3 ms·

Half the success is understanding what you are agreeing to when you dismiss the terms of use the first time you use software or a service. Most people can't be

Half the success is understanding what you are agreeing to when you dismiss the terms of use the first time you use software or a service. Most people can't be bothered to read any of that but it can still come back to haunt them. Businesses can afford to pay lawyers and when big amounts are involved, their job is ensuring that isn't wasted. Generally, you get what you pay for and agree to. Small businesses and consumers indeed have no negotiation power to haggle a custom deal. You get what you pay for and when the amounts are low that doesn't typically include a lot of hand holding or personal attention. Consumers generally don't need source licenses. Just not a thing. People who need those aren't consumers but developers that generally either work for a company. What you buy as a consumer or company when purchasing software is a limited right to use the software. That's it. Nothing more nothing less. You buy whatever it says in the terms that you are buying. It's your decision to agree with that or not. Or indeed to bother informing yourself about that. But you do actually have power. You can vote with your feet and for example cancel subscriptions for services or buy software from competitors. Or use open source software. That keeps service providers a bit honest. I cancelled my Netflix account a few months ago. Their quality has dropped and they raised the prices on me. So thanks but no thanks. I might enable them for a few months in the future if/when they have something worth watching. I'm thinking of doing the same with Amazon Prime.

amiga386 3y ago
> You buy whatever it says in the terms that you are buying. It's your decision to agree with that or not. Or indeed to bother informing yourself about that. Caveat emptor and all that, but that's not quite true. Consumer rights laws (depending on what country you live in) tend to have more power than contracts of adhesion, and courts look down on these one-sided contracts with disdain. Whether you read the terms and conditions or not, if those terms are utter bullshit, it's unlikely they're enforcable. "This shoddy software deleted all my files! Oh, it says here they can delete all the files on my computer if I stop paying them, it's in the contract so I guess I have no comeback" - no, that's bullshit, that kind of term is unconscionable in clickwrap, go sue them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscionability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscionability > Examples of gross one-sidedness would be provisions that limit damages against the seller, or limit the rights of the purchaser to seek relief in the courts against the seller. In the 2009 case of Harris v. Blockbuster, Inc., the plaintiff argued that Blockbuster's provision to compel arbitration and forbid class action lawsuits was illusory and unconscionable. However, whether that contract was unconscionable is unknown, as the court ruled that it was illusory and therefore not enforceable, and disregarded all further consideration.

amiga386 3y ago

> You buy whatever it says in the terms that you are buying. It's your decision to agree with that or not. Or indeed to bother informing yourself about that. Caveat emptor and all that, but that's not quite true. Consumer rights laws (depending on what country you live in) tend to have more power than contracts of adhesion, and courts look down on these one-sided contracts with disdain. Whether you read the terms and conditions or not, if those terms are utter bullshit, it's unlikely they're enforcable. "This shoddy software deleted all my files! Oh, it says here they can delete all the files on my computer if I stop paying them, it's in the contract so I guess I have no comeback" - no, that's bullshit, that kind of term is unconscionable in clickwrap, go sue them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscionability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscionability > Examples of gross one-sidedness would be provisions that limit damages against the seller, or limit the rights of the purchaser to seek relief in the courts against the seller. In the 2009 case of Harris v. Blockbuster, Inc., the plaintiff argued that Blockbuster's provision to compel arbitration and forbid class action lawsuits was illusory and unconscionable. However, whether that contract was unconscionable is unknown, as the court ruled that it was illusory and therefore not enforceable, and disregarded all further consideration.