> for purposes of providing the Services to you
This seems the key part
This seems the key part
I don’t know if vultr language is worse than others, but my concern would be that someone selling you out can squeeze a lot in that clause for a long time, particularly if you never find out. Arguably that’s in bad faith, but…
Say that to provide the Services to you, vultr has to supplement its income by (old school) selling your videos to a dvd publishing company, or (newer) creating their own streaming tv channel, or providing them to an AI model training company, or providing them to an “affiliate” advertising-serving broker who slurps your created content and slaps one or more segmentation labels about your content (“kink”, “religion(X)”, “gamer”) tied to your email which it then resells to world+dog?
Ie is selling you out part of what vultr needs to do to provides the Services to you?
I find it very hard to trust companies based solely on their legal language when that language is viewed from an adversarial position. But I am not lawyer to know what kinds of “misreadings” are “beyond the pale”/not legally defensible.
First time I hear such requirement
True but most times, when you are the product, the service is free. In this case you pay for the service.
Vultr is just even cheekier than LinkedIn.
Who's to say if they'll actually act on this, but them setting themselves up to legally do this is all a bit gross.
"Vultr [will own] [all of your] User Content [and do whatever Vultr wants with] the User Content [...] for the purposes of providing the Services to you."
You could read that as: "if you want to work with us we will own all of your user content".
Either way you read it, it seems like poor wording.
If you ask if you can stay up late for the rest of your life, it should follow that you gain that right for the rest of your life.
If you ask for both at the same time, in the same sentence, you might grow up to write TOS for vultr.