Now, that is separate from the argument that because they didn't strictly enforce their ToS, that people now feel entitled to something and may drive some people away from the service.
That seems like a digression, though, since obviously none of these putative Drive customers reporting being notified of a TOS violation. I didn't say "service providers must provide service under all circumstances", I just said they had to follow their contracts, which demand provision of service under whatever terms the parties agreed on.
You seem to have not read the ToS before or after the change. It was actually more restrictive _after_ the change.
All this 'outrage' seems to fundamentally be about the user being reminded that the ToS actually existed in the first place, not any changes made to it.
When you've been relying on a service for a while and the TOS suddenly change it seems fair to complain: OP would have probably picked a different service if he knew.
No it doesn't. In fact the article is about how they didn't directly violate the TOS but were subject to a targeted harassment campaign. You obviously have no evidence to support your claims and this is just a weak attempt at trolling.
Sounds like they should have communicated these changes to their customers. If the customer is not breaking the TOS and you cut them off with no notice because you want to change your TOS going forward that's a bad look.
You keep saying they are enforcing 'the law,' when in fact they are just enforcing their own TOS, which is perfectly within their rights.
> the fact is he paid for a service which the provider terminated
This makes it sound like they just shut down his account, when in fact they communicated with him, telling him exactly what he would need to do to bring his content into compliance with their TOS, at which point he would presumably have continued access to his account. At this point, it would be his choice about whether to continue his relationship with DO, or to move to another provider.
I mean, if that's your argument then it seems like the OP article isn't valuable news. It's a change to terms of service when you never trusted the ToS to begin with.
Not true. If they had previously adopted my suggestion in the old ToS, that itself would either be a breach of that ToS (leading to liability for prohibitively large contractual damages) or would be an invalid change. I suggested that they explicitly remove their right to make this kind of change unilaterally. Terms of Service don't have to allow their authors an unfettered unilateral right of amendment.
They can not do it, and have it mean nothing legally, by their discretion, just because it's not part of their ToS, is my statement in spirit. Violation of ToS is not a requirement for violating the law.
He clearly violated their Terms Of Service. If you like and enjoy a service, exploiting it to prove a point is not the way to do it. It takes no time to spot the clause about exploiting the service.
Legally, it wouldn't be good to have a TOS and then not enforce it. You never how that could bite you later on if you get dragged into a dispute.
All this "they should give it back when they're done" is pointless. You can't reward stupid behavior.
Yup, and a term of services isn't above or equal to existing laws. If a law contradict a line in the TOS then you have the option to ignore it, and fight back against the company of they take action that is against that law.
Now, that is separate from the argument that because they didn't strictly enforce their ToS, that people now feel entitled to something and may drive some people away from the service.
reply