[conspire] OT?: Ridiculous licence terms

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Nick Moffitt (nick at zork.net):

> A pity this was not on paper, no?  My approach to paper release forms,
> however misguided, has always been to cross out the portions I did not
> agree to and initial the change.  My reasoning is that I have clearly
> indicated that my signature does not mean that I have agreed to those
> terms.  If the organizers let me participate on that basis, then that's
> now their decision and a risk they are consciously taking.
> 
> Appreciating that I am not asking for formal legal advice, is there a
> good reason why I might be thoroughly wrong here?  Common sense and law
> tend to part ways very quickly.

Your approach strikes me as excellent, ditto your comment that it's a
pity about this being a purported contract wrapped in a Web form because
striking out absurdities becomes not physically possible.

By the way, my saying so cannot commit unauthorised practice of law,
because I am not acting as your attorney in any specific legal
situation.  It's the right of all persons to discuss legal issues in
their general form.

As Luke mentions, it's very evident why this sort of nonsense arises:
Because one side's attorney was instructed to put together something
that grabs all possible rights and protections pre-emptively, and it's
up to people like you to say 'No, actually this [lines out] is absurd, 
and this [lines out] is laughable', etc.

I could have just showed up at the Relay for Life event in-person, and 
seen if they had more-reasonable terms or ones I could at least
selectively line out, but, after reading the Convio rubbish, as I said,
I decided I'd rather just volunteer for Kaiser Permanente.