Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: IDEA to improve Grouply: Yahoo's TOS!

Expand Messages
  • dk.home
    ... Enron s chiefs had lawyers, too, who fought hard to defend them. Not to compare Grouply s tiny place in the world to theirs, or Grouply s activities to
    Message 1 of 23 , Feb 17, 2008
      > Posted by: "Rich Reimer" rreimer91@... rreimer91
      > When we started this company, we had lawyers review the
      > Yahoo TOS to make sure we would be ok.

      Enron's chiefs had lawyers, too, who fought hard to defend them. Not to
      compare Grouply's tiny place in the world to theirs, or Grouply's activities
      to theirs, but the argument that lawyers said it is okay means almost
      nothing to me.

      Case in point:

      The Freecycle Network, Inc. (TFN), which also has a lawyer reviewing its
      practices (a respectable law firm, as I understand it), said repeatedly
      (including directly to me personally) that it had Yahoo's okay for their YG
      message aggregation scheme ("Finder"), until Yahoo publicly pronounced the
      technique involved to be contrary to their TOS. That came only after an
      outcry from YG members and moderators, and many complaints filed about it,
      and even then not before national press media gave attention to the matter.
      Prior to that, for a long time (more than a year as I recall), the scheme
      was in place and operating successfully without visible interference from
      Yahoo. Once Yahoo became convinced that it was a problem, and pronounced on
      the matter, TFN immediately took its revenue-generating freecyclefinder.org
      off the web, despite all the prior lawyerly claims made by TFN that it did
      not violate Yahoo's TOS, operated with Yahoo's knowledge, and allegedly even
      with their consent. Grouply's similar lawyer-reviewed claim of TOS
      compliance is unconvincing to me.

      In their public statement made recently on third party access issues, so far
      clearly Yahoo is leaving the matter to the discretion of moderators,
      advising them to do what they think is best for their groups regarding
      membership eligibility of YG users connected with or enabling access of
      third parties.

      As a group owner-moderator responsible for working to ensure TOS compliance
      in and by my group, I find that Grouply subscribers are complicit, whether
      willfully or not, in at least an end-run around certain provisions of the
      Yahoo TOS, if not directly violating it. I find that they participate in
      enabling iGroup, Inc. to abrogate aspects of the spirit and the letter of
      the Yahoo TOS. I find that Grouply encourages behaviors contrary to my
      understanding of the spirit of the Yahoo TOS. Access and usage via the
      Grouply method also infringes on previously established internal policies of
      my groups.

      Therefore, members are not allowed to use the Grouply method to access my
      groups. There are so few of them, their not being allowed to use their
      Grouply account to access my group has no effect on the mission
      effectiveness of my groups anyway, but the presence of just one of them
      using Grouply does involve significant risks, in my view. Grouply
      subscribers otherwise eligible for membership are welcome to participate in
      my groups, just not via the Grouply.com service, or any other like it. Not
      being allowed to use Grouply does not prevent or inhibit their full
      participation in the missions of my groups, in well established, reliably
      convenient ways provided by Yahoo!.

      Dennis Koenig
    • Shal Farley
      Barbara, ... Does the mere presence of someone s post on Grouply s servers amounts to either a Copyright, TOS or Guideline 11 violation? If it does not then
      Message 2 of 23 , Feb 17, 2008
        Barbara,

        >Grouply.com encourages Yahoo Groups' subscribers to
        >subscribe to a feature that stores Yahoo Groups' message
        >archives to an alternate web site *without* the original
        >writers' knowledge or consent.

        Does the mere presence of someone's post on Grouply's servers amounts to either a Copyright, TOS or Guideline 11 violation? If it does not then Grouply's lawyers are right and your complaint is in error.

        You may be unwilling to cede that point, but I think Yahoo's blog post backs Grouply's position. In discussing what might be a TOS violation they say:

        >... in which the site accesses the group content using the
        >member�s login information and/or the user�s email and then
        >makes this content available to other users ...

        Note that they didn't stop at "accesses the group content" -- it isn't the access alone which they consider a TOS violation.

        Also note "and/or the user's email" -- it isn't the method of access.

        If either or both of those two conditions were sufficient then every email service would be in violation as well.

        No, the key to the violation is "and then makes this content available to other users". So that's the evidence you'll need to back the claim of a TOS violation: that one or more message were actually made available to someone outside your group.

        Or, to sustain an accusation that Grouply's business practice inherently violates the TOS, you'd have to show that such violations are a normal part of their business.

        That is the difference, incidentally, between Grouply and the Freecycle network: Freecycle's system simply made the posts public -- no attempt to limit access in any way. So they got the hammer.

        -- Shal
      • jonathon
        ... You re ignoring the following: 1. Notice—data subjects should be given notice when their data is being collected; 2. Purpose—data should only be used
        Message 3 of 23 , Feb 18, 2008
          Shel wrote:

          > Does the mere presence of someone's post on Grouply's servers amounts to either a Copyright, TOS or Guideline 11 violation? If it does not then Grouply's

          You're ignoring the following:

          1. Notice—data subjects should be given notice when their data is
          being collected;
          2. Purpose—data should only be used for the purpose stated and not
          for any other purposes;
          3. Consent—data should not be disclosed without the data subject's consent;
          4. Security—collected data should be kept secure from any potential abuses;
          5. Disclosure—data subjects should be informed as to who is
          collecting their data;
          6. Access—data subjects should be allowed to access their data and
          make corrections to any inaccurate data; and
          7. Accountability—data subjects should have a method available to
          them to hold data collectors accountable for following the above
          principle

          xan

          jonathon
        • texas critter
          ... Where s this from? I can t find it in the Yahoo TOS or Groups Guidelines or Yahoo s Privacy Policy and I d like to see the full context of what you re
          Message 4 of 23 , Feb 19, 2008
            On 2/18/08, jonathon <jonathon.blake@...> wrote:
            > Shel wrote:
            >
            > > Does the mere presence of someone's post on Grouply's servers amounts to either a Copyright, TOS or Guideline 11 violation? If it does not then Grouply's
            >
            > You're ignoring the following:
            >
            > 1. Notice - data subjects should be given notice when their data is
            > being collected;
            > 2. Purpose - data should only be used for the purpose stated and not
            > for any other purposes;
            > 3. Consent - data should not be disclosed without the data subject's consent;
            > 4. Security - collected data should be kept secure from any potential abuses;
            > 5. Disclosure - data subjects should be informed as to who is
            > collecting their data;
            > 6. Access - data subjects should be allowed to access their data and
            > make corrections to any inaccurate data; and
            > 7. Accountability - data subjects should have a method available to
            > them to hold data collectors accountable for following the above
            > principle

            Where's this from? I can't find it in the Yahoo TOS or Groups
            Guidelines or Yahoo's Privacy Policy and I'd like to see the full
            context of what you're quoting please.

            --
            hth,
            texas critter

            Glenfinnan Webhosting
            http://www.glenfinnanhosting.com/
          • Paul Herring
            ... [...] ... It would appear to be Directive 95/46/EC. Full name: Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of
            Message 5 of 23 , Feb 19, 2008
              On Feb 19, 2008 2:59 PM, texas critter <texascritter@...> wrote:
              > On 2/18/08, jonathon <jonathon.blake@...> wrote:
              > > Shel wrote:
              > >
              > > > Does the mere presence of someone's post on Grouply's servers amounts to either a Copyright, TOS or Guideline 11 violation? If it does not then Grouply's
              > >
              > > You're ignoring the following:
              > >
              > > 1. Notice - data subjects should be given notice when their data is
              > > being collected;
              [...]
              > Where's this from? I can't find it in the Yahoo TOS or Groups
              > Guidelines or Yahoo's Privacy Policy and I'd like to see the full
              > context of what you're quoting please.

              It would appear to be Directive 95/46/EC. Full name: "Directive
              95/46/EC on the protection of individuals with regard to the
              processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data."

              Since it relates to personal data, and not copyrighted data, I'm not
              sure it applies in this situation. Unless, of course, the copyrighted
              data contains personal data...

              HTH ;)

              --
              PJH

              http://shabbleland.myminicity.com/ind
            • caribousmom@aol.com
              #5 and #6 are big ones which I think Grouply has ignored. First of all, I never even knew who Grouply was and what they did until a month ago...by that time,
              Message 6 of 23 , Feb 19, 2008
                #5 and #6 are big ones which I think Grouply has ignored. First of all, I never even knew who Grouply was and what they did until a month ago...by that time, there were Grouply members in most of my groups (for how long? Who knows?) and Grouply was therefore archiving (copying and posting to their site) all my posts to these groups. There was no disclosure whatsoever. And secondly, unless I join Grouply (something I am not interested in doing), I have no access. Even if I did, I don't think Grouply allows deletion or correction of past posts by the original poster, right?

                If these are the standards of copyright - it is clear that the way Grouply is currently set up that they are violating copyright.

                As they are currently structured, I don't see how they can get around this. The primary feature of downloading archives to their site is the major issue - is this something Grouply is willing to 'tank' ??

                Wendy


                -----Original Message-----
                From: jonathon <jonathon.blake@...>
                To: GrouplyImprovements@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 9:19 am
                Subject: Re: [GI] Re: IDEA to improve Grouply: Yahoo's TOS!


                Shel wrote:

                > Does the mere presence of someone's post on Grouply's servers amounts to either a Copyright, TOS or Guideline 11 violation? If it does not then Grouply's

                You're ignoring the following:

                1. Notice—data subjects should be given notice when their data is
                being collected;
                2. Purpose—data should only be used for the purpose stated and not
                for any other purposes;
                3. Consent—data should not be disclosed without the data subject's consent;
                4. Security—collected data should be kept secure from any potential abuses;
                5. Disclosure—data subjects should be informed as to who is
                collecting their data;
                6. Access—data subjects should be allowed to access their data and
                make corrections to any inaccurate data; and
                7. Accountability—data subjects should have a method available to
                them to hold data collectors accountable for following the above
                principle

                xan
                jonathon
              • texas critter
                ... For those who might not know what Directive 95/46/EC is (like me), it s a European Union directive, here s two links to info about it:
                Message 7 of 23 , Feb 19, 2008
                  On 2/19/08, Paul Herring <pauljherring@...> wrote:
                  > On Feb 19, 2008 2:59 PM, texas critter <texascritter@...> wrote:
                  > > Where's this from? I can't find it in the Yahoo TOS or Groups
                  > > Guidelines or Yahoo's Privacy Policy and I'd like to see the full
                  > > context of what you're quoting please.
                  >
                  > It would appear to be Directive 95/46/EC. Full name: "Directive
                  > 95/46/EC on the protection of individuals with regard to the
                  > processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data."

                  For those who might not know what "Directive 95/46/EC" is (like me),
                  it's a European Union directive, here's two links to info about it:

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_95/46/EC_on_the_protection_of_personal_data
                  http://www.cdt.org/privacy/eudirective/EU_Directive_.html

                  The Wikipedia page notes that the directive is not binding on citizens
                  of the EU - each member state has to pass their own laws to enforce
                  the directive so there may be some variance from state to state within
                  the EU.

                  And there's a US version that was negotiated between the EU and the US
                  called the Safe Harbor arrangement:

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_Harbor_Principles
                  http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/

                  > Since it relates to personal data, and not copyrighted data, I'm not
                  > sure it applies in this situation. Unless, of course, the copyrighted
                  > data contains personal data...

                  IANAL but I suspect it doesn't apply to message content - that it's
                  directed towards the data each person gives to Yahoo, Grouply, AOL,
                  Google, your ISP, whoever, when signing up or at any point after that
                  while using the service and (again, IANAL) may not apply to Grouply in
                  regards to people have not signed up at Grouply.

                  If personal information about person A were posted by person B to a
                  Yahoogroup, I suspect that different parts of the Yahoo TOS would
                  cover removing the message with the personal info (iirc, there's that
                  section about not harassing, stalking, etc.) and once the message was
                  deleted from the YG archives, then Grouply would eventually sync and
                  delete it from their archives too (although Grouply *needs* to do this
                  syncing *much, much* faster), but you'd still have all the members on
                  individual emails or digest who would/could retain their own personal
                  copies (including their personal copies at Grouply or Google or
                  Hotmail or wherever) and there is no recourse for person A to retrieve
                  those personal copies in the US or the EU (or any other country).

                  And Shal's original question was whether there was any Copyright,
                  Yahoo TOS or Guideline violation in messages being shown to group
                  members at Grouply so this has all wandered very far off from that. :)

                  --
                  hth,
                  texas critter

                  Glenfinnan Webhosting
                  http://www.glenfinnanhosting.com/
                • John T
                  ... copyrighted ... Thank you Paul... I don t see how it applies, either :) And for those who want see what was taken out of context , please read this Wiki
                  Message 8 of 23 , Feb 19, 2008
                    --- In GrouplyImprovements@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Herring"
                    <pauljherring@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > It would appear to be Directive 95/46/EC. Full name: "Directive
                    > 95/46/EC on the protection of individuals with regard to the
                    > processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data."
                    >
                    > Since it relates to personal data, and not copyrighted data, I'm not
                    > sure it applies in this situation. Unless, of course, the
                    copyrighted
                    > data contains personal data...

                    Thank you Paul... I don't see how it applies, either :)

                    And for those who want see what was taken "out of context", please
                    read this Wiki article for details of this European Union
                    directive ... Full Title: Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of
                    individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the
                    free movement of such data. This article provides a general overview
                    of the directive only.

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_95/46/EC_on_the_protection_of_p
                    ersonal_data


                    John T
                  • texas critter
                    ... What Jonathan posted is not copyright related at all. It s a European Union directive regarding the transmission of personal data (like physical address,
                    Message 9 of 23 , Feb 19, 2008
                      On 2/19/08, caribousmom@... <caribousmom@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > If these are the standards of copyright - it is clear that the way Grouply is currently set up that they are violating copyright.

                      What Jonathan posted is not copyright related at all. It's a European
                      Union directive regarding the transmission of personal data (like
                      physical address, credit card numbers, banking info, criminal records,
                      etc.)

                      --
                      hth,
                      texas critter

                      Glenfinnan Webhosting
                      http://www.glenfinnanhosting.com/
                    • caribousmom@aol.com
                      Well okay - I posted my thoughts prior to Jonathan s post...thanks for the clarification. Wendy ... From: texas critter To:
                      Message 10 of 23 , Feb 19, 2008
                        Well okay - I posted my thoughts prior to Jonathan's post...thanks for the clarification.

                        Wendy



                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: texas critter <texascritter@...>
                        To: GrouplyImprovements@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 8:05 am
                        Subject: Re: [GI] Re: IDEA to improve Grouply: Yahoo's TOS!


                        On 2/19/08, caribousmom@... <caribousmom@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > If these are the standards of copyright - it is clear that the way Grouply is currently set up that they are violating copyright.

                        What Jonathan posted is not copyright related at all. It's a European
                        Union directive regarding the transmission of personal data (like
                        physical address, credit card numbers, banking info, criminal records,
                        etc.)
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.