4 ms·

The idea here is that we need to be able to modify terms quickly if need be (e.g. if a critical issue is identified), but hopefully that will never be the case.

by joshmoz 11y ago

The idea here is that we need to be able to modify terms quickly if need be (e.g. if a critical issue is identified), but hopefully that will never be the case. Under normal circumstances we will post the updated agreement quite a while before it takes effect. Current thinking is that we'll try for 45-90 days. Thanks for your feedback.

chralieboy 11y ago
The issue is that you are asking the user understand and agree to a legal contract, which they must then uphold, without giving similar guarantees on your end. On my side, you want me to agree to do things and on your side "we'll try for 45-90 days." That's not good enough.
dctoedt 11y ago
Ask your lawyer whether you want to include an express statement [1] that existing rights and obligations --- and, importantly, any dispute-resolution procedures --- will continue to be governed by the old agreement. That could be important in avoiding a court holding that the agreement is "illusory," and thus unenforceable, because of your power to change it at any time. [1] See, e.g., the clause and extensive annotations at http://www.commondraft.org/#AmendUnilateralCls http://www.commondraft.org/#AmendUnilateralCls (self-cite).
Sir_Substance 11y ago
The problem with this approach is you're inflicting your legal liability on me. A more appropriate way to deal with this would be to state that there will be a 30 day consultation period for every change, and if you do identify a "critical issue", to revoke every certificate and have everyone re-agree to it. Now, I know you don't want to do that because if you do find a critical issue, solving it that way makes everyone mad at you, but here's the thing: that's how it works in every other business. Withdrawing cars or software or nail polish or recommended finance strategies from use takes time, and if you make a critical fuckup then the methods for speeding up the withdrawal time are either non-existant or really piss people off. It's a quirk of the legal system that you can "patch" these issues instantly, but you still have to unilaterally fuck people (at least in potentia) to do it. The correct way to do it would be to take responsibility for the quality of your work and guarantee you won't change the agreement on people. At the very least, you could state any changes will be binding for one week, and anyone who hasn't explicitly opted in to the new version after a week gets cut off until they do, but is released from that version.
a3camero 11y ago
Have you discussed this with a lawyer who specializes in these kinds of agreements? Eric Goldman has written extensively on these types of amendment clauses (and has a very unfavourable opinion of them): http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2015/01/safeway-cant-unilaterally-modify-online-terms-without-notice.htm http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2015/01/safeway-cant-un... http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2014/03/court-blesses-instagrams-right-to-unilaterally-amend-its-user-agreement-rodriguez-v-instagram.htm http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2014/03/court-blesses-i... http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2012/10/10/how-zappos-user-agreement-failed-in-court-and-left-zappos-legally-naked/2/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2012/10/10/how-zappo....
chetanahuja 11y ago
Hah.. so what happens when the "current thinking" changes? It could change later today for all we know?

by joshmoz 11y ago

chralieboy 11y ago

The issue is that you are asking the user understand and agree to a legal contract, which they must then uphold, without giving similar guarantees on your end. On my side, you want me to agree to do things and on your side "we'll try for 45-90 days." That's not good enough.

dctoedt 11y ago

Ask your lawyer whether you want to include an express statement [1] that existing rights and obligations --- and, importantly, any dispute-resolution procedures --- will continue to be governed by the old agreement. That could be important in avoiding a court holding that the agreement is "illusory," and thus unenforceable, because of your power to change it at any time. [1] See, e.g., the clause and extensive annotations at http://www.commondraft.org/#AmendUnilateralCls http://www.commondraft.org/#AmendUnilateralCls (self-cite).

Sir_Substance 11y ago

The problem with this approach is you're inflicting your legal liability on me. A more appropriate way to deal with this would be to state that there will be a 30 day consultation period for every change, and if you do identify a "critical issue", to revoke every certificate and have everyone re-agree to it. Now, I know you don't want to do that because if you do find a critical issue, solving it that way makes everyone mad at you, but here's the thing: that's how it works in every other business. Withdrawing cars or software or nail polish or recommended finance strategies from use takes time, and if you make a critical fuckup then the methods for speeding up the withdrawal time are either non-existant or really piss people off. It's a quirk of the legal system that you can "patch" these issues instantly, but you still have to unilaterally fuck people (at least in potentia) to do it. The correct way to do it would be to take responsibility for the quality of your work and guarantee you won't change the agreement on people. At the very least, you could state any changes will be binding for one week, and anyone who hasn't explicitly opted in to the new version after a week gets cut off until they do, but is released from that version.

a3camero 11y ago

Have you discussed this with a lawyer who specializes in these kinds of agreements? Eric Goldman has written extensively on these types of amendment clauses (and has a very unfavourable opinion of them): http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2015/01/safeway-cant-unilaterally-modify-online-terms-without-notice.htm http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2015/01/safeway-cant-un... http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2014/03/court-blesses-instagrams-right-to-unilaterally-amend-its-user-agreement-rodriguez-v-instagram.htm http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2014/03/court-blesses-i... http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2012/10/10/how-zappos-user-agreement-failed-in-court-and-left-zappos-legally-naked/2/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2012/10/10/how-zappo....

chetanahuja 11y ago

Hah.. so what happens when the "current thinking" changes? It could change later today for all we know?