[HN Gopher] Vultr is now claiming full perpetual commercial righ...
___________________________________________________________________
Vultr is now claiming full perpetual commercial rights over all
hosted content
Author : RyeCombinator
Score : 260 points
Date : 2024-03-27 07:41 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (old.reddit.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (old.reddit.com)
| RadixDLT wrote:
| wrong link
| meblum wrote:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/selfhosted/comments/1bouuv7/warning...
| progbits wrote:
| https://old.reddit.com/r/selfhosted/comments/1bouuv7/warning...
| dig1 wrote:
| You are probably looking for this summary [1]:
| https://www.vultr.com/legal/tos/ Section 12:
| You hereby grant to Vultr a non-exclusive, perpetual,
| irrevocable, royalty-free, fully paid-up, worldwide license
| (including the right to sublicense through multiple
| tiers) to use, reproduce, process, adapt, publicly perform,
| publicly display, modify, prepare derivative works, publish,
| transmit and distribute each of your User Content, or any
| portion thereof, in any form, medium or distribution method now
| known or hereafter existing, known or developed, and
| otherwise use and commercialize the User Content in any way that
| Vultr deems appropriate, without any further consent, notice
| and/or compensation to you or to any third parties, for
| purposes of providing the Services to you.
|
| [1]
| https://old.reddit.com/r/selfhosted/comments/1bouuv7/warning...
| juitpykyk wrote:
| > for purposes of providing the Services to you
|
| This seems the key part
| postepowanieadm wrote:
| They don't need a licence, and a very wide one, to do this.
| _flux wrote:
| That's probably not a legal opinion they paid for.
| tempaccount420 wrote:
| Knowing lawyers, it was probably sloppily copied from
| another ToS they (or not even them) wrote.
| wodenokoto wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Perpetual means continuing forever, so why would it end at
| the end of the services?
| wodenokoto wrote:
| 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.
| pera wrote:
| They want permission to _commercialise_ my content "for
| purposes of providing the Services to" me?
|
| First time I hear such requirement
| funcDropShadow wrote:
| Then look at the TOS of Whatsapp, Facebook, and Instagram.
| pera wrote:
| Yeah sorry I meant in the context of cloud providers
| groestl wrote:
| That's the basis for any business model where you are the
| product.
| cookiemonsieur wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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.
| DougBTX wrote:
| That's an easy one: the company exists to provide The
| Services, revenue from commercialising the content supports
| the company.
| juitpykyk wrote:
| They offer services like store fronts. This might require
| them to sell your stuff and accept credit cards on your
| behalf.
|
| https://www.vultr.com/marketplace/apps/woocommerce/
| pera wrote:
| Ah I was not aware of this, I guess it makes sense then?
| They could make this section of the ToS specific to their
| marketplace/store front products
| res0nat0r wrote:
| This verbiage is standard for almost all internet/service
| providers, it's language to allow them to display your
| content on their behalf.
| emmanueloga_ wrote:
| 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".
| gregw2 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| "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.
| Terr_ wrote:
| "Selling copies of your genome to partners enables us to
| _affordably_ provide the service, therefore you agreed to it.
| "
| funcDropShadow wrote:
| On top Vultr gives all the liabilities to the victim ...
| customer:
|
| > As between you and us, you own your User Content and you have
| full responsibility for all User Content you make or submit,
| including its legality, reliability and appropriateness, while
| using the Services.
| throwaway1o24 wrote:
| They appear to be appropriately named
| exe34 wrote:
| Nominative determinism. Unlike OpenAI. I suppose it's a form of
| carcinization for corporations.
| tedeh wrote:
| I'm guessing they're about to make some kind of generative-AI
| play and need access to more data.
| groestl wrote:
| Or they used AI to generate their new TOS and didn't
| proofread...
| itronitron wrote:
| ... and the AI was trained on data belonging to Vultr users,
| who happen to be lawyers...
| itronitron wrote:
| I could see a company claiming they need AI in order to provide
| their service to their users.
| Havoc wrote:
| It was added before data for AI became big
| GrumpySloth wrote:
| How does it apply to VPS instances? Do they snapshot them and
| scan the filesystem for content?
|
| I'll be migrating to Hetzner in any case.
| groestl wrote:
| Have all my stuff there (bare metal), can recommend.
| docc wrote:
| same, using it for years. Its great
| arcastroe wrote:
| If this is the case, is there a way to protect against it? Is
| there a way to keep the data encrypted? Thinking along the
| lines of bitlocker on windows.
| GrumpySloth wrote:
| No. VM snapshots include RAM as well, so the decryption key
| can be copied from there. The decrypted data can also be
| intercepted when you decrypt it.
|
| Without the pipe dream of efficient homomorphic encryption
| you can't protect your data from a hostile VPS provider.
| EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote:
| I once asked Hetzner, do they have protections in place against
| a rogue employee peeking at data inside my servers, as I was
| worried about some sensitive data stored in there. Their
| response was: "If you are asking that question, you are
| probably mining crypto, so we'll ban you".
| traceroute66 wrote:
| I'm not seeking to defend Vultr here, but perhaps people need to
| think about this in a sensible manner.
|
| Given the way of today's internet, with GPT-bots crawling your
| stuff without your permission to use in their services, and with
| search-engines crawling and generally providing means of content
| removal that have limited effect .... what else are Vultr
| supposed to do ?
|
| If you are granting them permission to, for example, "display"
| your content. Then there's not much they can do if you cancel
| your Vultr account but your content remains part of the GPT
| training material ?
| groestl wrote:
| "commercialize the User Content in any way that Vultr deems
| appropriate" is not at all related to CYA wrt crawlers.
| citruscomputing wrote:
| I run my private nextcloud server on vultr. Everything is
| behind a login wall. They absolutely do not have my permission
| to use my years of notes, legal documents, calendar
| information, and photos (most of which have never been posted
| publicly) in any way!
|
| > what else are Vultr supposed to do ? Continue providing the
| services they do, with reasonable terms, or die. No, you can't
| just up and take all my photos and sell them to some AI
| training dataset because you wanted more money. Sorry!
| neoecos wrote:
| What are you planning to do? I'm in the same situation, but
| without accepting the terms i'm no even able to "delete" my
| server/account. (already backing up things to move away)
| madsbuch wrote:
| From one of the Reddit commenters:
|
| > Edit: As an EU customer, and having called my lawyer really
| quickly, we don't even think that this is legal / would hold up
| in court in the EU. Also they'd have been required to summarise
| the TOS changes as by our local law.
|
| While companies can write whatever they want in their TOS, I
| would wary using the rights I just gave to myself. It can be
| devastating.
| vsnf wrote:
| I'm conflicted on comments like that. On one hand, companies
| make mistakes otherwise they'd never lose in court, but they do
| from time to time. On the other hand, Vultr has their own
| lawyers, presumably higher paid and better armed than an
| individual would have access to, so how confident can one be
| that their personal lawyer has a better legal theory than the
| corporate lawyers?
| lompad wrote:
| Happens a lot, mostly when US Companies with a majority of
| their customers in the US make changes without thinking about
| other countries/ taking them seriously.
|
| Additionally, ToS really don't count for much in the EU,
| they're usually not enforcable anyway, if there's anything
| out of the ordinary at all. There's a whole lot of stuff in
| ToS nobody is ever going to be able to enforce at all.
|
| They probably expected to fly under the radar, without making
| sure it's even okay everywhere. Well, that's not going to
| happen I guess.
| ehnto wrote:
| I suppose it doesn't make a material difference if it's
| enforceable, since if you have personal data on their
| platform right now you have to assume it's been accessed or
| consumed in some form.
|
| They obviously had an inent to start using the data for
| something, and given what I know about tech businesses, I
| wouldn't assume they only started once the ToS change was
| made. I would consider my data compromised.
| doctor_eval wrote:
| Well I think the Reddit commentator is probably right, but
| these TOS significantly increase the risk of using Vultr,
| regardless of the legality in whichever jurisdiction.
|
| The problem is that if Vultr really thinks it can exercise
| these rights, then there is a risk that proprietary
| information stored on their servers will be made public --
| despite what EU or any other laws might say.
|
| It doesn't really matter if you can take them to court if
| Vultr causes a data leak that results in the loss all your
| customers. And most of us don't have the resources to be able
| to do that anyway.
|
| All of that said. I've found Vultr really good to work with
| and I am crossing my fingers, though not assuming, that this
| is a mistake.
|
| I've raised a ticket with them, and I'll give them a couple
| of weeks before I make plans to pull out. Fortunately I'm
| still in stealth mode and have zero customers, so I can
| afford to wait. I'd be absolutely freaking out right now if I
| had live customers.
| madsbuch wrote:
| I think this is insightful.
|
| What a company write in their TOS is an indication of what
| they intend to do. Broad scopes also means broad intentions
| (like startups).
|
| You could read into that, that Vultr is intending to break
| the law in the EU, however little there is to do about it.
|
| Its a liability for the customers knowing this. But it is
| also a liability for Vultr who will see it more difficult
| to establish in the EU, should that ever be wanted.
| yreg wrote:
| It's not even about how much paid/skilled they are.
|
| The new ToS were surely a big project with tens of hours (or
| more) of research done for it.
|
| The redditor's lawyer just picked up a phone and offered some
| gut response. My lawyer friends are happy to share their
| thoughts, but they usually tell me that they need to do
| research to provide reliable guidance.
| lompad wrote:
| That particular Vulture certainly won't fly in the EU.
|
| Without a simple summarization for end users you can't just hide
| "unexpected" things in ToS-updates. And, well, a cloud-hoster
| deciding randomy to own your content hosted on servers you pay
| for is certainly neither expected nor typical.
|
| Good luck enforcing anything of that, vultr.
| doctor_eval wrote:
| That's remarkable. I'm a huge fan of vultr and I don't want to
| believe that this has been done in bad faith, but of course long
| experience sadly suggests otherwise.
|
| That said, due to the type of service they provide, vultr
| customers like myself don't necessarily even have the right to
| grant them the rights that they claim here. If I run a SaaS and
| people are uploading photos for work (eg photos of property
| damage for the purposes of identifying and repairing it), those
| photos are not my property and must not become public. The idea
| that this could ever be OK is batshit insane.
|
| So I hope/suspect this policy is going to be reverted pretty
| quickly, since it seems quite incompatible with their core
| business.
|
| No way can I risk my customers data being "publicly displayed"!
| chrisjj wrote:
| Corrected link:
| https://old.reddit.com/r/selfhosted/comments/1bouuv7/warning...
| VonNaturAustre wrote:
| Thanks!
| Havoc wrote:
| That's one way to ensure your company only hosts worthless shit.
|
| I doubt the random blogs etc had much AI training value in the
| first place so this very much feels like an own goal
| lcnmrn wrote:
| I need new hosting service for Subreply. Any good providers?
| richin13 wrote:
| I've been using linode without any issues.
| bravetraveler wrote:
| Do they still demand control over disk layouts?
|
| I left because I couldn't use LVM, the fact they need to know
| disk geometry for a VM never sat well with me.
|
| I'm under no illusion, I know the host needs to be trusted,
| but this is a weird/gross implementation.
| 65 wrote:
| DigitalOcean App Platform is pretty good. Easy to use.
| diggan wrote:
| Not sure it says what you think/want it to say:
|
| > You are responsible for the information, text, opinions,
| messages, comments, audio visual works, motion pictures,
| photographs, animation, videos, graphics, sounds, music,
| software, Apps, and any other content or material that
|
| That's the prefix to your first paragraph, meaning you as the
| user is responsible for that, not that Vultr is responsible for
| that.
|
| Your second paragraph is explicitly about "for purposes of
| providing the Services to you" which it'd be really hard to argue
| that "using your user's uploaded photo for Vultr's marketing
| promotion" is for the purpose of providing a service to you, so I
| don't think you have to be afraid of that.
|
| I'm sure Vultr's terms and conditions contain horrible shit, just
| like any other terms and conditions. But I don't think those two
| paragraphs highlight anything more nefarious than usual.
| TomSwirly wrote:
| You missed the "in any way that Vultr deems appropriate"
| clause. This is a classic weasel phrase which means they can do
| as they please.
|
| "Why did you sell my data to an AI company?" "We deemed it
| appropriate."
|
| There is also the sublicensing clause, which means they can
| sell it to anyone, and "process, adapt, [...] modify, prepare
| derivative works", which has nothing to do with hosting, but
| allows them to change your data and reuse it for any purpose
| they "deem appropriate".
| diggan wrote:
| > You missed the "in any way that Vultr deems appropriate"
| clause. This is a classic weasel phrase which means they can
| do as they please.
|
| No, I didn't, but you again missed the full context. Neither
| of those terms can be considered in isolation, so again:
|
| > You hereby grant to Vultr a non-exclusive [...] in any way
| that Vultr deems appropriate [...] for purposes of providing
| the Services to you
|
| So unless it's for the purpose of providing you the service,
| it doesn't matter what Vultr "deems" appropriate.
|
| Feel free to check this with a lawyer if you feel unsure.
| TomSwirly wrote:
| I did not miss the full context.
|
| "Deemed" in particular doesn't require any sort of
| reasoning or argument for the company to make any decision
| it likes. And "appropriate" is not a synonym for
| "necessary".
|
| "Why did you sell my data?" "We deemed it appropriate for
| the purposes of providing the Services to you."
|
| What's your legal refutation to this under US law?
|
| (In the EU, this whole clause would possibly be
| unenforceable from the start, but I know a lot less about
| EU law.)
| j16sdiz wrote:
| The cause is retrained by
|
| "... for purposes of providing the Services to you."
|
| if you take the narrowest read, it would allow them to store or
| cache them. That's it.
| TomSwirly wrote:
| The phrase "in any way that Vultr deems appropriate" does not
| encourage a narrow read.
|
| It is a wildcard that allows them to do whatever they want with
| the data and then argue, "We deemed it appropriate."
| SuperNinKenDo wrote:
| To speak Laconically: If.
| vxxzy wrote:
| Well, time to move away from Vultr. Luckily I don't have too much
| over there other than some small projects.
| freitzkriesler2 wrote:
| Fitting for a company named vulture.
| hattchett wrote:
| This passage is a clause from a legal agreement, typically found
| in the terms of service for a platform or service provider like
| Vultr. It outlines the rights you, as a user, are granting to
| Vultr regarding any content you create or upload while using
| their services. Let's break it down for clarity:
|
| Non-exclusive: Vultr does not have exclusive rights to your
| content. You can grant similar rights to others.
|
| Perpetual: The rights you grant are everlasting.
|
| Irrevocable: You cannot take back these rights once they are
| granted.
|
| Royalty-free: Vultr does not have to pay you for the use of your
| content.
|
| Fully paid-up: No future payments will be required from Vultr to
| you for the use of your content.
|
| Worldwide license: Vultr can use your content anywhere in the
| world.
|
| Right to sublicense through multiple tiers: Vultr can grant these
| rights to other parties, who can then grant them to further
| parties, and so on.
|
| To use, reproduce, process, adapt, publicly perform, publicly
| display, modify, prepare derivative works, publish, transmit, and
| distribute your content: Vultr can do just about anything with
| your content, including modifying it and sharing it, in any
| current or future media or format.
|
| In any way that Vultr deems appropriate: Vultr has the discretion
| to use your content however it sees fit.
|
| Without any further consent, notice, and/or compensation to you
| or to any third parties: Vultr does not need to ask for your
| permission, inform you, or pay you or anyone else to exercise
| these rights.
|
| For purposes of providing the Services to you: The clause often
| stipulates that these rights are granted to Vultr so they can
| operate, improve, and promote their services effectively.
|
| This type of clause is common in the terms of service for online
| platforms and services. It essentially allows the service
| provider to operate their platform efficiently, showcase user-
| generated content, and adapt and improve services without needing
| to seek permission from users each time they need to handle
| content. It's important for users to understand these terms, as
| they significantly affect how one's content can be used and
| shared by the service provider.
| red-iron-pine wrote:
| legal discovery software, man. we'll see if those lawyers can
| still demand 400/hr in the future.
|
| ChatGPT may eat those legal disco companies, too
| hattchett wrote:
| Yup
| donmcronald wrote:
| > typically found in the terms of service for a platform or
| service provider like Vultr
|
| > showcase user-generated content
|
| What? Am I unaware of some service they offer? I don't want an
| infrastructure provider doing _anything_ with my content. They
| shouldn 't even have access to anything that's not publicly
| accessible unless someone needs one-off access to help with a
| support incident.
|
| It's not "content" for a lot of customers. It's private,
| proprietary information. What if someone is using Vultr to host
| an app for a company that requires an NDA from the webdev? Are
| they stuck in limbo as of right now?
|
| The Vultr account owner might not even be the owner of the data
| hosted in the account. The whole thing is crazy. How are there
| people here defending this as "normal"?
| groestl wrote:
| [typically found in the terms of service] [Let's break it down
| for clarity] [This type of clause is common in the terms of
| service for online platforms] [It's important for users]
|
| This comment reeks like ChatGPT generated content, tbh.
| pull_my_finger wrote:
| Everyone (maybe rightfully) up in arms, but I imagine you would
| need an agreement like this is they were finally getting on board
| with something like elastic compute. Everytime they spin up a new
| machine on your behalf they're essentially redistributing all the
| files on that machine. I understand everyones gun shy, but I've
| been using Vultr for years and I'm much less suspicious of them
| than the likes of google/amazon. I've personally never had an
| issue with them, but I definitely think it's a healthy response
| to go fight or flight when you're essentially signing all your
| rights away.
| jasonjayr wrote:
| Sure, but "Irrevocable?" That's a hard no.
| boutell wrote:
| "prepare derivative works"? Also a hard no.
| thecodeassassin wrote:
| This is not boilerplate, otherwise every cloud provider would
| have this and they do not. This problem can be solved by much
| less broad terms.
| YeBanKo wrote:
| > commercialize the User Content in any way that Vultr deems
| appropriate
|
| How does this maps to adding another node in the compute
|
| Also, why perpetual?
|
| They are essentially data processor, they act on your behalf
| and should not do things with data that you have not asked for.
| 2Gkashmiri wrote:
| Let's do one thing, host Nintendo content and since vultr now has
| commercial rights over "my uploads" let's see how Nintendo bites
| them in the ass. This can be done and dusted in a few days given
| enough traction
| hattchett wrote:
| I look at it like this, if your data is on the internet, anyone
| can do anything they want with it, period.
| groestl wrote:
| Not legally.
| hobotime wrote:
| This is a standard clause so you can't sue them for providing
| pirated stuff when you our your users placed it on their servers.
|
| That's why is proceeded by "for purposes of providing the
| Services to you"
|
| Nothing here... move away from the fake outrage.
| Havoc wrote:
| > This is a standard clause so you can't sue them for providing
| pirated stuff
|
| Rubbish. That wouldn't require an explicit and broad right to
| commercialise and profit from your content
|
| The small portion dealing with piracy isn't what the uproar is
| a out
| EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote:
| So are they afraid that Warner uploads Dune 2 torrent to their
| servers and immediately sues them for distribution? And to
| protect against that, they reserve the right to create Dune 3
| out of it using Sora and distribute that themselves?
| lincm83hey wrote:
| I mean, if anybody's surprised, their name is literally a
| dehydrated version of the word "vulture"
| retox wrote:
| The language seems have been added mid-2021, so it's not new.
| not-duckie wrote:
| i just migrated to vultr cause of minial api and interface.
| really hate it when stakeholders make founders take foolish
| decision :/. guess I'll use linode or something now
| VonNaturAustre wrote:
| I agreed!
| cozzyd wrote:
| Keep calm and carrion
| supriyo-biswas wrote:
| I wish people stopped posting threads from Reddit, because they
| are either full of unverifiable claims (like a post from some
| time ago that claimed a coworker was messing around with their
| computer for the last five years), or in this case, outrage
| sought for the sake of outrage and disregarding the context due
| to which it has arisen.
|
| In this case, I believe this is due to the introduction of their
| CDN product, though it would also apply to their object storage
| product as well.
| soraminazuki wrote:
| And while we're at it, people should automatically disregard
| what others say because human beings are known to be dishonest.
| See the problem?
|
| Your blanket claim regarding unverifiability is especially
| astounding because this one is easily verifiable. The evidence
| is right here, for everyone to see.
|
| https://www.vultr.com/legal/tos/
|
| Speaking of unverifiable claims,
|
| > In this case, I believe this is due to the introduction of
| their CDN product
|
| That's pure guessing. More importantly, it doesn't change the
| egregiousness of this ToS is even if that's the case.
|
| Also,
|
| > disregarding the context due to which it has arisen
|
| There is absolutely no context in which screwing over customers
| like that is okay.
| adamredwoods wrote:
| I'm not a lawyer, I don't know what that means, but it is
| disturbing enough to make me leave. If they don't want me to
| leave, they should clarify their intent.
|
| Part 12.1: User Content
|
| https://www.vultr.com/legal/tos/
| gruez wrote:
| It is clarified
|
| >You hereby grant to Vultr a non-exclusive, perpetual,
| irrevocable, royalty-free, fully paid-up, worldwide license
| (including the right to sublicense through multiple tiers) to
| use, reproduce, process, adapt, publicly perform, publicly
| display, modify, prepare derivative works, publish, transmit
| and distribute each of your User Content, or any portion
| thereof, in any form, medium or distribution method now known
| or hereafter existing, known or developed, and otherwise use
| and commercialize the User Content in any way that Vultr deems
| appropriate, without any further consent, notice and/or
| compensation to you or to any third parties, _for purposes of
| providing the Services to you._
|
| Emphasis mine. They have a perpetual license, but only for the
| purpose of providing services to you. This is a clause and many
| TOS, presumably to avoid copyright suits.
| maronato wrote:
| Services is a very generic term for anything they offer. They
| can, for example, offer a free non optional AI tool that
| allows you to ask questions about the data in your database.
|
| My non-lawyer understanding of the policy is that, for the
| purpose of providing you with this service, they have the
| right to use your entire database to train and test the tool.
| They can even make a contract with OpenAI and sell your data
| to them for the purposes of building the AI service.
|
| And it's perpetual and irrevocable, so they can keep their
| models trained with your data if you decide to leave.
| adamredwoods wrote:
| I could not find anything similar in Linode (Akamai) TOS:
|
| https://www.linode.com/legal/
|
| Nor does AWS, that I could find, except with the PartyRock
| created apps:
|
| https://aws.amazon.com/service-terms/
| gruez wrote:
| That's why I said "many", not "most". Here's what I turned
| up in a few minutes of searching:
|
| https://www.cloudflare.com/en-in/terms/
|
| >2.5 Customer Content and Network Data
|
| >2.5.1
|
| >You and your End Users (as such term is defined in the
| Privacy Policy) will retain all right, title and interest
| in and to any data, content, code, video, images or other
| materials of any type that you or your End Users transmit
| to or through the Services (collectively, "Customer
| Content") in the form provided to Cloudflare. Subject to
| the terms of this Agreement, you hereby grant us a non-
| exclusive, fully sublicensable, worldwide, royalty-free
| right to collect, use, copy, store, transmit, modify and
| create derivative works of Customer Content, in each case
| to the extent necessary to provide the Services.
|
| https://explore.zoom.us/en/terms/
|
| >10.2 Permitted Uses and Customer License Grant. Zoom will
| only access, process or use Customer Content for the
| following reasons (the "Permitted Uses"): (i) consistent
| with this Agreement and as required to perform our
| obligations and provide the Services; (ii) in accordance
| with our Privacy Statement; (iii) as authorized or
| instructed by you; (iv) as required by Law; or (v) for
| legal, safety or security purposes, including enforcing our
| Acceptable Use Guidelines. You grant Zoom a perpetual,
| worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicensable, and
| transferable license and all other rights required or
| necessary for the Permitted Uses.
|
| https://www.notion.so/notion/Master-Subscription-
| Agreement-4...
|
| >3.1 Customer Data. Customer and its licensors own the
| Customer Data, including all Intellectual Property Rights
| therein. No ownership rights in the Customer Data are
| transferred to Notion by this Agreement. Customer hereby
| grants Notion a worldwide, non-exclusive, irrevocable,
| royalty-free, fully-paid, sublicensable (to Notion's third-
| party service providers) license to host, store, transfer,
| display, perform, reproduce, modify, create derivative
| works of, and distribute Customer Data in connection with
| its provision of the Services to Customer. [...]
|
| https://huggingface.co/terms-of-service
|
| >You hereby grant us a worldwide, royalty-free and non-
| exclusive license to use, display, publish, reproduce,
| distribute, and make derivative works of such Content to
| provide Services and as otherwise permitted under these
| Terms and our Privacy Policy; and,
|
| https://www.servicenow.com/content/dam/servicenow-
| assets/pub...
|
| >5.2 CUSTOMER OWNERSHIP. As between the parties, Customer
| and its licensors will retain all right, title, and
| interest in
|
| >and to all IPR in Customer Data and Customer Technology.
| Customer grants to ServiceNow a royalty-free, fully paid,
| non-exclusive,
|
| >non-transferrable (except under Section 11.1), worldwide,
| right to use Customer Data and Customer Technology solely
| to provide
|
| >and support the Software.
| adamredwoods wrote:
| I will argue that each of these examples you've listed
| has a clearer intent listed. "for purposes of providing
| the Services" versus "solely to provide and support the
| Software".
|
| None of them go so far as to say: "and otherwise use and
| commercialize the User Content in any way that Vultr
| deems appropriate"
|
| Again, I'm not a lawyer, nor looking to become one, so
| anything that seems unusual, should be taken with caution
| in order to protect myself and my IP. I've seen what
| companies have done to independent developers, and I
| don't want to suffer a similar fate, only because I
| couldn't interpret TOS accurately.
| maronato wrote:
| "You hereby grant to Vultr a non-exclusive, perpetual,
| irrevocable, royalty-free, fully paid-up, worldwide license
| (including the right to sublicense through multiple tiers) to
| use, reproduce, process, adapt, publicly perform, publicly
| display, modify, prepare derivative works, publish, transmit and
| distribute each of your User Content, or any portion thereof, in
| any form, medium or distribution method now known or hereafter
| existing, known or developed, and otherwise use and commercialize
| the User Content in any way that Vultr deems appropriate, without
| any further consent, notice and/or compensation to you or to any
| third parties, for purposes of providing the Services to you."
|
| Section 12, https://www.vultr.com/legal/tos/
| YeBanKo wrote:
| Why is this submission flagged?
| dang wrote:
| We can only guess why users flag things, but in this case I'd
| guess it was because the submitted link
| (https://old.reddit.com/r/selfhosted/s/3CgRd01Ypw) just
| redirects to a login screen: https://old.reddit.com/r/selfhoste
| d/login/?dest=https%3A%2F%....
|
| Googling the title leads to https://old.reddit.com/r/selfhosted
| /comments/1bouuv7/warning..., which I guess is the same
| content? We can change the URL to that above.
|
| Edit: oh, and I see several other commenters in the thread were
| already linking to that URL.
| YeBanKo wrote:
| Maybe it's too late, but I think it would make sense to
| update the link.
| dang wrote:
| Yes, I did.
| mindslight wrote:
| That new URL still just goes to a login screen. I believe
| this is due to recent reddit policy change.
|
| > _whoa there, pardner! Your request has been blocked due to
| a network policy. Try logging in or creating an account here
| to get back to browsing._
|
| It seems that reddit has now followed Xitter with requiring
| logins to drive engagement numbers, effectively rejecting the
| open web. Extractive screw turning was probably inevitable
| with the naive central-server design of webapps, but going
| through the destruction part of creative destruction still
| sucks.
| adamredwoods wrote:
| I could not find anything similar in Linode (Akamai) TOS:
|
| https://www.linode.com/legal/
|
| Nor does AWS, that I could find, except with the PartyRock
| created apps:
|
| https://aws.amazon.com/service-terms/
|
| Both of the above TOS explain intent, for example, to monitor
| data services for metrics. Vultr's clause (12.1) does not explain
| intent. The phrase "for purposes of providing services" is a
| vague intent.
| bombcar wrote:
| 7.3 of Linode might be it.
|
| Cloudflare #2 certainly is it:
| https://www.cloudflare.com/website-terms/
| adamredwoods wrote:
| Someone else noted Cloudflare:
|
| >> You and your End Users (as such term is defined in the
| Privacy Policy) will retain all right, title and interest in
| and to any data, content, code, video, images or other
| materials of any type that you or your End Users transmit to
| or through the Services (collectively, "Customer Content") in
| the form provided to Cloudflare. Subject to the terms of this
| Agreement, you hereby grant us a non-exclusive, fully
| sublicensable, worldwide, royalty-free right to collect, use,
| copy, store, transmit, modify and create derivative works of
| Customer Content, in each case to the extent necessary to
| provide the Services.
|
| but doesn't state as Vultr did: "and otherwise use and
| commercialize the User Content in any way that Vultr deems
| appropriate" and Cloudflare uses the term "to the extent
| necessary" which to me seems more specific than a vague
| wording of "for providing services".
|
| I'm not a lawyer, I'm interpreting this to the best of my
| abilities. In general, if something feels odd, it's best to
| back away.
| whalesalad wrote:
| What are the best VPS' these days who stay out of your hair and
| protect users?
| jamesnorden wrote:
| BuyVM (Frantech) is a good one, you can get a lot of cheap
| storage "blocks" even on the lowest plan, if you wish.
| Havoc wrote:
| Think he recently sold the company
| edgoode wrote:
| If you're looking for a new GPU cloud because of this, we've put
| all these providers in on place, console, and API so you can find
| a new one for your needs at https://shadeform.ai
|
| * I'm one of the founders
| stackskipton wrote:
| Worth noting that Vultr has responded and modified their TOS to
| remove those terms.
|
| https://www.vultr.com/news/A-Note-About-Vultrs-Terms-of-Serv...
| neoecos wrote:
| So... it was a legalese
| willio58 wrote:
| We need regulation around this sooo bad. Nobody reads TOS, or
| at least 99.9999% of people don't because it's simply too
| much. It's unreasonable to expect people to read these long
| documents and understand what they mean. We need requirements
| of high-level overviews in very plain language. Slimming this
| stuff down and removing BS lawyer fluff is the only way in my
| eyes.
| Terr_ wrote:
| In a way it's a failure of precedent rather than
| regulation, since ideally the judge would throw some of
| these contracts out the same as if they had special clauses
| in microscopic font.
| barryfarling wrote:
| Would anyone work with these people after they did this? They
| pivoted because they got caught, not because they are trust
| worthy. They clearly thought a lot, in concert with counsel,
| about how they could try to steal people's IP. Geniuses thought
| no one would read the TOS.
| fsck_vultr wrote:
| If you have a valid API key, this still works. If you delete node
| in the dev tools, you can see the page behind it - but it still
| comes back on the next page.
| fabianholzer wrote:
| Nomen est omen, it seems?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-03-28 23:02 UTC)