Bluelight's user agreement gives it ridiculous broad control while placing virtually all risk on users. Everything users post could remain public indefinitely, be reused by BL, be reviewed internally, and potentially be disclosed legally. Users have limited control over deletion and little contractual recourse if they are moderated or banned. Users remain the owner of their posts, but they give BL a permanent, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free license to reuse, edit, publish, distribute, sublicense, and create derivative works from their posts and comments, along with associated usernames, images, voice, or likeness … Usernames and images are one thing, but my "voice, or likeness"? That's more than a little weird. As if BL now owns the rights to my personal writing style, voice, and likeness… just from the one-click legal agreement.
Seems that the user ownership terms contradict themselves . The UA promises that users retain ownership while imposing commercial-use and derivative-work restrictions broad enough to appear to restrict the owners themselves. This is poorly drafted, and in turn, perhaps unenforceable, though I admit I don't know Australian law as well as I know U.S. laws…
And the content license itself is a bit aggro, right? Bluelight receives a…
- worldwide
- unlimited
- royalty-free
- perpetual
- irrevocable
- transferable, and
- sub-licensable
…right to use, modify, republish, syndicate, commercialize, and create derivatives from posts, usernames, voices, and likenesses. A perpetual license used to keep forum discussions intact is understandable, but transferability, sublicensing, derivatives, likeness rights, and unrestricted off-platform publication go way beyond that operational need. As if not bad enough, no meaningful withdrawal mechanism exists. Even after account deactivation, posts need not be removed. Bluelight may anonymize them, retain them, restore them, or later delete them at its discretion. Meanwhile, its license remains irrevocable. Users therefore have little meaningful control once something is posted.
Mods have an intimidating level of power and discretion and, on an unchecked whim perhaps following a heated argument, a mod could simply erase countless hours of writing an avid forum member may have labored carefully over…Why such unbelievably broad discretion? Bluelight may:
- remove or restore content for any reason
- edit any profile for any reason
- suspend or terminate access for any or no reason
- decline deletion requests and
- change the agreement unilaterally.
A forum needs moderation discretion, but these provisions provide almost no reciprocal procedural protection such as notice, stated grounds, an appeal, or consistent enforcement. Yuck. And I don't love the way PMs can be shared among "any and all personnel" for community management rather than operating on a need-to-know standard. Unnecessary UA aggression …
This next part is perhaps legally unrealistic and unenforceable, e-signed or not…
Users agree to defend and indemnify the entire group of BL entities (read: you supposedly agree to pay their legal expenses, basically) for claims arising from use, content, legal violations, or breach. This is very broad and not in a good way. Seems like this UA has a lot of holes and weak spots with unreasonable terms in which BL goes overboard trying to minimize liability in an unbalanced manner without limitations tied to fault, foreseeability, or reasonable costs.
I think it's amusing-yet-insulting that
BL is trying to cap their total liability at the arbitrary amount of A$100 while simultaneously requiring potentially unlimited indemnification from users. That's a real slap in the face, or am I somehow missing something?
What else? So BL can alter anything in the agreement and then decide whether users deserve notice of this change. That's not hostile at all, nope.
The ban on material "likely to offend" is exceptionally vague. This very criticism itself could offend BL admin, but how can I be reasonably expected to guess likelihoods and probability of someone being offended? I mean, this is a forum dealing with drugs, sexuality, mental health, crime, and other inherently sensitive subjects. It provides almost no objective notice of what is prohibited.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) website has guidelines on what's considered "Unfair Contract Terms". "Australian consumer law scrutinizes standard-form provisions that create a significant imbalance, are not reasonably necessary to protect legitimate interests, and could cause detriment; only a court can finally decide whether a particular term is unfair. The ACCC specifically identifies unconstrained unilateral variation, overly broad termination powers, indemnities, and liability exclusions as recurring concerns.
I have to tell you
@Tronica ☞ that specific language and wording does not inspire me to contribute. Moreover, the contract terms are so ridiculously lopsided that, it may ultimately and nullify it's legal legitimacy, but that's just my American layman's speculation. What prompted this update? New head of legal or did someone bring a civil suit against BL? What made you get all legally nervous suddenly? I hope I'm wrong and that all is well. Here's a question for you, though: what if I wanted to compile a collection of my best posts and comments selected one at a time from my and only my account, then self-publish with zero mention or connection to Bluelight, print and sell it as a book with some added commentary, explanations, etcetera? I mean, I would gladly shout-out Bluelight with the caveat that my thoughts and opinions do not necessarily reflect those of Bluelight's, and it's just an acknowledgement of this forum and what it does to help people through community, harm reduction, and spreading awareness regarding drug use.
It's confusing that the agreement tells me I remain owner of my posts (which I assume includes comments, but is that explicit?) but also tells me commercial re-use is prohibited. So it sounds like once I've posted verbiage on here, though I'm told I own it, I'm forfeiting the ability to use it again elsewhere in, say, a commercial capacity? I doubt that position would would be enforceable and I assume this was meant to refer to the comments and posts made by Bluelighters others than me.
… yeah I really don't like the terms in this new User Agreement, just my unsolicited $0.02. At the very least, please clarify the ownership terms of the content each member submits and how that factors into it remaining in each author's ownership? Thanks!
