2026-05-07 14:41 UTC
@LeslieBurns@esq.social This, or at least the YouTube aspect of it, seems like a modern example of the venerable "of course I didn't read the fine print, who the heck reads the fine print" argument, which has not had a notable history of success. I wonder what percentage of YouTube users actually read and understand the terms of service. I'd say it's a single-digit number, at best, and possibly one with a decimal point before it.
ETA: totally agree about the server test. That's deeply into "if the law believes that, the law is an ass" territory.
Replies (2)
-
@jonberger@sfba.social 2026-05-07 14:46
@LeslieBurns@esq.social Incidentally, the final exam in my Intellectual Property class featured a hypo about inline embedding, and that was almost 30 years ago. I guess my IP prof was ahead of her time.
-
@LeslieBurns@esq.social 2026-05-07 14:57
@jonberger@sfba.social The fine print argument...ooof... I can't tell you how many times I've had to tell a (prospective) client "Wish I could help but you don't have a case... you granted the use in the contract" and that K is with their client, not some ginormous tech co's T&Cs. If they won't read the first, or hire a lawyer to do it for them, forget about the second. Heartbreaking when that happens but it does. The proverbial pay a little now or pay a lot later.