I am sure there will be people defending the car company as really offering unlimited colours, but obviously they have to restrict it to black, because some clients were unreasonable to expect the company to paint their car Neon Vermilion.
Or to put it another way, "You can have unlimited storage, except that it is limited..."
Unlimited is a marketing term used to express simply to the consumer there are not overall limits placed on your storage provided you adhere to the rest of the terms of service.
In the context of data cloud data stroage when Google, Amazon and the rest talk about "unlimited" they are referring to unlimited PERSONAL storage of data you create as a person, this would include backups of your personal computer, photos, important documents,etc
Not backing up SoundCloud or the entire Internet for $5 a month
So if you are a amateur photographer then storing 10TB of photos you took on the service is acceptable, downloading 900TB of music files you do not own, you did no create and have no permission to "as a backup" because the service is going to go under is abuse.
Well, that's doublespeak then, and if someone calls them out on it by actually testing the claim they make, so be it.
I don't understand why people seem not to mind being lied to their faces, as long as it's "just marketing".
Because most rational people use common sense and logic to come to the understanding that when a company is offering you "unlimited" storage for your PERSONAL FILES, they do not intend for you to go out and download SoundCloud as backup in case the SoundClould Service goes under
Just like when a "All you can Eat" buffet does not intend this to mean "All you can eat in your entire life" where by you fill grocery bags full of food to take home with you
How am I a "knuckle Head" in this situation, when I go to a buffet I eat a normal human portation of food inline with price I am charged for the meal
I do not eat 25 plates full of prime rib for $5.
I do not abuse business simply because "I technically can because it is in the rules"
I fucking hate people that look for these types of technicalities to exploit in society. These types of people are exactly why there are pages of Terms of service, and why we can not have nice things, because people can not be trusted to not abuse shit.
Come to think of it, I'm mostly in agreement with you. I do feel there's a difference between "all you can eat buffet" and "unlimited storage" (or "lifetime warranties"). The former is more of a reasonable and well-explained offer; the latter is more of a bogus marketing claim. I detest bogus marketing claim.
2 wrongs do not make a right and all that.
I'm not going to eat 25 plates of anything but, at a buffet, I have no issue with mostly going light on the cheaper fillers. And I'm not going to worry about it if I end up getting a "good deal" on the meal as a result.
Wait what? I mean the cost of admission is usually more like $50 but that's practically the SOP for Brazilian steakhouses. I have fasted for days just so that I could eat more.
Which specific clause of the TOS is this violating?
In the context of data cloud data stroage when Google, Amazon and the rest talk about "unlimited" they are referring to unlimited PERSONAL storage of data you create as a person, this would include backups of your personal computer, photos, important documents,etc
That's your interpretation. Nowhere do they actually claim or imply that you're only supposed to use it for data you create as a person. In fact, it'd be absurd, considering that sharing files is built into the system.
--
That companies lie to us repeatedly under the guise of "common sense", as if they followed the same standard when applying their unreadable TOSs against us, is bad enough.
Corporations are not your friends, and they won't hesitate to block you if you start becoming a liability. Assuming good faith is absurd, defending it publicly is grotesque.
In the United States for instance, making a copy of any digital media is generally illegal, period. The two major exceptions here are if you can prove "fair use", or if you are an archive or library.
"Fair use" is, of course, a very fuzzy term. Fuzzy enough to give companies enough wiggle room to terminate if, as probably most large archives would be, a person uploaded terabytes and terabytes of copyrighted media to their drive. (If said person shares copyrighted links in particular, that usually is explicitly called out in storage TOS clauses... but even if not, I think it would be difficult to claim "fair use" for a personal upload of Soundcloud to your Google drive.)
In the Archive Team's case, it looks like the Archive Team is using the Wayback Machine from archive.org. (http://archiveteam.org/index.php?title=Dev/Infrastructure) Libraries and archives have their own set of rules allowing limited copying (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/108), in addition to the general "fair use case". My guess is due to questions of Soundcloud's longevity, archiving Soundcloud would qualify.