[Asterisk-Users] Re: VoipJet Terms of Service

[John Goerzen]

On 2005-03-11, Jean-Michel Hiver <hiver.j at wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> I think they are putting this in to avoid being sued because that duper 
> important call your were placing was cut for reason X Y Z. However it's 

Right, I understand.  But if that's what they mean, why don't they write
something like "customer agrees to never hold VoipJet liable for any
call malfunction, even if the problem occured during important or
emergency calls"?  Instead of prohibiting people from making those calls
on their network, why not say "sure, call however you like, but if it
doesn't work, you're SOL"

> But then again come to them with a few million monthly minutes under 
> your belt and I'm sure they'll change the TOS for you...

Heh, I don't think my wife and I could use that many minutes in decades
:-)

>> * Then there's the NDA: People are specifically prohibited from
>>
> Well if they're doing you a discount because you're buying bulk, then 

OK, I understand that, but if I'm just paying the public rates listed on
their website -- and I would be -- why prevent me from telling others
what I paid?

It's ironic.  I can tell people how much VoipJet costs *before* I sign
up, but not *after*.

>>   This one really bothers me.  I feel it is an undue restriction on my
>>   free speech.  Why should I waive the right to share my experiences
>>   with companies with others just because I have bought their services?
>>
> Damn. Here you go: THERE IS A 99.999999999999% CHANCE THAT I USE VOIPJET.
> Perfectly in line with the TOS - :-)

<grin>

>> * Then there is this one: "The Customer agrees not to undertake any
>>   action . . . that would harm VoipJet . . . in any way, including
>>   financially."  So, if I got crappy service from VoipJet and blogged
>>   about it, and thus cost them business, even if the NDA didn't get to
>>   me, this would, even if my account was completely accurate.  How sickening.
>>  
>>
> Well if you make a campaign on a company without tangible proof backing 
> your claims, it's called slander. As for the 'you agree not to sue us' 

Right.  Which is illegal and actionable anyway.  So why expand the
definition like this?

> clause, if you do sue them and the judge thinks you actually have a 
> case, it ain't going to do much for them.

Yup.

> I think that basically as long as you:
>
> - don't slag them off in public too much
> - don't sue them because of X Y or Z
> - don't use your account for immoral / illegal purposes

See, that's my intent, though I prefer always reserve the right to say
accurate things about my experiences with companies in public, even if
it makes them look like idiots.  (For example,
http://changelog.complete.org/node/143)

I completely understand them wanting to avoid being sued for network
outages and whatnot.  But everyone else seems to be able to make that
point without all these unrelated ones, too.

-- John