Grooveshark Wants To Judge Your Soul

from the judgement-day dept

Dante Cullari made an observation on the Music Think Tank Open blog last month that seems to have gone unnoticed: Grooveshark’s privacy policy has a “soul” clause. Unlike other “immortal soul” clauses, I don’t think Grooveshark’s is intentional.

“This [personally identifiable] information may also be kept longer than 6 months by EMG if a user is found by EMG’s soul judgment to be suspect of carrying out illegal, unlawful, or dangerous actions with or in this service. Prior to keeping IP address information for more than 6 months, the user will be notified via email about their suspect status.”

The privacy policy still says that, though Dante also grabbed a screenshot.

grooveshark-soul-judgement-11

Somehow, I don’t think Grooveshark actually intends to judge a person’s immaterial soul for evidence of suspicious activity. But, lest you think it’s a lone typo, the phrase “soul purpose” also appears later in the policy.

“EMG may allow 3d parties to place cookies and other tracking technologies, such as web beacons, clear GIFs, web bugs, tracking pixels on the Site for the soul purpose of allowing that 3d party to record that a User has visited the Site and/or used the Service.”

grooveshark-soul-purpose1

I think they meant “sole.” Somewhere, in the depths of my own soul, it feels like somebody was relying on spell check a bit too much…

Filed Under: ,
Companies: grooveshark

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Grooveshark Wants To Judge Your Soul”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
17 Comments
Robert Ring (profile) says:

Comic Book error

I recently bought a collected edition of the comic Existence 2.0/3.0 (published by Image), and it had a pretty funny error, too, though this one was a little worse yet not quite as funny. On the inside flap it says, “No part of this publication … without the express written permission of [Creator].” I got a minor chuckle out of it.

Angry Puppy (profile) says:

Not so Bad

We had a user manual for a general ledger reporting application that went out with every instance of “count” and “accounting” missing the “O”. I would have preferred a mildly amusing homonym like this instead.

The same geniuses also put together an advertising capaign for a civil engineering product who’s copy read: “Laying pipe can be an expensive proposition…” combined with a picture of a huge pipe being lifted to a 45 degree angle. I never did figure out if it was intentional.

TtfnJohn (profile) says:

“EMG may allow 3d parties to place cookies and other tracking technologies, such as web beacons, clear GIFs, web bugs, tracking pixels on the Site for the soul purpose of allowing that 3d party to record that a User has visited the Site and/or used the Service.”

I suppose it’s 3D parties as opposed to 2D parties inhabiting the flatworld who are placing these cookies and other tracking devices.

Someone better get Grooveshark to proofread their copy.

Blaise Alleyne (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“I suppose it’s 3D parties as opposed to 2D parties inhabiting the flatworld who are placing these cookies and other tracking devices.”

I was wondering about that one too… couldn’t tell if that’s some uncommon short-hand I’ve never seen or yet another typo… they do use both 3d and 3rd in the policy. Oh, Grooveshark.

sum guy says:

what is the point of this post? that somewhere in the 6000 page document lawyers have turned privacy policies into, they made a typo? i come to techdirt for interesting and insightful news and commentary on tech issues. i kept reading further into the article to get to the part where it became interesting or insightful but, unfortunately, for the first time since i started visiting this sight i feel you have wasted the time it took for me to read it. maybe you should think about working for lolcats instead of techdirt.

John85851 (profile) says:

How many people missed the typo?

I think the more interesting thing is that these kinds of Terms of Service documents usually have to pass through an entire legal team. How did every single person, from the writer, to the editor, to his boss, to the legal department, miss this?

And, as has been said numerous times, if the company doesn’t can’t be detailed-oriented enough to know the difference between “sole” and “soul”, can they really be trusted to perform the service they offer on their site? 😉

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...