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(!)

Comments

Really,

[The Cydonian]

ISPs sometimes defend such language as necessary boilerplate necessary to clarify their necessary right to "present content" by doing things like serving web pages.

Is it necessary to repeat necessary to say that someone necessary thinks something is necessary, while in reality, it is unnecessary?

IANAL....

[Anonymous Coward]

but isn't an author's moral right non-transferable?

Re:IANAL....

[PhilHibbs]

In the UK, moral rights can be waived.

AOL Poets?

[Culturejammer]

Some uproar has occoured on message boards on the service (poetry/story writers etc.,)

I'm sorry but if your writing poetry for AOL message boards, I'm almost certain no one wishes to steal your work.

hmmm

[sarabob]

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?

Re:hmmm

[Sandman1971]

I was wondering the exact same thing. Since they are claiming ownership of any and all work, it would make them liable, regardless if other sections of their AUP states otherwise. So if somone were to, for example, post the DeCSS code in one of their message boards, AOL could and (hopefully) would be held responsible. God I hope it happens.

Re:hmmm

[PhilHibbs]

The uploader does not own the copyright to DeCSS, therefore AOL gains no rights. In any case, merely owning the rights to reproduce something does not grace them with legal any responsibility at all, so long as they take it down if legally required to do so.

Re:hmmm

[greenhide]

No.

They do not "own" the content. They are making no claim for ownership of content. The text makes this clear. It is the user who is waiving the right to ownership.

Why?

I think the main reason is simply because AOL/Time Warner is a big media company, making lots of movies all of the time. Now suppose in 2003 I post a comment saying, "Hey, someone should do a movie about a guy who talks to his dead mother and says all of these crazy things!" Suppose, totally coincidentally , AOL/Time Warner releases a made-for-TV movie in 2005 about a guy who talks to his dead mother.

I could then say, "Hey! Look at this message I posted in 2003 on the AOL Message Boards! They clearly stole my idea!" It would be hard for them to prove that they didn't use the posting as the source for their movie.

I think most of the people posting on /. are being unrealistic about AOL's intents here. I don't see the new language as all that different from the old content, with the exception of the addition of a waiver of moral rights, which probably has something to do with a recent legal precedent in the UK. I have severe doubts that people at AOL are trolling (in the fishing sense) message boards searching for piece bits of prose or cool movie ideas.

Rather, they are preventing themselves from being sued whenever someone decides that a movie they're watching sounds like a comment they made on a message board three years before.

If you want to retain your intellectual property, don't post it to a public forum.

Essentially, what happens when you post it to a public place on AOL is that it becomes public domain -- notice that AOL states that others can also make derivative works from your content. This ensures that if, say, Steven Speilberg has an AOL account, he won't be sued if he makes a movie that resembles a comment made in a message boards forum that he may or may not have read.

XOOM

[Y Ddraig Goch]

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.

Re:XOOM

[ArsonPanda]

Um, no.
It uses chatrooms and message boards as examples of "public" areas. It states that this applies to areas that are "generally accessible to other members" which would, of course, include any web page space you don't put behind a password.
Then the US version of the TOS simply states any content posted anywhere on their servers.

Re:B?

[PhilHibbs]

6. Undisguised; blunt: a bald statement of policy.

Not at all

[drew_kime]

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.

summary

[Paddyish]

In A.D. 2003 ...
AOL: How are you gentlemen!! All your content are belong to us.
User: WHAT YOU SAY!!!

It's not my child porn!

[clambake]

Those aren't MY terrorist plans to blow up Redmond, it belongs to AOL, just go look at the contract!

GPL

[Whyrl]

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?