zlacker

>>chrono+(OP)
This is a nice statement, but the TOS is the important part, not what this marketing piece says.

> You agree to grant and hereby grant Zoom a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicensable, and transferable license and all other rights required or necessary to redistribute, publish, import, access, use, store, transmit, review, disclose, preserve, extract, modify, reproduce, share, use, display, copy, distribute, translate, transcribe, create derivative works, and process Customer Content and to perform all acts with respect to the Customer Content.

> (ii) for the purpose of product and service development, marketing, analytics, quality assurance, machine learning, artificial intelligence, training, testing, improvement of the Services, Software, or Zoom’s other products, services, and software, or any combination thereof

>>berbec+Vp
The TOS has been updated to state the following:

> Notwithstanding the above, Zoom will not use audio, video or chat Customer Content to train our artificial intelligence models without your consent.

>>mplewi+Ct
A very powerful example of the difference between the words “will” and “shall.”

Hats off to zoom for the free contract drafting lesson!

[edit: thanks to HN commenter lolinder for the actual lesson].

>>single+AV
> You can use "will" to create a promise--a contractual obligation. See Bryan A. Garner, A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage 941-942 (2d ed., Oxford U. Press 1995). When used in this way, "will" is not merely stating a future event, it is creating a promise to perform:

> > Landlord will clean and maintain all common areas.

> In most basic contracts, I recommend using "will" to create obligations, as long as you are careful to be sure any given usage can't be read as merely describing future events. I'm generally against "shall" because it is harder to use correctly and it is archaic.

https://law.utexas.edu/faculty/wschiess/legalwriting/2005/05...

>>lolind+yY
So, I get that you’re downvoting and contradicting, but are you sure we don’t agree? Let’s put it this way: I was observing precisely what you copied and pasted: this is a perfectly valid way to write a contract if you subsequently want to be able to argue either side.

Was zoom careful to be sure any usage can’t be read as merely describing future events? Will ambiguity exist until this agreement is tested ?