What do you think about FOSS then? Doesn't the license holder of FOSS software deny any liability for using the software, while claiming ownership of any improvements you make and distribute?
My understanding as a non-lawyer is that unless there's an assignment of copyright by contributors they retain copyright to their contributions. I think in practice they also license that contribution under the project license, but some quick duck-duck-go research indicates that this is at least a complex topic. The most reliable source I was able to find in the time I care to spend on it is from the FSF[0].
Even in the case where copyright ownership is assigned to the project owner, it is a very different situation than the case where your created content is just hosted on a service that claims rights to it.
My point is not the veracity of any of the underlying legal principles. My point is the underhandedness of how we are entered into these agreements.
FOSS has in fact, printed their stance it on a T shirt, and subsequently told the world about it. It's actually one of their flagship contributions to the world.
What is different with the standard flow of the presentation of Terms of Service is more like being presented with the documentation and destination fees, and any other fees on the tail end of a car purchase, after you've talked at great length about THE price. For you see, the sales person conveniently considers those as completely different, and very odd to bundle together with the actual cost of the car.
It comes back to my original point. FOSS isn't switching narrative voices throughout their legal document. They actually want you to truly understand what you are agreeing too, because assuming good intentions, the goals of the users of FOSS align with the goals of the creators of FOSS. Contrast that with Magic Leaps TOS. Why else would you layer in persuasive, folksy, nonthreatening ad copy with your legalese, except to shape any negative opinion I might arrive at through only reading the legalese. Thats because their goals are profit at the expense of their customers, which necessarily means adversarial relationships with those customers, on some level.
