SubscribeStar - Terms and Conditions
Lemonbarb
Very sour Grinch
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2013
- Messages
- 4,556
- Likes received
- 25,604
Hello; dunno where exactly to place this. So figured I may as well place it within general, and if it's needing/better suited else where, place it there instead. Could have placed this legal hassle on SB, but as a safety valve, figured I'd place it here first, before considering if I should cross post there, in legalese disclaimers.
Mainly, I place this verbose as hell thread, for if me (or say, anyone else) ever bothers wanting to read through the whole nine yards of legal hassle. Dunno how well it'd go, in execution. But at least it'd be practice over legal conduct, reading/understanding wise on my end. And hopefully help with throwing arbitrary comments on each individual section, per say.
-
Now, for my first legal hell in readthrough; SubscribeStar. The apparent alternate to Patreon, especially since the "hur hur" hassle of Tumblr going bleach, and apparently Patreon as well?
Eh, with their advertisement in being 'more openly clear', and less corporate 'nono' in line, there might be a good time for it gaining advertisement. In the 18+ Independant variety. Though would it be for good or ill, I don't know yet.
Thus, I'm going to look in geeky detail; the legal disclaimers as it is right now, on SubscribeStar.
=
In my limited knowledge, of things and such. The best I can take, glance wise; is it's led under a partnership. Said partnership wouldn't strictly be under the pressure/obligation to pander to Shareholders and such. So lazy glance wise; yeah? Okay as is, LLC wise. Though odds are it's more or less, little 'boss' manpower, and at most hired guns/freelancers, for maintenance and such.
Bigger issue would be if they gain enough revenue/ex-patreon users, and from there; build from there. Assuming of course, they don't end up with legal hassle during that period.
Lawyerese, but in this case. It'd be one worth noting, if you end up disagreeing with the platform, if in future; it goes the road of Tumblr mainly. Especially when in certain contexts; that site could easily gain ad revenue in some angles later on the road.
) And that by using the website, you thereby have automatically accepted, under the bias of "you have read and understood terms and conditions", word-ese wise on the legal assumption front end, here.
That said, of particular highlight is the "don't use for illegal stuff", including an added emphasis on Copyright laws. And though I don't know on 'what' angle (fudge wise) it'd apply. In general, I'd safely say "probably not a good idea to be a fanfic author" on that site (bar a Doujin tier handwave/no legal hassle there, at most/push.) Especially if it involves a certain House of M (IE: Disney.)
That said, if it's original content, then you're probably okay then. Just, probably less so, for more fanfic tier crowdfunding, and that's frankly IMO already more of a murky Grey area as is.
First one states that anything posted or sent on the website, is encrypted (IE: "public" by default.) Only exception to that general statement, is the "not including credit card information" part, which has been given added emphasis on being "always encrypted during transfer over networks."
So, your bank details are most likely safe here. Though post wise, you'd probably want to keep some basic netiquette around anyway. Or well, check/be careful on your privacy settings, in case doxxing happens.
Eh, spirit wise, I'd go under the provider tier defense clause here. Though it should probably state "any content you post here, must abide by accuracy" sort of angle, probably.
This website, is reserving it's right (without notice), to do the same. Ideally, I'd wish for if pricing changes happen, that they give advance notice. But this is them likely covering their neck, in case they get sued for not giving enough time here, likely.
That, on top of modifying services without notice, along with equal suspension or discontinuing of certain services (*cough* ban hammers, and scrapped subscription plans in case of possible bankruptcy...)
That said, restrictions/suspensions at any time to subscriptions (from payer, to receiver.) Is in particular aimed against outside parties I'd guess. And if they do suspend, they'd generally try to send a notice on it, I'd guess.
That said, it also acts as an additional reminder to "keep your details updated", including your credit card details if/when it goes out of date/expires, per say.
Then again, to be more serious. On second re-reading, it said that they "may", but have no (strict) obligation to monitor, edit and remove content. So, odds/wing wise, I'd ideally hope it's under the context of later NSFW filters, and lawful removal of explicitly illegal content, by US standards. Given my hunch/guessing on where the server's/business is located, legal wise.
That, and the right to cancel subscriptions if inaccuracies are discovered. And a line saying "we update as required by law" sort of statement.
General illegal activities according to state (US), or international law (and specific angles including coursing, copyright violation, discrimination/abuse/harassment sort of flaming/trolling, false information, mal/spyware, and scams.) Oh, and hacking too.
No blatant porn angle, outside at most, the "obscene" angle, though that'd probably be covered under the porn that's explicitly illegal, I'd bet.
And that the service itself may be inoperable. Though odds are, that'd likely cover in case it get's DOS/DDOS attacked, server/hacktivist/targeting wise.
And odds are, in my hunch being; if one piece is found to be unlawful, it'd likely then be having to be amended accordingly within the site itself, legal disclaimers wise.
Could say more; but eh. It'd then probably/ideally be a case of accounts of termination, in case anyone wants to re-apply (likely within reason.)
So, a case of "I subscribe, then unsubscribe then resubscribe" within a month scenario, would be more of a waste compared to an eventual (if 'gentle') termination of service.
Also, taxed accordingly, I suppose?
Just means you 'may' not, legalese wise; have to worry on other country laws; just US and international law here. But eh, that's just a hunch, and it's probably still, better safe than sorry to stick to your local laws on top, just in case on your end.
-
Now. That's the general terms and conditions covered. Now, for the other 'linked' articles. Two of them, on privacy and refunds, I'd take it. Should be quicker than the big meat of terms and conditions.
That said, it covers a clause if for some reason the service itself, fails to uphold to it's own promises or commitments. In a legalese way I'd take it.
That said, on the other end; if a certain "Star" (read, crowdfunded peon/person) ends up dealing with too many refunds to cover, then odds are they'd likely be under the similar restrictions, threshold wise.
On top of holding an unspecified percentage of funds, it also sates a potential for account locks, or other limitations.
-
And lastly, to cover the whole privacy policy.
Oh, and a hint on "if applied", email spam.
And though it doesn't add (I think?) A note that 'you retroactively accept', outside bias. It also throws an additional clause in the off chance SubscribeStar is for any reason, acquired/takenover by another corporation, or investor for some reason. Owner wise.
-
And that concludes a long ass legal disclaimer, I felt like covering. Hopefully, this would be a nice thought experiment, vague reading I go through regardless.
Mainly, I place this verbose as hell thread, for if me (or say, anyone else) ever bothers wanting to read through the whole nine yards of legal hassle. Dunno how well it'd go, in execution. But at least it'd be practice over legal conduct, reading/understanding wise on my end. And hopefully help with throwing arbitrary comments on each individual section, per say.
-
Now, for my first legal hell in readthrough; SubscribeStar. The apparent alternate to Patreon, especially since the "hur hur" hassle of Tumblr going bleach, and apparently Patreon as well?
Eh, with their advertisement in being 'more openly clear', and less corporate 'nono' in line, there might be a good time for it gaining advertisement. In the 18+ Independant variety. Though would it be for good or ill, I don't know yet.
Thus, I'm going to look in geeky detail; the legal disclaimers as it is right now, on SubscribeStar.
=
*Googles on LLC and such.*Terms of Service said:
In my limited knowledge, of things and such. The best I can take, glance wise; is it's led under a partnership. Said partnership wouldn't strictly be under the pressure/obligation to pander to Shareholders and such. So lazy glance wise; yeah? Okay as is, LLC wise. Though odds are it's more or less, little 'boss' manpower, and at most hired guns/freelancers, for maintenance and such.
Bigger issue would be if they gain enough revenue/ex-patreon users, and from there; build from there. Assuming of course, they don't end up with legal hassle during that period.
At least they provide a handy hyperlink, to the terms of service here. And legalese wise; it probably means "if you send/receive cash to this site (SubscribeStar), or view/browse/lurk around our services (this website) then you accept these terms and conditions." IE: The rules policies and such. And legally covering any potential angle lawyerese can cover, in case lawsuits crop up.
*Sigh* Guess I'd also have to cover the Privacy and Refund policies on top. That said, it states under "if you don't agree under our rules/terms, then simply don't use/look at this site at all" sort of angle.
Lawyerese, but in this case. It'd be one worth noting, if you end up disagreeing with the platform, if in future; it goes the road of Tumblr mainly. Especially when in certain contexts; that site could easily gain ad revenue in some angles later on the road.
Basically, it says it's your responsibility to look at any updated terms and conditions (as if anyone reads them
) And that by using the website, you thereby have automatically accepted, under the bias of "you have read and understood terms and conditions", word-ese wise on the legal assumption front end, here.By state, I can safely assume a general bias on "if you're a US Citizen". Dunno how legalese it applies, but generally; I'd hedge bet it'd being around between 18/21 here, depending on how anal US law can be, booze wise. If in doubt, I'd probably consult to the arbitrary "Booze rule" in my end, but that's just me really.
That said, of particular highlight is the "don't use for illegal stuff", including an added emphasis on Copyright laws. And though I don't know on 'what' angle (fudge wise) it'd apply. In general, I'd safely say "probably not a good idea to be a fanfic author" on that site (bar a Doujin tier handwave/no legal hassle there, at most/push.) Especially if it involves a certain House of M (IE: Disney.)
That said, if it's original content, then you're probably okay then. Just, probably less so, for more fanfic tier crowdfunding, and that's frankly IMO already more of a murky Grey area as is.
Okay, for potential legal worries. I'd look at it by a per-paragraph basis.
First one states that anything posted or sent on the website, is encrypted (IE: "public" by default.) Only exception to that general statement, is the "not including credit card information" part, which has been given added emphasis on being "always encrypted during transfer over networks."
So, your bank details are most likely safe here. Though post wise, you'd probably want to keep some basic netiquette around anyway. Or well, check/be careful on your privacy settings, in case doxxing happens.
Basically, for all intents and purposes, then saying "we're not responsible for any false marketing by potential crowdfunders". Though odds are it hasn't mentioned/explicitly stated here, if said people are responsible for their own fields per say?
Eh, spirit wise, I'd go under the provider tier defense clause here. Though it should probably state "any content you post here, must abide by accuracy" sort of angle, probably.
Hey kids, you remember that fiasco where the "penny charge" (read, one dollar) got maybe scrapped in Patreon awhile ago?
This website, is reserving it's right (without notice), to do the same. Ideally, I'd wish for if pricing changes happen, that they give advance notice. But this is them likely covering their neck, in case they get sued for not giving enough time here, likely.
That, on top of modifying services without notice, along with equal suspension or discontinuing of certain services (*cough* ban hammers, and scrapped subscription plans in case of possible bankruptcy...)
This chat line clearly noticed some typos here; now that I think of it. Which if bullshit, could be lawyeresed into. By professional standards, this ain't professional the blatant typo? But none the less, it gives this terms and conditions a certain... Soul to it perhaps?
That said, restrictions/suspensions at any time to subscriptions (from payer, to receiver.) Is in particular aimed against outside parties I'd guess. And if they do suspend, they'd generally try to send a notice on it, I'd guess.
That said, it also acts as an additional reminder to "keep your details updated", including your credit card details if/when it goes out of date/expires, per say.
Basically, if this site uses third party add-on's to expand on functionality, then it's at the end, at the end user to accept the risk of using those extensions, per say. Advanced disclaimer to legally cover their necks, in case one plug-in is an accidental malware vector here.
Basically, their not at fault on their end, if any hyperlink links outside the covered website. Makes a bit of common sense, mainly.
Welp, there goes the "would it cover porn" angle, given how that one line inserted, means that to prospective pornographic artists, this site is 'probably' not a save haven. (Unless say, given a petition, with a strong argument in exchange of uh; obeying US law with pornography and such?)
Then again, to be more serious. On second re-reading, it said that they "may", but have no (strict) obligation to monitor, edit and remove content. So, odds/wing wise, I'd ideally hope it's under the context of later NSFW filters, and lawful removal of explicitly illegal content, by US standards. Given my hunch/guessing on where the server's/business is located, legal wise.
Another disclaimer, saying not to hur pirate or violate copyright law. Or sneak in viruses or other malware within the site, sort of angle/disclaimer. That, and "please no host illegal content" sort of angle.
So, hunch wise. I'm guessing it's an insisting to be honest to your username, or go under a real name sort of bias here. And a sneaked in disclaimer that information on 'your' end, must be accurate. Libel/est legal covering wise.
Looks like I'd have to give that privacy policy another look. As is, seems "for private details, look at this seperate policy" list, for easy reading I'd take it.
Basically, the "if we notice typos/errors/est", they reserve the right to fix them. (Looks at a lightly stumbled upon typo while reading terms and conditions.)
That, and the right to cancel subscriptions if inaccuracies are discovered. And a line saying "we update as required by law" sort of statement.
Now, for the blatant banned content angle. Which for ease of my eyes; I've split into a nice looking bullet point, on the pieces here. Which cover at a further glance;
General illegal activities according to state (US), or international law (and specific angles including coursing, copyright violation, discrimination/abuse/harassment sort of flaming/trolling, false information, mal/spyware, and scams.) Oh, and hacking too.
No blatant porn angle, outside at most, the "obscene" angle, though that'd probably be covered under the porn that's explicitly illegal, I'd bet.
Basically, in no disclaimers does it claim it'd be relatively "Sony hack" free, in spite of assuring the content itself will be encrypted. And being upfront about this assurance. Or reliably assure (in spite of legal obligations on the end user), that content on the site is reliably accurate.
And that the service itself may be inoperable. Though odds are, that'd likely cover in case it get's DOS/DDOS attacked, server/hacktivist/targeting wise.
Basically, glance wise; if your internet is down; it fits under "inability to use" angle (hunch/guess wise.) as with some legalese on non-infringement (lilkely on the sites end. Not strictly, if a particular subscription/person is infringing on themselves. Which uh, is covered under their ability to terminate business without notice, sort of clause.)
Basically, no legal counter suit/sue, in case they for any reason; terminate their service with you, revenue wise. Or in the mild chance of actual injury (be it physical due to butthurt/rage, or financial in loss finances/income, revenue/stability wise.)
Basically, if lawsuits are involved, glance wise the legalese in not getting in deep on legal fee's, due respect wise.
Basically, if any terms and conditions is deemed unlawful, it'd still be applied to the best extent of the law. Or at best, only that part is unapplicable, with everything else still applying.
And odds are, in my hunch being; if one piece is found to be unlawful, it'd likely then be having to be amended accordingly within the site itself, legal disclaimers wise.
Basically, if you terminate your use of contract with the site, and fudge it regardless. Then odds are you'd then be charged for any amount 'owed' after termination notice, if you're still getting paid through those services.
Could say more; but eh. It'd then probably/ideally be a case of accounts of termination, in case anyone wants to re-apply (likely within reason.)
Basically, glance wise on this. Any failure on their end to clarify, or tackle anything in violation of the Terms and Conditions, doesn't automatically lend itself to a waiver of their right/authority to revoke their use/spread, legal disclaimer wise.
Basically, glance wise goes under disclaimer. And it being charged on a monthly basis. That said, a special note has to be addressed. Under if you rapid fire unsubscribed, then decided to re-subscribe. You'd have to pay the full fee first, under a monthly basis before being able to access the content again.
So, a case of "I subscribe, then unsubscribe then resubscribe" within a month scenario, would be more of a waste compared to an eventual (if 'gentle') termination of service.
So, glance wise it appears to be capped at $10 in payments, here. Eh, cool?
So, lazy glance wise. I'm taking it it's their "pully" system on ensuring payments are made. And that they are reliable through likely bias use on verification, before payouts are made.
Basically, how payments and fee's are made. And that blah blah user has to be transparent with the spreadsheets, in cases of refunds est. And that if there's any omission or lack of accurate information, then the site/service reserves the right to withhold payouts, until those issues are resolved.
Also, taxed accordingly, I suppose?
Basically, the site doesn't do the taxing, but takes into account the information. And it's up to the end user to be up to date/deal with any incoming tax issues on their end.
Basically, the basic punchline confirming my suspicions, given the bias wording. That the 'default law' on the service, is based on US Soil, government wise. In general. So in General, US laws applies, before International law I'd guess?
Just means you 'may' not, legalese wise; have to worry on other country laws; just US and international law here. But eh, that's just a hunch, and it's probably still, better safe than sorry to stick to your local laws on top, just in case on your end.
And they provide a free email on top, in case there's any issues. And also, quoting the 'last updated' tagline on top as well.
-
Now. That's the general terms and conditions covered. Now, for the other 'linked' articles. Two of them, on privacy and refunds, I'd take it. Should be quicker than the big meat of terms and conditions.
Basically, bar extenuated circumstances. Payments, once made are final. And if it does happen, it generally gets deducted out of the person you're asking a refund from, not the service itself. Legalese wise, I suppose? That said...
Basically covering a limited window, on how long a timeframe one can have with a refund, generally under the subscription bias. Dunno how this fares in contrast to general laws on "minimum" amount of time for refund. But glance wiser, 30 days is way more generous than the minimum of 10, at a glance?
Basically, you send a pully refund request. They will investigate and judge accordingly. And wording bias wise, they'd ideally explain the reasoning (if briefly), behind their decision. They reserve the right to just be blunt, and only state if it's been accepted/rejected, in refunding.
Basically, if there's a hold up on refund, odds are it's due to bank shenanigans. In which case, it's stated to "check with bank on pending transition, then with us" sort of disclaimer, late/missing wise. Probably wise to be on the trigger here, in case it goes way beyond a late refund here.
Basically, given the wording bias on previous content; I'd assume in case of refunds; it's the person who failed to deliver their promise that has to deal with the refunding.
That said, it covers a clause if for some reason the service itself, fails to uphold to it's own promises or commitments. In a legalese way I'd take it.
It doesn't state "what" that threshold is, but odds are guess wise; if you end up in a position of earning "Loads of money", then chances are some of that money could be held back. In which case, advice would probably be to contact SubscribeStar on WTF?
That said, on the other end; if a certain "Star" (read, crowdfunded peon/person) ends up dealing with too many refunds to cover, then odds are they'd likely be under the similar restrictions, threshold wise.
On top of holding an unspecified percentage of funds, it also sates a potential for account locks, or other limitations.
-
And lastly, to cover the whole privacy policy.
Basically, it at minimum wants/likes to trace your real name, address (real life and email), and IP Address. With the bias info for sake of browser/OS info mainly.
Oh, and a hint on "if applied", email spam.
Basically, glance wise for any entering of details. It requires your personal information in case of credit/debit card transitions (likely with a bias towards Credit, over Debit.) That, and if they collect it for any other reason (marketing), it'd be with an available option to decline.
Basically, if you decline or change your consent for any reason, at any time. Email this web address. Useful, in an if you have to hunt for how to cancel consent and such.
Basically, if you violate terms of conditions, potentially violate law, or are investigated. Then they are compelled to disclose your personal details, investigation wise.
Glance wise, it throws a quoted security standard, which is probably good. Sadly, I haven't (nor inclined) to geek out on how secure that standard is, but at least it's a quoted standard, I suppose? Instead of passively mention encryption, but not what sort of encryption.
So odds are, these terms cover the whole International transition sort of angle line, I'd take it. Privacy wise at least...
On top of throwing an example on how "A > B" transitions work, in jurisdictions. On top of no disclaimers made, in case of hyperlinks linking outside the site itself.
Basically lists the three cookies they use, and reason. Guess wise.
Basically, of legal age. Hunch wise; I'd still stick by the booze rule, of uh; 21 at a push, if no 18 (or arbitrary 16, depending on State I suppose?) Consent wise.
Basically, if privacy policy is changed, they reserve the right to change, likely with an email stating "our terms have changed", news at 11.
And though it doesn't add (I think?) A note that 'you retroactively accept', outside bias. It also throws an additional clause in the off chance SubscribeStar is for any reason, acquired/takenover by another corporation, or investor for some reason. Owner wise.
Obligatory if you want your details removed for any reason, contact X Address to remove your private details. Along with a "when this was last updated" notice.
-
And that concludes a long ass legal disclaimer, I felt like covering. Hopefully, this would be a nice thought experiment, vague reading I go through regardless.