Use iChat? You’ve waived any right to privacy.
In case you didn’t know that AOL was
horrible and haven’t been worried ever since you heard that iChat was going to work over AIM services, I have
a bad reality check for you in the form of some recent nasty changes to
AIM’s Terms of Service. Here’s the part that really sucks: ”Although
you or the owner of the Content retain ownership of all right, title and interest in Content that you post to any AIM
Product, AOL owns all right, title and interest in any compilation, collective work or other derivative work created by
AOL using or incorporating this Content. In addition, by posting Content on an AIM Product, you grant AOL, its parent,
affiliates, subsidiaries, assigns, agents and licensees the irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide right to reproduce,
display, perform, distribute, adapt and promote this Content in any medium. You waive any right to privacy. You
waive any right to inspect or approve uses of the Content or to be compensated for any such uses.” [emphasis
mine]
Don’t you just love it when somebody tries to break the way the internet community works?
I’m no lawyer, so I’m not sure of all the ins and outs of this, but here’s my best guess after reading over it several times: Unfortunately, iChat works via an AOL server (login.oscar.aol.com), which under the definition laid out earlier in the Terms of Service, qualifies as an AIM product. Translation: everything you type in iChat will belong to both yourself and AOL. Now, it’s not quite as bad for iChat users yet, as the new terms of service state at the top in bold: ”The following terms and conditions apply to all users who either registered for AIM services or downloaded AIM updates or software on or after February 5, 2004.” So, as long as you have used AIM since before February 5th, 2004, you’re in the clear. . . . at least assuming you haven’t upgraded since then and until there is an iChat update [Thanks for the note, garoo!]. Hopefully, AOL will either be pressured to change these Terms of Service by then, Apple will somehow cram a “unless you are a .mac registered Apple user” clause in there, or Apple will build some encryption into iChat, so that only you and the person you are chatting with will be able to read what you’ve written (as it should be).
[via MacSlash]
UPDATE: Another bit of good news, which I didn’t piece together when I originally wrote up this piece, but there is an out for iChat users once Tiger emerges: “Of course, iChat AV is also a versatile instant text messaging application, supporting AOL Instant Messenger and Jabber Instant Messenger clients.” Might as well sign up for a Jabber account now and send AOL and their anti-privacy stance packing. [via Random Access]
UPDATE [AGAIN]: Just as a side note: this entry got Fark linkage yesterday. Also, see the new entry on the topic…
...and a final post-updated TOS entry.
Get a WordPress.com Blog
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
garoo said 4:14PM on 6-16-2005
First, as you quoted, it's 2004, not 2005.
Second, like someone posted elsewhere, this is likely just unnecessarily broad wording for something's that just meant to apply to AOL messageboards (as that's a pretty standard clause for forum TOS, I think). One might want to ask them to clarify, but it really doesn't look like malicious intent to me.
Reply
C.K. Sample, III said 4:14PM on 6-16-2005
garoo, thanks for the note. Totally misread that as 2005.
Also, I agree, it is probably just unnecessarily broad wording, but I also happen to think that unnecessarily broad wording is unnecessarily dangerous and opens the door for possible abuse (especially, considering how many companies big and small use IM as a quick means of communication). There's lots of sensitive information floating about in IM (even though it isn't very secure to begin with), and there's no reason AOL should have carte blanche rights to that info. It needs to be revised ASAP.
Reply
Mister T said 4:14PM on 6-16-2005
What do you want to bet that Steve Jobs will not be happy to find that AOL would try to claim his iChat appearances as their copyright?
Reply
Ron Evry said 2:43PM on 8-26-2005
Now does that mean that if I post something on AIM that I have previously copyrighted in my own name, that AOL then owns part of my copyright?
BTW, this post is copyright 2005 by Ron Evry. Rights to reproduce are given to this weblog, and anyone else provided it is reproduced completely, including this notice, with the exception of America Online.
Reply
Lee Bennett said 4:14PM on 6-16-2005
C'mon people, read the agreement. No, it does not mean AOL owns part of your copyright. They just reserve the right to look at and/or keep copies of it.
It also says that people who get into AIM on or after February 5, 2004 are subject to this agreement. If you signed up for an AIM account (be it for iChat or anything else) prior to that, then a different agreement is going to apply.
Reply
Alfredo Octavio said 10:32AM on 11-04-2005
Any use of IM (or email) implies a lack of privacy. All the info can be watch no only by AOL, Microsoft and Yahoo, but by anyone in control of a router between you, your IM provider, and the person you are chatting with. AOL is just protecting itself from lawsuits in case some people didn't know this.
Reply
nezromatron said 4:14PM on 6-16-2005
Did anyone actually read the agreement?
That excerpt without the rest of the agreement is useles..
The section before sets to define 'Content'
"AOL, its vendors and AIM users who lawfully post content such as information, software, games, communications, photos, video, graphics, music, sound and other materials ("Content") on AIM Products own the property rights to that Content."
They are not talking about you sending messages to each other.
So calm down.
Reply
Ozzy said 4:14PM on 6-16-2005
I farted.
Reply
Ben Silverman said 4:14PM on 6-16-2005
Here's an idea: Before you post a story, get your facts straight. The interpretation of the TOS being offered up here, and on most blogs I've read, is incorrect. If you're going to post about about a legal agreement, you best understand the agreement (this is why, for example, reporters often contact lawyers to get a better understanding of legal documents that surface during the course of story research).
To see how another user agreement could be misinterpreted, here's an excerpt from Weblogs, Inc.'s Privacy Statement:
"Ownership of Information: Weblogs, Inc. is the sole owner of any information collected on our websites."
According to this statement, Weblogs, Inc. now owns my email address.
Of course, this is not true, but I think you get my point.
Do some research before running your mouth (or blogging).
Reply
C.K. Sample, III said 4:14PM on 6-16-2005
Hey, Ben, lighten up,
I just read your entry on this whole thing over at your site:
"Using some back of the envelope legal interpretation, Weblogs, Inc. now owns by email address because they 'collected' it on one of their websites. Jason, let me know where to send my password."
I think you meant, "my" instead of "by". Here's an idea: Before you post a story, get your spelling / word choice straight. ;-b
Also, you're entirely misinterpreting and exaggerating the type of ownership our TOS talks about in order to spin our post here as some sort of hyperbolic over-reaction; which is ironic considering that what you have written is an assumptive hyperbolized counter-argument with a nice sort of anti-blogger ad hominem attack thrown in just to make sure that it doesn't have any chance of flying as an effective argument.
We cannot take over your email address and own it in that way. However, by writing something here you have agreed to let us add your email address to our database and use it in any way we see fit that doesn't contradict our Privacy Policy.
My entry here is a sort of "hey, did you guys see this and how it could potentially be abused?" and it is part of a discussion that, whether you like it or not, has re-emerged online. This is what blogs do. They discuss things.
Your comment, on the other hand, is a heated over-reaction in response to the over-reaction you think everyone is making out of this entire discussion. There are better ways to communicate how you think this topic should be covered.
Reply
Jeff Mincey said 4:14PM on 6-16-2005
I haven't read the entire AOL "Terms of Service" nor am I a lawyer, but I find this wording over-broad and contradictory and, ultimately, illegal and unenforceable. The contradiction lies here in which AOL says, (1) "...you or the owner of the Content retain ownership of all right, title and interest in Content that you post to any AIM Product" and (2) "AOL owns all right, title and interest in any...work created by AOL using...this Content." These two things are contradictory and incompatible. I cannot own ALL right to something if AOL can use it without my prior consent in any way it sees fit with no compensation to me. "Ownership" and "Title" mean something.
Suppose with the consent of the copyright holder I post on an AOL server some song lyrics owned by a music publishing company. Can you imagine if AOL then promptly "used or incorporated" these lyrics without notice to or authorization by the original holder of it? If AOL engaged in this practice, it would be painting a huge target on itself and this verbiage would not hold up in court.
It's human nature to create these "we are untouchable" disclaimers; it's the idea of throwing up any and all protections and leaving it to the courts to decide what will stick and what will not. And the uninitiated layperson can easily be intimidated by this. As a layperson myself, however, I'm not impressed. Merely because a company SAYS it can do something does not make it so -- even if you click on an "ACCEPT" button. Contracts must meet certain criteria in order to be legal, and the acceptance of both parties is only one of these criteria.
Finally, think again about posting some copyrighted song lyrics via an AOL medium and imagine if the music publishing company or the RIAA would put up with this:
"...by posting Content on an AIM Product, you grant AOL...the irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide right to reproduce, display, perform, distribute, adapt and promote this Content in any medium. ....You waive any right to inspect or approve uses of the Content or to be compensated for any such uses.
Yeah, right.
Reply
DeadTom said 4:14PM on 6-16-2005
One "zinger" from AOL that you're missing here. Since about two years ago, there was no option available to TURN OFF autoupdating of AIM. So you can pretty much say goodbye to your rights if you're using AIM, period.
Reply
Ben Silverman said 4:14PM on 6-16-2005
C.K.
The purpose of including the Weblogs, Inc. Privacy Statement and a misinterpretation of it in my post was to illustrate how things like legal documents, privacy policies, terms of service agreements, etc. can be misinterpreted by people who don't have a fundamental understanding of how these documents are worded and how they work. There's no irony here, you just missed (or I failed to adequately make clear) the implied sarcasm.
My point was simple: If I pulled the terms of service agreements or privacy policies from 100 websites, I could probably find "problems" with 80% of them. I could then write about those "problems," and spread the word to other blogs. Of course, you're going to have to trust that I interpreted the original document correctly, and that the charges I'm making are accurate.
The fact that you and Jason (on my comments section) took the time to defend your company's Privacy Statement is evidence of the problems companies and individuals face when people disseminate false or factually inaccurate information. Now, imagine having to go and do this on over 100 blogs, or having to waste time dealing with the media because someone didn't get their fact straights and posted something without asking you first for clarification. It doesn't matter, the damage is done, you've wasted time and resources, and if you've lost one customer because someone presented a point of view instead of facts - but presented it as facts - you've lost in this equation.
I used this story to illustrate a broader problem, which I outlined at the end of my post, hence the "heated over-reaction" (as for lightening up, do I need to wait until something catastrophic happens before I make my views known?) If people don't understand how something like this can have wider implications - such as when CBS News broadcasts a false story about the President just weeks before the election and it gets picked-up by other media outlets - than they should think twice before publishing.
Just because you blog, doesn't mean you absolve yourself of responsibility. We ask the mainstream media, the government and corporations to show some - any - level of accountability, but bloggers apparently believe they're immune when asked to do the same.
Reply
evan said 4:14PM on 6-16-2005
you all need to read greg's post on this... look deeper into the privacy policy, and it's not that bad.
http://www.yardley.ca/blog/
Reply
C.K. Sample, III said 4:14PM on 6-16-2005
Ben, you say:
"If people don't understand how something like this can have wider implications - such as when CBS News broadcasts a false story about the President just weeks before the election and it gets picked-up by other media outlets - than they should think twice before publishing."
Again, you really should proofread. This should read "then" not "than." Also, I think you are making another ludicrous and hyperbolic comparison here. There is a stark difference between the news coverage regarding a Presidential Election on a major PUBLIC broadcasting station and a blog post referencing a company saying, and I quote, "You waive any right to privacy," (Let's not forget that the TOS actually says that) on a privately owned blog that is commenting on something that other places on the web have already been talking about.
You go on to say:
"Just because you blog, doesn't mean you absolve yourself of responsibility. We ask the mainstream media, the government and corporations to show some - any - level of accountability, but bloggers apparently believe they're immune when asked to do the same."
First, just because you comment on blog posts doesn't mean that you are the arbiter of the way blogging should work. I'm not sure how any of what this post contains flies in the face of any sort of accountability. I really think this TOS is badly worded and has the possibility to be misused, regardless of AOL saying, "But we don't really mean it that way." If they don't really mean it that way, then say it the way it is meant.
Reply
Jeremy Pepper said 4:14PM on 6-16-2005
Well, if this is any indication of the reach of information in this new age, eWeek's story on this - with the obligatory correction - was also picked up by Matt Drudge.
If there is any story here, I think it would be how few people actually read the TOS of ANY service they sign up for. The consumer is way too easy-going, and rarely realizes what they agree to. Or, truthfully, can fully understand what they are agreeing to.
As for the argument back and forth between Ben and CK - if the first thing to point out is bad grammar OR mispellings, then the rest of the argument must be built on a shaky foundation. Address the issues brought up by Ben FIRST, and then harass him to download IE Spell.
Reply
C.K. Sample, III said 4:14PM on 6-16-2005
Jeremy, my apologies. The digs at spelling and grammar were my attempts to mimic the overly instructive tone of Ben's posts here. Notice the way he insultingly begins his first comment: "Here's an idea: Before you post a story, get your facts straight." It's overly pedantic, rude, and unnecessary. So I childishly retorted in kind with notes about his inability to write well in English. Sorry to all.
Ben, I'm done back-and-forthing with you. Let's just agree to disagree.
Reply
Laurie said 4:14PM on 6-16-2005
Don't make me turn this blog around. I think Ben and CK both need a time out.
Reply
Eric said 4:14PM on 6-16-2005
Hmmm does Trillian count as an AOL product??
Reply