Vongo is one of a burgeoning number of online video services. When you download their client gizmo, the terms of service (if I'm reading them right) say that you do not have the right to criticize the product.
"You may not use the Starz Marks to imply endorsement of your product or service, or to disparage Starz, Starz’ affiliates, Vongo or their respective products or services".
This is absurd. Why would a vendor expect customers to give up their right to criticize their product. And why would a vendor want customers to refrain from criticizing the product. If you have unhappy customers, it's better if you know about it.
By contrast, the Google and Yahoo video services let you just start playing video on the web, and their terms of service don't try to ban customers from criticizing the product.
The foolish terms of service and inconvenient signup process put Vongo at a competitive disadvantage.
UPDATE: TechDirt reports that Google's video service will have new, proprietary DRM. "You can't transfer the video to mobile devices. It doesn't work on a Mac. And, you can only view the video when you're online, as the copy protection obviously is calling home first." So, another business model based on not giving customers what they want. The aspect that is as troubling is Google's revenue sharing model with content providers. When Google starts bringing in lots of revenue dependent on cooperation with the content industry, it will join the anti-fair-use lobby.
Posted by alevin at January 7, 2006 06:16 PM | TrackBackI think Starz would have a hard time coming after you merely for disparaging their product (or, one hopes, their EULA!). I think the language is wrapped more around protecting their branding - their logo and trademarks - from being used in disparaging them.
It'd be interesting to see if there is caselaw which discusses how far these EULAs can go. Can you not mention their name, or can you just not use their logo (or modify their logo to make it look ridiculous)?
Apparently, the state of New York sued McAfee over similar stupidity. I mentioned it in a recent blog posting about their crappy anti-virus product.
http://www.unicom.com/chrome/a/001072.html
Posted by: chip on January 7, 2006 06:54 PMInsult to injury atop their DRM, but if you click through enough (it took me 4 or 5 links from the google video page, but there may be a shorter path), Google's lawyers appear to have similar terms (if friendlier language) on the Google marks:
http://www.google.com/permissions/guidelines.html
including "Display a Google Brand Feature in a manner that is in Google's sole opinion misleading, defamatory, infringing, libelous, disparaging, obscene or otherwise objectionable to Google"
Sole opinion?
Posted by: Eric Sinclair on January 7, 2006 10:27 PMThe problems there are "sole opinion" and "disparaging", and "otherwise objectionable". It's legitimate for them to stop someone from, say, creating a website with "Google Porn".
Google itself is a trademark. So the post that says that Google Video is Evil is in violation, even though the post includes a customer suggestion for improving their service.
The policy is therefore Evil, too.
Posted by: Adina Levin on January 7, 2006 10:49 PM