• @Tryptaminev@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      111 year ago

      In civilized countries there is an understanding that noone is reading dozens of pages of terms of agreement, so any clause in there that is unexpected is automatically void. Expecting a software agreement to include rules not to distribute it further, break copy protection mechanisms etc. is normal so those terms are valid. But having all your data stolen is not something to be expected, hence invalid.

      • @MeanEYE@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -81 year ago

        Try going with that argument to court and see what happens. In USA basically anything goes, whatever is written in there. No matter how weird or against the user. There’s a reason why EU’s pushing new and shorter terms than can be glanced and read easily.

        • @Vittelius@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          71 year ago

          Which is why the comment you where replying to specified

          in civilised countries

          The implication beeping that the US is not. Because in a lot of other countries surprise clauses in your T&C’s is illegal

        • NutWrench
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 year ago

          Whoever is downvoting this needs to have an encounter with the U.S. legal system, so they find out how little their precious freaking “rights” are worth.

          • @Wooki@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 year ago

            Read the comment and reply to it, you missed the entire point of their comment.

            in civilised countries

          • @MeanEYE@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -3
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Yup. But this is Lemmy. People are emotional rather than rational.

            Edit: Here’s a video I linked in my other comment where Ross is talking about USA law and terms and conditions when it comes to games. He’s trying to get publishers to stop killing games once they are out. He basically consulted two lawyers and they both give up on that. It’s so atrocious that it’s not a matter for law, but constitution.