4 ms·
Should be about something else than ToS, the quote is talking about a contract. The news is not sufficient to understand what supposedly happened there. That th
by onli 5y ago
Should be about something else than ToS, the quote is talking about a contract. The news is not sufficient to understand what supposedly happened there. That the Youtuber had a contract with Youtube, is that common? Maybe the court judged the partner program agreements as one?
That "future changes may apply without notice" is invalid in Germany, that's evident. Companies writing bullshit like that in AGBs (ToS) or contracts don't realize Germany is not the US, they need a new legal team.
If the news is correct you are right about the fine being about ignoring the court, not about removing the video in the first place. With a fine that high it has to be about that, there is no way removing a regular video could cause this. Basically the court saw youtube in contempt of the court, kinda.
Might also be politically charged though, East Germany is highly penetrated by Nazis and with a high percentage of corona deniers. Depends on the judge of course whether that was a factor here.
- Navarr 5y agoYeah, it's pretty clear the fine is about not obeying the court. But I was asking why the court was forcing them to re-instate a video in the first place.
- onli 5y agoRight, that part makes no sense at all to me. Even if the ToS did not include a fitting clause for the misinformation removal I see no binding right for the user to have his video hosted. That's why I added the tangent about the political environment in Dresden.
- yorwba 5y agoThe ToS provide the binding right for the user to have the video hosted. It's in the name "terms of service": you follow the terms and in return you're provided with a service. In this case, the plaintiff complied with the terms but was denied service. The court didn't approve of that. I doubt it has anything to do with their political alignment.
- onli 5y agoYou're probably right. I assumed that there is a clause in the AGB permitting Youtube to in general not host a video if they don't want to. Or that there is something creating a Hausrecht in there, given them the right to chose a customer. Doesn't seem to be the case.