2 ms·
And anything they do with the content can be explained away as "necessary to provide the service". That's the problem: they're not constraining themselves in an
by mort96 3y ago
And anything they do with the content can be explained away as "necessary to provide the service". That's the problem: they're not constraining themselves in any way. They need money to provide the service, so why couldn't they decide that taking art I put on my server and selling it to people is "necessary to provide the service"? It seems like they could at any time decide that their pricing is unsustainable, so monetising customer content is "necessary to provide the service".
And what if they, say, introduce a new generative machine learning feature into the Service which necessitates training on customer content?
If this was truly just about giving themselves the right to do what's technically necessary to provide the service, then 1) doesn't that mean that they were operating illegally before? and 2) they would've just given themselves the rights to do the specific things they need, not literally anything they could want as long as it can be argued to be "necessary to provide the service"
- rezonant 3y agoFirstly, as I've said in posts that you've replied to, the Services here are their forums and website. Your Vultr account is used both to purchase VMs and to post comments on their forums. "Services" in the agreement refers to their websites, pretty clearly. Secondly, if we go hypothetical and redefine Services to mean the actual hosting service, if they do that stuff, they get sued. And I think there'd be a good case that the uses you outline would fall outside of that what's needed to provide that service. You are free to take the pessimistic interpretation, I just don't think it's a reasonable interpretation, especially since even a single legal battle in this area would probably ruin this company.
- Terretta 3y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39862040 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39862040
- q3k 3y ago> And anything they do with the content can be explained away as "necessary to provide the service". That's the problem: they're not constraining themselves in any way. They need money to provide the service, so why couldn't they decide that taking art I put on my server and selling it to people is "necessary to provide the service"? It seems like they could at any time decide that their pricing is unsustainable, so monetising customer content is "necessary to provide the service". That's not how contract interpretation works.