Cloud server host Vultr rips user data licensing clause from ToS amid web 'confusion' Cloud server provider Vultr has rapidly revised its terms-of-service after some netizens were alarmed by clauses that broadly demanded the "perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free" rights to customer "content." The red tape was updated in January, as captured by the Internet Archive, and this month users were asked to agree to …
Vultr CEO J.J. Kardwell told The Register earlier today it's a case of standard legal boilerplate being taken out of context.
That so-called boilerplate text was carefully-reviewed by their lawyers, in its applicable context, and they knew precisely damned-well what it said, what it meant, and what they could legally get away with, based on that text.
Yes, it was probably drafted by their lawyers in the first place and using stock paragraphs and terminology. That isn't laziness or even necessarily a land grab, for almost any particular scenario there are stock terms and phrases that have previously been considered and interpreted by the courts whose meaning is thus well known. Drafting seemingly equivalent provisions risks fresh ambiguities and uncertainty.
I recall an almost identical issue arising perhaps 30 years ago with the CompuServe T&C's. Again it was lawyers protecting their client using stock terms that seem to achieve an overreaching result.
If you had posted something on a CompuServe forum clearly you intend it to be visible to over users (otherwise what would be the point?). Similarly if it was then reprinted in the subscriber magazine that may not be surprising. But what if they decide to convert their forum archives to a website? Or these days a phone app? It's a lot easier if you have those rights from everyone in advance. The difficulty comes from more transformative use, for example you may be less happy if a quote, joke or whatever is printed on a mug, T shirt or whatever and sold at a profit.
It's guarding against that kind of direct profiteering (among other things) the lawyers need to be mindful of, but often fail to do so.
that are deliberately made hard to understand, the result is that few people even bother looking at the first few paragraphs.
There must be government regulation, ideally resulting in a set of standard/boilerplate contracts.
Also must be banned is wording like "these T&Cs may be updated at any time, you need to check for changes".
"these T&Cs may be updated at any time, you need to check for changes".
Agreeing to the vendor-authored mutability of a so-called legal agreement or contract is like handing a prostitute drug-addict CEO solicitor a blank check drawn on your account.
Paypal and eBay are always fun that way.
Send you an email saying we are making minor updates to the T&C's please go to this website to find out what they are.
Guys, you've already taken the 'trouble' to send me an e-mail to say there are changes, maybe you could, I don't know, tell me what those changes are in the same e-mail?
Possibly a bit too much like radical thinking for the likes of them, or that they know 99.9999999999999999 recurring percent of people will never click through and be aghast at what they signed up to.
《99.9999999999999999 recurring percent》
That is actually 100% - real numbers are funny like that. ;)
But announcing a change of terms and conditions in a way that guarantees exactly no one can or will read them possibly damages their later enforcibility.
As always a long spoon...
Is the company alleges not to have read its own ToS - then they are on shaky ground assuming their users did.
If it claims it didn't understand its ToS, again, users now have an open door to claim the same.
Or perhaps these shoddy ToS sections need to be regulated to something meaningful.
"We do not use user data," Kardwell stressed to us. "We never have, and we never will. We take privacy and security very seriously. It's at the core of what we do globally."
Yes, of course. Your terms and conditions say the exact opposite of this, but we believe that you are indeed concerned about privacy and security and not about selling everything to everyone for AI training.
> "Your terms and conditions say the exact opposite of this, but we believe that you are indeed concerned about privacy and security and not about selling everything to everyone for AI training."
Vicar: It's about this letter you sent me regarding my insurance claim.
Devious: Oh, yeah, yeah - well, you see, it's just that we're not, as yet, totally satisfied with the grounds of your claim.
Vicar: But it says something about filling my mouth in with cement.
Devious: Oh well, that's just insurance jargon, you know.
Don't forget to contact *all* companies when viewing their ToS and ask for a copy in a large "printed" paper format as is your right. Audio tape is also an option as long as you explain why it's a reasonable adjustment (my eye strain reading large documents is too painful, along with concentration - I get easily visually distracted - means I need an audible offline version of the terms and conditions...) - Equality Act 2010
The right to an "Easy Read Document" is also mentioned as an appropriate adjustment to be made by service providers etc, along with The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015): This act requires businesses to provide information in a clear and understandable format.
At that point you probably have (a) a restraining order against you for repeated time wasting, and (b) more company's simplifying their T&Cs with an Easy Read Document version along with less legalese.
“You hereby grant to Vultr a non-exclusive…”
How exactly did Redit users take this “out of context”? It seems pretty bloody unambiguous to me.
It really is tiring reading “we take …bla bla… very seriously” with the expectation that their customers are going to think “oh ok then - sorry for raising the issue. Have a nice day”.
I wish the politicians would wake the fuck up and just make this kind of crap - plus a boat-load of other crap like tracking etc - illegal. Just flat illegal. No wiggle room for interpretation.
I bought a coat today from North Face (from a real shop; not online). In order to get a discount on the price (which was advertised) they wanted my name, email address, DOB, and I had to tick a couple of boxes to sign up to shit that I wasn’t the least bit interested in. Obviously what I gave them was completely fabricated but how many people today didn’t fabricate their details. It’s a fucking disgrace
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
