Clarity in Terms of Service

[Daniel van Eijmeren]

DON MARKSTEIN, 20-04-2001:

> I've always found the Terms of Service of Web servers very clearly
> written. A little dry, perhaps, but they tend to be composed in such
> a way as to be understandable by any reader of normal intelligence. 

I also mentioned the software terms of use (either on paper or as message
on the screen when installing the software).

Also, when the terms are written in English, they are harder to understand
for someone who has learnt English as a second language at school. 

> They know very well that people looking for free Web sites aren't
> lawyers, and they have very good reasons to make sure everyone using
> their services knows what is and is not allowed.

Unfortunately, there are apparently many people who think that the person
who
reads the terms is "crazy". I remember times that I was reading a site's
terms
of service when people (independently) told me not to waste my time on
that.
So, apparently people are learning each other not to waste time on dry
facts
like "rules". This is wrong, of course, but for me it explains a lot of 
misbehaviour on internet (and in real life as well).

> Here's an example, from Article 5 of the Yahoo/Geocities Terms of
> Service:
>
>>> You agree to not use the Service to:
>>>           (... irrelevant copy deleted ...)
>>> (f) upload, post or otherwise transmit any Content that
>>> infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright
>>> or other proprietary rights of any party;

> What's hard to understand about that?

In general, I think that "patent", "trademark", "trade secret", "copyright"
and "other proprietary rights" are rather unknown words for people who are
not familiar with copyright laws.

(I even remember that "trademark" has been explained on this list, because
people didn't understand what it is. I think it had to do with the 
publication of the oldest Mickey Mouse strips by a company other than
Disney. Even though Disney lost its copyrights on those, they still had the
trademark. So, that other company had to stop publishing the strips. 
Please note that I'm writing this from memory.)

I hope you know that I *agree* with your email. I'm only trying to explain
that "copyright laws" can be rather abstract for people who do not 
understand it in the first place (especially when it's not written in their
own language).

To make matters worse, The Netherlands (like Italy) also is a country where
you'll have to pay royalties for blanco CDs. In Germany there even are
plans to do the same with *computers*. I have more than hundred 
(formerly) blanco CDs here, *all* contain my own material. 

What's the use of following the law, if that same law looks at me as a
potential thief anyway? Just because they *think* that I *might* possibly
use the blanco CD for copyright violation, I'm punished by paying an extra
amount. 

In other words, "let's be safe and punish *everyone* because there might
be *some* thieves among them."

And if I would decide to use the blanco CD for copying (let's say) a
Beatles-CD from a friend, then I still would get *another* *extra* 
punishment when being arrested for that.

I think that the extra amount on blanco CDs may also result in *more* CDs
being copied. Simply because many people feel that *they* are robbed 
instead of the record company.

Reading comments which say that internet is meant for free distribution
of any material that can be found on it, reminds me of Robin Hood.
Apparently, those people feel like they're stealing something (back) from
the rich who apparently don't care about them at all.

Sometimes people are even strongly advised NOT to ask for permission
for the usage of material, because the big company won't allow them
anyway. And if they do allow to use their material, the chance is big
that they'll want an amount which most people reasonably can't afford.

I'd say that copyright laws are missing their goal when being used
that way. But the copyright owners who will suffer the most are those
who just try to get an income by being an independent writer, musician
or artist. 

(The above paragraphs were examples of why I can imagine that some people
get confused or ignorant in learning what copyright is.)

> Today in Toons: Every day's an anniversary. What's today?
> http://www.toonopedia.com/today.htm

I've visited your site and I've had a very great time reading some of the
articles! (The other articles will have to wait for my next visit, which
will be soon.)

You have a good design and good contents! 
For me, this is what internet is (or should be) about.


Best wishes,

--- Daniel