Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 1:56 pm Post subject: [asterisk-biz] FW: "illusory" terms of service
While not restricted to online websites I’m wondering if some of the people on this list running USA based ITSP’s could be affected by this court case.
Regards,
Dean Collins
Cognation Inc
dean@cognation.net (dean@cognation.net)+1-212-203-4357 New York
+61-2-9016-5642 (Sydney in-dial).
+44-20-3129-6001 (London in-dial).
From: Dean Collins
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 10:45 AM
Subject: "illusory" terms of service
First posted at: http://deancollinsblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/illusory-terms-of-service.html"Illusory" terms of service
Wow I’m not sure how many people caught this or understood the ramifications of it. I’m trying to do some additional research to find out what this means but this ruling at MediaPost.com this morning caught my eye. [i]Lynn[/i][i] determined that Blockbuster's contract with users was "illusory" because the agreement said that movie rental store could change the terms and conditions at any time.[/i] [i][i]A Blockbuster spokesperson declined to comment on the case or state whether the company will appeal. [/i][/i] [i]The decision is a blow to Blockbuster because individual consumers would have had a difficult time bringing cases one-by-one against the company. But the decision paves the way for attorneys to argue that all consumers affected by Blockbuster's participation in Beacon should be able to proceed as a class. [/i] [i]Internet law expert Venkat Balasubramani said Lynn's decision invalidating Blockbuster's user agreement was potentially far-reaching because many Web companies reserve the right to make changes to their terms of service. "It seems broad and could have impact on the terms of service used by a lot of different companies," he said.[/i] I’m fairly sure this has to be appealed as couldn’t this throw a lot of User Agreements out the window? (I know it would affect my agreement at www.LiveBaseballChat.com out the window). Any thoughts about how this affects your business? Post below.
Regards,
Dean Collins
Cognation Inc
dean@cognation.net (dean@cognation.net)+1-212-203-4357 New York
+61-2-9016-5642 (Sydney in-dial).
+44-20-3129-6001 (London in-dial).
Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 5:12 pm Post subject: [asterisk-biz] FW: "illusory" terms of service
Isn't the whole point of a contract to prevent the terms of an agreement being changed?
Sample Contract:
1. Consultant A agrees to configure 1 Asterisk server.
2. Customer B agrees to pay $100.
3. Consultant reserves right to change terms at any time.
Later....
Consultant A: "Dear Customer, payment of the sum of $100 is past due, please pay immediately.
Customer B: "But you haven't configured my phone system!"
Consultant A: "There was a slight change to change to the terms of the agreement. I just added "if he/she feels like it" to the end of the first line. You agreed to pay but I don't feel like doing the work. Please send $100 plus interest."
In this case I don't have much sympathy for Blockbuster.
Perhaps adding a "change terms with 30 days notice and customer has right to cancel contract (with full refund of outstanding services) if not acceptable" might make it stick.
I remember seeing something like that in my cell phone agreement.
regards,
Drew
Dean Collins wrote:
Quote:
v:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} <![endif]--> st1:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) } <![endif]-->
While not restricted to online websites I’m wondering if some of the people on this list running USA based ITSP’s could be affected by this court case.
Regards,
Dean Collins
Cognation Inc
dean@cognation.net (dean@cognation.net)+1-212-203-4357 New York
+61-2-9016-5642 (Sydney in-dial).
+44-20-3129-6001 (London in-dial).
From: Dean Collins
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 10:45 AM
Subject: "illusory" terms of service
First posted at: http://deancollinsblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/illusory-terms-of-service.html"Illusory" terms of service
Wow I’m not sure how many people caught this or understood the ramifications of it. I’m trying to do some additional research to find out what this means but this ruling at MediaPost.com this morning caught my eye. [i]Lynn[/i][i] determined that Blockbuster's contract with users was "illusory" because the agreement said that movie rental store could change the terms and conditions at any time.[/i] [i][i]A Blockbuster spokesperson declined to comment on the case or state whether the company will appeal. [/i][/i] [i]The decision is a blow to Blockbuster because individual consumers would have had a difficult time bringing cases one-by-one against the company. But the decision paves the way for attorneys to argue that all consumers affected by Blockbuster's participation in Beacon should be able to proceed as a class. [/i] [i]Internet law expert Venkat Balasubramani said Lynn's decision invalidating Blockbuster's user agreement was potentially far-reaching because many Web companies reserve the right to make changes to their terms of service. "It seems broad and could have impact on the terms of service used by a lot of different companies," he said.[/i] I’m fairly sure this has to be appealed as couldn’t this throw a lot of User Agreements out the window? (I know it would affect my agreement at www.LiveBaseballChat.com out the window). Any thoughts about how this affects your business? Post below.
Regards,
Dean Collins
Cognation Inc
dean@cognation.net (dean@cognation.net)+1-212-203-4357 New York
+61-2-9016-5642 (Sydney in-dial).
+44-20-3129-6001 (London in-dial).
Quote:
_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 5:30 pm Post subject: [asterisk-biz] FW: "illusory" terms of service
But that's just it. It's not a contract. These days, a Terms of Service
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
You agree to abide by the rules, and all is well. The rules can change
because the nature of the service or the legal system or the economy
changes rather rapidly. You have to understand that, what we can offer
today because of the way laws are written or decided, we may not be able
to offer tomorrow.
Rules change. That is the nature of technology.
Should customers be able to sue every time a rule changes? That's
essentially what's being decided here.
If there's a formal contract, signed by both parties, then yes... it's
insane to say "This contract will change on our whim." But Terms of
Service are rarely formal contracts. They're more often a collection of
rules by which the user needs to abide, and a bunch of legalese stating
how many different ways a company is not responsible for things over
which it has no control and/or bizarre expectations of the uneducated
consumer.
Which one was this?
N.
Drew Gibson wrote:
Quote:
Isn't the whole point of a contract to prevent the terms of an
agreement being changed?
Sample Contract:
1. Consultant A agrees to configure 1 Asterisk server.
2. Customer B agrees to pay $100.
3. Consultant reserves right to change terms at any time.
Later....
Consultant A: "Dear Customer, payment of the sum of $100 is past due,
please pay immediately.
Customer B: "But you haven't configured my phone system!"
Consultant A: "There was a slight change to change to the terms of the
agreement. I just added "if he/she feels like it" to the end of the
first line. You agreed to pay but I don't feel like doing the work.
Please send $100 plus interest."
In this case I don't have much sympathy for Blockbuster.
Perhaps adding a "change terms with 30 days notice and customer has
right to cancel contract (with full refund of outstanding services) if
not acceptable" might make it stick.
I remember seeing something like that in my cell phone agreement.
regards,
Drew
Dean Collins wrote:
>
> While not restricted to online websites I’m wondering if some of the
> people on this list running USA based ITSP’s could be affected by
> this court case.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dean Collins
> Cognation Inc
> dean@cognation.net
> <mailto:dean@cognation.net>+1-212-203-4357 New York
> +61-2-9016-5642 (Sydney in-dial).
> +44-20-3129-6001 (London in-dial).
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* Dean Collins
> *Sent:* Monday, April 20, 2009 10:45 AM
> *Subject:* "illusory" terms of service
>
> First posted at:
> http://deancollinsblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/illusory-terms-of-service.html
>
>
> * *
>
>
> * *
>
>
> *"Illusory" terms of service
> <http://deancollinsblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/illusory-terms-of-service.html>
> *
>
> Wow I’m not sure how many people caught this or understood the
> ramifications of it.
>
> I’m trying to do some additional research to find out what this means
> but this ruling at MediaPost.com
> <http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=104357>
> this morning caught my eye.
>
>
> //Lynn//// determined that Blockbuster's contract with users was
> "illusory" because the agreement said that movie rental store could
> change the terms and conditions at any time.///
> //A Blockbuster spokesperson declined to comment on the case or state
> whether the company will appeal. ///
>
> //The decision is a blow to Blockbuster because individual consumers
> would have had a difficult time bringing cases one-by-one against the
> company. But the decision paves the way for attorneys to argue that
> all consumers affected by Blockbuster's participation in Beacon
> should be able to proceed as a class. //
>
> //Internet law expert Venkat Balasubramani said Lynn's decision
> invalidating Blockbuster's user agreement was potentially
> far-reaching because many Web companies reserve the right to make
> changes to their terms of service. "It seems broad and could have
> impact on the terms of service used by a lot of different companies,"
> he said.///
> /
>
> I’m fairly sure this has to be appealed as couldn’t this throw a lot
> of User Agreements out the window? (I know it would affect my
> agreement at www.LiveBaseballChat.com
> <http://www.livebaseballchat.com/> out the window).
>
> Any thoughts about how this affects your business? Post below.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Dean Collins
> Cognation Inc
> dean@cognation.net
> <mailto:dean@cognation.net>+1-212-203-4357 New York
> +61-2-9016-5642 (Sydney in-dial).
> +44-20-3129-6001 (London in-dial).
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
>
> asterisk-biz mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 5:51 pm Post subject: [asterisk-biz] FW: "illusory" terms of service
Face it, Americans sue anyone for anything anytime.
It's the only nation that will actually sue their own family over bling.
Well maybe not the only one, but it seems everyone is looking for the crack
, to pass one by.
Remember that lady who brought a rat in a restaurant ?
Or the guy that sued the guy giving him RCR, when he was dying in the middle
of the road ?
Now you know why people get rapped and murdered , with people passing by,
looking down , and just thinking on the Fast food tv show they will be
watching tonight , America Fattest Criminal , or American Idol while eating
a pre-cooked, microwave oven .59 cent type of snack.. they are scared to get
sued..
Careful on replies, i might sue you.. or not, im Canadian..
M
-----Original Message-----
From: asterisk-biz-bounces@lists.digium.com
[mailto:asterisk-biz-bounces@lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of SIP
Sent: April-20-09 2:27 PM
To: Commercial and Business-Oriented Asterisk Discussion
Subject: Re: [asterisk-biz] FW: "illusory" terms of service
But that's just it. It's not a contract. These days, a Terms of Service
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
You agree to abide by the rules, and all is well. The rules can change
because the nature of the service or the legal system or the economy
changes rather rapidly. You have to understand that, what we can offer
today because of the way laws are written or decided, we may not be able
to offer tomorrow.
Rules change. That is the nature of technology.
Should customers be able to sue every time a rule changes? That's
essentially what's being decided here.
If there's a formal contract, signed by both parties, then yes... it's
insane to say "This contract will change on our whim." But Terms of
Service are rarely formal contracts. They're more often a collection of
rules by which the user needs to abide, and a bunch of legalese stating
how many different ways a company is not responsible for things over
which it has no control and/or bizarre expectations of the uneducated
consumer.
Which one was this?
N.
Drew Gibson wrote:
Quote:
Isn't the whole point of a contract to prevent the terms of an
agreement being changed?
Sample Contract:
1. Consultant A agrees to configure 1 Asterisk server.
2. Customer B agrees to pay $100.
3. Consultant reserves right to change terms at any time.
Later....
Consultant A: "Dear Customer, payment of the sum of $100 is past due,
please pay immediately.
Customer B: "But you haven't configured my phone system!"
Consultant A: "There was a slight change to change to the terms of the
agreement. I just added "if he/she feels like it" to the end of the
first line. You agreed to pay but I don't feel like doing the work.
Please send $100 plus interest."
In this case I don't have much sympathy for Blockbuster.
Perhaps adding a "change terms with 30 days notice and customer has
right to cancel contract (with full refund of outstanding services) if
not acceptable" might make it stick.
I remember seeing something like that in my cell phone agreement.
regards,
Drew
Dean Collins wrote:
>
> While not restricted to online websites I'm wondering if some of the
> people on this list running USA based ITSP's could be affected by
> this court case.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dean Collins
> Cognation Inc
> dean@cognation.net
> <mailto:dean@cognation.net>+1-212-203-4357 New York
> +61-2-9016-5642 (Sydney in-dial).
> +44-20-3129-6001 (London in-dial).
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* Dean Collins
> *Sent:* Monday, April 20, 2009 10:45 AM
> *Subject:* "illusory" terms of service
>
> First posted at:
>
http://deancollinsblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/illusory-terms-of-service.html
Quote:
>
>
> * *
>
>
> * *
>
>
> *"Illusory" terms of service
>
<http://deancollinsblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/illusory-terms-of-service.html>
Quote:
> *
>
> Wow I'm not sure how many people caught this or understood the
> ramifications of it.
>
> I'm trying to do some additional research to find out what this means
> but this ruling at MediaPost.com
>
<http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=1043
57>
Quote:
> this morning caught my eye.
>
>
> //Lynn//// determined that Blockbuster's contract with users was
> "illusory" because the agreement said that movie rental store could
> change the terms and conditions at any time.///
> //A Blockbuster spokesperson declined to comment on the case or state
> whether the company will appeal. ///
>
> //The decision is a blow to Blockbuster because individual consumers
> would have had a difficult time bringing cases one-by-one against the
> company. But the decision paves the way for attorneys to argue that
> all consumers affected by Blockbuster's participation in Beacon
> should be able to proceed as a class. //
>
> //Internet law expert Venkat Balasubramani said Lynn's decision
> invalidating Blockbuster's user agreement was potentially
> far-reaching because many Web companies reserve the right to make
> changes to their terms of service. "It seems broad and could have
> impact on the terms of service used by a lot of different companies,"
> he said.///
> /
>
> I'm fairly sure this has to be appealed as couldn't this throw a lot
> of User Agreements out the window? (I know it would affect my
> agreement at www.LiveBaseballChat.com
> <http://www.livebaseballchat.com/> out the window).
>
> Any thoughts about how this affects your business? Post below.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Dean Collins
> Cognation Inc
> dean@cognation.net
> <mailto:dean@cognation.net>+1-212-203-4357 New York
> +61-2-9016-5642 (Sydney in-dial).
> +44-20-3129-6001 (London in-dial).
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
>
> asterisk-biz mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 6:22 pm Post subject: [asterisk-biz] FW: "illusory" terms of service
The "Terms of Service" are a part of the contract, not separate from it.
I agree that there is a need for flexibility and that changes are necessary from time to time.
As broadband adoption and bandwidth has increased, it would be reasonable to increase the download cap from 1GB to 5GB per month.
If a new form of spam evolved that was not covered by the ToS it might be reasonable to add a prohibition to the "rules".
However, using the Blockbuster example, to change the agreement such as to include consent for an activity that would otherwise be illegal, I do not think that is reasonable without obtaining a positive acknowledgment from the customer.
Customers SHOULD be able to sue every time a rule change (without prior notice and consent) affects them in a negative and unreasonable manner just as a business will sue a customer if THEY change the rules in a negative and unreasonable manner (eg don't pay their bills).
The key concepts here are "reasonable" and "prior notice and consent"
If your minor change has little or no negative impact on customers, go ahead. That's reasonable.
If your major change IS reasonable, why not give prior notice and obtain consent?
regards,
Drew
SIP wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
But that's just it. It's not a contract. These days, a Terms of Service
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
You agree to abide by the rules, and all is well. The rules can change
because the nature of the service or the legal system or the economy
changes rather rapidly. You have to understand that, what we can offer
today because of the way laws are written or decided, we may not be able
to offer tomorrow.
Rules change. That is the nature of technology.
Should customers be able to sue every time a rule changes? That's
essentially what's being decided here.
If there's a formal contract, signed by both parties, then yes... it's
insane to say "This contract will change on our whim." But Terms of
Service are rarely formal contracts. They're more often a collection of
rules by which the user needs to abide, and a bunch of legalese stating
how many different ways a company is not responsible for things over
which it has no control and/or bizarre expectations of the uneducated
consumer.
Which one was this?
N.
Drew Gibson wrote:
Quote:
Isn't the whole point of a contract to prevent the terms of an
agreement being changed?
Sample Contract:
1. Consultant A agrees to configure 1 Asterisk server.
2. Customer B agrees to pay $100.
3. Consultant reserves right to change terms at any time.
Later....
Consultant A: "Dear Customer, payment of the sum of $100 is past due,
please pay immediately.
Customer B: "But you haven't configured my phone system!"
Consultant A: "There was a slight change to change to the terms of the
agreement. I just added "if he/she feels like it" to the end of the
first line. You agreed to pay but I don't feel like doing the work.
Please send $100 plus interest."
In this case I don't have much sympathy for Blockbuster.
Perhaps adding a "change terms with 30 days notice and customer has
right to cancel contract (with full refund of outstanding services) if
not acceptable" might make it stick.
I remember seeing something like that in my cell phone agreement.
regards,
Drew
Dean Collins wrote:
Quote:
While not restricted to online websites I’m wondering if some of the
people on this list running USA based ITSP’s could be affected by
this court case.
//Lynn//// determined that Blockbuster's contract with users was
"illusory" because the agreement said that movie rental store could
change the terms and conditions at any time.///
//A Blockbuster spokesperson declined to comment on the case or state
whether the company will appeal. ///
//The decision is a blow to Blockbuster because individual consumers
would have had a difficult time bringing cases one-by-one against the
company. But the decision paves the way for attorneys to argue that
all consumers affected by Blockbuster's participation in Beacon
should be able to proceed as a class. //
//Internet law expert Venkat Balasubramani said Lynn's decision
invalidating Blockbuster's user agreement was potentially
far-reaching because many Web companies reserve the right to make
changes to their terms of service. "It seems broad and could have
impact on the terms of service used by a lot of different companies,"
he said.///
/
Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:15 pm Post subject: [asterisk-biz] FW: "illusory" terms of service
There doesn't appear to be any new law here <http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/Blockbusterdecision.pdf> nor is it particularly Internet specific. Basically, you can't make arbitration provision changes retroactively.
On Apr 20, 2009, at 7:51 AM, Dean Collins wrote:
Quote:
While not restricted to online websites I’m wondering if some of the people on this list running USA based ITSP’s could be affected by this court case.
Regards,
Dean Collins
Cognation Inc
dean@cognation.net (dean@cognation.net)+1-212-203-4357 New York
+61-2-9016-5642 (Sydney in-dial).
+44-20-3129-6001 (London in-dial).
From: Dean Collins
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 10:45 AM
Subject: "illusory" terms of service
First posted at: http://deancollinsblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/illusory-terms-of-service.html "Illusory" terms of serviceWow I’m not sure how many people caught this or understood the ramifications of it.I’m trying to do some additional research to find out what this means but this ruling at MediaPost.com this morning caught my eye.[i]Lynn[/i][i] determined that Blockbuster's contract with users was "illusory" because the agreement said that movie rental store could change the terms and conditions at any time.[/i][i][i]A Blockbuster spokesperson declined to comment on the case or state whether the company will appeal. [/i][/i][i]The decision is a blow to Blockbuster because individual consumers would have had a difficult time bringing cases one-by-one against the company. But the decision paves the way for attorneys to argue that all consumers affected by Blockbuster's participation in Beacon should be able to proceed as a class. [/i][i]Internet law expert Venkat Balasubramani said Lynn's decision invalidating Blockbuster's user agreement was potentially far-reaching because many Web companies reserve the right to make changes to their terms of service. "It seems broad and could have impact on the terms of service used by a lot of different companies," he said.[/i]I’m fairly sure this has to be appealed as couldn’t this throw a lot of User Agreements out the window? (I know it would affect my agreement at www.LiveBaseballChat.com out the window).Any thoughts about how this affects your business? Post below.
Regards,
Dean Collins
Cognation Inc
dean@cognation.net (dean@cognation.net)+1-212-203-4357 New York
+61-2-9016-5642 (Sydney in-dial).
+44-20-3129-6001 (London in-dial).
_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:21 pm Post subject: [asterisk-biz] FW: "illusory" terms of service
Although one could argue that the previous president changed the terms and condition by passing a law that the public wasn’t aware until too late called the pat act.
Where the people got screwed in loosing theyr rights, with no input whatsoever.
From:asterisk-biz-bounces@lists.digium.com [mailto:asterisk-biz-bounces@lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of Drew Gibson
Sent: April-20-09 3:18 PM
To: Commercial and Business-Oriented Asterisk Discussion
Subject: Re: [asterisk-biz] FW: "illusory" terms of service
The "Terms of Service" are a part of the contract, not separate from it.
I agree that there is a need for flexibility and that changes are necessary from time to time.
As broadband adoption and bandwidth has increased, it would be reasonable to increase the download cap from 1GB to 5GB per month.
If a new form of spam evolved that was not covered by the ToS it might be reasonable to add a prohibition to the "rules".
However, using the Blockbuster example, to change the agreement such as to include consent for an activity that would otherwise be illegal, I do not think that is reasonable without obtaining a positive acknowledgment from the customer.
Customers SHOULD be able to sue every time a rule change (without prior notice and consent) affects them in a negative and unreasonable manner just as a business will sue a customer if THEY change the rules in a negative and unreasonable manner (eg don't pay their bills).
The key concepts here are "reasonable" and "prior notice and consent"
If your minor change has little or no negative impact on customers, go ahead. That's reasonable.
If your major change IS reasonable, why not give prior notice and obtain consent?
regards,
Drew
SIP wrote:
Quote:
But that's just it. It's not a contract. These days, a Terms of Serviceagreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules' You agree to abide by the rules, and all is well. The rules can changebecause the nature of the service or the legal system or the economychanges rather rapidly. You have to understand that, what we can offertoday because of the way laws are written or decided, we may not be ableto offer tomorrow. Rules change. That is the nature of technology.agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
0
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
1
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
2
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
3
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
4
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
5
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
6
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
7
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
8
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
9
Quote:
0
Quote:
1
Quote:
2
Quote:
3
Quote:
4
Quote:
5
Quote:
6
Quote:
7
Quote:
8
Quote:
Quote:
9
Quote:
You agree to abide by the rules, and all is well. The rules can change
0
Quote:
You agree to abide by the rules, and all is well. The rules can change
1
Quote:
You agree to abide by the rules, and all is well. The rules can change
2
Quote:
You agree to abide by the rules, and all is well. The rules can change
3
Quote:
You agree to abide by the rules, and all is well. The rules can change
4
Quote:
You agree to abide by the rules, and all is well. The rules can change
5
Quote:
You agree to abide by the rules, and all is well. The rules can change
6
Quote:
You agree to abide by the rules, and all is well. The rules can change
7
Quote:
You agree to abide by the rules, and all is well. The rules can change
8
Quote:
You agree to abide by the rules, and all is well. The rules can change
9
Quote:
because the nature of the service or the legal system or the economy
0
Quote:
because the nature of the service or the legal system or the economy
1
Quote:
because the nature of the service or the legal system or the economy
2
Quote:
because the nature of the service or the legal system or the economy
3
Quote:
because the nature of the service or the legal system or the economy
4
Quote:
because the nature of the service or the legal system or the economy
5
Quote:
because the nature of the service or the legal system or the economy
6
Quote:
because the nature of the service or the legal system or the economy
7
Quote:
because the nature of the service or the legal system or the economy
8
Quote:
because the nature of the service or the legal system or the economy
9
Quote:
changes rather rapidly. You have to understand that, what we can offer
0
Quote:
changes rather rapidly. You have to understand that, what we can offer
1
Quote:
changes rather rapidly. You have to understand that, what we can offer
2
Quote:
changes rather rapidly. You have to understand that, what we can offer
3
Quote:
changes rather rapidly. You have to understand that, what we can offer
4
Quote:
changes rather rapidly. You have to understand that, what we can offer
5
Quote:
changes rather rapidly. You have to understand that, what we can offer
6
Quote:
changes rather rapidly. You have to understand that, what we can offer
7
Quote:
changes rather rapidly. You have to understand that, what we can offer
8
Quote:
changes rather rapidly. You have to understand that, what we can offer
9
Quote:
today because of the way laws are written or decided, we may not be able
0
Quote:
today because of the way laws are written or decided, we may not be able
1
Quote:
Quote:
today because of the way laws are written or decided, we may not be able
2
Quote:
today because of the way laws are written or decided, we may not be able
3
Quote:
today because of the way laws are written or decided, we may not be able
4
Quote:
today because of the way laws are written or decided, we may not be able
5
Quote:
today because of the way laws are written or decided, we may not be able
6
Quote:
today because of the way laws are written or decided, we may not be able
7
Quote:
today because of the way laws are written or decided, we may not be able
8
Quote:
today because of the way laws are written or decided, we may not be able
9
Quote:
to offer tomorrow.
0
Quote:
to offer tomorrow.
1
Quote:
to offer tomorrow.
2
Quote:
to offer tomorrow.
3
Quote:
to offer tomorrow.
4
Quote:
to offer tomorrow.
5
Quote:
to offer tomorrow.
6
Quote:
to offer tomorrow.
7
Quote:
to offer tomorrow.
8
Quote:
to offer tomorrow.
9
Quote:
0
Quote:
1
Quote:
2
Quote:
3
Quote:
4
Quote:
5
Quote:
6
Quote:
7
Quote:
8
Quote:
9
Quote:
Rules change. That is the nature of technology.
0
Quote:
Rules change. That is the nature of technology.
1
Quote:
Rules change. That is the nature of technology.
2
Quote:
Rules change. That is the nature of technology.
3
Quote:
Rules change. That is the nature of technology.
4
Quote:
Rules change. That is the nature of technology.
5
Quote:
Rules change. That is the nature of technology.
6
Quote:
Rules change. That is the nature of technology.
7
Quote:
Rules change. That is the nature of technology.
8
Quote:
Rules change. That is the nature of technology.
9
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
00
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
01
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
02
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
03
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
04
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
05
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
06
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
07
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
08
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
09
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
10
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
11
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
12
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
13
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
14
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
15
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
16
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
17
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
18
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
19
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
20
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
21
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
22
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
23
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
24
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
25
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
26
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
27
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
28
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
29
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
30
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
31
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
32
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
33
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
34
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
35
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
36
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
37
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
38
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
39
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
40
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
41
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
42
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
43
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
44
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
45
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
46
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
47
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
48
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
49agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
50
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
51
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
52
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
53
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
54
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
55
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
56
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
57
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
58agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
59
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
60
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
61
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
62
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
63
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
64
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
65
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
66
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
67
Quote:
agreement is really just marketing speak for 'Rules'
Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 9:58 pm Post subject: [asterisk-biz] FW: "illusory" terms of service
Yeah, I look forward for the day companies that offer “Unlimited” termination service per month begin to have their service categorized as “Illusory” service. That would be sweet (and just).
CS
From:asterisk-biz-bounces@lists.digium.com [mailto:asterisk-biz-bounces@lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of Dean Collins
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 10:52 AM
To: Commercial and Business-Oriented Asterisk Discussion
Subject: [asterisk-biz] FW: "illusory" terms of service
While not restricted to online websites I’m wondering if some of the people on this list running USA based ITSP’s could be affected by this court case.
Regards,
Dean Collins
Cognation Inc
dean@cognation.net
+1-212-203-4357 New York
+61-2-9016-5642 (Sydney in-dial).
+44-20-3129-6001 (London in-dial).
From: Dean Collins
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 10:45 AM
Subject: "illusory" terms of service
I’m trying to do some additional research to find out what this means but this ruling at MediaPost.com this morning caught my eye.
Lynn determined that Blockbuster's contract with users was "illusory" because the agreement said that movie rental store could change the terms and conditions at any time.
[i]A Blockbuster spokesperson declined to comment on the case or state whether the company will appeal. [/i]
The decision is a blow to Blockbuster because individual consumers would have had a difficult time bringing cases one-by-one against the company. But the decision paves the way for attorneys to argue that all consumers affected by Blockbuster's participation in Beacon should be able to proceed as a class.
Internet law expert Venkat Balasubramani said Lynn's decision invalidating Blockbuster's user agreement was potentially far-reaching because many Web companies reserve the right to make changes to their terms of service. "It seems broad and could have impact on the terms of service used by a lot of different companies," he said.
I’m fairly sure this has to be appealed as couldn’t this throw a lot of User Agreements out the window? (I know it would affect my agreement at www.LiveBaseballChat.com out the window).
Any thoughts about how this affects your business? Post below.
Regards,
Dean Collins
Cognation Inc
dean@cognation.net
+1-212-203-4357 New York
+61-2-9016-5642 (Sydney in-dial).
+44-20-3129-6001 (London in-dial).
Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 10:45 pm Post subject: [asterisk-biz] FW: "illusory" terms of service
Hey yeah,
Asterisk created that problem making it easy for john smith ( aka anyone) , as most abusers, to pose as residential unlimited and WACK it trough their business trunk, even caught 4 guys yet grouping 4 accounts to pull 8 channels 24/7
Hence why some ( like us) put a reasonable cap ( based upon avg of residential usage minutes) to the account, but we are open about it, and say so on the plan page.
Unlike vonage who say unlimited and then shut accounts down.
But then again vonage is in this biz to show clients on paper, not to offer service, it’s all about what investors see and hear, and believe me , if any one of them would spend 1 days at vonage tech support they would sell all they have and run as fast as they could ..
M
From:asterisk-biz-bounces@lists.digium.com [mailto:asterisk-biz-bounces@lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of C. Savinovich
Sent: April-20-09 6:54 PM
To: 'Commercial and Business-Oriented Asterisk Discussion'
Subject: Re: [asterisk-biz] FW: "illusory" terms of service
Yeah, I look forward for the day companies that offer “Unlimited” termination service per month begin to have their service categorized as “Illusory” service. That would be sweet (and just).
CS
From:asterisk-biz-bounces@lists.digium.com [mailto:asterisk-biz-bounces@lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of Dean Collins
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 10:52 AM
To: Commercial and Business-Oriented Asterisk Discussion
Subject: [asterisk-biz] FW: "illusory" terms of service
While not restricted to online websites I’m wondering if some of the people on this list running USA based ITSP’s could be affected by this court case.
Regards,
Dean Collins
Cognation Inc
dean@cognation.net
+1-212-203-4357 New York
+61-2-9016-5642 (Sydney in-dial).
+44-20-3129-6001 (London in-dial).
From: Dean Collins
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 10:45 AM
Subject: "illusory" terms of service
I’m trying to do some additional research to find out what this means but this ruling at MediaPost.com this morning caught my eye.
Lynn determined that Blockbuster's contract with users was "illusory" because the agreement said that movie rental store could change the terms and conditions at any time.
[i]A Blockbuster spokesperson declined to comment on the case or state whether the company will appeal. [/i]
The decision is a blow to Blockbuster because individual consumers would have had a difficult time bringing cases one-by-one against the company. But the decision paves the way for attorneys to argue that all consumers affected by Blockbuster's participation in Beacon should be able to proceed as a class.
Internet law expert Venkat Balasubramani said Lynn's decision invalidating Blockbuster's user agreement was potentially far-reaching because many Web companies reserve the right to make changes to their terms of service. "It seems broad and could have impact on the terms of service used by a lot of different companies," he said.
I’m fairly sure this has to be appealed as couldn’t this throw a lot of User Agreements out the window? (I know it would affect my agreement at www.LiveBaseballChat.com out the window).
Any thoughts about how this affects your business? Post below.
Regards,
Dean Collins
Cognation Inc
dean@cognation.net
+1-212-203-4357 New York
+61-2-9016-5642 (Sydney in-dial).
+44-20-3129-6001 (London in-dial).
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum