6 ms·

The OP states “the reason I tell all my CTO coachees they need everything in writing from their boss in their contract, a new boss will probably only honor what

by nelox 4y ago

The OP states “the reason I tell all my CTO coachees they need everything in writing from their boss in their contract, a new boss will probably only honor what is written down, not spoken promises.” However, he seems to have ignored his own advice and not understood the ManyCam EULA. “… This license is in effect until one of the parties terminates the license. You may terminate the license by no longer using the ManyCam software or web services. Visicom Media Inc may terminate the license at any time for any reason. Visicom Media Inc may change this software license agreement at any time. The license agreement may also be terminated if you violate any of the terms and conditions of this agreement.” “… ManyCam may change from a free service to a pay service at any time and vice versa, and may change its pricing structure at any time in any way. ManyCam may discontinue its service at any time for any reason. ManyCam may charge for any support. ManyCam may limit software features or access to certain parts of the ManyCam website with no warning or notice and with no liability. ManyCam may stop service either temporarily or finally any time for any reason with no warning or notice and with no liability.“ https://web.archive.org/web/20220517072603/https://manycam.com/tos/ https://web.archive.org/web/20220517072603/https://manycam.c...

Graziano_M 4y ago
Visicom is the new owner, right? So that's a new policy, as in not the one he agreed to when he signed up for a lifetime license.
- undecisive 4y ago
  No, Visicom is the old owner, as per the quote in the original post: “ManyCam is now under new ownership. […] Visicom Media stands by the Lifetime customers and will continue to support them by arranging with the new owner for a total of two years of free subscription."
  - Graziano_M 4y ago
    I misread. But then I got all these upvotes for nothing.
    - undecisive 4y ago
      Yeah, it's awkwardly worded. I must have read the same sentence 3 times before I realised what it was saying. Looking at the latest version of the TOS, the new company is operating under the name "ManyCam ULC"
nicbou 4y ago
In Germany, such lopsided agreements are illegal and ineffective.
tescocles 4y ago
I don't know the contract law in the relevant (presumably US) jurisdiction, but surely an asterisk in the contract that's basically: Lifetime perpetual licence!* *but we can cancel any time without any penalty lol teehee is not enforceable? I don't think it would fly in court where I live, it doesn't matter if it was in a signed contract if it's preposterously unfair. edit: and I don't even necessarily think a lifetime licence is something a company should offer, they are quite unfair on the developer. It's a big commitment to say you'll support some software in perpetuity. But the solution to that is to not offer a lifetime licence. It's not to just outright lie and say you are when you aren't. And if you're one company looking to buy another, you buy those contracts along with it and should take that into account in your due diligence.
- leokennis 4y ago
  Exactly. If this was really legal, I do not understand why Ford would not market it's newest pick-up truck as "now with flying ability!" and then just add in small print "it can not actually fly at all".
- rrobukef 4y ago
  On the other hand, airlines have had major trouble with lifelong tickets sold in the eighties.
- hinkley 4y ago
  Saying Lifetime when the license says when we feel like it is lying. Enforceable in court or not, they’re liars. Liars surrounded by a sea of liars, but still liars.
undecisive 4y ago
Yeah. Lots of red flags in that EULA, including bits that don't seem to make any sense: "You agree any legal dispute involving ManyCam services and software must take place in the state or federal courts in Montreal, Quebec." and "You consent to exclusive jurisdiction and venue in Montreal, Quebec and waive the defense of forum non convenience." and yet "If a U.S. court finds any part of this license agreement unenforceable then the remainder of the agreement will continue intact and in full force and effect." Basically, it's your typical "We have rights, you have no rights" kind of contract. If the OP had even briefly scanned that "agreement" (and let's face it, most of us don't) I'm sure they would have realised that their "lifetime" license had no legs.
Pxtl 4y ago
While the contract would mean they have the right to terminate the "lifetime license", it would also mean that the phrasing "lifetime license" is false advertising isn't it?
- emodendroket 4y ago
  I’m not sure, since “lifetime warranties” are never actually perpetual either.
  - jfk13 4y ago
    Well, they're presumably good for the lifetime of the product. Oh, it failed after 6 months? Tough... that was obviously the limit of its lifetime.
jnsie 4y ago
The law deals with what is reasonable and 'reasonable expectations' a whole lot. From my IANAL perspective it is not a reasonable expectation that the average end user is proficient enough in the law to understand the implications of the legalese in the EULA. EULAs are thrust upon us, rarely read, and rarer still read by those with enough legal expertise to fully understand the implications of the text and to 'know what they don't know'
hansvm 4y ago
The EULA may or may not be enforceable, but even if it is they're still liable for the real damages incurred by the false advertising causing people to make that purchase. It's kind of like if you buy a car as-is but the seller goes out of their way to knowingly lie about the condition of the car -- saying it's fit to drive when the brake lines have a leak or something. If there's any evidence then the courts will usually side with the buyer.
- BizarroLand 4y ago
  For real. Contracts are not ironclad unbreakable deals with the devil even in America. The question is, will you step up and fight for your fair portion? If the company has 100 diehard customers affected by this and 99 of them don't fight it, then it's easy to appease the 1 while still coming out ahead.

by nelox 4y ago

Graziano_M 4y ago

Visicom is the new owner, right? So that's a new policy, as in not the one he agreed to when he signed up for a lifetime license.

undecisive 4y ago
No, Visicom is the old owner, as per the quote in the original post: “ManyCam is now under new ownership. […] Visicom Media stands by the Lifetime customers and will continue to support them by arranging with the new owner for a total of two years of free subscription."
- Graziano_M 4y ago
  I misread. But then I got all these upvotes for nothing.
  - undecisive 4y ago
    Yeah, it's awkwardly worded. I must have read the same sentence 3 times before I realised what it was saying. Looking at the latest version of the TOS, the new company is operating under the name "ManyCam ULC"

nicbou 4y ago

In Germany, such lopsided agreements are illegal and ineffective.

tescocles 4y ago

I don't know the contract law in the relevant (presumably US) jurisdiction, but surely an asterisk in the contract that's basically: Lifetime perpetual licence!* *but we can cancel any time without any penalty lol teehee is not enforceable? I don't think it would fly in court where I live, it doesn't matter if it was in a signed contract if it's preposterously unfair. edit: and I don't even necessarily think a lifetime licence is something a company should offer, they are quite unfair on the developer. It's a big commitment to say you'll support some software in perpetuity. But the solution to that is to not offer a lifetime licence. It's not to just outright lie and say you are when you aren't. And if you're one company looking to buy another, you buy those contracts along with it and should take that into account in your due diligence.

leokennis 4y ago
Exactly. If this was really legal, I do not understand why Ford would not market it's newest pick-up truck as "now with flying ability!" and then just add in small print "it can not actually fly at all".
rrobukef 4y ago
On the other hand, airlines have had major trouble with lifelong tickets sold in the eighties.
hinkley 4y ago
Saying Lifetime when the license says when we feel like it is lying. Enforceable in court or not, they’re liars. Liars surrounded by a sea of liars, but still liars.

undecisive 4y ago

Yeah. Lots of red flags in that EULA, including bits that don't seem to make any sense: "You agree any legal dispute involving ManyCam services and software must take place in the state or federal courts in Montreal, Quebec." and "You consent to exclusive jurisdiction and venue in Montreal, Quebec and waive the defense of forum non convenience." and yet "If a U.S. court finds any part of this license agreement unenforceable then the remainder of the agreement will continue intact and in full force and effect." Basically, it's your typical "We have rights, you have no rights" kind of contract. If the OP had even briefly scanned that "agreement" (and let's face it, most of us don't) I'm sure they would have realised that their "lifetime" license had no legs.

Pxtl 4y ago

While the contract would mean they have the right to terminate the "lifetime license", it would also mean that the phrasing "lifetime license" is false advertising isn't it?

emodendroket 4y ago
I’m not sure, since “lifetime warranties” are never actually perpetual either.
- jfk13 4y ago
  Well, they're presumably good for the lifetime of the product. Oh, it failed after 6 months? Tough... that was obviously the limit of its lifetime.

jnsie 4y ago

The law deals with what is reasonable and 'reasonable expectations' a whole lot. From my IANAL perspective it is not a reasonable expectation that the average end user is proficient enough in the law to understand the implications of the legalese in the EULA. EULAs are thrust upon us, rarely read, and rarer still read by those with enough legal expertise to fully understand the implications of the text and to 'know what they don't know'

hansvm 4y ago

The EULA may or may not be enforceable, but even if it is they're still liable for the real damages incurred by the false advertising causing people to make that purchase. It's kind of like if you buy a car as-is but the seller goes out of their way to knowingly lie about the condition of the car -- saying it's fit to drive when the brake lines have a leak or something. If there's any evidence then the courts will usually side with the buyer.

BizarroLand 4y ago
For real. Contracts are not ironclad unbreakable deals with the devil even in America. The question is, will you step up and fight for your fair portion? If the company has 100 diehard customers affected by this and 99 of them don't fight it, then it's easy to appease the 1 while still coming out ahead.