posted
According to the AIM terms-of-service. "You waive any right to privacy. You waive any right to inspect or approve uses of the [your] content or to be compensated for any such uses,". ...the terms give AOL ownership of "all right, title and interest in any compilation, collective work or other derivative work created by AOL using or incorporating this [your] content."
"...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 [your] content in any medium,"
posted
Do not most email services have similar terms?
The simple fact is, online media are not secure (with very rare exceptions). Not email, not blogs (even if you "lock" entries), not IM.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In this case its not so much about privacy, its that if you send someone the lyrics to a song you're writing, AOL claims it now has the right to use those lyrics howsoever they may desire.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, but who honestly thinks that anyone at AOL is wading through the trillions of daily IMs to really find something of value to claim?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This isn't about Time-Warner absolving themselves of liability for harm caused by misuse or by security breaches. It's about Time-Warner retaining all rights to anything whatsoever discussed on AIM, irrevocably and in perpetuity.
Consider if AIM had been available when Lucas was making StarWars. And Lucas used the service to send a synopsis to book agents, producers, studio executives, etc to see if anyone was interested, to see if anyone wanted to invest some money. Lucas makes the movie, and the movie makes that unexpected bazillion bucks. Then Time-Warner steps in and grabs all the cash as well as all merchandizing rights and all serial rights.
posted
Who said anything about culling by hand? There are a number of algorithms that'd be good for identifying likely material of value, plus if they just know the screen names of some song writers or whatever they could focus on those.
And anyways, this isn't about them necessarily doing it, this is about them saying they have a right to it. I am not comfortable with corporations claiming broad (indeed, nearly unlimited) legal rights to people's thoughts absent an employment contract or a reasonable, negotiable exchange.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Depends on what they mean by "content." The agreement is woefully ill-defined, but that clause as a whole could be read to mean stuff posted for public consumption. See the preceeding paragraph:
quote:AOL, its vendors and AIM users who lawfully post content such as information, software, games, communications, photos, video, graphics, music, sound and other materials ("Content") on AIM Products own the property rights to that Content.
However, later thay use "Content" in this way:
quote:AOL is not required to pre-screen Content available on the AIM Products, including the content of any messaging that occurs on or through the AIM service, although AOL reserves the right to do so in its sole discretion.
It seems to indicate they're including messages in Content.
Safest thing to do is not use AIM for anything you want to control until they clarify this.
posted
*shrug* So if the only thing I've ever used IM for that remotely qualifies is fanfic (and that not in eons), I don't much care, correct?
Although I agree that it's scuzzy. And there's a reason I use Gaim, not the AIM client -- although presumably that would be of no use in this?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It applies to anyone who registered for "AIM services" (so any client would apply) after a specific date. So GAIM, Trillian, etc. won't save you.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, that bit about people who "lawfully post" is amusingly ignorant -- there are many things which it is lawful to post where someone does not own the (intellectual) property rights to them.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't hafta wade through many messages, Lyrhawn. Just trawl the news for the what is making money, then search for whether the whos making that money have AIM accounts. If those whos have AIM accounts, then check whether those whos exchanged any messages over AIM. If those whos exchanged messages, just pop up those messages to find if those money-making ideas were discussed on AIM. If those ideas were discussed on AIM, TimeWarner steps in and claims all rights, even long after the fact.
quote:Wow, that bit about people who "lawfully post" is amusingly ignorant -- there are many things which it is lawful to post where someone does not own the (intellectual) property rights to them.
Fugu, what part are you referring to. The explicit language acknowledges this.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm. Good point. I don't know much about common carrier status, but this would seem to put a giant crimp in it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also seems only fair that if the intellectual property produced by the labor of everyone who use AIM belongs to TimeWarner, then everyone who uses AIM should be legally entitled to at least minimum wage for every instant that they are on AIM.
posted
That would be fair, but they're explicitly not asking for the legal right that would imply employment (i.e., "work for hire" copyright ownership).
They're acknowledging retention of ownership by the poster. Under work for hire, ownership would never rest with the poster.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not quite - you lose the right to prevent AOL from creating compilations, collective works, or other derivative works based on it and you grant a license, but you can still do anything you want with the content and they can't stop you.
There are six essential copyright rights:
a. Reproduce the work. b. Prepare derivative works based on the work. c. To distribute the work to public by transfer of ownership, rental, lease, or lending. d. In certain categories, perform the work publicly. e. In certain categories, display the work publicly. f. In sound recordings, to perform the copyright publicly by means of digital audio transmission.
Under this agreement, the poster retains all these rights, but AOL acquires several in a non-exclusive manner.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The following terms and conditions apply to all users who either registered for AIM services or downloaded AIM updates or software on or after February 5, 2004. AIM users who do not register for AIM services or download AIM updates or software on or after February 5, 2004 and are members of the Netscape Network will remain bound by Netscape's terms and conditions. All other AIM users are bound by the aol.com terms and conditions.
posted
So does that mean that if I continue to use Gaim (and have since before last February) I do not fall under these provisions?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Under most circumstances -- and provided I didn't personally break the law to obtain it -- I have the right do anything I want with any content found anywhere. But I can not make any money off of it unless it is mine, or I have paid for that privelege. Under many circumstances, I have no right whatsoever to share that content which I didn't originate with anyone else whomsoever for any reason whatsoever: not even if I do it for free.
Time-Warner is claiming the sole right to profit arising from all ideas discussed on AIM, since the individuals using AIM have signed all rights for public use over to Time-Warner.
So basicly, AOL users retain "ownership" of their own ideas only in the same sense as non-owners: private use only, and profitless use only under the FairUseDoctrine.
posted
Why, narr? I haven't "either registered for AIM services or downloaded AIM updates or software on or after February 5, 2004."
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So basicly, Time-Warner is claiming the sole right to profit arising from all ideas discussed on AIM
No, Time-Warner is claiming the right to profit arising from all ideas discussed on AIM. They're not legally preventing you from profiting from the ideas you post in any way.
quote: the individuals using AIM have signed all rights for public use over to Time-Warner.
No - they specifically have not signed "all" rights over, and retain very significant rights of their own. In fact, they could sell or give those ideas to a competing studio and Time Warner could not prevent it.
posted
What is to prevent Time-Warner from making the sale instead? Anybody who would buy/rent an intellectual property from an AIM user would not be obtaining exclusive rights. Time-Warner has also got the right to sell that intellectual property. And Time-Warner has the financial, legal, and competitive firepower to use as leverage against any potential buyer which the average AIM user can't even begin to hope to match.
posted
Sure, it sucks. I'm not supporting the new agreement. I'm saying that they are not claiming "sole" rights and nobody is signing over "all" rights to anything on their.
Also, Time Warner won't be able to stop other large companies from using those ideas.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The first thing you quoted in a post above:
quote:AOL, its vendors and AIM users who lawfully post content such as information, software, games, communications, photos, video, graphics, music, sound and other materials ("Content") on AIM Products own the property rights to that Content
posted
Ah. Later they say "You may only post Content that you created or which the owner of the Content has given you." So technically, that's true, since otherwise they wouldn't be "lawfully" posting (i.e., would be posting in violation of the agreement).
All in all, it's worded like crap. Bad lawyering all around.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess Time Warner really has been neglecting AOL -- they seem to have cut the lawyer budget to be able to afford just first year students at a bad law school.
I wonder if the TOS could be tossed out of court for being so unclearly written as to be impossible to fully decipher.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Judging by some of the contracts we covered in class the language would have to be much worse than this, but yes, it's technically possible.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:America Online tells the Houston Chronicle's TechBlog that, despite a recent Slashdot posting to the contrary, AOL Instant Messenger's terms of service do not imply that the company has the right to use private IM communications, and the section quoted in the Slashdot article applies only to posts in public forums -- a common provision in most online publishers' terms of service. AOL spokesman Andrew Weinstein says flatly: 'AOL does not read person-to-person communications.' He also says AIM communiques are never stored on AOL's hard drives.
This was my original thought on what they meant, and I think I believe them. However, the wording absolutely does not say this unequivocally.
posted
It still doesn't work. S'pose you've signed onto AIM, and have put on an AOL recommended security patch since 14Feb2004. And ya come up with a moneymaking idea -- and don't discuss it within AIM's public discussion areas -- and start making money off of it.
All Time-Warner has to do to take over your business is find a public conversation in which a similar idea was hinted at. And unless you have physical proof that you began developing your idea before that public conversation, you don't have a leg to stand on in court to press your claim of ownership.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aspectre, the profound ignorance and ability to read beyond what is written involved in your last post are both astounding.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:All Time-Warner has to do to take over your business is find a public conversation in which a similar idea was hinted at. And unless you have physical proof that you began developing your idea before that public conversation, you don't have a leg to stand on in court to press your claim of ownership.
That's so not true. In the worst possible case, Time-Warner can set up a competing business. They can't take over yours.
posted
Beyond the mechanics not being as described in that post, there's also the fact that "moneymaking ideas" aren't copyrightable. And if the idea is patentable, you would have had to disclose the entire patented idea in a public forum for AOL to even have a chance at using this clause. That's if any court would even contemplate applying this to patents as opposed to just copyrights, which I find extremely doubtful (although stranger things have happened).
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Really, and you have the financial depth to beat Time-Warner if they choose to play hardball?
For the average individual, Time-Warner would dictate the terms of partnership -- including what your percentage of profits would be for use of your idea -- with the threat that if the terms of Time-Warner's partnership proposal are refused, the financial margin for use of your idea would be so low that you would effectively lose any profit-making leverage conferred by exclusivity/ownership rights to market that idea.
posted
They can't even dictate a partnership, so how would they dictate the terms of one?
Besides, you're still ignoring the fact that you can't copyright an idea. And if you talk about an idea in public, you lose pretty much all protection for it, patents excluded.
posted
As for whether courts would decide in favor of the first to come up with an idea... In the 90s, Intel decided to settle a lawsuit brought on by an engineer for the use of the idea of an IntegratedCircuit because that engineer had drawn a sketch of that idea on a cloth napkin several years before (TexasInstruments patented the idea of the IC then transfered a right-to-use to) Intel. Even though that engineer did not patent the idea -- and did not expose the idea to the general public -- before (TexasInstruments patented and) Intel began manufacturing ICs, the courts decided that the case should be tried. With that ruling, Intel's lawyers thought the engineer's case had sufficient chance of being successful that Intel settled with the engineer out-of-court for a nice chunk of pocket change (even for Intel).
posted
Yes - the courts decided that there was sufficient cause to give the engineer a chance to prove he invented and reduced to practice the idea of an integrated circuit.
And again, you're talking patents. Patents are different from content.
posted
Yeah, I am making stuff up. The problem is that the courts and legislatures make stuff up.
I think it's Bezos of Amazon.Com who holds the patent on the idea of using the marketbasket* on the computer.
There is a company in Utah which bought certain rights to Unix, and is currently claiming that Linux violates those rights. So far it hasn't gotten very far with the major corporations in securing licensing agreements. However the company has used the threat of expensive lawsuits to blackmail some smaller companies into paying usage fees, and to force other small companies to cease using Linux.
BritishTeleCom is trying to force recognition of its "patent" on the idea of IP addresses.
Etc.
* Allowing a customer to fill a list(marketbasket) with products while shopping, then adding up the cost of the items to obtain the total sales price for the customer's purchase approval.
posted
You can list stupid patents all day and I'll be outraged with you. But it won't get you one step closer to supporting your contention that "All Time-Warner has to do to take over your business is find a public conversation in which a similar idea was hinted at."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"They can't even dictate a partnership, so how would they dictate the terms of one?"
As I said above: If you don't play our game by our rules, we'll sell your&our idea for such a low price that you won't make any money. eg For a corporation as large as Time-Warner, a million bucks (in lost potential profits) is just a small part of the advertising budget. (In this case, it would be advertising the willingness of Time-Warner to use cutthroat business tactics) For an average person, a million bucks is a major lifestyle change. Now given a choice between a getting a million bucks for sharing the intellectual property rights with Time-Warner OR ending up with nothing for not-sharing with Time-Warner, what do you think an average person would choose?
posted
Hey, it's the courts and legislatures who allow this kinda c***pola. All I'm saying is that people who don't wanna be buried under a mammoth pile of corporate dung should avoid AIM until the legal dust settles.
posted
Oh, so it's not all rights they'll be losing? Make up your mind.
It's still ridiculous. We're starting with the premise that this idea has been posted in public (from your post above). Would you please deign to explain how they get rights to an idea they wouldn't have that was posted in public? Either the idea is protected (by patent) or it's not. If it is protected by patent, this can't change that, because "content" isn't the same as a patented method. If it 's not protected by patent, then anyone who sees the idea posted in public can use it.
posted
I agree it's ridiculous. But I think ?Bezos? patent is ridiculous, too. Apparently, the courts disagree.
"Oh, so it's not all rights they'll be losing? Make up your mind."
For the sake of simplifying arguments, I'm merely accepting your premise. Until there is a major court brouhaha or several, legal questions concerning AOL's Terms of Service agreement won't be settled.
posted
No, AOL's Terms of Service agreement is ambiguous. It claims "rights to works based on content", but nothing on whether it is copyrights or patent rights or both that Time-Warner is claiming the AIM users are signing over.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
