Comments on: Do comments qualify as “content”?

By: Pamela Egan

Pamela Egan — Fri, 30 May 2008 12:14:18 +0000

If comments are not content, what are they? It seems to me that this is more a matter of semantics than anything else.

By: assaf

assaf — Fri, 30 May 2008 07:44:25 +0000

a) yes, they are content,
b) and therefore, yes they are copyrightable, but
c) by leaving a comment you're giving someone else permission to use it, but
d) you still don't have a legal right to force someone to publish your content.

The thing to remember about copyright law is that it doesn't care to elevate the Web to some mystical level of Wowness, but gives it the same mundane treatment as any other medium for publishing.

So if you're curious, do a quick Google search. I'm sure you'll find some cases of oddballs suing newspapers for not publishing their letter to the editor, or trying to get compensation for their works.

By: Mark Trapp

Mark Trapp — Fri, 30 May 2008 04:46:01 +0000

I see; since it was posted at Friendfeed, it technically “originated” at Friendfeed. That could be a possible way to interpret it in court, should someone want to hold Friendfeed liable. I wonder if there is precedent for that approach.

By: Shey

Shey — Fri, 30 May 2008 04:41:57 +0000

I would assume that the following excerpt from the TOS is in regard to content generated by the FriendFeed organization themselves, but could it also apply to users?

FriendFeed-originated content included on the Site, such as text, graphics, logos, software and the compilation of all content on the Site, is the property of FriendFeed and its licensors and protected by United States and international copyright laws. Except as set out in these Terms, no reproduction of any FriendFeed-originated content is permitted without written permission from FriendFeed.

By: Mark Trapp

Mark Trapp — Fri, 30 May 2008 04:35:27 +0000

Friendfeed, in its ToS, makes a blanket “we don't own anything here, we merely aggregate and republish and link to content” statement:

You are solely responsible for your use of the Site and Services. Because FriendFeed merely serves as a repository of information, user-posted content does not represent the advice, views, opinions or beliefs of FriendFeed, and FriendFeed makes no claim of accuracy of any user-posted material. FriendFeed archives links to third-party websites. The linked websites' content, business practices and privacy policies are not under our control, and we are not responsible for the content of any linked website or any link contained in a linked website. The inclusion of a link on the Site or Services does not imply any endorsement by or any affiliation with FriendFeed. In accessing the Site and Services or following links to third-party websites you may be exposed to content that you consider offensive or inappropriate. You agree that your only recourse is to stop using the Site and Services.

The main reason for doing this is for legal immunity from section 230 of the Communications Decency Act: in order for an internet provider to be immune from legal problems with the content of its users, it must waive its right to ownership. I think a lot of bloggers, when they force their ownership on everything on their site, are being myopic. What happens if one of their users posts child pornography? Or incites a riot? Or any number of other worst-case scenarios?