News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Terms of Service; Didn't Read by vitoreiji on Wednesday October 01, 2014 @11:23AM (#8395146)
> Why would anyone care? Is it a legal binding contract between me and the comany? No. It might be taken into account if we go into court, but if they have it in their TOS that I bought an elephant from them - it will not hold.

That's interesting. Do you have any sources on that? Why do these services even bother having ToS?

Re:Terms of Service; Didn't Read by reacweb on Wednesday October 01, 2014 @11:39AM (#8395299)
When I read the EULA of softwares sold in France, they often contain restrictions on reverse engineering. In France, reverse engineering is a protected right for interoperability purpose. If some parts of the EULA are illegal, how can it be a legal binding contract.
Re:Terms of Service; Didn't Read by grabeh on Wednesday October 01, 2014 @12:19PM (#8395623)
EULAs like most standard terms will contain severability clauses which basically say that even if one clause is invalid the remainder still holds...
Re:Terms of Service; Didn't Read by gambiting on Wednesday October 01, 2014 @12:59PM (#8395970)
If France(as is in pretty much everywhere in the EU) any EULA that is accepted by default by opening a product(think MS Windows packaging) is void by default, because courts ruled that opening a package does not constitute entering a legally binding contract,no matter what the packaging says.
Re:Terms of Service; Didn't Read by cpa on Wednesday October 01, 2014 @11:49AM (#8395378)
Because in France, a judge may very well decide that some part of the contract is illegal but consider that the remaining still holds. That happens all the time.
Re:Terms of Service; Didn't Read by gambiting on Wednesday October 01, 2014 @12:57PM (#8395949)
In the EU pretty much any of the online T&Cs as well as EULAs are completely invalid. They can say literally whatever, if you haven't signed an actual piece of paper it's not going through in any court.