I seem to be one of the few people that have actually read an EULA or TOS agreement.  I've read the license agreement for every embedded device that I've connected to my network—before it gets the LAN credentials, I read the agreement.  These agreements, while probably legal (have they been tested in court yet?), are completely meaningless for two reasons:

  1. The terms being dictated by the licensor include the right to change the agreement at will.  An agreement that one side can unilaterally change is not an "agreement" by any definition that could pass any sort of "reasonable person" test.
  2. The terms of the agreements are completely vague.

Reading one—as a reasonable person—it all sounds like an acceptable deal.  Putting on my "lawyer hat", I start to think about things like "Who are these 'select partners' that are exempt from the restrictions the licensor has placed on the agreement?"  Direct from the new LinkedIn User Agreement:

"The profile you create on LinkedIn (including Slideshare) will become part of LinkedIn and except for the content and information that you license to us is owned by LinkedIn."

That sounds reasonable to me.  What's mine is mine, but the profile is theirs, right?  That sounds reasonable, but then I wonder what is a 'profile'?  If you started to mentally answer that then you've fallen into the trap that it seems most people do: you thought to apply reason in trying to understand the law.  The two have nothing to do with each other; there's zero overlap between reason and law except by sheer coincidence.  That's not a statement of sarcasm or cynicism; that's a statement of pure observation.  Where does it say that laws have to make sense?  Indeed, not all do.  It may be that we want laws that make sense and that we want the people who make the laws to make laws that make sense, but once a thing has become law, that's it—it's not law because it makes sense; it's the law because it's the law.  Attempting to apply reason to understand a law is non-sense.

So what is a LinkedIn "profile"?  It doesn't make any difference what you think one is or what you think "makes sense" for one to be.  The sole standard by which it can be judged is what the definition of a LinkedIn profile says a LinkedIn profile is.  And, should you decide to go read the LinkedIn User Agreement, you'll notice—there is no definition of what constitutes a LinkedIn profile.  That means that the definition gets to be invented, on the spot, in court, to be whatever suits LinkedIn. (I suspect this is a common reason for settling out of court.  Not to avoid cost, or avoid the publicity, but to avoid using this one-time, blank check)  You can rest assured that when Facebook purchased Oculus no such ambiguities existed in the agreement.  If these ubiquitous contracts are going to be legally binding on individuals, shouldn't they be required to match the same level of legal "completeness" as is expected by business-to-business agreements?  Oh, right.  Normal citizens aren't supposed to make such a big deal out of this stuff and most don't care.  Please disregard and return to your regularly scheduled spectacles—and here, have this loaf of bread shaped like an iPhone.  Don't forget to accept the user agreement.