3 ms·

"By reading this message you agree that me [the writer of the message] gets access to all your data and that you [the reader of the message] agrees on using the

"By reading this message you agree that me [the writer of the message] gets access to all your data and that you [the reader of the message] agrees on using the data for all purposes deemed as necessary to exploit such data for fun and economic gain." EULAs are a joke and everybody knows that people does not read them.

TylerE 4y ago
This fails contracts 101. There has to be consideration. Reading the contract is not consideration.
- bratwurst3000 4y ago
  Can you explain further please? Or give some links? Here in Germany reading those „internet contracts“ doesnt count in court because they are intentionaly unreadable and to long
  - dan-robertson 4y ago
    In common law jurisdictions contracts generally require consideration. Consideration is a technical legal term which roughly means that both sides need to have some kind of obligation. E.g. maybe I give my labour and you give me money. One weird consequence you used to get were friendly entities leading things to each other for trivial rents (e.g. one Oxford college might lease land to another for a few pence a year) instead of for free so that there is consideration.
    - eftychis 4y ago
      The counter-argument they would give is that you get to use the site/service, thus, that is your consideration -- of course consideration for both parties has to be balanced/equivalent. Thus, the "consideration." But contracts also require both parties to explicitly acknowledge them and understand them -- thus e.g. modifying in secret a contract before signing will just offer a cause for invalidation and fraud to be brought up etc. EULAs are hilarious in this respect that it is an open secret that only a few devout users read them or even skim them.
    - kevincox 4y ago
      It is one one of the things that sometimes trips up someone trying to publicly release software. Often they try to give a free license or release to the public domain but this may be considered invalid if they don't explicitly state that they expect nothing in return. This is why free software licenses have explicit terms about this.

TylerE 4y ago

This fails contracts 101. There has to be consideration. Reading the contract is not consideration.

bratwurst3000 4y ago
Can you explain further please? Or give some links? Here in Germany reading those „internet contracts“ doesnt count in court because they are intentionaly unreadable and to long
- dan-robertson 4y ago
  In common law jurisdictions contracts generally require consideration. Consideration is a technical legal term which roughly means that both sides need to have some kind of obligation. E.g. maybe I give my labour and you give me money. One weird consequence you used to get were friendly entities leading things to each other for trivial rents (e.g. one Oxford college might lease land to another for a few pence a year) instead of for free so that there is consideration.
  - eftychis 4y ago
    The counter-argument they would give is that you get to use the site/service, thus, that is your consideration -- of course consideration for both parties has to be balanced/equivalent. Thus, the "consideration." But contracts also require both parties to explicitly acknowledge them and understand them -- thus e.g. modifying in secret a contract before signing will just offer a cause for invalidation and fraud to be brought up etc. EULAs are hilarious in this respect that it is an open secret that only a few devout users read them or even skim them.
  - kevincox 4y ago
    It is one one of the things that sometimes trips up someone trying to publicly release software. Often they try to give a free license or release to the public domain but this may be considered invalid if they don't explicitly state that they expect nothing in return. This is why free software licenses have explicit terms about this.