3 ms·

Thank you for stating this different view point! Maybe the "civilized parts of the world" are much smaller than I assumed? That may be. I did not double check.

Thank you for stating this different view point! Maybe the "civilized parts of the world" are much smaller than I assumed? That may be. I did not double check. :-D At least in Germany there is a highest court ruling that deals with this subject. https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/facebook-konto-erben-tod-101.html https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/facebook-konto-erben-to... Usually the status quo is not substantially different in other EU countries, so I assumed that. TOS in general are always limited by other laws. That something is written in the TOS doesn't make it a binding contract automatically. (A related and one of the better know cases is that EULA-like "contracts", that aren't shown to users before they install a software, aren't contracts at all in Germany—as you need consent form all parties upfront to establish a contract. If you didn't see any contract and didn't agree to it upfront there is just no contract. That's why it's legal in Germany for example to sell OEM licenses of MS products even the MS EULA "forbids" this. It doesn't matter Microsoft says the EULA is enforced by their TOS). It's not much different regarding other things written in TOS: You can just ignore those things in case such clauses would give the service provider unexpected or overly broad advantages (like trying to make a "contract" binding you never saw). Such clauses don't have any legal meaning and aren't enforceable. Of course it's not always clear form the get go which kind of clauses are moot. That's up to the courts to decided if there is disagreement. But for a lot of things there are court rulings, and most of the time it's even quite clear from the laws governing TOS in general. (A clause like "by using our service we're entitled to your first-born" can for example never be a binding part of a TOS; no discussion needed). Regarding things like VOD or that-like services: Well, you never bought anything there! You're usually only renting this stuff. Apple got for example sued because they had a "buy" button on movies in Apple TV+ even though you can't "buy" of course any movies on Apple TV+—you can only rent them. Rented stuff doesn't belong to you in the end, so it doesn't get inherited by your heirs. Person-bound contracts are of course possible and such renting contracts are often of this kind. So your heirs don't inherit "your" VOD movies (you've never owned them). Such a contract usually just terminates with the death of the contractor in case this was the only person entitled to use the service. (Like say, in case of a gym contract). If this all is "new problems"—even things are actually quite clear as there are regulations form the analog era governing most of those questions—maybe the parts of the world where this is the case aren't civilized at all?^^ BTW, that's actually why "case law" is nonsense: Given a case law system if something "new", like the internet, comes across "everything" is needed to be reevaluated. If one have laws instead that govern general things and not specific cases you can most of the time just apply the existing laws to the "new" thing without bigger trouble or legal uncertainty. The point here is: Something like contract law is mostly "done". There is almost 3000 years of experience with it. So there are hardly any really "new" things to consider. (At least if you don't have case law—where it's always a new gamble).

WorldMaker 5y ago
Yes, my perspective on the status quo is largely American where there's enough regulatory capture by powerful corporate lobbies to assume that you can't trust consumer protections generally. American law also has a sad tendency to keep legislation, especially for things like consumer protections, as narrow as possible "to avoid Government overreach" and there is a wild pendulum in American politics between corporate interests and consumer protections. In the US most laws seem to believe "if it is digital it is something new" which is creating so many "exciting" startup opportunities of "X but as an app" that get to skirt around previous regulations (until and unless someone writes new regulations). (It's not a "case law" problem, it's a "regulations/legislated laws are intentionally too narrow" problem. Because several political parties in the US have made that their mission to make sure laws are as narrow as possible.) I get the joke that by definition that makes the US "uncivilized", but given how many of these companies that control major swathes of "digital goods" are American in posture, and how large the US generally is as a first world super-power, calling it "uncivilized" isn't particularly funny and maybe a bit dangerous if we are trying to defend consumer rights. I appreciate that Germany is doing much better than US, and that there are other EU members doing similarly. I lament that it will take a larger international effort to push such protections into the radar of some of the American companies, and I especially lament the missed opportunity to do so in the GDPR itself given that was a scary enough regulation that a lot of American companies jumped to correct things in their TOS/cookie handling/etc even if they didn't believe they had any EU customers. «Regarding things like VOD or that-like services: Well, you never bought anything there! You're usually only renting this stuff. Apple got for example sued because they had a "buy" button on movies in Apple TV+ even though you can't "buy" of course any movies on Apple TV+—you can only rent them. Rented stuff doesn't belong to you in the end, so it doesn't get inherited by your heirs.» That's not a distinction that US law has made to date. The en-US version of Apple TV+ still says "Buy" everywhere. Additionally, there actually are analog "entitlements" law equivalents to "digital entitlements" and US does have a lot of regulations on the books for the analog equivalents (in Securities and Exchange laws). If I built a movie theater and decided to bond/notarize a ticket that stated the bearer would have access to a specific film any time that movie played and they wished to see it. Such an "entitlement" ticket you could resell or inherit. Beyond that being a somewhat silly business model in the physical world (depending presumably on how much you make on concessions from repeat customers, I suppose), it's often not done simply because there are so many Securities trading regulations today around it. (But there are real world physical things that still exist even with such strong regulations in existence. It's not far from how mortgages work, for instance.) Generally an entitlement/Security/Bond is still considered "bought" not "rented", even though it may be contingent on services provided/businesses meeting contractual obligations. VOD can be considered a bought entitlement/"security" and could be inheritable. I'd argue that's how "common sense" in the US already sees it (and they don't yet realize that things like VOD entitlements are "personal to you and only you" rather than "bearer entitlements, based on how TOS are written today), but it is going to take a while for US regulations to catch up with that, if it ever does. But I can also understand the perspective of simplifying the entitlement/"security" and just calling it a "Lifetime Rental" and suing the the providers for truth in advertising. But first all of this is going to get even more complicated and ugly because NFTs are fighting the same regulations fight (from a consumer protection standpoint: stupidly, because NFTs don't want regulations and especially don't want consumer protection/securities trading protection).

WorldMaker 5y ago

Yes, my perspective on the status quo is largely American where there's enough regulatory capture by powerful corporate lobbies to assume that you can't trust consumer protections generally. American law also has a sad tendency to keep legislation, especially for things like consumer protections, as narrow as possible "to avoid Government overreach" and there is a wild pendulum in American politics between corporate interests and consumer protections. In the US most laws seem to believe "if it is digital it is something new" which is creating so many "exciting" startup opportunities of "X but as an app" that get to skirt around previous regulations (until and unless someone writes new regulations). (It's not a "case law" problem, it's a "regulations/legislated laws are intentionally too narrow" problem. Because several political parties in the US have made that their mission to make sure laws are as narrow as possible.) I get the joke that by definition that makes the US "uncivilized", but given how many of these companies that control major swathes of "digital goods" are American in posture, and how large the US generally is as a first world super-power, calling it "uncivilized" isn't particularly funny and maybe a bit dangerous if we are trying to defend consumer rights. I appreciate that Germany is doing much better than US, and that there are other EU members doing similarly. I lament that it will take a larger international effort to push such protections into the radar of some of the American companies, and I especially lament the missed opportunity to do so in the GDPR itself given that was a scary enough regulation that a lot of American companies jumped to correct things in their TOS/cookie handling/etc even if they didn't believe they had any EU customers. «Regarding things like VOD or that-like services: Well, you never bought anything there! You're usually only renting this stuff. Apple got for example sued because they had a "buy" button on movies in Apple TV+ even though you can't "buy" of course any movies on Apple TV+—you can only rent them. Rented stuff doesn't belong to you in the end, so it doesn't get inherited by your heirs.» That's not a distinction that US law has made to date. The en-US version of Apple TV+ still says "Buy" everywhere. Additionally, there actually are analog "entitlements" law equivalents to "digital entitlements" and US does have a lot of regulations on the books for the analog equivalents (in Securities and Exchange laws). If I built a movie theater and decided to bond/notarize a ticket that stated the bearer would have access to a specific film any time that movie played and they wished to see it. Such an "entitlement" ticket you could resell or inherit. Beyond that being a somewhat silly business model in the physical world (depending presumably on how much you make on concessions from repeat customers, I suppose), it's often not done simply because there are so many Securities trading regulations today around it. (But there are real world physical things that still exist even with such strong regulations in existence. It's not far from how mortgages work, for instance.) Generally an entitlement/Security/Bond is still considered "bought" not "rented", even though it may be contingent on services provided/businesses meeting contractual obligations. VOD can be considered a bought entitlement/"security" and could be inheritable. I'd argue that's how "common sense" in the US already sees it (and they don't yet realize that things like VOD entitlements are "personal to you and only you" rather than "bearer entitlements, based on how TOS are written today), but it is going to take a while for US regulations to catch up with that, if it ever does. But I can also understand the perspective of simplifying the entitlement/"security" and just calling it a "Lifetime Rental" and suing the the providers for truth in advertising. But first all of this is going to get even more complicated and ugly because NFTs are fighting the same regulations fight (from a consumer protection standpoint: stupidly, because NFTs don't want regulations and especially don't want consumer protection/securities trading protection).