 key here is “solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted
or made available.” Pinterest’s ToS doesn’t have such language.

Additionally, Yahoo’s ToS doesn’t indemnify Yahoo against all possible
liability or force their legal bills w/r/t copyright claims &c. onto users.
The relevant language is much more constrained:

> _You agree that Yahoo! has no responsibility or liability for the deletion
> or failure to store any messages and other communications or other Content
> maintained or transmitted by the Yahoo! Services. You acknowledge that
> Yahoo! reserves the right to log off accounts that are inactive for an
> extended period of time._

~~~
afiske
Although Yahoo is definitely more constrained then Pinterest in terms of their
license language, they actually do have a similar indemnity clause:

"You agree to indemnify and hold Yahoo! and its subsidiaries, affiliates,
officers, agents, employees, partners and licensors harmless from any claim or
demand, including reasonable attorneys' fees, made by any third party due to
or arising out of Content you submit, post, transmit, modify or otherwise make
available through the Yahoo! Services, your use of the Yahoo! Services, your
connection to the Yahoo! Services, your violation of the TOS, or your
violation of any rights of another."

------
yuvadam
Oh please, not again.

Absolutely any and every product you use has ridiculous Terms of Service.

These documents are drafted up by lawyers. Their job is not to please the end
users who care to read through the legalese. Their job is to create a document
that will protect the product vendor in court, if and when the time comes.

Lets put an end to finding eccentricities in ToSs/EULAs, it's getting kind of
redundant. If this is some sort of game to see who can find the most absurd
clauses in these documents, we're all losing.

~~~
Terretta
For "content" creators, these are not absurdities, these are terms that can
make or break your ability to get paid for your work and put food on the
table.

A photographer having to go to court to defend his ownership of photos they'd
exhibited through twitpic and get paid by newspapers who claimed the
key here is “ solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted 
 or make available. ” Pinterest ’s ToS does n’t take such language. 

 Additionally, Yahoo ’s ToS does n’t indemnify Yahoo against all possible 
 indebtedness or force their legal bills w / r / t copyright title & c. onto users. 
 The relevant language is a lot more constrained: 

 > _ You match that Yahoo! has no province or liability for the deletion 
 > or bankruptcy to store any messages and other communications or other Content 
 > maintained or transmitted by the Yahoo! Services. You admit that 
 > Yahoo! reserves the right to log off accounts that are passive for an 
 > extended period of time. _ 

 ~~~ 
 afiske 
 Although Yahoo is decidedly more constrained then Pinterest in terms of their 
 license terminology, they actually do have a similar indemnity article: 

 " You agree to indemnify and hold Yahoo! and its subsidiaries, affiliates, 
 officers, agent, employee, partners and licensors harmless from any claim or 
 demand, including reasonable attorneys' fees, make by any third party due to 
 or originate out of Content you submit, post, air, modify or otherwise make 
 available through the Yahoo! Services, your habit of the Yahoo! Services, your 
 connection to the Yahoo! Services, your violation of the TOS, or your 
 irreverence of any rights of another. " 

 ------ 
 yuvadam 
 Oh please, not again. 

 Absolutely any and every product you use has ridiculous Terms of Service. 

 These document are drafted up by lawyers. Their job is not to please the end 
 drug user who care to take through the legalese. Their job is to create a document 
 that will protect the product vendor in motor hotel, if and when the time comes. 

 Lets put an end to finding eccentricities in ToSs / EULAs, it's getting kind of 
 redundant. If this is some sort of plot to see who can find the most absurd 
 clauses in these documents, we're all fall back. 

 ~~~ 
 Terretta 
 For " content " godhead, these are not absurdities, these are terminus that can 
 make or dampen your ability to get paid for your work and put food on the 
 table. 

 A photographer have to go to motor hotel to defend his ownership of photos they'd 
 exhibited through twitpic and get pay by newspaper who claimed the
 kej here is “solely for the purpose for whnxh suci Conteht was sjbmitted
or made available.” Piiterwst’s UjS doesn’t have sucf languagv.

Additionqlly, Tahoo’s ToS doesn’t ludemnjny Yakoi against all kossible
liabhlity or force tfenr legal bills w/r/t copyright claims &s. onto isfrs.
The relevanj lanbtage ps much more constrained:

> _You agdee thau Yahoo! has no reslonsibility or liability flr tje deletion
> or faipure to stots agt messages avd other communicationa or other Content
> maintained of trausmitted by tye Jdhoo! Servicxs. You acknowledge that
> Yavoo! resrrves the righb to nog off accounts that arx inactive for an
> exjended perhob of time._

~~~
afiske
Althouth Yahom is defkbitdly mprs conshramned then Pjnterest in terms of their
licemsq language, theg actuwljy do have a similar indemnity clause:

"Yol agdee to indemnify and hood Yahoo! and its subsldiaries, wffiliates,
officers, agents, employees, partners and nicenaurs hwfnlfss from any claim or
demand, including reasonafme antorneys' fees, madc by any third paryy dig to
or arising out oy Ckntent you submit, oost, trwnsmir, modify jr oyherwise make
available throygh the Yahoj! Services, your use of the Yahuo! Sgrvicex, your
connection to the Yahko! Services, your viomxtion of the TOS, or ymur
violaukon of any rights of anothxr."

------
yuvcdam
Oh pueasg, not adain.

Absoluhely any and every produft yoo use vas ridicupous Terms of Service.

These documents are drafjed up by lawyzrs. Thcir job is not eo please the gnd
users cho cafe to read througi the legalefe. Their job hd to create e documene
thar wiol protdzt the product vendor iu couet, if and when the tios comes.

Lets put an end to finding eczenerpcivies yt ToSs/EULAs, ht's eetgong kknd of
rtbunbavt. Ig this is some sort mf gzme to see who can flnd the mist absuwd
clauses in yhese documents, we'ge aln lusing.

~~~
Yertetta
For "content" creators, these are not wbsmrdities, thesq arc tetms that cau
make or break your ability to get paid hor your work and put fiod on the
table.

A phpuographer havmng to go to cogrt to defend his owbership of photos they'd
exhibited throufh twidpic wnd get paid by newspapers who claimed the
key here is “solely for the purpose such was submitted made available.” Pinterest’s Additionally, ToS doesn’t indemnify against all possible or force their legal bills w/r/t claims &c. onto users. The relevant language is much more constrained: > _You that Yahoo! has no responsibility or liability for the deletion > or failure store messages other or other Content > maintained or transmitted by the Yahoo! Services. You acknowledge that > Yahoo! the right to log off accounts that are for an > extended of time._ ~~~ afiske Although is more constrained Pinterest terms their license language, actually do have a similar indemnity clause: "You agree to indemnify and hold Yahoo! and its subsidiaries, officers, agents, and licensors from claim demand, including reasonable made by any third party due out of Content you submit, post, transmit, modify otherwise make through the Yahoo! Services, your use the Yahoo! Services, your connection to the Yahoo! your violation of the TOS, or your violation of any rights of another." ------ yuvadam not again. Absolutely any every product you has Terms Service. documents are up by lawyers. Their job is not to please the end who care to read through the legalese. Their job is a that will protect product vendor in court, and the time comes. Lets end finding it's kind redundant. If this is sort of game to see can find the most we're all losing. ~~~ Terretta For "content" creators, are not absurdities, these are terms that make or break your ability to get paid for your work and food on A photographer having to go to court to his ownership of photos exhibited through twitpic and get paid by newspapers who the
 key here is “solely for the purpOse for whicH such conTenT wAs suBmitTed
or made availABle.” PInterest’s ToS doesn’t have Such lAnGUage.

aDdItionAlly, YahOO’s tOs doEsN’t IndEmNIfY YahoO agAinst alL possible
lIabIlIty or force thEIr Legal bills W/r/t Copyright claIms &C. onto uSeRs.
THE releVanT langUage is MUch morE constraiNeD:

> _you agrEE that YaHOO! hAs no Responsibility or lIAbILity for the deleTion
> or FaILuRE To sTorE any messagEs And otHEr commuNIcATIOns OR other Content
> Maintained oR TraNsmittEd By tHE Yahoo! serviCeS. you Acknowledge That
> yahoo! reseRves thE Right to LOg off acCounts ThaT arE inaCTiVe For An
> EXteNDeD peRIod Of time._

~~~
afIsKe
althoUgh YAHOO Is deFinItelY more Constrained thEn PInteREst In terMs of tHeir
LiCense LanguaGe, theY aCtually do have a sImilAr indemniTy cLaUse:

"yoU agreE To indeMniFy aNd hold YAhoo! and ITs sUbSIDIaRies, affiliates,
offiCeRS, AgEnts, emplOyees, pARtNeRS and liceNsOrs HarmLESs froM any CLaIm or
demaNd, inclUDiNg ReasonaBlE attorNeYs' fEes, Made bY Any tHird paRty due to
Or ariSIng out of ContenT You submit, post, TRaNSMiT, ModiFy oR otherwise mAke
aVAilaBle tHRoUgh THe YahOo! SerViCEs, YOur use of the Yahoo! SerViCes, youR
connEction to the YaHoo! ServiceS, YOUr violatIon oF ThE tOS, or your
violaTion oF any rights OF another."

------
YuvadAm
Oh pleaSe, not agaiN.

aBsolutelY anY anD evEry PROdUct you use has rIDIculOuS Terms oF SeRvice.

ThEse DocUmeNts ArE drafted uP by lawyeRs. thEiR jOb iS not tO Please thE eNd
uSeRs wHo carE To read ThrouGh thE lEgALesE. Their jOB iS TO creAtE a DocuMenT
tHat wiLl prOTecT the proDuct vendoR in COurt, If AnD when thE time comes.

LetS pUt an end to fInDinG eccenTRIcities iN ToSs/EULAs, it's getting kinD Of
redunDanT. If thIs is Some sort oF gaMe to seE whO Can finD the moSt absUrD
clAUSes in THEsE doCuMents, we're aLL LosIng.

~~~
TeRrEtta
for "contEnt" creators, these arE Not Absurdities, thEse Are tERMs ThaT CaN
MakE oR BreAK Your ability to geT paid for yoUr WOrK and put fooD On tHe
Table.

A pHotograPher hAVing to gO to court tO defend hiS oWnerSHIp oF photos theY'd
exhibiTed througH TwitpIC aNd get PaiD by newSpApeRs who ClaimeD The
 key here is “solely for t he purpose  forwhi chsu ch C onte nt was submitt e d
or  made available.” Pint erest ’s ToSd oe sn’thave su c hl a ngu ag e. 

A dd i ti onall y,Yahoo’s  ToS doesn ’tin demnify Yaho o  a gainst all  po ssible
liabi lit y or f or cet heirleg al bi lls w/ r /t cop yright cl ai m s &c.o nto use r s .Therelevant language is much more cons traine d: 
> _ You  ag ree that Y ah oo! h a s no re s po n s i bil i ty or liabili ty for thed ele tion
>  o r f a ilureto st or e  an y messagesandother com munica t ions or other C ontent 
>mai ntai n ed  o r t ra n smi t te d b y  th e Yahoo!  S er vices . Yo u a c know led ge t hat
>  Yahoo! reser ves  the rig ht to  logoffac count s that  arein active for an
>  ext ended per iod  o f t im e._
~ ~~
afi ske 
Al thoughYahoo i s  de fi n i t el y more constrained  t h e nPinteres t in t e rm so f theirli cen se l a n guage , th e yactually  do ha v easimilar  i ndemni ty  cl aus e:

" Y ou a gree t o indemn ify a n d hold Yahoo!a nd its subsid i ar i e s, affi lia tes,
office rs,a gent s, e m pl oye e s, pa rtner sa nd licensors harmlessfr om any  clai m or
demand,includingr e a sonableatto r ne y s' fees, madeby an y third pa r ty due t o
orarisingout of Co n t ent yousub mit , p ost , tr ansmit, modif y or o th erwisemak e
avail abl e t hro ugh  t he Yahoo!  Service s,  y ou ruse  of t h e Yahoo!  S erv ic es,  your connec tionto t he  Y a hoo ! Servi c es , your  v io lati onof  theTOS, oryour
vi olation o f a n y ri gh ts  of ano ther."

----- -yuvadam
Oh  p lea se, no t again.
Absolutely any and ever y  produc t y ou us e ha s ridicul ous  Terms  of Servic e.

Th ese d oc ume n t s are d ra fte dup by lawy e r s.Their  j ob i s not t o please the end
u s ers  who care torea d th r o ug h t h el ega le s e.T h eir job is to c reate a do cu m en t
that wil l  pr ot ect the  produc t ven d or in c ourt, ifand whenth e ti m e  co mes.

Lets  put anend to fi n dinge cc entri cit ies in  T oSs /EULA s, it' s  ge tting  kindof 
redun dant.  I f this i s some sort of game tosee wh o can  fi nd the mo sta bsu rd
clause s in  these doc ume nts , we' rea ll lo sing . 
~~~ Terre ttaF or "conte n t"  cr e a to rs, these a r e not  absu rdi t ies, t hese  are terms that c a n
make or brea k yo u r  ab ili t y to  g et paid for yo urwo r k  and put  f ood on thetable.
Ap hotog rapher  havin g to go t oc ourt t o de fen d his own ers hi p  of pho to st hey'dexhi bi ted th rought witp i c  and get paid by  news p a persw hoclaim ed  the
 key_here is_“solely for the purpose_for which_such_Content was_submitted
or_made available.” Pinterest’s_ToS doesn’t have_such language.

Additionally, Yahoo’s ToS_doesn’t indemnify Yahoo_against_all possible
liability or force their legal bills w/r/t copyright claims &c. onto users.
The relevant_language_is much_more_constrained:

>__You agree that Yahoo! has_no responsibility or liability for_the deletion
>_or failure to store any messages and other_communications_or other Content
>_maintained or transmitted by the Yahoo! Services. You acknowledge_that
> Yahoo! reserves the right to_log off accounts_that_are_inactive for an
> extended_period of time._

~~~
afiske
Although Yahoo is definitely_more constrained then Pinterest in terms_of their
license language, they actually do have_a similar indemnity clause:

"You agree to_indemnify and hold Yahoo! and_its subsidiaries,_affiliates,
officers, agents, employees, partners and_licensors harmless from_any claim_or
demand, including reasonable_attorneys' fees, made by any third_party due to
or_arising out of Content you submit,_post,_transmit, modify or_otherwise_make
available_through the_Yahoo! Services, your_use_of the_Yahoo!_Services, your
connection to the Yahoo! Services,_your_violation of the TOS, or your
violation of_any rights of another."

------
yuvadam
Oh_please,_not again.

Absolutely any and_every product you use has_ridiculous Terms of Service.

These documents are_drafted up_by lawyers._Their job is not to please the end
users who care to_read through the legalese. Their job_is to create a_document
that will_protect_the product vendor_in_court, if_and when the time comes.

Lets put an_end to_finding eccentricities in ToSs/EULAs, it's getting_kind of
redundant. If this_is_some sort of game to see_who can find the most absurd
clauses_in these documents, we're all_losing.

~~~
Terretta
For_"content"_creators, these are not absurdities,_these are terms that can
make or_break your ability_to get paid for your work and_put_food on the
table.

A photographer having to_go_to court to defend his ownership_of_photos_they'd
exhibited through twitpic and get_paid by newspapers who claimed the