5 ms·

I wonder if I can append to every web request a header that has my personal terms of service and if companies don't want to comply to MY terms, they can simply

by freen 8y ago

I wonder if I can append to every web request a header that has my personal terms of service and if companies don't want to comply to MY terms, they can simply refuse service. Seems reasonable, right?

jakobdabo 8y ago
No, your personal terms of service would be just another identifier to track your browsing.
- freen 8y ago
  Perhaps that might be a violation of my copyright and intellectual property. My terms supersede theirs. Says so in the first paragraph.
  - bduerst 8y ago
    Broadcasting your terms isn't the same as the listener agreeing to it. You aren't guaranteed copyright just because you say so - i.e. you don't have a copyright on films made of you in public.
    - elicash 8y ago
      > Broadcasting your terms isn't the same as the listener agreeing to it. This is the point OP seems to be making about online publishers.
    - izzydata 8y ago
      But that is exactly what websites are doing.
    - stordoff 8y ago
      How is this different to including terms and conditions on a web page? If they can ignore the terms, why can't I?
eslaught 8y ago
Maybe this was intended as a joke, but if someone with legal experience can reply, I'd be interested to know how far this can actually fly. After all, companies frequently have "drive-by" EULAs that you "agree" to by simply not leaving the site, so if that's legally binding, why is the reverse not true?
- kanon 8y ago
  After all, you're the first one to send a request to the webserver, including your terms. By responding they are automatically agreeing to your terms.
- Animats 8y ago
  Look up "Battle of the Forms".
  - freen 8y ago
    Fascinating! If I understand correctly, the last provided contract is what holds for service transactions. So, unless tracking pixels also serve a tos back, my terms of service provided in the header determine the legal status of the transaction. Websites, on the other hand, because the html includes the TOS, and the final contract.
- seandougall 8y ago
  I certainly hope it was a joke. I don't personally want to see a Web where every HTTP request has to be manually reviewed by a human, let alone a whole legal department, before a response can be issued.
  - tagrun 8y ago
    And I certainly hope you're joking. I also don't personally want to read a terms of service, let alone hire a lawyer to tell me it's consequences for every HTTP request, before it gets shoved down my throat one-sidedly in the form "if you're using this site you agree everything our legal department wrote which gives us the right to trample your rights however we like using all the legal loopholes out there, and sometimes even beyond, and hey we'll also be forcing US laws on you even if you're in a totally independent country while ignoring your hard-earned rights protected by your country's laws", but it's somehow the standard practice. That kind attitude is a serious double standard going on for years, favoring corporations and companies over the rights of individuals. So forgive me when I find it very hard to sympathize with anything you said.
13415 8y ago
Yes, that's perfectly possible, of course. Companies hate such ideas because they can have legal standing under certain circumstances and in certain legislations, or at least have a potential to create some problems. You could also print out EULAs and ToS, modify them as you think is reasonable, and send the modified version back by snail mail as a contract suggestion with a short note stating that you find the original version unacceptable for various reasons and have made these suggestions for alterations. If enough people would do that - a few thousand might suffice - many currently ridiculous and frivolous EULAs would probably be changed very soon.
- seandougall 8y ago
  Depends on how badly the company needs your individual business, and/or how much you want their services, since they're under no obligation to accept or even review your proposed amendments. I suspect very few companies would have an incentive to take them seriously. We get fairly routine requests from state universities and similar institutions who want us to fill out various forms, agree to supplemental terms, or alter our EULA for their special cases. Labor and legal costs would mean we'd lose money on lots of those sales, so we just respond with a blanket "sorry, we can't do that, good luck to ya" type message. The customer is then free to go about their lives without our software, or (more often) find some way to agree to the EULA as-is after all.
  - freen 8y ago
    And websites are free to refuse to serve me if they don’t accept MY terms. It goes both ways.
NegativeK 8y ago
> Seems reasonable, right? Not to the legal system. This Week in Law, on the TWiT network, covered this some years ago. The lawyers on the panel agreed that it wouldn't hold at all. I believe (this memory is hazier) that their reasoning was that it's clear that the website is presenting a take-it-or-leave-it contract, and it's easy for you to leave it.
- freen 8y ago
  I too am offering a take-it-or-leave-it contract, prior to any other contract with the website, delivered to an endpoint that is specifically empowered to enter into contractual relationships with clients.
  - cmorgan31 8y ago
    Wouldn’t this dilemma ultimately end with server middleware rejecting requests for anyone savvy enough to us a custom TOS header contract?
  - NegativeK 8y ago
    If you have any legal citation, I'd like to read more.
theamk 8y ago
This looks very similar to P3P protocol. It required that that each website announces its privacy-related TOS in machine-readable format, and it is your browser which compares announced settings to your personal preferences, and refuses the service if they do not match. > P3P will compare what personal information the user is willing to release, and what information the server wants to get – if the two do not match, P3P will inform the user and ask if he/she is willing to proceed to the site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P3P https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P3P
hedora 8y ago
As I understand it, contract law says the last speaker wins, so this should work in theory. I’d love to see it tested. By downvoting this comment you agree to send me 10% of your income for the next 10 years. ;-)

by freen 8y ago

jakobdabo 8y ago

No, your personal terms of service would be just another identifier to track your browsing.

freen 8y ago
Perhaps that might be a violation of my copyright and intellectual property. My terms supersede theirs. Says so in the first paragraph.
- bduerst 8y ago
  Broadcasting your terms isn't the same as the listener agreeing to it. You aren't guaranteed copyright just because you say so - i.e. you don't have a copyright on films made of you in public.
  - elicash 8y ago
    > Broadcasting your terms isn't the same as the listener agreeing to it. This is the point OP seems to be making about online publishers.
  - izzydata 8y ago
    But that is exactly what websites are doing.
  - stordoff 8y ago
    How is this different to including terms and conditions on a web page? If they can ignore the terms, why can't I?

eslaught 8y ago

Maybe this was intended as a joke, but if someone with legal experience can reply, I'd be interested to know how far this can actually fly. After all, companies frequently have "drive-by" EULAs that you "agree" to by simply not leaving the site, so if that's legally binding, why is the reverse not true?

kanon 8y ago
After all, you're the first one to send a request to the webserver, including your terms. By responding they are automatically agreeing to your terms.
Animats 8y ago
Look up "Battle of the Forms".
- freen 8y ago
  Fascinating! If I understand correctly, the last provided contract is what holds for service transactions. So, unless tracking pixels also serve a tos back, my terms of service provided in the header determine the legal status of the transaction. Websites, on the other hand, because the html includes the TOS, and the final contract.
seandougall 8y ago
I certainly hope it was a joke. I don't personally want to see a Web where every HTTP request has to be manually reviewed by a human, let alone a whole legal department, before a response can be issued.
- tagrun 8y ago
  And I certainly hope you're joking. I also don't personally want to read a terms of service, let alone hire a lawyer to tell me it's consequences for every HTTP request, before it gets shoved down my throat one-sidedly in the form "if you're using this site you agree everything our legal department wrote which gives us the right to trample your rights however we like using all the legal loopholes out there, and sometimes even beyond, and hey we'll also be forcing US laws on you even if you're in a totally independent country while ignoring your hard-earned rights protected by your country's laws", but it's somehow the standard practice. That kind attitude is a serious double standard going on for years, favoring corporations and companies over the rights of individuals. So forgive me when I find it very hard to sympathize with anything you said.

13415 8y ago

Yes, that's perfectly possible, of course. Companies hate such ideas because they can have legal standing under certain circumstances and in certain legislations, or at least have a potential to create some problems. You could also print out EULAs and ToS, modify them as you think is reasonable, and send the modified version back by snail mail as a contract suggestion with a short note stating that you find the original version unacceptable for various reasons and have made these suggestions for alterations. If enough people would do that - a few thousand might suffice - many currently ridiculous and frivolous EULAs would probably be changed very soon.

seandougall 8y ago
Depends on how badly the company needs your individual business, and/or how much you want their services, since they're under no obligation to accept or even review your proposed amendments. I suspect very few companies would have an incentive to take them seriously. We get fairly routine requests from state universities and similar institutions who want us to fill out various forms, agree to supplemental terms, or alter our EULA for their special cases. Labor and legal costs would mean we'd lose money on lots of those sales, so we just respond with a blanket "sorry, we can't do that, good luck to ya" type message. The customer is then free to go about their lives without our software, or (more often) find some way to agree to the EULA as-is after all.
- freen 8y ago
  And websites are free to refuse to serve me if they don’t accept MY terms. It goes both ways.

NegativeK 8y ago

> Seems reasonable, right? Not to the legal system. This Week in Law, on the TWiT network, covered this some years ago. The lawyers on the panel agreed that it wouldn't hold at all. I believe (this memory is hazier) that their reasoning was that it's clear that the website is presenting a take-it-or-leave-it contract, and it's easy for you to leave it.

freen 8y ago
I too am offering a take-it-or-leave-it contract, prior to any other contract with the website, delivered to an endpoint that is specifically empowered to enter into contractual relationships with clients.
- cmorgan31 8y ago
  Wouldn’t this dilemma ultimately end with server middleware rejecting requests for anyone savvy enough to us a custom TOS header contract?
- NegativeK 8y ago
  If you have any legal citation, I'd like to read more.

theamk 8y ago

This looks very similar to P3P protocol. It required that that each website announces its privacy-related TOS in machine-readable format, and it is your browser which compares announced settings to your personal preferences, and refuses the service if they do not match. > P3P will compare what personal information the user is willing to release, and what information the server wants to get – if the two do not match, P3P will inform the user and ask if he/she is willing to proceed to the site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P3P https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P3P

hedora 8y ago

As I understand it, contract law says the last speaker wins, so this should work in theory. I’d love to see it tested. By downvoting this comment you agree to send me 10% of your income for the next 10 years. ;-)