Jump to content

why do people have a TOS disclaimer in their profile?


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3070 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

i have seen many people with a disclaimer, saying something like (to put it short):

"It's against TOS to share conversations, but i will share yours, if you like it or not..."

Well that's basically what it says... but why do people put that in their profile after all? Doesn't make sense to me.

Sounds just as logical as someone who says "i'll drive through a red light if no car comes"...?

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

some people think they are above the TOS and it doesn't apply to them it's like double standards i've seen people go around telling people to report such and such a person because they don't like what they've done but they think it's ok for them self to breach community standards to defame the individual by wearing a hover text or some other device

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know those disclaimers. They are in peoples profiles, cause those people are stupid. Yes, thats the simple answer. They have the silly idea, that they can just say "When you IM me you agress to that" and that would make the TOS disapear for them, cause they think saying you could read that in their profiel is enough.

Or they are silly enough to think the right to store chatlog gives them the rigth to share them.

Anyway, if they do bad with it, you always will be the one who wins, if the Lindens take an eye on the case, cause they are not in the position to make their own rules.

I said clearly in my own profile, that I agree not to anything just by maybe reading it and that I don't want to have any contact to those people.

Link to post
Share on other sites


danicah wrote:

i have seen many people with a disclaimer, saying something like (to put it short):

"It's against TOS to share conversations, but i will share yours, if you like it or not..."

Well that's basically what it says... but why do people put that in their profile after all? Doesn't make sense to me.

Sounds just as logical as someone who says "i'll drive through a red light if no car comes"...? 

These people are simply misinformed, and are usually the same type who claim they want no drama. They are usually magnets to drama as their threats about exposing personal chats suggest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the only valid reason to say "i may share what you say to me with others" is to get around the fact that verbal abuse is a violation of the TOS and should be reported as such, but the only way to prove what someone said to you is to quote from your IM log and doing that is also a violation of the TOS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the disclaimer I have in my profile:

Ignorance is a reason, not an excuse

You can't join SL and then choose which parts of the TOS you'll follow by posting some silly disclaimer in your profile. If you think you can, you're just ignorant, so I'm stating to you clearly that YOU DO NOT HAVE MY PERMISSION to share any IM with me with anyone else. If you do, I'll AR you and you'll find out how worthless your silly disclaimer is.

I have reported people that thought they could share private IM's because of their disclaimer and guess what? They have been suspended.

As other's have stated,the people that do this are Drama Queens that want to stir up trouble.  Anyone that belives a so called chat log shown to them with the particapants permission is just as ignorant because anyone can make one up or 'edit' one with impunity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They fancy themselves as legal experts by their assertion that as long as you know that they "can and will" share chat logs then it's no longer against any rule that is set up by the "legal authority making up the rules".  That is not the case in real life anymore than it's the case in Second Life.  Instead of your example:

Sounds just as logical as someone who says "i'll drive through a red light if no car comes"...?

It's more like you have a bumper sticker on your car that says "I have the right to run a red light if I so choose.....and you've been warned".  Wonder what the police officer would think of that "disclaimer".  Then that officer might even come down a little harder of the person when they pull them over for running a red light?  I would say they probably would (or at least be less inclined to give out a warning instead of a citation).  People who think they are smarter than the authorities are seldom smarter than the average.......often much less smarter (to the point of stupidity).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with Syo, Griffin and Innula. 

Its a specific type of people that will reveal any information you share with them, they will also make your SL a living hell, if you mess with them. Just ignore and make a big circle around them when you pass by;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its like those people who drive around town with a sign in their car window that says "approaching this car is accepting an agreement to be run over, having accepted that agreement, you are barred from suing or calling the police when I drive recklessly and run your butt down."

Or the guys on street corners with signs that say "talking to me accepting a liscence to be exposed to crack, you, having been made aware of this, have no right to arrest me or complain when I sell you bunk that fails to get your butt high."

- And yeah... it works just about as well...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds just as logical as someone who says "i'll drive through a red light if no car comes"...?

 

But ... but, well, I do that. Let's say it's 5am and I crave a funky McD's burger after a long night in SL, I drive slowly up to the crossroads and when noone comes I just step on the pedal and go :matte-motes-sunglasses-1: But I won't make a stink if some police officer catches me.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep - it's against the Terms of Service. Yep - some of the people who use such disclaimers do so out of a need to cause drama, just like the people who claim to avoid said types due to drama cause their own no matter what they do.

For others, they have actually researched the laws concerning recording conversations via telephone systems and computer media. They've discovered that these laws extend into the chat log realm and have placed such disclaimers in their profiles for the express purpose of thumbing their nose at Linden Lab and their method of circumventing standing laws the world over.

Put simply: no one is 100% correct on this topic. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What gets me are sims that have rules saying that if you play there they have the right to reproduce any thing you say in chat or IM and by playing there you agree to let them. No, it doesn't matter what they say, it's against the ToS. Even quoting chat or IM in an AR to LL is against the ToS technically, you have to tell them date, time and location (if any) and name and they can quickly find it in their logs....including IMs

Link to post
Share on other sites

they can just step outside of the realm of second life and do it basically..

which really doesn't take any more effort than just being in yahoo messenger together with the person you feel like sharing it with..or just emailing it to those they wish too..

so i guess they can do what they say..just not anyplace in second life or it's websites or anything second life..

the simple thing to do is just avoid them if there are things that people would be worried about being said is all hehehe

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Solar Legion wrote:

For others, they have actually researched the laws concerning recording conversations via telephone systems and computer media. They've discovered that these laws extend into the chat log realm and have placed such disclaimers in their profiles for the express purpose of thumbing their nose at Linden Lab and their method of circumventing standing laws the world over.

Where have they made this remarkable discovery?

It seems by no means obvious, at least to me, that any court's interpretation of the criminal or civil law as it applies to telecommunications, of whatever sort, in general is particularly applicable to LL's right to make rules about how people may or may not use its platform.    

But I'm prepared to be persuaded otherwise if you can point me to the applicable decision.    If someone gets banned for sharing IMs in-world, what leading case should he quote in his attempts to have a judge order LL to reinstate his account?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"...

Put simply: no one is 100% correct on this topic. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to you.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Someone needs to do some research of their own on the subject.  Linden Lab is a private company.  Linden Lab which is the owner of Second Life.  Linden Lab owns Second Life lock, stock and barrel.  A private company can make their own rules to restrict or allow anything they wish as long as those rules do not violate any rule or law by a higher authority than they.  Forbidding private conversations from being disclosed without all parties prior consent is not violating any law or rule of the higher authority of Linden Lab (the US governement).  LL says it's against the rules, then it's against the rules.  There is no gray area.  There is only the authoritarian rule set up the the authoritarian company who owns the product.  You or anyone else cannot use disclaimers to get around a rule that has no ambiguity.  The disclaimer in question is not against any rule (ToS)........it's when you use that disclaimer to actually violate the rule that is set forth by LL.  LL has the final say.  You are at their mercy if you break a rule and you have no recourse if they decide you're guilty and "throw the book at you".  No one elected a single employee in LL's company.....they are king and you do as they say or risk the consequences. 

Anyone stating what the ToS says is 100% correct.  It's people who put ambiguityy into the ToS  who are 100% out of step with the "law" of Second Life.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Solar Legion wrote:

 

For others, they have actually researched the laws concerning recording conversations via telephone systems and computer media. They've discovered that these laws extend into the chat log realm and have placed such disclaimers in their profiles for the express purpose of thumbing their nose at Linden Lab and their method of circumventing standing laws the world over.

Put simply: 
no one
is 100% correct on this topic. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to you.

Read up on consent.

To give consent you need a knowing, voluntary, intelligent affirmation.

Need to know what you are giving consent to; have an awareness of the terms.

Be able to consent to such - not forced and not lacking choice.

Be intelligent as in of sound enough mind and age to comprehend what you give consent to.

Be an affirmation - an active move, not passive. This is why every ToS out there has you click or check something.

Folks in this thread who find these TOSes bunk are 100% correct in so finding. They are bunk.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because PPL are stupid and think they are smarter because doc drop them on there head when there mothers pop them out..

But man they do get ban over it ,, I know one woman try to tell me different one time.. I AR her well she got to go play RL for a few days.. I hope she had fun LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3070 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...