5 ms·

Standard TOS contract anyone can use, and any variations need individual sign off and consent per point. Sites would then need to decide how many variations to

Standard TOS contract anyone can use, and any variations need individual sign off and consent per point. Sites would then need to decide how many variations to enact, knowing full well every extra one reduces signups.

sideshowb 4y ago
Standard terms are a good idea. Wales just did this with (housing tenancy) occupation contracts
- toyg 4y ago
  The problem with standardization of anything in law is that inevitably it slows down innovation a bit. That's obviously not a problem with something like housing, but in tech it might be an issue. I'd rather have "ideological" bills that explicitly say companies can't take the piss, empowering judges to throw the book at them with liberal interpretations.
  - _visgean 4y ago
    Do I need innovation in a subscription agreements? I dont think so. If I am paying X for service I dont need any innovative interpretation of what it means. I just want my service delivered..
  - zaarn 4y ago
    This isn't about tech though. It's about Terms of Service. The Legal Contract between the tech company and the user. I don't see where "innovation" comes into this other than disadvantaging the user.
    - toyg 4y ago
      Anybody who followed the evolution of GPL knows changes in technology absolutely affected the legal setup around such technology (and viceversa). Neither side operates into a vacuum. Note I'm not completely contrary to a legal intervention in the matter (the EULA concept must die); just that it makes more sense to put in law that companies must not take the piss, not that they can take the piss as long as they follow the letter of some standard form. Then they can absolutely follow with standard guidelines that are somewhat advisory, as a way to speed up enforcement; but it's important that the law establishes overall principles, so that it's more future-proof.
      - zaarn 4y ago
        Well, if you want to innovate then, atleast as far as Germany is concerned, you have to lay out the non-standard parts of your contract in clear and simple terms along with pointing out where to read the full text. If I give you a software copy with non-standard license, courts here won't uphold such licenses if you don't point out it's non-standard and in what ways. Because the consumer can't be expected to read and understand every legal contract they have to sign. They aren't lawyers, after all.
  - another-dave 4y ago
    > The problem with standardization of anything in law is that inevitably it slows down innovation a bit. That's obviously not a problem with something like housing, but in tech it might be an issue. Software development is the side where I'd expect the most slow-down (rather than EULAs) but if anything, I think standardisation removes friction from innovation — I'm much more likely to adopt your lib for example if you tell me it's MIT licensed rather than something you've written something a bespoke library for. Similarly, imagine if a new start-up creates a new Alexa competitor, say — I'd much prefer if they said "we treat your personal data as standard, under this commons licence. Then, we also have some niche requirements that are A/B/C and this is how they explicitly work", rather than pages long TOS that I need to go through with a fine-tooth comb to see if anything has been snuck in.
sacrosancty 4y ago
hackerfromthefu 4y ago
This is genius, a fair and balanced option.

sideshowb 4y ago

Standard terms are a good idea. Wales just did this with (housing tenancy) occupation contracts

toyg 4y ago
The problem with standardization of anything in law is that inevitably it slows down innovation a bit. That's obviously not a problem with something like housing, but in tech it might be an issue. I'd rather have "ideological" bills that explicitly say companies can't take the piss, empowering judges to throw the book at them with liberal interpretations.
- _visgean 4y ago
  Do I need innovation in a subscription agreements? I dont think so. If I am paying X for service I dont need any innovative interpretation of what it means. I just want my service delivered..
- zaarn 4y ago
  This isn't about tech though. It's about Terms of Service. The Legal Contract between the tech company and the user. I don't see where "innovation" comes into this other than disadvantaging the user.
  - toyg 4y ago
    Anybody who followed the evolution of GPL knows changes in technology absolutely affected the legal setup around such technology (and viceversa). Neither side operates into a vacuum. Note I'm not completely contrary to a legal intervention in the matter (the EULA concept must die); just that it makes more sense to put in law that companies must not take the piss, not that they can take the piss as long as they follow the letter of some standard form. Then they can absolutely follow with standard guidelines that are somewhat advisory, as a way to speed up enforcement; but it's important that the law establishes overall principles, so that it's more future-proof.
    - zaarn 4y ago
      Well, if you want to innovate then, atleast as far as Germany is concerned, you have to lay out the non-standard parts of your contract in clear and simple terms along with pointing out where to read the full text. If I give you a software copy with non-standard license, courts here won't uphold such licenses if you don't point out it's non-standard and in what ways. Because the consumer can't be expected to read and understand every legal contract they have to sign. They aren't lawyers, after all.
- another-dave 4y ago
  > The problem with standardization of anything in law is that inevitably it slows down innovation a bit. That's obviously not a problem with something like housing, but in tech it might be an issue. Software development is the side where I'd expect the most slow-down (rather than EULAs) but if anything, I think standardisation removes friction from innovation — I'm much more likely to adopt your lib for example if you tell me it's MIT licensed rather than something you've written something a bespoke library for. Similarly, imagine if a new start-up creates a new Alexa competitor, say — I'd much prefer if they said "we treat your personal data as standard, under this commons licence. Then, we also have some niche requirements that are A/B/C and this is how they explicitly work", rather than pages long TOS that I need to go through with a fine-tooth comb to see if anything has been snuck in.

sacrosancty 4y ago

hackerfromthefu 4y ago

This is genius, a fair and balanced option.