Discussion

Microsoft Copilot Terms of Use

ratelimitsteve: i like the way that when ai does something good of course the people who built it should make a lot of money but when it does something bad no one is responsible

everdrive: Lawyers are playing Calvinball again. I have no idea why the law finds this kind of argumentation compelling. "I clearly intentionally deceived, but I stashed some bullshit legalese into a document no one will read so my deception is completely OK."

torginus: My two cents is that if it didn't, 'I didn't know that was illegal/breach of contract' would be a valid legal defense.Although intentionally saying things that contradict whats in the contract might be legally objectionable.

marcosdumay: When the contract is purposefully obtuse and hard to understand, that should be a valid legal defense.When it's huge, falls upon people that can't justify a lawyer, and keeps changing all the time, one shouldn't even need to claim it. It should be automatically invalid.

nerdjon: Can I get this on a sticker to pass out anyone tries to shove copilot down my throat at work?Maybe a shirt, could sell it on the Microsoft store even. Now that would be entertainment.

ThrowawayR2: [delayed]

crote: On the other hand: imagine someone putting "by agreeing to this, you owe us $1,000,000,000 - unless you opt out in writing within 90 days" halfway down the 100-page EULA of some cookie-cutter smartphone app.It is not at all uncommon for such absurd contract terms to be unenforceable - especially in B2C contracts, although it might even be tricky for B2B clickthrough ones.The idea being that most contracts are fairly standard, so a lot of people will just skim through them. Putting a landmine in them is obviously in bad faith, so making it enforceable would basically make it impossible to do any kind of business at all.

sgbeal: The section titled> IMPORTANT DISCLOSURES & WARNINGSTells us:> You may stop using Copilot at any time.That's an odd thing to include in a ToS.

banannaise: 104.3a A player can concede the game at any time.

ryandrake: I wish we lived in more of a "spirit of the law" world than a "letter of the law" world, where everything needs to be spelled out, but we don't. A small minority of people enjoy Rules Lawyering their way through life, insisting on trying to "gotcha" counterparties who are acting in good faith, so as a consequence, we all have to be Rules Lawyers and everything needs to be spelled out.

ar0: To be clear this is only for the standalone Copilot chat or app and website; not for the “Copilot” services integrated into Office 365 etc.

sgbeal: > To be clear this is only for the standalone Copilot chat or app and website; not for the “Copilot” services integrated into Office 365 etc.The section titled "WHEN & WHERE THESE TERMS APPLY" includes:> Conversations you have with Copilot through other Microsoft apps and websites

rdsubhas: Would be nice to know if it includes Github Copilot. I can't understand how to interpret "Copilot branded apps".

giancarlostoro: How does this affect Copilot in VS 2022 / VS 2026? Because this is kind of insulting to a professional. I really wish Microsoft would learn to name things correctly. There's Copilot the ChatGPT-like service, then there's Copilot for Visual Studio which is not the same as far as I can tell.

adambb: https://docs.github.com/en/copilot/responsible-use/chat-in-y...They do seem to word this at a more professional level in this context (the terms linked are for individuals using Copilot in Windows, probably?)

voxic11: > Copilot is for entertainment purposes only. It can make mistakes, and it may not work as intended. Don’t rely on Copilot for important advice. Use Copilot at your own risk.Seems pretty clear to me, do you really think people need a lawyer to understand that?

throw-23: IDK, what you understand or not seems kinda irrelevant, I think you just need a lawyer for basically anything where the other guy has brought their lawyer

observationist: On the other other hand, they can put whatever they want in there, and because they've forced everything into arbitration with "third party" mediation and carved out their own little niche of the justice system, they'll never actually go to court, they'll just settle and evolve their ToS and contracts and word games accordingly.

ashleyn: Ah yes, the new "for tobacco use only" of tech.

jon-wood: If Copilot is for entertainment purposes only then why is https://office.com all about how you can use Copilot, and closes with the small print "Copilot Chat in the Microsoft 365 Copilot app is available for Microsoft 365 Enterprise, Academic, SMB, Personal and Family subscribers with a work, education, or personal account."Why would they include a product for entertainment purposes only in the product they sell to large companies for doing work?

lazide: If it’s in a locked cabinet in the downstairs bathroom with the ‘out of order’ sign on the door, guarded by a leopard?

recursive: A disused lavatory?

lazide: We can neither confirm nor deny on advice of counsel.

andy81: The only thing "clear" about that License agreement is it contradicts all their other marketing about Copilot.So either that document is fraudulent or everyone else at Microsoft is committing fraud daily.Examples from the first search result: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/microsoft-365-copi...Support page with ~25 tutorials provided by Microsoft about how to "Create a document with Copilot" or "Create a branded presentation from a file" or "Start a Loop workspace from a Teams meeting".Do you actually believe that creating branded presentations (from Microsoft's own examples) is something people do for "entertainment purposes"?

Raed667: a blanket "entertainment only" disclaimer likely wouldn't survive scrutiny for a product actively/relentlessly marketed as a productivity tool

varispeed: depends how much judges are interested in bling.

throwa356262: I am working really hard to not start using Copilot.And belive me, if you use any Microsoft products or services they really make it hard to avoid accidentally using the damn thing.Including adding it to your office plan and then charging you 2x.

qubex: I’m a Mac user and the only way to get Office 365 is a monthly subscription. Since there’s no subscription that doesn’t include CoPilot and since they hiked the price with the excuse that they’d added this thing I didn’t want, I just cancelled my subscription. A customer lost: hardly an issue, but if enough people do it, maybe they’ll get a clue and stop ramming this unwelcome abomination down our throats.