3 ms·

> Also that clause appears to apply to Youtube using content from the site to promote Youtube's service I'm not sure about that. The preceding statement of "i

• d0lph 8y ago
  Looks like it's kinda up to the courts how to interpret it, but, also, it looks like your logic is valid with it being more restrictive than permissive. "First, some courts have held that an item only falls within the preceding noun if it falls within one of the items in the list. The thinking is that if the preceding noun were being used to convey its unrestricted meaning, referring to subcategories of that word would serve no purpose. See, e.g., Application of Central Airlines, 185 P.2d 919 (Okla. 1947) (holding, with respect to use of the word including, that “if the lawmakers had intended the general words to be used in their unrestricted sense they would have made no mention of the particular classes”)." [1] [1]: http://www.adamsdrafting.com/including-without-limitation/ http://www.adamsdrafting.com/including-without-limitation/