RSS
Why Does Wal-Mart Need A 3,379-Word Terms Of Use For Its Twitter Account?
from the someone-please-explain dept
Twitter only gives you 140-characters, of course, but what do you do if you're an old-school company that's been around for ages and is used to legalizing everything? Apparently, you create a 3,379-word terms of use for your Twitter account. Boing Boing points us to Wal-Mart's Twitter Terms of Use, which is really impressive if only in that if it were Twittered in 140-character increments it would take about 165 separate tweets. But, honestly, I can't figure out who this Terms of Use is directed at. It can't be those who read the various Twitter feeds from Wal-Mart employees, since most of them will never even come to this page at all (they're just following on Twitter, not on Wal-Mart's site). It's unlikely that it's for the Wal-Mart employees directly, as one assumes they don't need a public Terms of Use. So what's its purpose?
I have a business...
The Future Of Commerce Will Combine Your Social Network And Mobile Device
Why 50,000 Monthly Active Users Weren't Enough To Stop This Company From Pivoting, With Spun Co-Founder Scott Lindenbaum
I’m looking for research...
Why Data Is The New Oil, With Dan Foreman Of Lumi Mobile
The Growing App Market
I have an app...
Top 5 Reasons Why Mobile Analytics Is Important
How My First Game Made $28,623
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
I blame the Economy
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
By the word
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Is it necessary? probably not, but lets not proclaim them writing vast amounts of legalese for no purpose. They simply re-used a standard piece of boilerplate.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Some lawyers charge by the hour. Apparently, some others charge by the word.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I blame the Economy
I'd guess that the average shelf stockers would and could compose a Terms of Use with fewer words than the average attorneys could.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
"We won’t reply to off topic @replies. Personal attacks and foul language = FAIL. Adding to the discussion = WIN."
http://walmartstores.com/9179.aspx
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Um, what's the difference?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
With a twitter feed, however, I'm at a loss to completely understand how Walmart could be held liable for anything that can happens a result of some one reading their tweets, or what they could possibly tweet in 140 characters that they would need to cover with a copyright. It seems to me to be more of lawyers justifying their existence by writing more EULA language. I wonder what Walmart corp got charged in exchange for that EULA?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Attention as a Scarce Resource
I have a question about it and I don't know where to post it such that you'll see it and hopefully respond. So I'm trying to get your attention here. Could you please direct me to where I can post my question and hopefully have you deem it worthy of an answer?
Here is the key question that is haunting me:
Your model suggests that making the content free will expand the size of the market. But it seems to me that the market for content consumption (music, books, whatever) is limited more by human attention (on the part of the content consumers) than by the amount of money the buyers have to spend. So while I agree that in a world of free music, it would be easier for more people to have more songs on their ipods than in a world of paid music, it seems that the total number of songs people can listen to per day is more limited by time than by money. And the amount of attention people can direct toward the consumption of the scarce goods associated with the music is also scarce and not subject to significant expansion. I might be more likely to discover (for free) a new band I love and then pay for their concert or fansite as opposed to U2's. But that would be a shift in the market rather than an expansion of it. The market will change--money will flow toward the scarce goods rather than the infinite goods, and there will be different winners and losers, but I'm not clear on how the market expands. Won't the total amount of content consumption attention remain largely the same, and won't the total amount of content consumption dollars stay roughly similar?
Please let me know what you think about this. This is the only thing I'm confused about in your elegant well-explained model.
Thank you!
Alex
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Answer to Question Posed in Post's Title
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
"Wal-Mart reserves the right, at its sole discretion, without advance notice, to change, modify, add or remove all or any portion of the Site or the Terms."
So it's double useless: unenforceable because it server no purpose and because the courts already have decided that you can't be bound to something that changes with no notification.
I wonder if the EFF will include it in the TOS watchlist...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
@WalMart: Sale on toilet paper, now 0.49 cents!
Or maybe it's in case something they say that they want to "control" ends up getting re-tweeted in a way they don't approve of (with these "somethings" and "ways" to be determined later).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Attention as a Scarce Resource
I think you're right, there's not more time or money, necessarily, being put into the system, but that's not really the only way to "expand" the market.
Should've asked on a post discussing music or the economics of free, though, rather than one focused onstrange EULAs.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Attention as a Scarce Resource
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
This is who it's for ...
"http://walmartstores.com/twitter/".
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
It has been 10+ years since I have been in one of their crap filled boxes and I don't plan to start up again anytime soon. Crap filled also applies to their online efforts.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Attention as a Scarce Resource
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
model of infinite and scarce goods
You talk about the "model of infinite and scarce goods" as if Mike is recommending that this is how the "world" SHOULD be. I think he's telling us that this is how the "world" IS or is becoming. His recommendations and reporting are more about how to cope with this new reality.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Attention as a Scarce Resource
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Even more....
http://walmartstores.com/9179.aspx
I love that "by using the service" you agree to the terms of use. I'm a bit confused though - I didn't realize that Walmart ran Twitter!
-CF
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: model of infinite and scarce goods
Economics is like meteorology. It's the study of an incredibly complex system, we only understand a tiny fraction of it, and the more we futz with it the worse things get. We don't make the rules, we're still trying to figure out what they are.
But with the economy, it's worse than that. Someone is trying to make the rules too. But that's like writing an almanac and expecting the weather to follow that plan.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Fail...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Dedicated Hosting
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment