5 ms·

> for purposes of providing the Services to you This seems the key part

by juitpykyk 2y ago

postepowanieadm 2y ago
They don't need a licence, and a very wide one, to do this.
- _flux 2y ago
  That's probably not a legal opinion they paid for.
  - tempaccount420 2y ago
    Knowing lawyers, it was probably sloppily copied from another ToS they (or not even them) wrote.
wodenokoto 2y ago
So they have a perpetual right to your contend, for as long as they are providing you a service. Either way you read it, it seems like poor wording.
- andy_ppp 2y ago
  Perpetual means continuing forever, so why would it end at the end of the services?
  - wodenokoto 2y ago
    If you ask your parents if you can stay up late to finish your homework essay, it should follow that you only gain that right until the essay is finished. If you ask if you can stay up late for the rest of your life, it should follow that you gain that right for the rest of your life. If you ask for both at the same time, in the same sentence, you might grow up to write TOS for vultr.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
pera 2y ago
They want permission to commercialise my content "for purposes of providing the Services to" me? First time I hear such requirement
- groestl 2y ago
  That's the basis for any business model where you are the product.
  - cookiemonsieur 2y ago
    > That's the basis for any business model where you are the product. True but most times, when you are the product, the service is free. In this case you pay for the service.
    - lincm83hey 2y ago
      They do offer relatively inexpensive solutions, though. And LinkedIn is a good example of a business whose revenues are largely made from sharing and harvesting data from both paid and free users for the benefit of some of those paying users, and some third parties, too. Vultr is just even cheekier than LinkedIn. Who's to say if they'll actually act on this, but them setting themselves up to legally do this is all a bit gross.
- funcDropShadow 2y ago
  Then look at the TOS of Whatsapp, Facebook, and Instagram.
  - pera 2y ago
    Yeah sorry I meant in the context of cloud providers
- DougBTX 2y ago
  That’s an easy one: the company exists to provide The Services, revenue from commercialising the content supports the company.
emmanueloga_ 2y ago
Does it change anything? Paraphrasing: "Vultr [will own] [all of your] User Content [and do whatever Vultr wants with] the User Content [...] for the purposes of providing the Services to you." You could read that as: "if you want to work with us we will own all of your user content".
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- rad_gruchalski 2y ago
  The question is: how would your lawyer read it.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
gregw2 2y ago
I am not a lawyer but I have seen startups distort/rationalize legal language as their tech services evolve to grandfather new situations into old language. I don’t know if vultr language is worse than others, but my concern would be that someone selling you out can squeeze a lot in that clause for a long time, particularly if you never find out. Arguably that’s in bad faith, but… Say that to provide the Services to you, vultr has to supplement its income by (old school) selling your videos to a dvd publishing company, or (newer) creating their own streaming tv channel, or providing them to an AI model training company, or providing them to an “affiliate” advertising-serving broker who slurps your created content and slaps one or more segmentation labels about your content (“kink”, “religion(X)”, “gamer”) tied to your email which it then resells to world+dog? Ie is selling you out part of what vultr needs to do to provides the Services to you? I find it very hard to trust companies based solely on their legal language when that language is viewed from an adversarial position. But I am not lawyer to know what kinds of “misreadings” are “beyond the pale”/not legally defensible.
- groestl 2y ago
  "an adversarial position" is the only position you should assume when interpreting legal texts. After all, if push comes to shove, your the actual adversary. And in any other case the legal text is not needed.
  - singleshot_ 2y ago
    Assume that immediately after executing any contract, the counterparty will be purchased by the Devil. Draft accordingly within reason.
Terr_ 2y ago
"Selling copies of your genome to partners enables us to affordably provide the service, therefore you agreed to it."

> for purposes of providing the Services to you This seems the key part

postepowanieadm 2y ago

They don't need a licence, and a very wide one, to do this.

_flux 2y ago
That's probably not a legal opinion they paid for.
- tempaccount420 2y ago
  Knowing lawyers, it was probably sloppily copied from another ToS they (or not even them) wrote.

wodenokoto 2y ago

So they have a perpetual right to your contend, for as long as they are providing you a service. Either way you read it, it seems like poor wording.

andy_ppp 2y ago
Perpetual means continuing forever, so why would it end at the end of the services?
- wodenokoto 2y ago
  If you ask your parents if you can stay up late to finish your homework essay, it should follow that you only gain that right until the essay is finished. If you ask if you can stay up late for the rest of your life, it should follow that you gain that right for the rest of your life. If you ask for both at the same time, in the same sentence, you might grow up to write TOS for vultr.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

pera 2y ago

They want permission to commercialise my content "for purposes of providing the Services to" me? First time I hear such requirement

groestl 2y ago
That's the basis for any business model where you are the product.
- cookiemonsieur 2y ago
  > That's the basis for any business model where you are the product. True but most times, when you are the product, the service is free. In this case you pay for the service.
  - lincm83hey 2y ago
    They do offer relatively inexpensive solutions, though. And LinkedIn is a good example of a business whose revenues are largely made from sharing and harvesting data from both paid and free users for the benefit of some of those paying users, and some third parties, too. Vultr is just even cheekier than LinkedIn. Who's to say if they'll actually act on this, but them setting themselves up to legally do this is all a bit gross.
funcDropShadow 2y ago
Then look at the TOS of Whatsapp, Facebook, and Instagram.
- pera 2y ago
  Yeah sorry I meant in the context of cloud providers
DougBTX 2y ago
That’s an easy one: the company exists to provide The Services, revenue from commercialising the content supports the company.

emmanueloga_ 2y ago

Does it change anything? Paraphrasing: "Vultr [will own] [all of your] User Content [and do whatever Vultr wants with] the User Content [...] for the purposes of providing the Services to you." You could read that as: "if you want to work with us we will own all of your user content".

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
rad_gruchalski 2y ago
The question is: how would your lawyer read it.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

gregw2 2y ago

I am not a lawyer but I have seen startups distort/rationalize legal language as their tech services evolve to grandfather new situations into old language. I don’t know if vultr language is worse than others, but my concern would be that someone selling you out can squeeze a lot in that clause for a long time, particularly if you never find out. Arguably that’s in bad faith, but… Say that to provide the Services to you, vultr has to supplement its income by (old school) selling your videos to a dvd publishing company, or (newer) creating their own streaming tv channel, or providing them to an AI model training company, or providing them to an “affiliate” advertising-serving broker who slurps your created content and slaps one or more segmentation labels about your content (“kink”, “religion(X)”, “gamer”) tied to your email which it then resells to world+dog? Ie is selling you out part of what vultr needs to do to provides the Services to you? I find it very hard to trust companies based solely on their legal language when that language is viewed from an adversarial position. But I am not lawyer to know what kinds of “misreadings” are “beyond the pale”/not legally defensible.

groestl 2y ago
"an adversarial position" is the only position you should assume when interpreting legal texts. After all, if push comes to shove, your the actual adversary. And in any other case the legal text is not needed.
- singleshot_ 2y ago
  Assume that immediately after executing any contract, the counterparty will be purchased by the Devil. Draft accordingly within reason.

Terr_ 2y ago

"Selling copies of your genome to partners enables us to affordably provide the service, therefore you agreed to it."