(Untitled)

[stanleylieber]

"…by submitting the User Submissions to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube's (and its successor's) business… in any

Comments

[silenceinspades]

at least it seems better than the myspace tos that states something about them owning everything you ever do forever.

this is why i have my dog upload all my media to the web. if it ever comes down to it i'm claiming she had no legal right to do so. besides the fact she's totally underage.

[stanleylieber]

I think MySpace has actually changed their ToS again to make it explicitly say they aren't making any claims on their users' material.

I realize these companies probably aren't up to anything nefarious, but that's no excuse for this kind of stuff. It creates a web of legal nonsense that would be impossible to straighten out in court in the event of a real problem.

[silenceinspades]

yeah, i think it's more a way of trying to cover their asses in case someone decides to attempt to make some money by suing them. so covering their money's ass actually. any of these websites would be dumb to attempt to sell anything people upload on them anyway, as they would normally seem to have very little proof of who owned these things to begin with.

that said, if youtube even tries to distribute the 7 part/ 3 hour video i made of me dancing to against all odds my lawyers are ready to spring into action.

[stanleylieber]

If only I had lawyers on retainer that could litter my wake with paperwork.

[32elvismovies]

empty threats.

I'm sure the plethora of hypo-pituitary cases posting videos of themselves singing along to "Come On Eileen" is pretty marketable, though.

[stanleylieber]

I just don't like the idea of letting stuff like this pass. Companies should be getting better advice from their lawyers, and users shouldn't accept contracts like these.

[zzberlin]

stanleylieber

you are a very um idealistic person

[32elvismovies]

If anything, it's getting more press now than in the past. These clauses have been in Hotmail and MSN's TOS for nearly a decade. I'm not sure whether or not they've changed any of it, either.

[lau]

meh! when will it END?!

ps. i've been too busy to say - but THANK YOU for the package.. i love it. and so does my roomate who keeps stealing the wee book after ive left in on the coffee table after a reading. ;)

[stanleylieber]

You're quite welcome. :)

[kementari2]

"...The foregoing license granted by you terminates once you remove or delete a User Submission from the YouTube Website."

So remove or delete a User Submission (singular) and the license you granted regarding User Submissions (plural) is terminated, eh?

Seems like a perfect loophole, if I'm reading it right. All you have to do is remove one of your submissions, and everything uploaded theretofore is no longer covered by the license granting them the right to exploit it.

[stanleylieber]

The loophole in that is that, as with gmail, there's no way to actually erase every copy of what you uploaded.

I'm not insane enough to think that every company out there that has these sorts of clauses in their respective ToS is actively trying to steal people's content, but the fact that the language in these things is so, shall we say, flexible is troubling, because the originators of contracts aren't always the ones administering them. These companies get bought and sold all the time, and the intellectual property they list in inventory becomes part of their brand, and then before you know it, if the stars align correctly, you can get yourself into a sticky situation with regards to litigating exactly who owns what, even if you are eventually vindicated

[stanleylieber]

'Seems like a perfect loophole, if I'm reading it right.'

One other point:

No one has the time or money to survive a lawsuit against a huge company. YouTube may be small right now, but I can guarantee that, however small they are, they still have access to greater legal resources than I do. In practical terms, I wouldn't have any real way to defend myself even if a legal case against them was cut and dried. Their interpretation of the contract will necessarily win out because they can outlast me in court costs and legal fees.

[gvngeist]

I saw this too and am not pleased with it despite the fact that I'm pretty sure it's just ass-covering. I was somewhat suprised that MySpace changed their TOS agreement, but I'm still not going back.

[stanleylieber]

This stuff all seems innocent until DRM is built into your hard drive and you have to have a driver's license to use the Internet.

[crisper]

>and you have to have a driver's license to use the Internet.

It is my genuine belief that a hundred years from now, access to computers will be just like access to handguns-- there will be one set of nutcases stockpiling them in their mountain top homes, another set trying to prevent *anyone* from having one, and a glorious wild-west mythology about the Good Old Days when just anyone could swagger into town with data processing capability on their hip.

[stanleylieber]

You don't think ubiquitous nanotech will render the distinction between computer and non- computer moot?