Why not pay a notary to store your will or a bank safe ?
I mean you re inventing solutions to problems we always solved with a fee and a legally binding contract...
I mean you re inventing solutions to problems we always solved with a fee and a legally binding contract...
(But the real problem I got into in casual conversations picking lawyer brains to see if there was a viable MVP to try to build was what I felt to be the real serious Digital Escrow whammy that we're going to maybe need decades to fix: digital goods survivorship isn't an established right. Most Terms of Service agreements forbid, indirectly or directly giving someone else your password. Worse, many Terms of Services explicitly are being written between only one specific individual and the company and have clauses that terminate with the individual. A lawyer asked to write a password into an estate plan doesn't have to think about what it protects and doesn't need to know and passwords on paper stored in a safety deposit box are mostly covered/secured by existing contract law and insurance and all that. [But also you can't update that password without the rigmarole of paying the lawyer to open the file in the safety deposit box and updating the document.] But even in just casual conversations, asking if password and digital "item" storage/escrow as a service was useful to lawyers led them down into frightening rabbit holes that Digital Estate Planning is a giant mess, the contracts [Terms of Services] are nightmares, most companies don't want to consider digital goods as inheritable goods, and the legal fights over inheritance rights of things like Steam accounts or Movies Anywhere or Kindle accounts are just waiting to happen and lawyers would generally prefer to ostrich that as long as possible unless someone pays them heavily or someone else sets a good first precedent. I still think about some of these problems and how unprepared we currently are with respect to "digital goods".)
Your heirs are entitled to your past belongings. That includes of course all kinds of online accounts.
The closest a regulation to date I'm aware of has gotten to addressing digital goods and especially survivorship was the EU's GDPR mentioned it explicitly as a concern and then kicked the can down the road with no solution offered, leaving it someone else's problem.
All across the "civilized parts of the world" HN is full of horror story headlined about people and small businesses losing access to all of their Google Docs and entire Google Drive folders on which their homes or businesses ran because of a spam judgment from YouTube. How many of those have gone to court? Contract law is the law of the land in most "civilized parts of the world" and the Terms of Service are the only contracts and the only laws we have in most cases in the digital world. Those Terms of Service say that your Google account is entirely at Google's discretion, full stop, and that's the current "law". If lawyers don't think they can fight or appeal a company losing their Google account and going bankrupt because of that because the Terms of Service say "Google is always right", how do you expect them to fight for Grandpa's Steam account?
You can believe all you want that "common sense" dictates that anything you should be able to inherit physically you should be able to inherit digitally, but that's not what the laws currently say. Those clauses in the TOS agreements are the only laws in most of the "civilized parts of the world" on the record right now, because it's not a problem any legislature has wanted to address.
And they have plenty of lobbyists in their ears telling them it isn't a problem they need to address. Disney makes more money if your heirs have to "buy" all the movies in the Disney Vault again when your Movies Anywhere account gets shut down at your death, just like everyone needed to buy the movies on VHS and then DVD and then Blu-Ray… (This is overwrought example because Movies Anywhere TOS actually seems concerned about this and has made steps for more "family sharing" and some of that hints at survivorship planning and how they hope that to work. To be fair, so is Steam more than "average". But that also underscores my point in a different way: right now your rights are entirely dependent on the Terms of Service of the digital services you use and no two TOS documents are the same and nearly every one of them is going in different directions based on different corporate lawyer priorities and corporate/shareholder greed/"charity". Everything is at the discretion of whichever corporate overlords you rely on.)
Nothing is guaranteed even in the "civilized parts of the world" until there are a lot more court cases backing up one side or the other with enough precedence to swing contract law interpretations or a lot more consumer protection advocates managed to get meaningful laws actually enacted about digital goods rights/survivorship. Not just GDPR levels of "some countries in the EU see this is a potential problem but not enough of them yet for us to do anything about it yet". Right now the consensus seems to be "that's someone else's problem" and "we'll worry about that tomorrow", especially in "civilized parts of the world". Like I said, I've had more than one conversation with Lawyers about this picking their brains on it. Anecdotally, their terror that none of this is getting addressed was very real. I don't think a lot of people know how bad this might get, that this is a legal hurricane no one wants to pretend exists on the radar.
Maybe the "civilized parts of the world" are much smaller than I assumed? That may be. I did not double check. :-D
At least in Germany there is a highest court ruling that deals with this subject.
https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/facebook-konto-erben-to...
Usually the status quo is not substantially different in other EU countries, so I assumed that.
TOS in general are always limited by other laws. That something is written in the TOS doesn't make it a binding contract automatically. (A related and one of the better know cases is that EULA-like "contracts", that aren't shown to users before they install a software, aren't contracts at all in Germany—as you need consent form all parties upfront to establish a contract. If you didn't see any contract and didn't agree to it upfront there is just no contract. That's why it's legal in Germany for example to sell OEM licenses of MS products even the MS EULA "forbids" this. It doesn't matter Microsoft says the EULA is enforced by their TOS).
It's not much different regarding other things written in TOS: You can just ignore those things in case such clauses would give the service provider unexpected or overly broad advantages (like trying to make a "contract" binding you never saw). Such clauses don't have any legal meaning and aren't enforceable.
Of course it's not always clear form the get go which kind of clauses are moot. That's up to the courts to decided if there is disagreement. But for a lot of things there are court rulings, and most of the time it's even quite clear from the laws governing TOS in general. (A clause like "by using our service we're entitled to your first-born" can for example never be a binding part of a TOS; no discussion needed).
Regarding things like VOD or that-like services: Well, you never bought anything there! You're usually only renting this stuff.
Apple got for example sued because they had a "buy" button on movies in Apple TV+ even though you can't "buy" of course any movies on Apple TV+—you can only rent them. Rented stuff doesn't belong to you in the end, so it doesn't get inherited by your heirs.
Person-bound contracts are of course possible and such renting contracts are often of this kind. So your heirs don't inherit "your" VOD movies (you've never owned them). Such a contract usually just terminates with the death of the contractor in case this was the only person entitled to use the service. (Like say, in case of a gym contract).
If this all is "new problems"—even things are actually quite clear as there are regulations form the analog era governing most of those questions—maybe the parts of the world where this is the case aren't civilized at all?^^
BTW, that's actually why "case law" is nonsense: Given a case law system if something "new", like the internet, comes across "everything" is needed to be reevaluated. If one have laws instead that govern general things and not specific cases you can most of the time just apply the existing laws to the "new" thing without bigger trouble or legal uncertainty. The point here is: Something like contract law is mostly "done". There is almost 3000 years of experience with it. So there are hardly any really "new" things to consider. (At least if you don't have case law—where it's always a new gamble).
In the US most laws seem to believe "if it is digital it is something new" which is creating so many "exciting" startup opportunities of "X but as an app" that get to skirt around previous regulations (until and unless someone writes new regulations). (It's not a "case law" problem, it's a "regulations/legislated laws are intentionally too narrow" problem. Because several political parties in the US have made that their mission to make sure laws are as narrow as possible.)
I get the joke that by definition that makes the US "uncivilized", but given how many of these companies that control major swathes of "digital goods" are American in posture, and how large the US generally is as a first world super-power, calling it "uncivilized" isn't particularly funny and maybe a bit dangerous if we are trying to defend consumer rights.
I appreciate that Germany is doing much better than US, and that there are other EU members doing similarly. I lament that it will take a larger international effort to push such protections into the radar of some of the American companies, and I especially lament the missed opportunity to do so in the GDPR itself given that was a scary enough regulation that a lot of American companies jumped to correct things in their TOS/cookie handling/etc even if they didn't believe they had any EU customers.
«Regarding things like VOD or that-like services: Well, you never bought anything there! You're usually only renting this stuff.
Apple got for example sued because they had a "buy" button on movies in Apple TV+ even though you can't "buy" of course any movies on Apple TV+—you can only rent them. Rented stuff doesn't belong to you in the end, so it doesn't get inherited by your heirs.»
That's not a distinction that US law has made to date. The en-US version of Apple TV+ still says "Buy" everywhere.
Additionally, there actually are analog "entitlements" law equivalents to "digital entitlements" and US does have a lot of regulations on the books for the analog equivalents (in Securities and Exchange laws). If I built a movie theater and decided to bond/notarize a ticket that stated the bearer would have access to a specific film any time that movie played and they wished to see it. Such an "entitlement" ticket you could resell or inherit. Beyond that being a somewhat silly business model in the physical world (depending presumably on how much you make on concessions from repeat customers, I suppose), it's often not done simply because there are so many Securities trading regulations today around it.
(But there are real world physical things that still exist even with such strong regulations in existence. It's not far from how mortgages work, for instance.)
Generally an entitlement/Security/Bond is still considered "bought" not "rented", even though it may be contingent on services provided/businesses meeting contractual obligations.
VOD can be considered a bought entitlement/"security" and could be inheritable. I'd argue that's how "common sense" in the US already sees it (and they don't yet realize that things like VOD entitlements are "personal to you and only you" rather than "bearer entitlements, based on how TOS are written today), but it is going to take a while for US regulations to catch up with that, if it ever does. But I can also understand the perspective of simplifying the entitlement/"security" and just calling it a "Lifetime Rental" and suing the the providers for truth in advertising.
But first all of this is going to get even more complicated and ugly because NFTs are fighting the same regulations fight (from a consumer protection standpoint: stupidly, because NFTs don't want regulations and especially don't want consumer protection/securities trading protection).