Ian Usher wrote:
> I think it's less about submitting links to the Yahoo! directories (they
> could never claim the links as their own... "Hello, Mr Gates? You know that
> link to www.microsoft.com someone placed in Yahoo!? Well,...") but it's more
> relevant to the "4.6 million" referred to below (and anyone else who gets
> bought up in the future)... I would think that "all the benefits of Yahoo!"
> (below) includes being subject to Section 8 in the TOS? I'm not sure that's
> a "benefit".
>
Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see that the individuals'
rights are affected a great deal. What you don't get is control. That
is why the URL issue is relevant -
If I submit a link to Yahoo I don't have any control over how that
link will appear. i.e. which directories, which classifications etc.
I can't be restrictive and have to be almost subversive to promote it
in a search engine ranking. (See www.searchenginewatch.com etc)
IMHO what Yahoo are stating is that you have a similar lack of
control over your geocities web pages. If Yahoo decide to serve them
up with a banner add across the top of every page then so be it. If
they choose to include them in a gallery of favourites or quote them
as examples of bad design then so be it. As long as they are on the
Yahoo site they can make them available in any form they like. If you
don't want that then I guess they would suggest you find somewhere
else.
However there seem to be at least two questions
a) What happens when you remove pages from their site - Do they still
have the right to use that information?
b) Can the rules be reasonably applied to existing geocities users if
they (the rules) were not in existence at the time the content was
submitted.
The conditions do seem to cover Yahoo's options rather more than the
submiters but Hey, this is the small print, it's not supposed to be
fair.
Paul Chimicz
IT Services
University of Warwick
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|