The Haunting of GeoCities Sites
fa...@nowhere.com
GeoCities. This is a good statement, but would be better if you were
all linked together. That way the impact would be stronger. Why
doesn't someone out there create a Haunting Web Ring and do the
linking? I don't have time, but would gladly add my page to the ring.
TheWrit...@att.net
FleetAdmJ
start a webring, but cant use webring.org if they want a total boycott
fa...@nowhere.com
of action. And, you make a mistake. Just because I completely feel
this entire TOS change is wrong, does not mean that I am anti
GeoCities. It is important that we fight for our rights and hold full
creative and distribution rights to our content. Like I said when I
first posted, I have been a very happy, very complimented GeoCitizen
since 1996. I object to the change that came about as a result of the
merger and rather than roll over and die, I'm making my concerns
public and as loud as I can muster. This might be a good lesson for
you. A while ago some thought the tea tax was unjust and even then,
I'm sure some, like you thought it was just something to endure and
keep their mouths shut about because after all, it was the king.
How will Yahoo and GeoCities ever know that this change is an
important issue if we don't speak out about it? And, apparently,
unlike you, I believe that this "dialog" has opened up a wide and far
reaching debate on the internet about content ownership and use. It
is an important issue and will probably affect many folks for a long
time.
And, no, I do not believe that I am being dramatic.
So, now what do you say, little miss last worder?
FleetAdmJ
think the colonists were stupid to protest the taxes...lol....they should have
paid for their protection...lol
But thats beside the point. Yes this is a lesson, and I understand how the
originonal TOS COULD have been used in that way if one interprited it that way
and Yahoo was foolish enough to do that. Thats why Yahoo! has done what it has
to at least try to clear things up. Even if Yahoo never changed it, however, I
personally would have kept anything I had on Geocities, on Geocities. I have
enough faith that Yahoo wouldn't do that because they know that they would
loose in court. if they did it.
However, they Have done something about it. They've pretty much, with the
clarification, made it equal to what Lycos and XOOM have for their TOS, if not
more strict about what they can do.
Mike Savad
>
> yeah, therefore Yahoo! owns webring.org ironic how the boycotters want to
> start a webring, but cant use webring.org if they want a total boycott
would'nt it be more ironic, if they DID use the webring owned by
geocities, againt geocities?
---Mike Savad
--
Mike's Stained Glass - Tips Tricks Photos
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/1141
2-1-98 New Pages Added: 20 New Links in 3 Categories, The Brilliance
Award is up, Updated the sample critique, Updated glass indentification
too and A Look at Sky City
Mike Savad
so your the other one that does'nt care about his work...
what is your address? let's see if there's anything worth selling on
your page.
FleetAdmJ
and if yahoo stole my stuff, I'd sue them, win, and get a lot of money.
Mike Savad
>
> sure, its /SiliconValley/Orchard/2830/
>
> and if yahoo stole my stuff, I'd sue them, win, and get a lot of money.
would you really?
that's the oppisite of what your saying. how can you possibly sue? they
own your stuff. they can now release a tutorial on html, and say it's
from yahoo. you never even recieve credit for it. all the people
checking it from the yahoo resource site, banners popping up there,
yahoo get's the money.
so tell me... how is it that you can sue yahoo - and win. with the rules
that's stated in #8?
FleetAdmJ
been many times that contracts have been found void if they were used to break
the law.
Mike Savad
but you don't understand. they would'nt be breaking the law. you clicked
ok. you clicked ok on those terms. and especially if you clicked on it
on the old terms (with out the clarification).
they own your work. if they sell it. they can, you can't sue someone for
using there own work.
now your starting to see what everyone else here see's.
they now own your work, forever, no backing out. they can sell your
stuff as a tutorial, a book even. you can sue, but due to the TOS #8 you
have absoulutly no case at all. think about it.
FleetAdmJ
see anywhere on the TOS where it says "if you click ok, we now own your work"
TheWrit...@att.net
Actually, large corporations take out insurance that will
cover the legal costs for such law suits. (One of my siblings
is a vp in a company that offers this sort of coverage.)
On 04 Jul 1999 02:56:17 GMT, flee...@aol.com (FleetAdmJ)
wrote:
>sure, its /SiliconValley/Orchard/2830/
>
>and if yahoo stole my stuff, I'd sue them, win, and get a lot of money.
--
Elizabeth W. Bennefeld
TheWrit...@ATT.NET
FleetAdmJ
public image would be highly scared. Yahoo's problems really haven't been made
public really. most people in the offline world, and many people online dont
know about it.
Mike Savad
but they will. my guess is that you story would be so small and
insignifigant, no one would here you cry. if anything the lawyers could
counter sue you and count it as a harrasment to yahoo. since you already
agreed to #8 - they own it.
if you give someone a gift for their birthday, you gave it to them it's
not yours anymore. and you can't sue them because they refuse to give it
back. you gave it to them. it's theirs now. maybe it was an expensive
baseball card - and you did'nt know that at the time. that friend of
yours sells it, and makes a fortune. he does'nt have to give you a
stinkin dime for it. you gave it to him
you gave the information to yahoo. they can make a book, a tutorial, a
new feature on yahoo or geocities. they can sell it to html for dummies,
the list goes on and on.
you can't sue someone for something you no longer own. you waived that
right by signing the agreement.
Celebrial
>and if yahoo stole my stuff, I'd sue them, win, and get a lot of money.
They wouldn't have to "steal" your stuff. By agreeing to the TOS, you gave your
stuff to them to use as they see fit.
You wouldn't see a penny.
Go Tribe!
http://members.aol.com/celebrial/index.html
Celebrial
>beacuse its illegal if they do that...no matter what the TOS says...there
>have
>been many times that contracts have been found void if they were used to
>break
>the law.
You really don't have a legal clue, do you?
If you give Yahoo a license, which you did, that isn't breaking the law. In
consideration for giving you the space and server ability to put up a web page,
you gave Yahoo the perpetual, irrevocable right to use any of the content on
your page in a derivative work (i.e. book of multimedia), and you've given them
the right to sublicense that to someone putting together "HTML for Dummies",
for instance.
Your legal conclusions are wrong. You've already given them the rights to do
what they want.
Go Tribe!
http://members.aol.com/celebrial/index.html
Celebrial
>yeah, but would it hold up in a court of law...thats the problem...and i dont
>see anywhere on the TOS where it says "if you click ok, we now own your work"
Article 1 of the agreement states:
"Yahoo provides its service to you, subject to the following
Terms of Service ("TOS")"
By clicking on the "accept" button, you agree to be bound by the TOS.
If you're entering credit card information to make a purchase, once you've
given them the data, all you need to do is click on
"accept" and you've made a legally binding transaction.
Go Tribe!
http://members.aol.com/celebrial/index.html
Celebrial
>that still doesn't mean that i wouldn't win and get money....
But their TOS does mean precisely that.
>.and that their
>public image would be highly scared.
Already is. That's why people are leaving in droves, and why the media,
especially the internet media, is running a multitude of stories.
Go Tribe!
http://members.aol.com/celebrial/index.html
Celebrial
> if anything the lawyers could
>counter sue you and count it as a harrasment to yahoo. since you already
>agreed to #8 - they own it.
I don't know if California has a "sanctions" rule like most other states. But
if they do, the Admiral could be found to have filed a "frivolous" lawsuit,
which could result in the Admiral having to pay Yahoo's legal fees.
Sweet, huh?
Go Tribe!
http://members.aol.com/celebrial/index.html
Mike Savad
yeah isn't that a nice. i figure they could even sue him for harrasment.
fleet thinks thatyahoo is a trusting fuzzy, wuzzy, cute little bunny of
a company. he does'nt relize that in court they would be angry pitbulls
ready to rip his throat out.
i think he's starting to relize that his stuff can be valuable. Kari
did'nt have that. no one may have really cared about her info - she sure
did'nt. but fleet here is already to sue yahoo.
not sure what they promised him, or what they said to the leaders to
quickly put him on this side. i'd sure like to know.
i wonder if there are any law pages on the net ran my lawyers. i wonder
if any of them knows about this new rule. and what they have to say
about it.
Kari - BL18Girl - CL
protested, because they were unfairly taxed. Britain was trying to make
sure they remained in control, but the colonists didn't really want that
anymore because they were becoming more independent.
FleetAdmJ <flee...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990703190620...@ng-bg1.aol.com...
FleetAdmJ
colonists weren't going to stand for it.....but if was a ruler...i couldn't
understand why they wouldn't want to pay for their services either....
Kari - BL18Girl - CL
war crap.....not for the soldiers protection...
then after that Britain was just trying to punish the colonists
FleetAdmJ <flee...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990704153306...@ng-cp1.aol.com...
greg...@my-deja.com
2. Put a "Boytcott Geocities" link to a protest site at the top of all
your Geocities web pages so that naieve visitors are warned.
3. Make it legally painful to use your work. Here's the interesting
one. What if lots of people were to put a few of their best pieces of
work (writing or art) with whatever descriptions would entice a mean
ol' Y/G lawyer or editor to want to come and take the material.
Then, place the identical content on four or five h/p providers which
also have equally Draconian "exclusive" copyright policies. Then, when
one uses your work, inform the others.
_______________
http://www.geocities.com/soho/den/4411/smokesin.html
Greg M. Johnson
"A moderately bad man knows he is not that good; a
terribly bad man thinks he is sufficiently
good." --C.S. Lewis
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Celebrial
>3. Make it legally painful to use your work. Here's the interesting
>one. What if lots of people were to put a few of their best pieces of
>work (writing or art) with whatever descriptions would entice a mean
>ol' Y/G lawyer or editor to want to come and take the material.
>Then, place the identical content on four or five h/p providers which
>also have equally Draconian "exclusive" copyright policies. Then, when
>one uses your work, inform the others.
In my opinion, this would be a really foolish thing to do. If you have 4 or 5
website providers who have licenses similar to the geocities one, they all have
your license to use the material. They would also all have the right to have
you indemnify them (i.e. pay them for their litigation and legal fees).
The only real loser would be you.
Go Tribe!
http://members.aol.com/celebrial/index.html
Celebrial
>i wonder if there are any law pages on the net ran my lawyers. i wonder
>if any of them knows about this new rule. and what they have to say
>about it.
I am a lawyer. I'm licensed in Ohio, not in California, and therefore, I can't
tell you what California courts would do. I can only provide legal advice
regarding Ohio law, and since the contract would have to be interpretted in
California, the best I can ethically offer are my personal opinions.
But, here in Ohio, I sure wouldn't suggest that a client sign the TOS. The
language is overbroad and too far reaching for what Yahoo is claiming it needs.
Its somewhat like Yahoo saying it needs the rights to one acre of land, but
asking you to sign an agreement giving rights for 40 acres of land.
The clarification page, if in fact it were rewritten as part of the TOS, would
certainly be a start toward resolving this mess. However, the TOS and
clarification page still ask for a lot more than is claimed to be needed.
IMHO, Yahoo has made a whopper of an error, and clarification pages aren't
going to help. What they really need to do is rewrite the TOS, to do so fairly,
and to include all the supposed "clarifications" and explanations in one,
integrated TOS.
The breach of trust won't be repaired by little bandaids at this point. They
need to do some serious surgery, and to do it before the cancer spreads and
kills the beast.
Go Tribe!
http://members.aol.com/celebrial/index.html
Mike Savad
i thought you had to be a lawyer, you have that lawyer shpiel...