> 10.4 Customer License Grant. 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: (i) as may be necessary for Zoom to provide the Services to you, including to support the Services; (ii) for the purpose of product and service development, marketing, analytics, quality assurance, machine learning, artificial intelligence, [...]
I get that legalese is like human-interpretable pseudocode, but like, is there really no better way to word this? How can you grant without agreeing to grant?
> import, access, use, store, transmit, review, disclose, preserve, extract, modify, reproduce, share, use, display, copy, distribute, translate, transcribe, create derivative works
Wow this cover of Daft Punk - Technologic sucks.
I, for one, do not welcome our dystopian overlords, but am at a loss to what I can do about it. I try to use Jitsi or anything not-zoom whenever possible, but it's rarely my pick.
I think it's more that they're being explicit about the logical AND in that sentence. You agree to grant, AND grant them the permission.
I think it's a technicality about it being a "user agreement" so they probably have to use the word agree for certain clauses.
>>37022623 [a number of links regarding how to play with bots and bork training by"malforming" your inputs]
Maybe its just a coincidence.
Or maybe it’s two angles perfectly coinciding.
"Hereby grant" means the grant is (supposedly) immediately effective even for future-arising rights — and thus would take precedence (again, supposedly) over an agreement to grant the same rights in the future. [0]
(In the late oughts, this principle resulted in the biotech company Roche Molecular becoming a part-owner of a Stanford patent, because a Stanford researcher signed a "visitor NDA" with Roche that included present-assignment language, whereas the researcher's previous agreement with Stanford included only future-assignment language. The Stanford-Roche lawsuit on that subject went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.)
[0] https://toedtclassnotes.site44.com/Notes-on-Contract-Draftin...
Not necessarily — in some circumstances, the law might not recognize a present-day grant of an interest that doesn't exist now but might come into being in the future. (Cf. the Rule Against Perpetuities. [1])
The "hereby grants and agrees to grant" language is a fallback requirement — belt and suspenders, if you will.