Re: Copyright and Syndication

[stephen.downes@ualberta.ca]

--- In syndication@egroups.com, "Evan Williams" <ev@p...> wrote:
> I'm not a copyright attorney, but it seems like Mr. Downes article 
is 
> making gross misinterpretations of the Moreover agreement. To me,
it 
> seems like a pretty standard software/web site terms of service.

OK, first, I am not using and do not have access to their *software*
- 
I am accessing some .js files posted in a public area on their
website 
(or some RSS files - the same issues could apply here). You could 
quibble and say that some document.write() statements in a .js file 
constitute software. But defending their propretary ownership of 
*that* is a sticky wicket.

And second, it is *not* a standard web site term of service. Indeed, 
it would be the first website *ever* which has required me to sign a 
fax a form before use. Other websites do place copyright notices on 
their site, and some - a small minority - place terms of service -
but 
even these cannot prevent me from, say, linking to them should I 
desire.

> Interpreting the part where Moreover says it "will retain all 
> intellectual property rights in and to the Moreover Tools" does not 
> mean that they're laying claim to the technologies employed in
those 
> tools, as is suggested: "Moreover's primary tools are the content-
> skimming spiders and the Javascript newsfeed - both common and 
widely 
> used technologies." It simply means their code itself is 
copyrighted. 
> Much as if I wrote a program in C++, I wouldn't lay claim to C++ 
> itself, I would just claim ownership of *my* program.

I did not interpret the narrow snippet you quote above; I interpreted 
the part which also states... "... Moreover Tools, the Moreover 
database of News Publishers and to the methodologies developed by 
Moreover for the categorization of news channels and the
customization 
of content within those channels and all related intellectual
property 
rights..."

This is a claim to ownership over *much* more than a mere C++ program 
(which, again, I have no access to and am not using in any case).

This interpretation is substantiated by an additional clause in the 
agreement, which states, "Company agrees that it shall not... (iii) 
compile or create any derivative product based upon the Moreover 
Intellectual Property, any other confidential information, or any 
methodology of Moreover..." which again is laying claim to much more 
than their C++ program. I don't think my interpretation is a stretch.

> Another part of the article seems to be making the argument that 
> everything on the Internet is in the public domain: "But - 
> importantly - even though they are placing these [new feeds] openly 
> on the internet, they are trying to attach terms and conditions on 
> their use." How is that different than every other web site out 
there 
> with a TOS?

Name me one other website which requires that you fax a signed 
contract before you open it in your browser. Or point me to a legal 
requirement that I get a signed contract before I can link to a site.

It's not clear to me in any case that these TOS are enforcable... I 
could put a TOS on my website requiring that you agree with
everything 
I say... but could I make it stick?

> I could go about the interpretation of their claim to their list of 
> links, but that's been pretty well covered here. I will add that 
> you'll notice every single page at yahoo.com ends with "Copyright
> © 
> 2000 Yahoo!" I'm sure they claim the same type of ownership of
their 
> database. Furthermore, Yahoo!'s TOS 
> (http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/) includes very similar clauses 
> about using their software -- even though, you could argue, the 
> technologies they use are widely available.

But again, the fact that they claim ownership does not grant 
ownership. I'm sure Yahoo would like to claim exclusive domain over 
lists of links - and would, if they could - yet I don't see them
going 
after fan sites which post substantially similar lists of sites, even 
when it is apparent that the fan obtained the list using a Yahoo 
search...

Again: if we have to sign a contract before accessing materials - 
and even linking to - which are publicly available on the net, the 
whole concept of interlinking grinds to a halt. Suppose my TOS - and
a 
million other sites' - required that search engine providers fax me a 
completed contract and agree to my terms before listing my site... 
there would be no search engines!

Moreover is allowed to (and capable of) blocking access to their
feeds 
to unauthorized sites. That's how questions of use should be 
addressed. Of course, this hurts Moreover's marketability... they 
along with everyone else benefit from free and open access. That's
why 
any attempt to limit it through contracts and legislation are of 
special concern.