User agreements: the rules have changed, and now it will be SO!
I decided to ask a question to a respected audience. It is now quite common practice to change user agreements on sites. For example, take yatv.ru/ru/eula
- not only that many users initially do not read them,
- not only that the agreement may initially restrict the copyright to the content, p 2.6
- not only that the creators of the services announce the ability to block your content at any time p.2.10
- refuse any guarantees of stable operation of the service and disclaim all responsibility, clause 5 as a whole
- not only that you refuse to protect yourself, p.5.8
- By accepting the agreement, you undertake to protect the company! p.5.9
- collects a bunch of personal data about you, p.6
- which can be used for advertising, spam, analysis, etc. 6.7
- and also to transfer the collected information “to the Russian Federation or other countries” 6.13
But these rules are subject to change without notice! p.2.8
At the same time, selecting the copyright for the content laid out by users, changing the agreement and applying its provisions "retroactively" (which is marked "effective immediately" or "continuing to use the service means your consent") becomes easier than to take the candy from the baby . AND EVERYTHING IS LEGAL BY LAW.
I generally have a BIG QUESTION about legality
- application of agreements REAL NUMBER to existing accounts
- obliging users to independently follow the changes in the agreement (and gradually curtailing the checkbox withdrawal practice, obliging the user to agree with the new version of the changes, in favor of the phrase “continued use means your automatic acceptance of the new rules”)
- lack of references to the old version of the agreement.
It would be nice to conduct a detailed legal analysis of user agreements of many popular services (LiveJournal, YouTube, VKontakte, Habr :)). This would really help many people understand what their creators really want. Unfortunately, it would not help to understand what the creators of the services in the future want.
')
How correct is this? What are the alternatives? Is it worth the risk of losing authorship on articles, drawings, videos of gained popularity or information in the comments?
- not only that many users initially do not read them,
- not only that the agreement may initially restrict the copyright to the content, p 2.6
- not only that the creators of the services announce the ability to block your content at any time p.2.10
- refuse any guarantees of stable operation of the service and disclaim all responsibility, clause 5 as a whole
- not only that you refuse to protect yourself, p.5.8
- By accepting the agreement, you undertake to protect the company! p.5.9
- collects a bunch of personal data about you, p.6
- which can be used for advertising, spam, analysis, etc. 6.7
- and also to transfer the collected information “to the Russian Federation or other countries” 6.13
But these rules are subject to change without notice! p.2.8
At the same time, selecting the copyright for the content laid out by users, changing the agreement and applying its provisions "retroactively" (which is marked "effective immediately" or "continuing to use the service means your consent") becomes easier than to take the candy from the baby . AND EVERYTHING IS LEGAL BY LAW.
I generally have a BIG QUESTION about legality
- application of agreements REAL NUMBER to existing accounts
- obliging users to independently follow the changes in the agreement (and gradually curtailing the checkbox withdrawal practice, obliging the user to agree with the new version of the changes, in favor of the phrase “continued use means your automatic acceptance of the new rules”)
- lack of references to the old version of the agreement.
It would be nice to conduct a detailed legal analysis of user agreements of many popular services (LiveJournal, YouTube, VKontakte, Habr :)). This would really help many people understand what their creators really want. Unfortunately, it would not help to understand what the creators of the services in the future want.
')
How correct is this? What are the alternatives? Is it worth the risk of losing authorship on articles, drawings, videos of gained popularity or information in the comments?
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/153351/
All Articles