While I'm admittedly not a Microsoft disciple (or even a big fan, for that matter), I think it's worthwhile to dig into the language a little more.
I don't believe the language is as aggressive and overreaching as noted in these posts or in the Register article (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/18002.html ). The language, which is found in the Passport Web Site Term of Use (http://www.passport.com/Consumer/TermsOfUse.asp?P Plcid=1033), states that "By posting messages, uploading files, inputting data, submitting any feedback or suggestions, or engaging in any other form of communication with or through the Passport Web Site . .." This doesn't say anything about using the Passport technology, just the Passport Web Site. There aren't even any language traps such as "or associated Web sites." I think the subtle distinction is that the language granting MS all rights in the content is limited to content provided specifically "with or through the Passport Web Site," not with or through the Passport technology. Since Hotmail and.NET works independently of the Passport Web Site, MS would have a difficult time claiming ownership of the email or its content even though the Passport technology is used on Hotmail,.NET, etc.
The offensive language is notably absent in the MSN Web Site Terms of Use (http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/dasp/hminfo_sh ell.asp?content=tos&_lang=EN), which govern the use of various MS properties including Hotmail. While I have not seen the Hailstorm terms of use, I would be surprised if MS attempts to alientate its early adopters by including the overreaching language that's in the Passport terms.
In short, I think there's a strong argument against the position that MS owns everything that touches Passport. If MS were to attempt to assert ownership, they would have a dificult road trying to prove to a judge that ownership ever passed from the author to them, since it appears to me that the Passport terms don't do it.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't believe the language is as aggressive and overreaching as noted in these posts or in the Register article (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/18002.html ). The language, which is found in the Passport Web Site Term of Use (http://www.passport.com/Consumer/TermsOfUse.asp?P Plcid=1033), states that "By posting messages, uploading files, inputting data, submitting any feedback or suggestions, or engaging in any other form of communication with or through the Passport Web Site . . ." This doesn't say anything about using the Passport technology, just the Passport Web Site. There aren't even any language traps such as "or associated Web sites." I think the subtle distinction is that the language granting MS all rights in the content is limited to content provided specifically "with or through the Passport Web Site," not with or through the Passport technology. Since Hotmail and .NET works independently of the Passport Web Site, MS would have a difficult time claiming ownership of the email or its content even though the Passport technology is used on Hotmail, .NET, etc.
The offensive language is notably absent in the MSN Web Site Terms of Use (http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/dasp/hminfo_sh ell.asp?content=tos&_lang=EN), which govern the use of various MS properties including Hotmail. While I have not seen the Hailstorm terms of use, I would be surprised if MS attempts to alientate its early adopters by including the overreaching language that's in the Passport terms.
In short, I think there's a strong argument against the position that MS owns everything that touches Passport. If MS were to attempt to assert ownership, they would have a dificult road trying to prove to a judge that ownership ever passed from the author to them, since it appears to me that the Passport terms don't do it.
At least that's my argument ;)