3 ms·

The DropBox hoopla shows the downside of writing your terms in a readable language: people actually read them out of curiosity. And since people have no clue h

by swombat 15y ago

The DropBox hoopla shows the downside of writing your terms in a readable language: people actually read them out of curiosity. And since people have no clue how to interpret the legal bits that are necessarily included if you don't want to be sued into oblivion, they completely misunderstand them. So the lesson is: keep your T&Cs cryptic, unintelligible, long, boring, etc - so that people don't read them. This way you can put whatever you want in them, including potentially nasty clauses (unlike the clause we're discussing here), since no one will read it anyway.

mattmanser 15y ago
I am sad at this reaction. We need more people writing their T&Cs in clear ways. There are many advantages in a clear T&C, not just for the consumer but also for you. You are stating upfront what relationship you want to have with a customer and obscure T&Cs means you have an obscure relationship. If even you can't understand your T&Cs then they're worthless, you actually don't know if you're covered or not. Just because Dropbox made a muckup, looking like they let a lawyer convince them that they needed that to cover their ass when they didn't, doesn't mean we should all run round hysterically paying for arcane language from a lawyer. I just don't believe they needed to write that clause that way. Imagine if it had read something like: By submitting your stuff to the Services, you are instructing us to use your rights as a licence holder or the copyright holder to copy, distribute, prepare derivative works (such as translations or format conversions) of, perform, or publicly display that stuff to the extent reasonably necessary for the Service on your instructions. This is to enable us to technically administer, display, and operate the Services. You must ensure you have the rights you need to grant us that permission. In the end this isn't a new scenario, do you think a printer asks for a worldwide license on the stuff he prints? And yet they're somehow pretending it is. They just want to say that you're instructing them to use the file in a particular way and that you have to ensure you have the rights to do that, a licence or the copyright. IANAL but it seems pretty clear to me that they let themselves get talked into putting a clause in there that actually wasn't clear.
neetij 15y ago
I can't tell if your opinion is lathered with sarcasm or brutal honesty. BagCheck has a nicely done Terms page which annotates legalese with Plain English - http://bagcheck.com/terms http://bagcheck.com/terms It is odd (and somewhat heartening) to learn that so many people still read those paragraphs of text nobody is supposedly reading.
yellowredblack 15y ago
to the extent we think it necessary for the Service vs to the extent reasonably necessary for the Service. This license is solely to enable us to technically administer, display, and operate the Services. I am astounded that people here would criticize anyone for erring on the side of caution. If anyone can argue that the former is equivalent "plain english" for the latter, or that the latter is complicated legalese for the former then go ahead and signing contracts to that effect.

by swombat 15y ago

mattmanser 15y ago

I am sad at this reaction. We need more people writing their T&Cs in clear ways. There are many advantages in a clear T&C, not just for the consumer but also for you. You are stating upfront what relationship you want to have with a customer and obscure T&Cs means you have an obscure relationship. If even you can't understand your T&Cs then they're worthless, you actually don't know if you're covered or not. Just because Dropbox made a muckup, looking like they let a lawyer convince them that they needed that to cover their ass when they didn't, doesn't mean we should all run round hysterically paying for arcane language from a lawyer. I just don't believe they needed to write that clause that way. Imagine if it had read something like: By submitting your stuff to the Services, you are instructing us to use your rights as a licence holder or the copyright holder to copy, distribute, prepare derivative works (such as translations or format conversions) of, perform, or publicly display that stuff to the extent reasonably necessary for the Service on your instructions. This is to enable us to technically administer, display, and operate the Services. You must ensure you have the rights you need to grant us that permission. In the end this isn't a new scenario, do you think a printer asks for a worldwide license on the stuff he prints? And yet they're somehow pretending it is. They just want to say that you're instructing them to use the file in a particular way and that you have to ensure you have the rights to do that, a licence or the copyright. IANAL but it seems pretty clear to me that they let themselves get talked into putting a clause in there that actually wasn't clear.

neetij 15y ago

I can't tell if your opinion is lathered with sarcasm or brutal honesty. BagCheck has a nicely done Terms page which annotates legalese with Plain English - http://bagcheck.com/terms http://bagcheck.com/terms It is odd (and somewhat heartening) to learn that so many people still read those paragraphs of text nobody is supposedly reading.

yellowredblack 15y ago

to the extent we think it necessary for the Service vs to the extent reasonably necessary for the Service. This license is solely to enable us to technically administer, display, and operate the Services. I am astounded that people here would criticize anyone for erring on the side of caution. If anyone can argue that the former is equivalent "plain english" for the latter, or that the latter is complicated legalese for the former then go ahead and signing contracts to that effect.