4 ms·

IANAL but this seems like a textbook example of the kinde of tos abuse that will not be enforcable. "If you click this checkbox you give us usage rights of your

IANAL but this seems like a textbook example of the kinde of tos abuse that will not be enforcable. "If you click this checkbox you give us usage rights of your IP in perpetuity for free".

autoexec 3y ago
If you're an independent author do you think you'd have the money and resources to go up against Spotify's team of lawyers? Spotify has literal billions in assets and sadly, the legal system in the US is often pay to win.
- bigstrat2003 3y ago
  You're correct that in practical terms, nobody is likely to fight this. But that is kind of orthogonal to the question of whether the clause will be upheld if someone does fight it.
HillRat 3y ago
I'm not sure that I'd bet on this being found unconscionable, especially since it's a grant to Spotify, not a restriction on the customer, which is where most of the existing case law (AFAIK) rests. The argument, from Spotify's point of view, is that its customers are freely signing a contract to distribute their audiobooks through Spotify's marketplace, and they are choosing to accept ... whatever the fuck it is Spotify's trying to do with that clause. It's ugly, very very ugly, but probably a valid contract.
- muwtyhg 3y ago
  How can they choose to accept something they are told they already accepted by receiving the email?
ryandrake 3y ago
Isn't this kind of crap in basically every TOS though? These things are written by company counsel to be as one-sided as possible and to grab as much as possible. "We give ourselves the right to do anything we want, forever, worldwide, and permanently, and you waive everything you have, forever, permanently." Sprinkle in a severability clause, so that everything the company claims has to be litigated separately, and then hit publish. That's every TOS I've ever read.
- ziddoap 3y ago
  Terms of service are generally pretty shitty, yes. But this is egregiously shitty. https://tosdr.org/ https://tosdr.org/ is a good site to compare. Any service over Grade E (Spotify, Facebook, the usual suspects are all Es) is (very likely to be) less bad. DeviantArt for example is a D, and doesn't include waiving your moral rights among some of the other overreach. Some service terms are actually quite good (DuckDuckGo, Mullvad, off the top of my head). Though these aren't content sharing platforms so it's not really as fair of a comparison.
  - ryandrake 3y ago
    Cool site, thanks! So many "Grade E" though. You'd think they'd add another Grade F though, to help differentiate even greater levels of evil...

IANAL but this seems like a textbook example of the kinde of tos abuse that will not be enforcable. "If you click this checkbox you give us usage rights of your IP in perpetuity for free".

autoexec 3y ago

If you're an independent author do you think you'd have the money and resources to go up against Spotify's team of lawyers? Spotify has literal billions in assets and sadly, the legal system in the US is often pay to win.

bigstrat2003 3y ago
You're correct that in practical terms, nobody is likely to fight this. But that is kind of orthogonal to the question of whether the clause will be upheld if someone does fight it.

HillRat 3y ago

I'm not sure that I'd bet on this being found unconscionable, especially since it's a grant to Spotify, not a restriction on the customer, which is where most of the existing case law (AFAIK) rests. The argument, from Spotify's point of view, is that its customers are freely signing a contract to distribute their audiobooks through Spotify's marketplace, and they are choosing to accept ... whatever the fuck it is Spotify's trying to do with that clause. It's ugly, very very ugly, but probably a valid contract.

muwtyhg 3y ago
How can they choose to accept something they are told they already accepted by receiving the email?

ryandrake 3y ago

Isn't this kind of crap in basically every TOS though? These things are written by company counsel to be as one-sided as possible and to grab as much as possible. "We give ourselves the right to do anything we want, forever, worldwide, and permanently, and you waive everything you have, forever, permanently." Sprinkle in a severability clause, so that everything the company claims has to be litigated separately, and then hit publish. That's every TOS I've ever read.

ziddoap 3y ago
Terms of service are generally pretty shitty, yes. But this is egregiously shitty. https://tosdr.org/ https://tosdr.org/ is a good site to compare. Any service over Grade E (Spotify, Facebook, the usual suspects are all Es) is (very likely to be) less bad. DeviantArt for example is a D, and doesn't include waiving your moral rights among some of the other overreach. Some service terms are actually quite good (DuckDuckGo, Mullvad, off the top of my head). Though these aren't content sharing platforms so it's not really as fair of a comparison.
- ryandrake 3y ago
  Cool site, thanks! So many "Grade E" though. You'd think they'd add another Grade F though, to help differentiate even greater levels of evil...