how-to block ads
|
HardwareGeek
join:2003-11-15
Brooklyn, NY
1 edit | TOS Doesn't say what News Story Implys.
It is sad that BBR is posting this the way they have. No where in the TOS does it say what the Poster of the news is implying. Read the ENTIRE TOS not just the part that will get people worried and concerned. You guys are taking the AIM TOS out of context and it's sad and if sites continue to do this I can see more APPLE type lawsuits popping up.
--
Email/MSN: Michael at hardwaregeeks.com
AIM: MikeR35292 | |
jayperkins
join:2001-05-19
Brookhaven, MS
| HardwareGeek,
How do you interpret this paragraph from the TOS?
Although you or the owner of the Content retain ownership of all right, title and interest in Content that you post to any AIM Product, AOL owns all right, title and interest in any compilation, collective work or other derivative work created by AOL using or incorporating this Content. In addition, by posting Content on an AIM Product, you grant AOL, its parent, affiliates, subsidiaries, assigns, agents and licensees the irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide right to reproduce, display, perform, distribute, adapt and promote this Content in any medium. You waive any right to privacy. You waive any right to inspect or approve uses of the Content or to be compensated for any such uses. | |
HardwareGeek
join:2003-11-15
Brooklyn, NY
| That says. That I wave any privacy rights I may think I have when it comes to the content they display on my Screen. Also I wave the right on any content I post on their Public Forums or Chats. Doesn't say anything about Private Messaging. Also read their Privacy Policy.
--
Email/MSN: Michael at hardwaregeeks.comAIM: MikeR35292 | |
jayperkins
join:2001-05-19
Brookhaven, MS
| From »www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1775830,00.asp
"However, Weinstein's stance that user-to-user IM communications are exempt from the controversial clause isn't sitting well with legal experts.
Rob Hyndman, a technology lawyer based in Ontario, pointed out that the terms of service covers the entire AIM product and does not explicitly exclude instant messaging.
"I think the AOLs of the world don't take the impact their TOS [terms of service] have on users seriously enough, generally because they have market power and the customer doesn't," Hyndman told eWEEK.com, arguing that the AIM terms of service appears all-encompassing.
"To be fair to them, I think the errors are innocent, and more the result of sloppy drafting and a reflexively heavy-handed approach to drafting TOS," he said.
Hyndman also took issue with Weinstein's explanation that the heading "Content Your Post" and the use of the word "post" automatically exclude IM conversations. "They seem to say that using that verb means their privacy language only applies to contributions to public forums, i.e. where one 'posts.' But if that's true, why do the TOS use the verb 'post' when referring to all AIM products, if not all AIM products can or do 'post'?" he asked.
In addition, he pointed to the very last line in the terms of service, which reads: "The section headings used herein are for convenience only and shall not be given any legal import." That line, Hyndman asserted, renders Weinstein's explanation weak.
"Many lawyers' natural tendency, especially when drafting to the retail market, is to put as much 'oomph' in the TOS as possible from their client's perspective. They make it as broad as possible, essentially. Until quite recently, there really was no way for customers to respond to this," Hyndman added.
" | |
jayperkins
join:2001-05-19
Brookhaven, MS | reply to HardwareGeek
Re: privacy policy.
A privacy policy separate from the agreement is not binding in the legal sense. Just a statement of policy.
My only point is, the TOS does seem say what the story implies. | |
|
