Isn't this like saying "not your house, not your possessions" ? But landlords cannot just take or misplace my stuff, especially if I pay rent and have some rights.
"But landlords cannot just take or misplace my stuff, especially if I pay rent and have some rights."
They sure can. Years ago I had a shitty landlord clear an apartment I'd moved 95% of my belongings from but before the term of my lease had ended. Now you may have some legal recourse, but the cost/time associated with litigating a matter like that tends to outweigh the remedy.
> They sure can. Years ago I had a shitty landlord clear an apartment I'd moved 95% of my belongings from but before the term of my lease had ended. Now you may have some legal recourse, but the cost/time associated with litigating a matter like that tends to outweigh the remedy.
The existence of legal standing is what defines the property rights. If you're going to move the goalposts to "you don't own it unless you have legal standing and the means to pursue legal recourse", then you might as well say that only the extremely wealthy have any property rights at all.
You can physically stop a landlord from illegally dumping your items too.
I'm talking about legal recourse after the fact. You can win both cases, at your own expense, but the burglar is much more likely to be judgement-proof.
As the Rolling Stones pointed out years ago (maybe before you were born), "You can't always get what you want" --- yadda, yadda, etc., etc..
It is not just about giving you what you want. The fact that *legal* retribution of some sort applies if someone takes or destroys your stuff is a defining characteristic of "ownership".
Interesting that you cut the line there, because control over personal possessions usually goes under the "need" category.
Anyway I'm still not sure what point you were originally trying to make, because defeating a landlord in court and getting paid back is at least as good of a proof of "ownership".
Both situations have big flaws in the legal recourse, but you definitely have it in both situations.
No, it definitely doesn't sound like that and it's not about rights. Your landlord cannot go and remodel your apartment and ruin your possessions without your approval of the changes they are about to make.
> Google Drive allows you to upload, submit, store, send and receive content. As described in the Google Terms of Service, your content remains yours. We do not claim ownership in any of your content, including any text, data, information, and files that you upload, share, or store in your Drive account. The Google Terms of Service give Google a limited purpose license to operate and improve the Google Drive services — so if you decide to share a document with someone, or want to open it on a different device, we can provide that functionality.
From their terms of service, they deleted YOUR data. Thus the rights you'd have when anyone destroys your stuff apply. Hmmm, might even be criminal... I'm not a lawyer though, so I don't know shit.
They say expressly when it will be removed in the ToS, if it doesn't meet any of those conditions, then they, contractually, cannot delete it.
But saying that "because they can, they can" is silly. I "can" (as in able to) break into your house and steal your shit. By that logic, if I can do it, it wasn't trespassing or theft.
The total liability of Google, and its suppliers and distributors, for any
claims under these terms, including for any implied warranties, is limited to
the amount you paid us to use the services (or, if the subject of the claim
is the free service, to supplying you the services again).
In other words, they can delete *your* data any time they want and claim it was an accident. If you don't like it, you can sue for your money back. If you're using the free tier, you can expect $0.
a limit on liability, does not mean there is a limit on damages and tort.
This is exactly what Google intends it to mean. Good luck convincing a judge otherwise.
In some places, the fact there is no signed contract and no exchange took place (free tier) means there is no liability --- the user received everything they paid for.
If I ask you to hold my phone and say “don’t blame me if it breaks” and we agree. Then you deliberately smash my phone, you caused me a damage and broke the terms of the contract. In this imaginary case, there was an implied agreement that you would hold the phone, but you didn’t. You smashed it. You aren’t protected from your liability agreement because it no longer applies.
This same thing applies here. Intellectual property has value. Google agreed to hold that value and not delete it. They stopped holding the property and smashed it. Their liability clause no longer works because they broke the contract. It doesn’t matter if money changed hands or not. Damage is damage.
Scenario A: I take a photo. There is no backup. Is this my data?
Scenario B: I have multiple independent backups of a document. Google deletes the main copy off my computer against my will. Is that "not my data" because Google deleted it? Does the deletion not count because I have a backup? Third option?
It’s like that, but works differently depending on the country. If you live in a decent country with good laws and rules, then you have rights. If you live in a third world country, then you are out of luck. Google is a third world country on the internet in terms of “user’s rights”.
You put the analogy there, then broke it down - which should answer your own question. They are not the same, it's not like saying that at all. Once again HN misses the point on the quest for the perfect comparison.
