5 ms·

i also opened a ticket about it and support rep responded about it being addressed. it's still hilarious and absurd for them to lose some customers on somethin

i also opened a ticket about it and support rep responded about it being addressed. it's still hilarious and absurd for them to lose some customers on something like this, they provide top notch service that competes very well with digitalocean linode scaleway etc.

rezonant 3y ago
Seems to be a chicken-with-its-head-cut-off outrage day on HN today. There's tons of other places to spend your outrage, especially since their blog post is right, my first reading of the passage in question ending in "for the purposes of delivering the Service to you" was enough to understand it was a limited license. I mean hey, could it be more clear and more ironclad that they aren't trying to steal your content? Yeah. But this is a customer service complaint, not a sensational news story.
- mort96 3y ago
  I'm more comfortable using hosting providers which won't suddenly give them permission to re-sell everything I put on there, thanks
  - rezonant 3y ago
    Good for you. But that's not what the terms say. Read them closer, and make sure to read the end of the sentence.
    - mort96 3y ago
      If they decided that re-selling is necessary for providing the service (for cash flow reasons, for example), what would stand in the way of them doing that?
      - rezonant 3y ago
        Because the law doesn't care about your cash flow, and a reasonable person would expect that the fee you pay to upkeep your server is sufficient, since that's how it works in general. Trying to claim an extraordinary right to hosted works would require extraordinary language in the agreement so that it would not be debatable that they could use the content for whatever they want. Just the fact we disagree about what it means puts it on a bad legal footing if their intent is to have unlimited license to everything in a VM. And that's not a position any company should put itself in. But if they don't do what you worry about, they are on perfectly fine legal footing.
        Mordisquitos 3y ago
        > a reasonable person would expect that the fee you pay to upkeep your server is sufficient, since that's how it works in general A reasonable person would expect their fees or one-off payments for a myriad of technology products and services sufficient to cover their costs, and yet so many of these are being discreetly subsidised by the selling of customer data. The customer (knowingly or not) ostensibly agreed to that when agreeing to the EULAs. Arguably that's how it works in general. What's stopping a hosting service from using the same modus operandi to allegedly be able to offer more competitive prices to their customers?

rezonant 3y ago

Seems to be a chicken-with-its-head-cut-off outrage day on HN today. There's tons of other places to spend your outrage, especially since their blog post is right, my first reading of the passage in question ending in "for the purposes of delivering the Service to you" was enough to understand it was a limited license. I mean hey, could it be more clear and more ironclad that they aren't trying to steal your content? Yeah. But this is a customer service complaint, not a sensational news story.

mort96 3y ago
I'm more comfortable using hosting providers which won't suddenly give them permission to re-sell everything I put on there, thanks
- rezonant 3y ago
  Good for you. But that's not what the terms say. Read them closer, and make sure to read the end of the sentence.
  - mort96 3y ago
    If they decided that re-selling is necessary for providing the service (for cash flow reasons, for example), what would stand in the way of them doing that?
    - rezonant 3y ago
      Because the law doesn't care about your cash flow, and a reasonable person would expect that the fee you pay to upkeep your server is sufficient, since that's how it works in general. Trying to claim an extraordinary right to hosted works would require extraordinary language in the agreement so that it would not be debatable that they could use the content for whatever they want. Just the fact we disagree about what it means puts it on a bad legal footing if their intent is to have unlimited license to everything in a VM. And that's not a position any company should put itself in. But if they don't do what you worry about, they are on perfectly fine legal footing.
      - Mordisquitos 3y ago
        > a reasonable person would expect that the fee you pay to upkeep your server is sufficient, since that's how it works in general A reasonable person would expect their fees or one-off payments for a myriad of technology products and services sufficient to cover their costs, and yet so many of these are being discreetly subsidised by the selling of customer data. The customer (knowingly or not) ostensibly agreed to that when agreeing to the EULAs. Arguably that's how it works in general. What's stopping a hosting service from using the same modus operandi to allegedly be able to offer more competitive prices to their customers?