Day 10,490 of saying it should be flatly illegal to call a lease a purchase. Companies should never be allowed to use language that implies ownership of a product when what you're buying is a permanently revokable temporary lease.
"But it's in the TOS, what they're doing is perfectly legal" yeah the problem is that it's legal
Fraud is still fraud, even if they call it something else.
The consumer was led to believe, they could access the media for a long time. The time was abruptly cut short. The consumer did not get what they were led to believe. It's fraud.
It's like every other (consumer-)fraud before: they can write in the fine print whatever they want.
I am not saying that this argument will definitely hold up in court. I just want to point out, that it's not so clear-cut as you are presenting it.
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
Mark NSFW content.
No doxxing people.
Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
No international politcs
Be excellent to each other.
Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major celebrity, figure or any politician. If you replace the "x" at their site with xcancel (so it beomes xcancel.com), and you're not on mobile, it will save video. https://web.archive.org/save is another great option. Archive.is is no longer recommended because they remove/alter content.
If a tweet (or similar) makes a statement of fact, either mark it as "satire" in the body or provide the original source link backing up the statement
Doubtful. TOS would state that you're only licensing the media. If the media no longer exists, the license no longer exists.
Day 10,490 of saying it should be flatly illegal to call a lease a purchase. Companies should never be allowed to use language that implies ownership of a product when what you're buying is a permanently revokable temporary lease.
"But it's in the TOS, what they're doing is perfectly legal" yeah the problem is that it's legal
Fraud is still fraud, even if they call it something else.
The consumer was led to believe, they could access the media for a long time. The time was abruptly cut short. The consumer did not get what they were led to believe. It's fraud.
It's like every other (consumer-)fraud before: they can write in the fine print whatever they want.
I am not saying that this argument will definitely hold up in court. I just want to point out, that it's not so clear-cut as you are presenting it.
TOS is meaningless when the actions are illegal.
I didn't give a signature on any ToS I've ever agreed to. It's entirely unenforceable.