[gregw2]

I am not a lawyer but I have seen startups distort/rationalize legal language as their tech services evolve to grandfather new situations into old language.

I don’t know if vultr language is worse than others, but my concern would be that someone selling you out can squeeze a lot in that clause for a long time, particularly if you never find out. Arguably that’s in bad faith, but…

Say that to provide the Services to you, vultr has to supplement its income by (old school) selling your videos to a dvd publishing company, or (newer) creating their own streaming tv channel, or providing them to an AI model training company, or providing them to an “affiliate” advertising-serving broker who slurps your created content and slaps one or more segmentation labels about your content (“kink”, “religion(X)”, “gamer”) tied to your email which it then resells to world+dog?

Ie is selling you out part of what vultr needs to do to provides the Services to you?

I find it very hard to trust companies based solely on their legal language when that language is viewed from an adversarial position. But I am not lawyer to know what kinds of “misreadings” are “beyond the pale”/not legally defensible.

[groestl]

"an adversarial position" is the only position you should assume when interpreting legal texts. After all, if push comes to shove, your the actual adversary. And in any other case the legal text is not needed.

[singleshot_]

Assume that immediately after executing any contract, the counterparty will be purchased by the Devil. Draft accordingly within reason.