> >> ...You agree that upon posting information on the Service,
> >> you grant eGroups... a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty free,
> >> perpetual, non-revocable license under your copyrights or other
> >> intellectual property rights
> Um, I think there is confusion here. Claiming a copyright license and
> defending against libel are two different things.
I used toi think so to, back in the days when container/ medium
and contents/ IP were simple and distinct notions. But if Demon is
liable because Joe Doe libeled Prof Whozis, then I cant say Yahoo
isnt entitled to feel a little jumpy.
> Whether the ISP or
> whoever is licensed to use the content has nothing whatever to do
> with that ISPs liability, if any, from posting the content, nor with its
> freedom to yank it.
>
I agree it's probably that word 'use' which put everyones backs up.
But "distribute, display, reproduce, and create derivative works from
such material" is easily construed as "email, post to a webpage,
store on a HD, and create advertisements" -- and you know who
would be liable if *those works as distributed, displayed,
reproduced were found libelous. So while Yahoo was perhaps too-
amply covering its butt by the license, I dont think its all that great
a stretch to imagine that it could see itself being liable even before
distributing, etc.; that is, even tho the original 'information' is
conceived as being covered by copyright which remains with the
creator, its 'hosting' such material is implicitly covered by the terms
of the license.
If one takes the license as a *definition of web hosting, does it look
so onerous? Is there a better one somewhere? Could it, btw, help
clarify the matter of DN ownership?
kerry, ianal
