<story><title>500px Terms of Service</title><url>http://500px.com/terms</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>icebraining</author><text>As much as I think Terms of Service documents are broken, I don&apos;t like these supposed simplifications, because invariably they simplify too much.&lt;p&gt;For example, in the real ToS, there&apos;s this clause:&lt;p&gt;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;    The license granted to 500px includes the right to use your Content fully
    or partially for promotional reasons and to distribute and redistribute your 
    Content to other parties, web-sites, applications, and other entities (...)
&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;
This is, in my opinion, an important clause that does not appear in the simplified version of the text.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>NyxWulf</author><text>I&apos;ve been through the process of litigating a contract in court.  Not fun, but definitely was an exquisite education in the school of hard knocks.&lt;p&gt;Lawyers throw all kinds of language into a contract, that doesn&apos;t mean the intent was there.  Vague, unfair, or overly broad language that was not clearly understood by both parties tends to get reduced, removed, or modified in accordance with what both parties reasonably understood to be the intent.  So if they tried to get overly sneaky and do something where the basically version says X, but the full clause says we do X,Y,Z, then the courts may very well rule the implied intent was X but Y and Z were not implied and agreed to.&lt;p&gt;If they understand what they are doing, and plan to strictly abide by the basically section, this is a fantastic idea.  If they at some point decide they want to get sneaky and put something in the detailed version that is not covered in the &quot;basically&quot; section, they may well find themselves in a world of trouble if it comes to court.&lt;p&gt;My experience was a company trying to sue me, despite them breaching the contract.  The judge took a dim view of the crazy clauses in there and was pretty sharp with them.  I expect the same thing would happen here.  A normal user would probably abide by the &quot;basically&quot; section and the courts would &lt;i&gt;probably&lt;/i&gt; take that interpretation.  Of course YMMV.</text></comment>
<story><title>500px Terms of Service</title><url>http://500px.com/terms</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>icebraining</author><text>As much as I think Terms of Service documents are broken, I don&apos;t like these supposed simplifications, because invariably they simplify too much.&lt;p&gt;For example, in the real ToS, there&apos;s this clause:&lt;p&gt;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;    The license granted to 500px includes the right to use your Content fully
    or partially for promotional reasons and to distribute and redistribute your 
    Content to other parties, web-sites, applications, and other entities (...)
&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;
This is, in my opinion, an important clause that does not appear in the simplified version of the text.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>screwt</author><text>I second this. Compare this &apos;basic&apos;:&lt;p&gt;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;    ... and we will develop more features and services in the future
&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;
to the actual TOS:&lt;p&gt;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;    ... 500px reserves the right to suspend or discontinue
    the availability ... or remove any Content ... without 
    prior notice. 500px may also ... restrict your access to 
    parts of or all of the Site and the Services without notice
&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;
(multiple ellipses for brevity)&lt;p&gt;To my mind that&apos;s a pretty big omission, and makes me distrustful of hte rest of the &quot;basic&quot; terms.</text></comment>