Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo Backs Down (sorta)
Jareth writes "In their revised terms of service, Yahoo is trying to make it clear that they do not own content that you submit. They still haven't taken out the sections about 'modify, adapt, ... create derivative works from'. So while they don't own your web page, they can still do anything they want to it. The story is over at Wired. "
Yahoo need to, at a minimum, allow people to decline the new TOS and remove their pages. The new TOS, both avatars, require a certification that Yahoo is absolved of issues around someone's ownership of content. Further, it might just be that people don't want Yahoo to create any derivative works from their original content.
It's nothing but smoke.
I've been through this sort of thing before (when GEnie was taken over by Yovelle Renaissance), and TOS changes like this don't stand up in court if a graceful way out is not available. Anyone in doubt should refuse the TOS and MAIL Yahoo a statement declining the TOS change, requesting all creative content be removed from their system. The letter should reaffirm your copyright and your refusal to grant a license to your works.
-Greg
Just like when Geocities added the ubiquitious logo to each page
Just like when Geocities and Xoom added the pop up
windows to each page
Just like how hotmail/deja/excite/yahoo.com mail
always includes the ubiquitious plug for their service with each mail you send out.
These are all free to the user services, and thus,
they have to make money to break even somehow, and
this is best done with the ads that they do,
whether for themselves or for others. And
as with this yahoo deal, these all used methods
that are considered unethical or innappopriate
for the medium.
Geocities-cum-Yahoo is in a weird boat; Geocities,
without being owned by Yahoo, was merely providing
free webspace with some minor content of their own.
On the other hand, Yahoo *IS* a content provider,
given yahoo.com, my.yahoo.com, and Yahoo Magazine.
They are in the unique position that if they happen to see content they wish to adsorb from pages
that are using their free service, they will do
it.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
So if I type my name into a Yahoo search, do they own me?
Dear Yahoo!,
I am unable to find another address to which I am able to complain about your plans to usurp you users Intellectual Property, so I am taking my chances and mailing you here.
I have removed my email address and changed my homepage away from yours in protest of your new TOS. I have been a big fan of Yahoo! pretty much since you started, having not only used you myself, but adding your page to all the systems I install (as opposed the the usual Microsoft or Netscape homepage). I felt that you had one of the best start pages in the business and have made it known to my coworkers and clients that this is the page of choice.
I will do this no longer.
Your recent Intellectual Property landgrab is completely uncalled for. Not only is it (probably) legally unfounded, but it is an insult to the userbase that you have either built up or acquired. Being forced to agree with your TOS *before* I could even get in to check and delete my mail is patently unfair. I did not agree and will not agree.
Perhaps you may be thinking that you will be trying to cover yourself legally, but there are *far* better ways than claiming rights to others' property. Perhaps you think that there are plenty of other free email and web hosting sites. You are correct. And I will find one. One that doesn't feel the need to steal my work.
I am truly disappointed in Yahoo!. It seems that one of my old friends has just shown himself to be a not only a bad neighbor, but a greedy, one as well.
I may possibly reconsider rejoining you should you remove the draconian TOS you have imposed, but I would need plenty of evidence of your contrition and large apology to the community that has made you the success that you are today.
Shame on you, Chris Eidem
I hope their hard drives seize...
Chris
Chris
So Buddha walks into a pizza parlor and says: "Hey, make me one with everything."
besides trying to cut their losses,
as many have already left geocities,
they may just be trying to cover a different problem.
maybe i'm wrong here,
but if you upload something illegal,
and they claim to own it,
doesn't that make them liable?
i think they're just afraid people would use the space for warez or other illegal content,
and since without their new statement,
they would own it,
they would be responsible for the content.
there have been isues on web hosts being responsible for the content before,
and they would have no chance of winning one,
if they claimed to OWN the illicit material.
this was an ass-covering masked by a bad PR move.
-Tannin Kal
They state that:
' Yahoo does not own Content you submit, unless we specifically tell you
otherwise before you submit it. You license the Content to Yahoo as
set forth below..'
And below it says:
' By submitting Content to any Yahoo
property, you automatically grant, or warrant that the owner of such
Content has expressly granted, Yahoo the royalty-free,...'
So, Basically, they tell you other wise. They don't *own* the content, but they have a non-exclusive license to use it still.
I know it's been a few days and you've all dearly missed the Top X lists...but real life beckons occasionally! :)
1) Sell it to the Chinese. (Or is that Let the Chinese steal it?)
2) Add a moving "Y" to the bottom of every page. Naaaaaah, no one would EVER be that cheap.
3) Broadcast it to the entire Internet using Shoutcast.
4) Test out their new Virtual Paper Shredder on it.
5) Make Webpaper Airplanes.
6) Compile millions of personal webpages on a comprehensive CD-ROM. The title? "How Web Geeks Waste Their Free Time". (I know, I know. Free Time is a myth.)
7) Slashdot it.
-
Hmmm.... I find it very ironic with respect to the recent software piracy thread that everyone is suddenly getting very protective of their work (or is it intellectual property in this case?)
Some of the arguments made for software piracy, that could be equally applied here were:
1) They're just virtual bits. How can you own bits? Information wants to be free.
2) I wouldn't have paid for it anyway, so it doesn't really matter how I use/abuse it.
3) It costs too much, therefore I'll just take it for free.
So, it's really ironic that the same people who completely disregarded software author's rights are up in arms when their own homepages are at stake. Does intellectual property only exist if you make it, but not someone else?
Sorry guys. You don't own content I submit even if you say this when I submit it. You don't have any ownership rights whatsoever unless I explicitly give them. This statement is just to pacify the reactionists who thought that the later parts gave Yahoo ownership of the content, which they never did. Discard useless sentence number one.
Oh wow. Looks like Yahoo's limiting how they can use your content, just like Tripod does, right? (And I looked at Tripod's TOS... it's really not that unreasonable) Nope. Look at it from a lawyer's point of view. They never used the word limited or exclusive, so all this is is another empty promise. If they had said limited purposes or exclusive purposes then this statement would be legally binding and you'd have every right to go after them if they used your content for something other than promoting you or the service. Scratch statement number two, but kudos to your lawyers for coming up with something suitably obfuscated that would fool some of the people.
And here's the first of the original statements. Let's look at it in light of Yahoo adding the first two statements. Well, let's see... we're still giving Yahoo the right to use the content, and although they stated what the purposes are above, they didn't limit them. So the meaning remains the same. They also still have the right to modify and create derivative works. And here's the kicker. They still have the right to distribute and sub-license the content. Which means even IF the second statement about the purposes held any water, they could still sell it to someone else to do with as they please. And just to add insult to injury, they haven't limited the term of the license to the term of your account (like Tripod has).
Wow. It's so nice that Yahoo backed down. It's so nice that they're not the giant corporation that doesn't care about their customers that we thought they were. Nice try guys, but we're not the mindless sheep you seem to think we are.
---
"The details of my life are quite inconsequential..."
Sounds like the music industry.
I think the boycott is a good idea. Stop using geocities and actually pay for your web site.