>It may be legalese -- some lawyers add that kind of talktalk just to
stay "on
>the safe side"... for them -- yet these (marked out with !!!!!) are the
kind
>of clauses I would hesitate long and hard (perhaps forever ;-) ) before
>signing. Short of a benevolent sponsor, I seriously wonder what we
should do.

"You get what you pay for..."  :D

Kidding aside, I don't expect that to be an issue at all.  They put in
those phrases so that in case their company/organisation/whatever
decides to pull the plug /in toto/ (eg, going out of business), they
won't get sued by entities which'd claim that some "contract" mandates
they continue the site in perpetuity.

Simply keeping backups of the wiki text, or even html dumps of each page
to be able to recreate them, would be all that's needed to rebuild a
site.

Don't forget that here in the 'States, we have people who'd sue the
lottery for *not* winning.  There's notice, whether on each ticket or
elsewhere, that the lottery isn't responsible for typographic errors.
Clear, plain, to-the-point, hard to *mis*understand that, right?  Well,
we had an incident a few years ago where the wrong numbers were
published in a newspaper, people wanted to claim their winnings of the
supermegajackpot, were told, "Sorry, those ain't the numbers;  we gave
the correct numbers but the newspaper printed the wrong ones.", yet
people sued anyway for their loot.  People started spending their
"winnings" before they even turned in their "winning" tickets, quit
their jobs, etc., now wanted the lottery to make good on the bogus
numbers anyway because they themselves were idiots and jumped into the
deep end of the pool w/o even checking to see if there was any water in
there.

Point being, they simply want to cover themselves as having the last
word in management of their free wikispace, lest some nimrods decide to
suuuuuuue.  At least when you're paying for a service, there's an
explicit/implicit contract that spells out all the terms up-front.  When
something's "free", what's the other party get?  This "terms of use"
legalese is just an attempt to spell out what the other company can do,
ie, it *can* go bankrupt, switch to a for-pay hosting site,
sell/transfer ownership to someone else, etc., and then make whatever
changes are necessary, eg, pull the plug on those sites that don't want
to pay a monthly fee if they go fee-based, pull the plug entirely if
they go bankrupt, amend the terms of the contract should ownership of
the site change, etc., and not have to duke it out in court with 100s of
miffed users.

I wouldn't/don't have that much of a problem with their terms.  Ie, I
don't expect them to pull the plug on a wikisite just out of spite or
something.

Reply via email to