2 ms·

Not sure it says what you think/want it to say: > You are responsible for the information, text, opinions, messages, comments, audio visual works, motion pictu

by diggan 3y ago

Not sure it says what you think/want it to say: > You are responsible for the information, text, opinions, messages, comments, audio visual works, motion pictures, photographs, animation, videos, graphics, sounds, music, software, Apps, and any other content or material that That's the prefix to your first paragraph, meaning you as the user is responsible for that, not that Vultr is responsible for that. Your second paragraph is explicitly about "for purposes of providing the Services to you" which it'd be really hard to argue that "using your user's uploaded photo for Vultr's marketing promotion" is for the purpose of providing a service to you, so I don't think you have to be afraid of that. I'm sure Vultr's terms and conditions contain horrible shit, just like any other terms and conditions. But I don't think those two paragraphs highlight anything more nefarious than usual.

TomSwirly 3y ago
You missed the "in any way that Vultr deems appropriate" clause. This is a classic weasel phrase which means they can do as they please. "Why did you sell my data to an AI company?" "We deemed it appropriate." There is also the sublicensing clause, which means they can sell it to anyone, and "process, adapt, [...] modify, prepare derivative works", which has nothing to do with hosting, but allows them to change your data and reuse it for any purpose they "deem appropriate".
- diggan 3y ago
  > You missed the "in any way that Vultr deems appropriate" clause. This is a classic weasel phrase which means they can do as they please. No, I didn't, but you again missed the full context. Neither of those terms can be considered in isolation, so again: > You hereby grant to Vultr a non-exclusive [...] in any way that Vultr deems appropriate [...] for purposes of providing the Services to you So unless it's for the purpose of providing you the service, it doesn't matter what Vultr "deems" appropriate. Feel free to check this with a lawyer if you feel unsure.
  - TomSwirly 3y ago
    I did not miss the full context. "Deemed" in particular doesn't require any sort of reasoning or argument for the company to make any decision it likes. And "appropriate" is not a synonym for "necessary". "Why did you sell my data?" "We deemed it appropriate for the purposes of providing the Services to you." What's your legal refutation to this under US law? (In the EU, this whole clause would possibly be unenforceable from the start, but I know a lot less about EU law.)

by diggan 3y ago

TomSwirly 3y ago

You missed the "in any way that Vultr deems appropriate" clause. This is a classic weasel phrase which means they can do as they please. "Why did you sell my data to an AI company?" "We deemed it appropriate." There is also the sublicensing clause, which means they can sell it to anyone, and "process, adapt, [...] modify, prepare derivative works", which has nothing to do with hosting, but allows them to change your data and reuse it for any purpose they "deem appropriate".

diggan 3y ago
> You missed the "in any way that Vultr deems appropriate" clause. This is a classic weasel phrase which means they can do as they please. No, I didn't, but you again missed the full context. Neither of those terms can be considered in isolation, so again: > You hereby grant to Vultr a non-exclusive [...] in any way that Vultr deems appropriate [...] for purposes of providing the Services to you So unless it's for the purpose of providing you the service, it doesn't matter what Vultr "deems" appropriate. Feel free to check this with a lawyer if you feel unsure.
- TomSwirly 3y ago
  I did not miss the full context. "Deemed" in particular doesn't require any sort of reasoning or argument for the company to make any decision it likes. And "appropriate" is not a synonym for "necessary". "Why did you sell my data?" "We deemed it appropriate for the purposes of providing the Services to you." What's your legal refutation to this under US law? (In the EU, this whole clause would possibly be unenforceable from the start, but I know a lot less about EU law.)