3 ms·
> for purposes of providing the Services to you This seems the key part
by juitpykyk 3y ago
> for purposes of providing the Services to you
This seems the key part
- Terr_ 3y ago"Selling copies of your genome to partners enables us to affordably provide the service, therefore you agreed to it."
- postepowanieadm 3y agoThey don't need a licence, and a very wide one, to do this.
- _flux 3y agoThat's probably not a legal opinion they paid for.
- tempaccount420 3y agoKnowing lawyers, it was probably sloppily copied from another ToS they (or not even them) wrote.
- wodenokoto 3y agoSo they have a perpetual right to your contend, for as long as they are providing you a service. Either way you read it, it seems like poor wording.
- andy_ppp 3y agoPerpetual means continuing forever, so why would it end at the end of the services?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- wodenokoto 3y agoIf you ask your parents if you can stay up late to finish your homework essay, it should follow that you only gain that right until the essay is finished. If you ask if you can stay up late for the rest of your life, it should follow that you gain that right for the rest of your life. If you ask for both at the same time, in the same sentence, you might grow up to write TOS for vultr.
- pera 3y agoThey want permission to commercialise my content "for purposes of providing the Services to" me? First time I hear such requirement
- res0nat0r 3y agoThis verbiage is standard for almost all internet/service providers, it's language to allow them to display your content on their behalf.
- funcDropShadow 3y agoThen look at the TOS of Whatsapp, Facebook, and Instagram.
- pera 3y agoYeah sorry I meant in the context of cloud providers
- groestl 3y agoThat's the basis for any business model where you are the product.
- cookiemonsieur 3y ago> That's the basis for any business model where you are the product. True but most times, when you are the product, the service is free. In this case you pay for the service.
- lincm83hey 3y agoThey do offer relatively inexpensive solutions, though. And LinkedIn is a good example of a business whose revenues are largely made from sharing and harvesting data from both paid and free users for the benefit of some of those paying users, and some third parties, too. Vultr is just even cheekier than LinkedIn. Who's to say if they'll actually act on this, but them setting themselves up to legally do this is all a bit gross.
- emmanueloga_ 3y agoDoes it change anything? Paraphrasing: "Vultr [will own] [all of your] User Content [and do whatever Vultr wants with] the User Content [...] for the purposes of providing the Services to you." You could read that as: "if you want to work with us we will own all of your user content".
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- rad_gruchalski 3y agoThe question is: how would your lawyer read it.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- gregw2 3y agoI am not a lawyer but I have seen startups distort/rationalize legal language as their tech services evolve to grandfather new situations into old language. I don’t know if vultr language is worse than others, but my concern would be that someone selling you out can squeeze a lot in that clause for a long time, particularly if you never find out. Arguably that’s in bad faith, but… Say that to provide the Services to you, vultr has to supplement its income by (old school) selling your videos to a dvd publishing company, or (newer) creating their own streaming tv channel, or providing them to an AI model training company, or providing them to an “affiliate” advertising-serving broker who slurps your created content and slaps one or more segmentation labels about your content (“kink”, “religion(X)”, “gamer”) tied to your email which it then resells to world+dog? Ie is selling you out part of what vultr needs to do to provides the Services to you? I find it very hard to trust companies based solely on their legal language when that language is viewed from an adversarial position. But I am not lawyer to know what kinds of “misreadings” are “beyond the pale”/not legally defensible.
- groestl 3y ago"an adversarial position" is the only position you should assume when interpreting legal texts. After all, if push comes to shove, your the actual adversary. And in any other case the legal text is not needed.
- singleshot_ 3y agoAssume that immediately after executing any contract, the counterparty will be purchased by the Devil. Draft accordingly within reason.