Slashdot Mirror
AOL, UK latest ISP, Owns Your Content
An anonymous reader writes AOL UK are changing their Conditions of Service (COS) with effect from 1st July. One insidious change involves their Section 4 'Online Conduct and Content.'" ISPs sometimes defend such language as necessary boilerplate necessary to clarify their necessary right to "present content" by doing things like serving web pages. The language in this case (read on below) is a little balder.
Previously this section contained the following paragraph (my emphasis):
Some areas of AOL are generally accessible to other members (we refer to them as "public"), like message boards, chat 'rooms', auditoriums and the AOL Member Directory. By submitting content to a public area, you are representing that you are fully entitled to do so, and that you grant to AOL Inc. the non-exclusive right to copy, modify, distribute, show in public and create derivative works from that content in any form, anywhere. You also grant AOL members the right to use such content for personal, non-commercial purposes.
This has been in effect since 1st October '98. This section has been changed to the following:
By submitting content to public areas of AOL (such as message boards and chat rooms) you represent that you have permission to do so. And in doing so, you grant AOL Group Companies a licence to use, reproduce, modify, distribute, show in public and create derivative works from that content in any form, anywhere, and waive all moral rights (namely, the right to be identified as the author, and the right to integrity, of the content) and undertake that all such moral rights have been waived in respect of the content. You also grant other users the right to use such content for personal, non-commercial purposes.
Some uproar has occoured on message boards on the service (poetry/story writers etc.,) but I'd be interested in how (if at all) this affects those who distribute their own software from an AOL site.
For comparison, the US TOS has this to say:
Once you post content on AOL, you expressly grant AOL the complete right to use, reproduce, modify, distribute, etc. the content in any form, anywhere.
Sorry about the lack of links to the COS, but the web link AOL suggests to visit is dead(!)
Previously this section contained the following paragraph (my emphasis):
Some areas of AOL are generally accessible to other members (we refer to them as "public"), like message boards, chat 'rooms', auditoriums and the AOL Member Directory. By submitting content to a public area, you are representing that you are fully entitled to do so, and that you grant to AOL Inc. the non-exclusive right to copy, modify, distribute, show in public and create derivative works from that content in any form, anywhere. You also grant AOL members the right to use such content for personal, non-commercial purposes.
This has been in effect since 1st October '98. This section has been changed to the following:
By submitting content to public areas of AOL (such as message boards and chat rooms) you represent that you have permission to do so. And in doing so, you grant AOL Group Companies a licence to use, reproduce, modify, distribute, show in public and create derivative works from that content in any form, anywhere, and waive all moral rights (namely, the right to be identified as the author, and the right to integrity, of the content) and undertake that all such moral rights have been waived in respect of the content. You also grant other users the right to use such content for personal, non-commercial purposes.
Some uproar has occoured on message boards on the service (poetry/story writers etc.,) but I'd be interested in how (if at all) this affects those who distribute their own software from an AOL site.
For comparison, the US TOS has this to say:
Once you post content on AOL, you expressly grant AOL the complete right to use, reproduce, modify, distribute, etc. the content in any form, anywhere.
Sorry about the lack of links to the COS, but the web link AOL suggests to visit is dead(!)
Is it necessary to repeat necessary to say that someone necessary thinks something is necessary, while in reality, it is unnecessary?
More than mere navel gazing.
but isn't an author's moral right non-transferable?
I'm sorry but if your writing poetry for AOL message boards, I'm almost certain no one wishes to steal your work.
Balder or Bolder?
moox. for a new generation.
ISPs sometimes defend such language as necessary boilerplate necessary to clarify their necessary right to "present content" by doing things like serving web pages.
Timothy, get some sleep !
In Soviet America the banks rob you!
So, if they "own" the content now, and have the right to be identified as the author, does that make them liable if the content is illegal or defamatory?
and it's successor (iNBC I think) tried this back in '99 and you see where they are today. Lots of subscibers had web sites for hosting their digital art work. Most of the ones I knew (my self included) removed their sites and left a message on their home page explaining why.
Meddle thou not in the affairs of Dragons, for thou art crunchy and with most anything.
heh. good one. link from oct 7, 2002
moox. for a new generation.
If i post kitty porn on one of thier pages? ITs their pictures, according to this.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
What the terms say is that by posting it you, the end user, are claiming to have certain rights, and that you grant those rights to AOL. If it turns out you did not have those rights, then you are the one in breach of contract.
Nope, no sig
AOL: How are you gentlemen!! All your content are belong to us.
User: WHAT YOU SAY!!!
Those aren't MY terrorist plans to blow up Redmond, it belongs to AOL, just go look at the contract!
1) You write a novel and put it on your AOL site, maybe with a "donation jar" paypal link. Lots of authors do stuff like that. Maybe it's even a screenplay instead of a novel.
2) After a while, you take it down and close your account, or maybe you don't.
3) Either way, AOL now says its New Line Cinema can make a multi-megabuck movie of your novel or screenplay, without crediting you or paying you? And I'm not talking about the movie having some vague possibly-coincidental commonality with your novel (e.g. both happen to involve a three-eyed alien searching for love as a minor character), I mean they use your whole book word for word.
That's what this agreement supposedly lets them do. Yow.
Their intent is clear... and you pointed it out they distribute other parties personal copyrighten data AS WELL AS create their own. If there is conflict and the third parties content was first then they pay and pay big. They are in the business of copyrighten works so THEY SHOULD KNOW BETTER.
It is one reason AOL and Time/Warner should be broken up... conflict of interest.
Instead they claim, they can use your work any way they want. Just like M$ did. THAT IS STEALING. But since they are warning you first via what amounts to hidden terms (like a form with White Ink on Off-White Paper) they are in clear.
Maybe this whole thread should titled "Dumb Corporate Lawyers".
This seems particularily insidious. Whereas previously the TOS would allow an author to be identified as such, this TOS effectively dissolves that right. Yeah, I've got a knack for the obvious. I understand AOL's intent, but again we're seeing a company provide an overly broad licensing scheme. But then again, how else could they protect against things like getting sued for coincidentally making a movie about after I said " would be a cool movie"?
What happens if I post in a chat room the full source code to my very successful open source project (in reality it exists only in my mind) under the GPL? Or if I have my project's homepage on an AOL server? The AOL TOS and the GPL seem to really conflict here. Does this mean that providing GPL'd source on an AOL server is a violation of the GPL?
I would agree that their intent is clear. Here's their intent, are you ready? Here it goes:That's it. Really.
I doubt that they will ever use the content on these pages for their own use. And actually, no, they do not distribute other parties' personal copyrighted material, because of the terms of their TOS, which states that anything published on the forums by definition isn't copyrighted. I do believe, though, that if I post a personal journal on my personal website on AOL, then I *can* copyright that material.
Now, if by "they distribute other parties' personal copyrighted material" you mean that they distribute television shows or movies that are copyrighted by another author or company, well, probably, yeah. They're a media company, and one of their jobs is distributing that media. I don't see how that relates to AOL's TOS agreement, however.
They are in the business of copyrighten works so THEY SHOULD KNOW BETTER.
Huh?!? Um, they do know better. As in, "We'd better make sure that no one can accuse us of intellectual property infringment just because someone once posted an idea to one of our forums."
Instead they claim, they can use your work any way they want. Just like M$ did. THAT IS STEALING.
Okay, I'm sure that IHBT, but this is just really stupid. The agreement also says that anyone can use your work any way they want, not just them. In other words, don't post something to a forum if you yourself want to own it as intellectual property in the future. It's not stealing, because anything you are posting becomes public domain (Think Bill Shakespeare and Company have gotten any royalty checks recently?)
And yes, they are in the clear.
So this whole thread should be labeled "Smart Corporate Lawyers"
Karma: Chevy Kavalierma.
In the US, anything you write is copyrighten, period. So your clause "definition isn't copyrighted" is not true.
The question is in anyone respecting your copyright. When some one answers your email with parts of your words included... that falls under fair used.
Now assigning a copyright to public domain is different. What AOL is trying to say is that by your posting with this back clause - you have assigned your work to the public/them.
Now the issue will they update the submit button to remind you for each email or other method of posting.
This doesn't look evil.
If you post on IRC, or a group forum of some kind. They want to modify it. This is like creating an IRC log, or quoting a message, or creating an archive. Or even just throw their adds on your webpage. All this could be considered commercial derivative works. They want it clear they are allowed to do this.
It does not include private communications, ie email. Anything publicly posted can be stolen by anyone, which is why certain groups want solid DRM protection.