Mark Miller: You and I have been discussing, will we ever see anything that's not onerous or incomprehensible. This looks like something written by people for people.

Joel MacMull: That's exactly right. We have seen some real dogs over the last two months and this was a pleasant surprise.

And what's really interesting about it, and we're going to hopefully get into this, is that you've got your main terms of use and then one of the hyperlinks, of course is their content license. The content license here, given the nature of the service, it essentially is a design platform is near and dear to my heart because of course it implicates intellectual property, namely matter that would be copyrightable, matter that is licensable, matter that may be amenable to trademarks and they've really done, to their credit, a bang up job to simplify what, even based on the handful of other agreements we've looked at to date, is just a morass of nonsense.

Hat tip to our friends down in Australia.

Mark Miller: The thing that you and I have always looked for, which shows up here is, can you talk to me in language I can understand. One of the things they've done is they've had a little bit of lawyerese in their paragraphs, and then underneath each section is a big blue box that says, this is what we just said.

Joel MacMull: Yeah. Yeah. And I thought that was great. I really did. I thought that was great. It makes it digestible for the layperson. The interesting thing is as I was reading these blue boxes, is what does that mean for the paragraphs above it, and it's overall enforceability. Because while presumably nothing is contradictory, you can appreciate that that which appears in the blue boxes is certainly less fulsom than that which appears above it. And so I wonder if for purpose of enforceability, would there ever be a tension there internally in the document?

Now for as good as the document is, it's not perfect. I thought maybe we would quickly go through both the main agreement and the content license agreement.