Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
America Online Your Rights Online

AOL, UK latest ISP, Owns Your Content 37

Posted by timothy from the first-born-child dept.
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(!)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AOL, UK latest ISP, Owns Your Content More

AOL, UK latest ISP, Owns Your Content

Comments Filter:

  • Really, (Score:4, Funny)

    by The Cydonian ( 603441 ) on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @04:22AM (#5899544) Homepage Journal
    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?

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

      Not necessarily.

  • IANAL.... (Score:2, Interesting)

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

  • AOL Poets? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Culturejammer ( 541174 ) <landeydaNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @04:54AM (#5899629)
    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.

  • B? (Score:2)

    by Hadlock ( 143607 )
    Balder or Bolder?
  • 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 !

  • hmmm (Score:4, Interesting)

    by sarabob ( 544622 ) on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @06:14AM (#5899781)
    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?
    • I'll bet they have some other clauses against that, though I haven't read the whole thing.

    • Re:hmmm (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Sandman1971 ( 516283 )
      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 (Score:3, Interesting)

        by PhilHibbs ( 4537 )
        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.

      • Not at all (Score:3, Interesting)

        by drew_kime ( 303965 )
        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.
    • If i post kitty porn on one of thier pages? ITs their pictures, according to this.

    • Re:hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)

      by greenhide ( 597777 ) <jordanslashdot@c ... m ['ewe' in gap]> on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @11:33AM (#5901949)
      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.
      • 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 f
        • Okay...

          I would agree that their intent is clear. Here's their intent, are you ready? Here it goes:

          Please don't sue us for lots of money.

          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 w

          • 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

  • XOOM (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Y Ddraig Goch ( 596795 ) on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @07:07AM (#5899948)
    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 (Score:1)

      by Eccles ( 932 )
      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.

      Note, however, that this explicitly covers only chatrooms and message boardds. If you want to put your digital art/writings on AOL, put it on your web pages, and only provide links and samples in the public areas.

      Do you care about how Slashdot might use your posting? I really don't. My messages are only valuable in terms of how they might educat

      • Re:XOOM (Score:2, Informative)

        by ArsonPanda ( 647069 )
        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.

  • summary (Score:3, Funny)

    by Paddyish ( 612430 ) on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @11:02AM (#5901667)
    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! (Score:4, Funny)

    by clambake ( 37702 ) on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @12:10PM (#5902386) Homepage
    Those aren't MY terrorist plans to blow up Redmond, it belongs to AOL, just go look at the contract!

  • What a load of crap (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    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

  • GPL (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Whyrl ( 225187 )
    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 c
    • No, doesn't the GPL allow for use as long as the terms are met, ie provide source and modifications ?
    • IANAL, but I would have thought that putting your own GPL work on AOL was fine, so long as you accepted that you had given a total licence to AOL to do whatever they wanted (non-GPL). You would also give a personal non-commercial licence to other users to use it, so presumably could add the GPL to allow them to modify and distribute it.

      Putting someone else's GPL work on AOL would seem to be in breech both of the GPL under which you had obtained it, and of your agreement with AOL.
  • 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.

Slashdot Top Deals

As you will see, I told them, in no uncertain terms, to see Figure one. -- Dave "First Strike" Pare

Close