[asterisk-biz] FW: "illusory" terms of service

[SIP]

But that's just it. It's not a contract. These days, a Terms of Service
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'

You agree to abide by the rules, and all is well. The rules can change
because the nature of the service or the legal system or the economy
changes rather rapidly. You have to understand that, what we can offer
today because of the way laws are written or decided, we may not be able
to offer tomorrow.

Rules change. That is the nature of technology.

Should customers be able to sue every time a rule changes? That's
essentially what's being decided here.

If there's a formal contract, signed by both parties, then yes... it's
insane to say "This contract will change on our whim." But Terms of
Service are rarely formal contracts. They're more often a collection of
rules by which the user needs to abide, and a bunch of legalese stating
how many different ways a company is not responsible for things over
which it has no control and/or bizarre expectations of the uneducated
consumer.

Which one was this?

N.


Drew Gibson wrote:
>
> Isn't the whole point of a contract to prevent the terms of an
> agreement being changed?
>
> Sample Contract:
> 1. Consultant A agrees to configure 1 Asterisk server.
> 2. Customer B agrees to pay $100.
> 3. Consultant reserves right to change terms at any time.
>
> Later....
>
> Consultant A: "Dear Customer, payment of the sum of $100 is past due,
> please pay immediately.
> Customer B: "But you haven't configured my phone system!"
> Consultant A: "There was a slight change to change to the terms of the
> agreement. I just added "if he/she feels like it" to the end of the
> first line. You agreed to pay but I don't feel like doing the work.
> Please send $100 plus interest."
>
> In this case I don't have much sympathy for Blockbuster.
>
> Perhaps adding a "change terms with 30 days notice and customer has
> right to cancel contract (with full refund of outstanding services) if
> not acceptable" might make it stick.
> I remember seeing something like that in my cell phone agreement.
>
> regards,
>
> Drew
>
>
>
> Dean Collins wrote:
>>
>> While not restricted to online websites I’m wondering if some of the
>> people on this list running USA based ITSP’s could be affected by
>> this court case.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Dean Collins
>> Cognation Inc
>> dean at cognation.net
>> <mailto:dean at cognation.net>+1-212-203-4357 New York
>> +61-2-9016-5642 (Sydney in-dial).
>> +44-20-3129-6001 (London in-dial).
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* Dean Collins
>> *Sent:* Monday, April 20, 2009 10:45 AM
>> *Subject:* "illusory" terms of service
>>
>> First posted at:
>> http://deancollinsblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/illusory-terms-of-service.html
>>
>>
>>       * *
>>
>>
>>       * *
>>
>>
>>       *"Illusory" terms of service
>>       <http://deancollinsblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/illusory-terms-of-service.html>
>>       *
>>
>> Wow I’m not sure how many people caught this or understood the
>> ramifications of it.
>>
>> I’m trying to do some additional research to find out what this means
>> but this ruling at MediaPost.com
>> <http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=104357>
>> this morning caught my eye.
>>
>>
>> //Lynn//// determined that Blockbuster's contract with users was
>> "illusory" because the agreement said that movie rental store could
>> change the terms and conditions at any time.///
>> //A Blockbuster spokesperson declined to comment on the case or state
>> whether the company will appeal. ///
>>
>> //The decision is a blow to Blockbuster because individual consumers
>> would have had a difficult time bringing cases one-by-one against the
>> company. But the decision paves the way for attorneys to argue that
>> all consumers affected by Blockbuster's participation in Beacon
>> should be able to proceed as a class. //
>>
>> //Internet law expert Venkat Balasubramani said Lynn's decision
>> invalidating Blockbuster's user agreement was potentially
>> far-reaching because many Web companies reserve the right to make
>> changes to their terms of service. "It seems broad and could have
>> impact on the terms of service used by a lot of different companies,"
>> he said.///
>> /
>>
>> I’m fairly sure this has to be appealed as couldn’t this throw a lot
>> of User Agreements out the window? (I know it would affect my
>> agreement at www.LiveBaseballChat.com
>> <http://www.livebaseballchat.com/> out the window).
>>
>> Any thoughts about how this affects your business? Post below.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Dean Collins
>> Cognation Inc
>> dean at cognation.net
>> <mailto:dean at cognation.net>+1-212-203-4357 New York
>> +61-2-9016-5642 (Sydney in-dial).
>> +44-20-3129-6001 (London in-dial).
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
>>
>> asterisk-biz mailing list
>> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>>    http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
>
> asterisk-biz mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>    http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz