![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
Thing is, if all companies did things like this, the wouldn't be able to get away with half the shit they pull.
Thing is, if all companies did things like this, the wouldn't be able to get away with half the shit they pull.
they*, bleh.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-307161-100x100.png\")
\"Don't be a jerk.\" Every site and business needs this clause.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-462541-100x100.png\")
Oh, me likey.
It seems that those Terms of Use are pretty much recycled these days, without much change from one website to the next. I like how they've got a general \"not-evil\" vibe going, from reasonable timelines for notification of price increases, to a lack of a \"this can change at any time without notice\" policy.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-232165-100x100.png\")
I would bet that could be used in a discrimination lawsuit against them as to say, psychologically one cannot not help who they are as a human and thus if being a jerk is their personality than this site is discriminated against jerks.
:P
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-210047-100x100.png\")
I think this is easy to do with a website and well-nigh-impossible to do with most EULAs, contractual agreements, terms of service, etc. Most lawyers would develop a fear that a court would interpret the clarifying points as the true legal language of the contract. There is a reason \"legalese\" exists, after all, and it's not just so lawyers pull salary.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-413611-100x100.png\")
@ADismalScience: Some lawyers are beginning to fear the courts overturning EULA's (et al) because the common person CANNOT be expected to understand them. Having to hire a lawyer because little Suzie's $9.99 has a cryptic EULA in the beginning, if you really wanted to understand it before signing, is slowly becoming viewed by the courts with less than glowing appeal. Not only that but the click through licensing on websites cannot prove that a person of legal age is entering into the contract in most cases. Therein, the site is still technically liable if a 15 year old \"clicks through\" the agreement because they have no standing to agree to it.
This whole area is a mess with some pretty contradictory rulings (depending on state) according to my lawyer.
The fear of the EULA being summarily dismissed is why software companies were/are pushing so hard for UCITA.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-6173-100x100.png\")
@ADismalScience: Maybe. There's a movement among (some) lawyers to move to simpler, plainer English for contracts, etc.
One of the big reasons legalese exists is that lawyers are magpies who take bits of other people's contracts that they know work properly. It's slow work to create a provision from scratch using your own words instead of stock phrases. (I actually have a lovely set of five fat books full of stock phrases for contracts in Illinois. Terrifically useful.)
When I write wills, I try to do it without technical legal terms and without twisty legal sentences. There are only two unusual legal terms I've found myself unable to jettison (\"ademption\" and \"per stirpes\") and those are easy enough to explain to clients. Occasionally a client is disappointed, though, because they're paying for the fancy lawyer-talk and don't want this plain English crap. :)
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-580834-100x100.png\")
We love you, but signing this agreement doesn't make us legal partners.
A cute way of putting it....
What I find particularly interesting is that they're clear in the bullet points where the terms favor Aviary. They're not weaseling. They seem to actually want you to understand the Terms.
The summary is clear, but still really long (about 1/3 the length of the legalese.) It is a good first step, but there has to be something better.
BRILLANT!
Of course, just because something is in the \"summary\" doesn't mean it supersedes the actual legalese. It's like a salesman telling you something that differs from the contract you sign. The only thing that matters is the contract.
While this is a nice summary, it shouldn't absolve people from taking the responsibility to read the actual agreement.
Wow, I'm really happy people noticed this and were happy. It took a while of slogging through the agreement to do. :)
I was inspired by a moderator at WebmasterWorld.com, (username Jensense), who used to update the forums every time Google made a change to it's Adsense Terms of Service. As part of her update she would do a summary of each paragraph in plain English.
That service was invaluable to understanding what the agreement changes really meant and that left a mark on me. Credit is really due her.
Aviary's mission is to make creation accessible to the world - even those that can't afford digital software. It doesn't make sense in light of our mission to make understanding the legal ramifications of using our tools inaccessible to anyone without a law degree.
Anyways, I'm flattered that you guys thought enough of this to mention it. I agree, more companies should be doing it and I'm sure they'd have tighter relationships with their userbase as a result.
@Avi Muchnick: Great work Avi. Just for that, I took a closer look at your site, and I really dig it. Probably going to sign up.
See that other companies? See how positive consumer advocacy can work in your favor?
ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT! If Microsoft did this, it woould read \"We do not promise that any of this will work on anything. You give up all rights by purchasing this software. you give us full rights to do anything we want to any computers you install our software on, with no rights to legal recourse. By using our software, you agree if you have to call us, we will jerk you around as much as possible for as long as possible.\"
I could go on for hours, but I haven't had my coffee yet.
This EULA is perfectly wonderful, I love these guys! I'll have to check them out! I wish google and others would follow this example. I would use their services before I would others with all the legal crap. Everyone would prefer the summary of the full EULA, I can't remember the last time I actually read one. (the company's intentions!)
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-871030-100x100.png\")
That site is amazing. The TOS is great, but I mean the site itself. It's been bookmarked. I keep staring at the header image. So prettty.
I'm kind of loopy. I need coffee lol.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-46299-100x100.png\")
As someone who writes Terms of Use and Privacy Policies and EULAs for (part of) his living and teaches about how to write them for the rest of it, I remain firmly on the side of plain language whenever possible. That said, summaries can be unintentionally misleading if they don't exactly match what the legalese means. For that matter, there are certain phrases that have legally binding meaning (\"work made for hire,\" for example, or \"best efforts\"), and summarizing or replacing them with plain language might not suffice. {ProfJonathan}
Now this is a business that has confidence in the product they are peddling.
This is great!
This is a great idea. I was able to follow the legal version as well as the summary. Made things very clear. All companies should do this.
I don't know why they need the legalese. The summary seems comprehensive enough.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-71483-100x100.png\")
LMAO! The best part is at the end:
\"We love you, but signing this agreement doesn't make us legal partners.\"
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-309558-100x100.png\")
Credit card companies could take a lesson from these guys.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-488475-100x100.png\")
That is awesome.
Check out our lease - we did this same kind of thing on the side for our Giant Industrial Arts Building...
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-255004-100x100.png\")
PB Wiki, which is Ramit Sethi's company (of I will teach you to be rich fame), also has a similar Terms of Service. In fact, they've been written up before as an example of how to do it right.
I think Aviary does it a little in a more user-friendly fashion (each bullet point is next to the paragraph it references), but the general purpose is the same. It really makes clear who's side they're on, and what their goals really are.
\"We arent' responsible if your internet access provider isn't working. :)\"
In the words of Bill Engvall, here's your sign.
@verucalise: Scott Adams has some stories about bosses who try to get their employees to change websites their site links to. And then the bewilderment when they try to explain they don't work for yahoo/IBM/etc..., and can't change their pages.
@verucalise: Yes. They should add... \"If you have Comcast, quit yelling at us and start .... Well, you get the point...\"