Thank you for stating this different view point!

Maybe the "civilized parts of the world" are much smaller than I assumed? That may be. I did not double check. :-D

At least in Germany there is a highest court ruling that deals with this subject.

https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/facebook-konto-erben-to...

Usually the status quo is not substantially different in other EU countries, so I assumed that.

TOS in general are always limited by other laws. That something is written in the TOS doesn't make it a binding contract automatically. (A related and one of the better know cases is that EULA-like "contracts", that aren't shown to users before they install a software, aren't contracts at all in Germany—as you need consent form all parties upfront to establish a contract. If you didn't see any contract and didn't agree to it upfront there is just no contract. That's why it's legal in Germany for example to sell OEM licenses of MS products even the MS EULA "forbids" this. It doesn't matter Microsoft says the EULA is enforced by their TOS).

It's not much different regarding other things written in TOS: You can just ignore those things in case such clauses would give the service provider unexpected or overly broad advantages (like trying to make a "contract" binding you never saw). Such clauses don't have any legal meaning and aren't enforceable.

Of course it's not always clear form the get go which kind of clauses are moot. That's up to the courts to decided if there is disagreement. But for a lot of things there are court rulings, and most of the time it's even quite clear from the laws governing TOS in general. (A clause like "by using our service we're entitled to your first-born" can for example never be a binding part of a TOS; no discussion needed).

Regarding things like VOD or that-like services: Well, you never bought anything there! You're usually only renting this stuff.

Apple got for example sued because they had a "buy" button on movies in Apple TV+ even though you can't "buy" of course any movies on Apple TV+—you can only rent them. Rented stuff doesn't belong to you in the end, so it doesn't get inherited by your heirs.

Person-bound contracts are of course possible and such renting contracts are often of this kind. So your heirs don't inherit "your" VOD movies (you've never owned them). Such a contract usually just terminates with the death of the contractor in case this was the only person entitled to use the service. (Like say, in case of a gym contract).

If this all is "new problems"—even things are actually quite clear as there are regulations form the analog era governing most of those questions—maybe the parts of the world where this is the case aren't civilized at all?^^

BTW, that's actually why "case law" is nonsense: Given a case law system if something "new", like the internet, comes across "everything" is needed to be reevaluated. If one have laws instead that govern general things and not specific cases you can most of the time just apply the existing laws to the "new" thing without bigger trouble or legal uncertainty. The point here is: Something like contract law is mostly "done". There is almost 3000 years of experience with it. So there are hardly any really "new" things to consider. (At least if you don't have case law—where it's always a new gamble).