4 ms·

I like how, even when the whole point is to not have any terms or conditions, there are still disclaimers. "Only for lawful purposes," "no warranty," "we are no

I like how, even when the whole point is to not have any terms or conditions, there are still disclaimers. "Only for lawful purposes," "no warranty," "we are not responsible." Those are still terms and conditions!

AndrewKemendo 7mo ago
This is the real salient point in this post in my opinion; It unintentionally demonstrates the limits of individual agency to avoid legal embroilments That is to say: it doesn’t really matter what this person puts on their website because there is a judge and a sheriff somewhere that can force you to do something that would violate the things you wrote down because the things you wrote are subordinate to jurisdictional law (which is invoked as you point out) It’s actually pretty poetic when you think about it because the page effectively says nothing because it doesn’t have content that the license applies to If it’s a art piece intended to show something about licensure all it does is demonstrate the degree to which licensure is predicated on jurisdiction
goodmythical 7mo ago
Right? Why include that? The law automatically applies. Including it in the license is just redundant. Had it simply read "You may use this site for any purpose." or "You may use this site." or "You may use this" or "This can be used." it would have the same level actual restriciton in that you obviously aren't allowed to use it to break the law regardless of what it actually says. And, having typed all that, I realize that there is another restriction in that it presumes that there is a 'you' using it. Things that are not 'you' cannot use it given that it specifically lists 'you' in the referenced parties. "This can be used" would be more permissive.
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
- zephen 7mo ago
  > Right? Why include that? The law automatically applies. Including it in the license is just redundant. Perhaps not. The law, as automatically applied, often include implied warranties.
- lxgr 7mo ago
  I recently had to confirm to a brokerage that I won’t be using the money I’m withdrawing for any illegal activities. A sure sign of a legal team or possibly an entire legal system having lost the plot. Hopefully only the former.
  - bombcar 7mo ago
    For Good, not Evil, unless you're IBM™ https://gist.github.com/kemitchell/fdc179d60dc88f0c9b76e5d38fe47076 https://gist.github.com/kemitchell/fdc179d60dc88f0c9b76e5d38...
  - nickff 7mo ago
    This is probably a meek attempt at demonstrating compliance with Anti-Money-Laundering (AML) laws and regulations. Lawyers will often suggest this sort of thing, because the only cost is a slight inconvenience to the client, and it might suggest 'good faith' in the case of a prosecution or enforcement action.
    - AnimalMuppet 7mo ago
      So, the entire legal system.
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
  - josephg 7mo ago
    > I won’t be using the money I’m withdrawing for any illegal activities. My guess is that this is so they can ban any drug dealers from their site without consequence. "They violated our terms of service your honour!"
  - wrs 7mo ago
    That’s simple CYA, and also ensures you’ve not only done the illegal activity, you’ve defrauded the brokerage and breached your contract with them, and they get a weak KYC defense as well. Similar to the “Al Capone” instructions from the IRS: >Income from illegal activities, such as money from dealing illegal drugs, must be included in your income on Schedule 1 (Form 1040), line 8z, or on Schedule C (Form 1040) if from your self-employment activity. On the other hand, if you want to talk about these stickers all over Seattle saying you’re not allowed to conduct illegal activities on the premises…
- j_bizzle 7mo ago
  It's almost like the most effective way to publish without T&Cs is to just, you know, omit the section and publish what you want without T&Cs.
  - terrabiped 7mo ago
    Interesting question. I wonder what the default (implied) T&C would be if nothing has been explicitly stated. For example, publishing a source code without an explicit license doesn't make it open source.
    - volemo 7mo ago
      I guess it’d be whatever the other party’s lawyer can persuade the judge into.
    - pocksuppet 7mo ago
      Most T&Cs don't mean anything anyway. There are no default T&Cs, there's just the law. Publishing code without a license doesn't give it an "implicit all-rights-reserved license" - it's just illegal to copy because that's what copyright law says. A license is a conditional waiver of copyright law, a contract where the author promises not to enforce copyright against you if you fulfil certain conditions. (and this is legally binding so they actually can't enforce copyright against you)
- spalzdog 7mo ago
  When it's in the contract, then it means that when you break the law you both break the law and the contract. SHould it be necessary? Perhaps not, but in some places that makes a meaningful difference.
  - AnimalMuppet 7mo ago
    Now I'm paranoid. To your knowledge, which places does it make a difference, and what difference does it make?
    - fastball 7mo ago
      Legal matters are almost never black and white. If someone does something illegal using my service, and some other 3rd party sues me as party to that illegal behavior, from a legal perspective having a clause like "no criminal behavior allowed" in there makes it easier for your lawyers to argue "my client clearly didn't intend to authorize/facilitate such behavior". This argument is of course made much stronger if it is paired with behavior, like banning (or attempting to ban) the criminal user as soon as the activity was identified. But if you are paranoid you should speak with a lawyer in your jurisdiction.
    - greycol 7mo ago
      In most places it doesn't make a difference to the outcome of the legal process what it does do is give you a quicker simpler off ramp from the legal process (which reduces costs) and may stop some idiots even trying to sue in the first place. "Do not iron clothes while on body" should not be required to not be found liable, but it does change the question in court from providing discovery for safety consideration, how comprehensive is the manual, how... and the costs involved with that to "Did the customer use the device in a way that was it was clearly labelled to not be used? Did any part of the product packaging or instructions contradict this warning? ...Dismissed".
      - abustamam 7mo ago
        On top of that, I think my canister of Lysol wet wipes and many other bottles of cleaning chemicals says something like "it is against federal law to use this product for any purposes other than its intended use" Like, yeah it's illegal to do illegal stuff with or without the label, but at least Lysol could say "we did tell him that he can't use it for that."
- awesome_dude 7mo ago
  > Right? Why include that? The law automatically applies. Because the law applies - by that I mean if you don't put a disclaimer in then the law takes the view that you do provide a warranty, etc.
  - volemo 7mo ago
    Does it take the view that I encourage/facilitate illegal use of my product unless I state otherwise in the T&C?
    - awesome_dude 7mo ago
      Ask every account that has ever released information on drug use, lock picking, explosives manufacture, or "hacking" - they all say "for educational purposes only" for a damned good reason
    - abustamam 7mo ago
      Encourage, probably not. Facilitate, possibly. That's why my bottle of Windex glass cleaner says "it's against federal law to use this product for anything other than its intended purpose." In either case it's illegal for me to use it for bad purposes, but how much I can blame on Windex depends on how much they let me know that I shouldn't do bad stuff with their products.
- kimixa 7mo ago
  Probably because the "default" (in the USA and all European states I've checked at least) is copyright protection - unless explicitly stated otherwise the original author has exclusive rights to reproduce or distribute the work. That means that things with "no license" don't actually mean "you can do whatever you want" - but in fact "you can do realistically nothing". So to actually let other people so much as look at it, you have to have some kind of license attached already. And then it can be easy to imply (in the eyes of the law) things like "fitness for purpose" or some kind of warrenty unless expicitly denied. Honestly it's really annoying to find things like code on the internet with "no license" - that just means you can pretty much never even look at it. You could argue that isn't the "right" default, but the law is what the law is right now.
iamnotai666 7mo ago
[dead]
shevy-java 7mo ago
Right. The cake is a lie.
daveguy 7mo ago
"NoTermsNoConditions"... Proceeds to list 9 terms and conditions. It should be called bare-termsandconditions or minimal-termsandconditions.
sph 7mo ago
If anyone knows that rules exist to be broken, it's Jorji. Glory to Cobrastan.
isoprophlex 7mo ago
Should have gone for the WTFPL DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION 0. You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO.

AndrewKemendo 7mo ago

This is the real salient point in this post in my opinion; It unintentionally demonstrates the limits of individual agency to avoid legal embroilments That is to say: it doesn’t really matter what this person puts on their website because there is a judge and a sheriff somewhere that can force you to do something that would violate the things you wrote down because the things you wrote are subordinate to jurisdictional law (which is invoked as you point out) It’s actually pretty poetic when you think about it because the page effectively says nothing because it doesn’t have content that the license applies to If it’s a art piece intended to show something about licensure all it does is demonstrate the degree to which licensure is predicated on jurisdiction

goodmythical 7mo ago

Right? Why include that? The law automatically applies. Including it in the license is just redundant. Had it simply read "You may use this site for any purpose." or "You may use this site." or "You may use this" or "This can be used." it would have the same level actual restriciton in that you obviously aren't allowed to use it to break the law regardless of what it actually says. And, having typed all that, I realize that there is another restriction in that it presumes that there is a 'you' using it. Things that are not 'you' cannot use it given that it specifically lists 'you' in the referenced parties. "This can be used" would be more permissive.

deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
zephen 7mo ago
> Right? Why include that? The law automatically applies. Including it in the license is just redundant. Perhaps not. The law, as automatically applied, often include implied warranties.
lxgr 7mo ago
I recently had to confirm to a brokerage that I won’t be using the money I’m withdrawing for any illegal activities. A sure sign of a legal team or possibly an entire legal system having lost the plot. Hopefully only the former.
- bombcar 7mo ago
  For Good, not Evil, unless you're IBM™ https://gist.github.com/kemitchell/fdc179d60dc88f0c9b76e5d38fe47076 https://gist.github.com/kemitchell/fdc179d60dc88f0c9b76e5d38...
- nickff 7mo ago
  This is probably a meek attempt at demonstrating compliance with Anti-Money-Laundering (AML) laws and regulations. Lawyers will often suggest this sort of thing, because the only cost is a slight inconvenience to the client, and it might suggest 'good faith' in the case of a prosecution or enforcement action.
  - AnimalMuppet 7mo ago
    So, the entire legal system.
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
- josephg 7mo ago
  > I won’t be using the money I’m withdrawing for any illegal activities. My guess is that this is so they can ban any drug dealers from their site without consequence. "They violated our terms of service your honour!"
- wrs 7mo ago
  That’s simple CYA, and also ensures you’ve not only done the illegal activity, you’ve defrauded the brokerage and breached your contract with them, and they get a weak KYC defense as well. Similar to the “Al Capone” instructions from the IRS: >Income from illegal activities, such as money from dealing illegal drugs, must be included in your income on Schedule 1 (Form 1040), line 8z, or on Schedule C (Form 1040) if from your self-employment activity. On the other hand, if you want to talk about these stickers all over Seattle saying you’re not allowed to conduct illegal activities on the premises…
j_bizzle 7mo ago
It's almost like the most effective way to publish without T&Cs is to just, you know, omit the section and publish what you want without T&Cs.
- terrabiped 7mo ago
  Interesting question. I wonder what the default (implied) T&C would be if nothing has been explicitly stated. For example, publishing a source code without an explicit license doesn't make it open source.
  - volemo 7mo ago
    I guess it’d be whatever the other party’s lawyer can persuade the judge into.
  - pocksuppet 7mo ago
    Most T&Cs don't mean anything anyway. There are no default T&Cs, there's just the law. Publishing code without a license doesn't give it an "implicit all-rights-reserved license" - it's just illegal to copy because that's what copyright law says. A license is a conditional waiver of copyright law, a contract where the author promises not to enforce copyright against you if you fulfil certain conditions. (and this is legally binding so they actually can't enforce copyright against you)
spalzdog 7mo ago
When it's in the contract, then it means that when you break the law you both break the law and the contract. SHould it be necessary? Perhaps not, but in some places that makes a meaningful difference.
- AnimalMuppet 7mo ago
  Now I'm paranoid. To your knowledge, which places does it make a difference, and what difference does it make?
  - fastball 7mo ago
    Legal matters are almost never black and white. If someone does something illegal using my service, and some other 3rd party sues me as party to that illegal behavior, from a legal perspective having a clause like "no criminal behavior allowed" in there makes it easier for your lawyers to argue "my client clearly didn't intend to authorize/facilitate such behavior". This argument is of course made much stronger if it is paired with behavior, like banning (or attempting to ban) the criminal user as soon as the activity was identified. But if you are paranoid you should speak with a lawyer in your jurisdiction.
  - greycol 7mo ago
    In most places it doesn't make a difference to the outcome of the legal process what it does do is give you a quicker simpler off ramp from the legal process (which reduces costs) and may stop some idiots even trying to sue in the first place. "Do not iron clothes while on body" should not be required to not be found liable, but it does change the question in court from providing discovery for safety consideration, how comprehensive is the manual, how... and the costs involved with that to "Did the customer use the device in a way that was it was clearly labelled to not be used? Did any part of the product packaging or instructions contradict this warning? ...Dismissed".
    - abustamam 7mo ago
      On top of that, I think my canister of Lysol wet wipes and many other bottles of cleaning chemicals says something like "it is against federal law to use this product for any purposes other than its intended use" Like, yeah it's illegal to do illegal stuff with or without the label, but at least Lysol could say "we did tell him that he can't use it for that."
awesome_dude 7mo ago
> Right? Why include that? The law automatically applies. Because the law applies - by that I mean if you don't put a disclaimer in then the law takes the view that you do provide a warranty, etc.
- volemo 7mo ago
  Does it take the view that I encourage/facilitate illegal use of my product unless I state otherwise in the T&C?
  - awesome_dude 7mo ago
    Ask every account that has ever released information on drug use, lock picking, explosives manufacture, or "hacking" - they all say "for educational purposes only" for a damned good reason
  - abustamam 7mo ago
    Encourage, probably not. Facilitate, possibly. That's why my bottle of Windex glass cleaner says "it's against federal law to use this product for anything other than its intended purpose." In either case it's illegal for me to use it for bad purposes, but how much I can blame on Windex depends on how much they let me know that I shouldn't do bad stuff with their products.
kimixa 7mo ago
Probably because the "default" (in the USA and all European states I've checked at least) is copyright protection - unless explicitly stated otherwise the original author has exclusive rights to reproduce or distribute the work. That means that things with "no license" don't actually mean "you can do whatever you want" - but in fact "you can do realistically nothing". So to actually let other people so much as look at it, you have to have some kind of license attached already. And then it can be easy to imply (in the eyes of the law) things like "fitness for purpose" or some kind of warrenty unless expicitly denied. Honestly it's really annoying to find things like code on the internet with "no license" - that just means you can pretty much never even look at it. You could argue that isn't the "right" default, but the law is what the law is right now.

iamnotai666 7mo ago

[dead]

shevy-java 7mo ago

Right. The cake is a lie.

daveguy 7mo ago

"NoTermsNoConditions"... Proceeds to list 9 terms and conditions. It should be called bare-termsandconditions or minimal-termsandconditions.

sph 7mo ago

If anyone knows that rules exist to be broken, it's Jorji. Glory to Cobrastan.

isoprophlex 7mo ago

Should have gone for the WTFPL DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION 0. You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO.