and hence the associated legal binding is also simple. Ongoing relationships are inherently more complex. There are alternatives to advertising and subscriptions, including non-market constructs. In the example I posed, the value of the drivers license as a hire surity is that the hirer is quitely likely to return for it. The disadvantage, today, is that the license has not only the attributes of "valuable to the owner", but "hive of data which can be used to draw additional relations". Some years ago I discovered that the purchase of certain over-the-counter medications required, by store policy though not by local law, presentation of a drivers license. I held up my license for the clerk to visually examine. He tried to take it from my hand, which I refused. He wouldn't close the sale without scanning the card. I walked off without paying and without product. I've been insisting on respecting my privacy rights for some time, and am not above forgoing business, taking my business elsewhere, or making others pointedly uncomfortable for asking questions I won't answer. Sadly, I am an exception.