Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

I'm no lawyer, but

Sep 19, 2008 4:14AM PDT

I'm no lawyer, but I think Cnet needs to hire better legal counsel to write some of their legal agreements.

The thing that catches my attention most often, is this bit of pure stupidity that's at the bottom of every posting screen.

All submitted content becomes the sole property of CNET Networks, and may be used, edited or rejected at CNET Networks' sole discretion. You acknowledge that you, not CNET Networks, are responsible for the contents of your submission.

Now the rather draconian nature aside, about Cnet claiming ownership of everything, it just seems like you're trying to have it both ways. You claim ownership of the content, but deny any and all responsibility for that content. How exactly does that work? Part of owning something is taking responsibility for owning whatever it is you own. If I own a car, I am responsible for whatever I may do with that car as its owner. If I go and smash into some other car, I don't go back to the car dealer and expect them to pay for the damages. Yet this is essentially what Cnet is trying to claim here. They own whatever we submit on these forums, but should someone post something that is defamatory or illegal in some other way, then they expect the other person who posted to be responsible.

Now that would make perfect sense if all Cnet was claiming was a royalty free license to use any submitted content, but they're claiming full ownership... Well, ownership of anything but legal liability, and I highly doubt that one would ever stand up in court, even in a nation that has made an art out of passing the buck.

I'm betting if I went over the Terms of Use with a more careful eye, there would be several other similar examples.

So my personal advice, as someone who hasn't passed the bar, or even attended law school -- though I did come really close to getting a job in a law library once -- would be to change the wording of that particular bit to claim that by posting on these forums, you grant Cnet a non-exclusive, royalty free, license to use the content in any way Cnet may see fit. Then you can leave out the bit about how Cnet denounces all responsibility for the content that kind of screws the pooch as it stands now.

It also sounds more friendly that way. You're not trying to claim ownership of someone's ideas, just the right to use any ideas people send in to you without having to pay any royalties. Look at how Google and AT&T have been smacked around in the press for similar wordings in their user agreements.

Cnet wasn't exactly doing so well before CBS came along and took over, and who knows how long it'll be before CBS' investors realize just how little Cnet fits in with the CBS business model. Then they will start worrying that it'll turn into another AOL Time Warner fiasco, with this giant money sucking albatross around its neck that is impossible to offload onto anyone else. At which point, all Cnet will have is its reputation, which admittedly isn't what it used to be especially after the whole GameSpot debacle not too long ago. The market segment Cnet goes after is the clueless user type, which is the same segment about half a dozen print magazines go after, and probably at least a dozen more websites. It's a competitive market, and appearing to be less of an *** compared to the competition could help restore Cnet's image a little.

Anyway, just something that's been bouncing around in my head for a good while now, figured I'd put it out there. I know it will probably be ignored, and that if I come back in an hour this post will most likely have mysteriously disappeared, but that will really just confirm most of the bad things said about Cnet, and prove that I've hit upon a bit of a nerve. Especially since this IS the forum feedback forum, so this is about as close as Cnet has for an appropriate place to post such thoughts.

So there it is... While I have to admit I have no real expectations of this post living to see the next hour come and go, I like to hope for the best. Maybe this will prompt some discussion, and even result in some positive changes for once.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Re: forum policies
Sep 19, 2008 7:45PM PDT

Jimmy,

I see no reason at all why this post should be deleted. It's not offensive in any sense.

I've asked Lee Koo to answer it. But that surely will be after the weekend. And - of course - he might choose to skip the opportunity.

Kees

- Collapse -
Maybe missing something here but
Sep 21, 2008 10:25AM PDT

here's what I read from

here


"You are solely responsible for all materials, whether publicly posted or privately transmitted, that you upload, post, e-mail, transmit, or otherwise make available on our sites ("Your Content"). You certify that you own all intellectual property rights in Your Content. You hereby grant us, our affiliates, and our partners a worldwide, irrevocable, royalty-free, nonexclusive, sublicensable license to use, reproduce, create derivative works of, distribute, publicly perform, publicly display, transfer, transmit, distribute, and publish Your Content and subsequent versions of Your Content for the purposes of (i) displaying Your Content on our sites, (ii) distributing Your Content, either electronically or via other media, to users seeking to download or otherwise acquire it, and/or (iii) storing Your Content in a remote database accessible by end users, for a charge. This license shall apply to the distribution and the storage of Your Content in any form, medium, or technology now known or later developed."

so it looks like your wish has been granted.

- Collapse -
Thanks Steve.
Sep 22, 2008 10:17AM PDT

Maybe this paragraph is what we should include at the bottom--rather than simplifying the text to 2 sentences. Anyways if that's what it takes to make it clear to our users what we mean, so be it.

Thanks!
-Lee

- Collapse -
Let me talk to our legal team...
Sep 22, 2008 9:55AM PDT

to see if those 2 lines can be reworded for clarity and if they do come up with some better language, we'll change it.

Thanks for the feedback.

-Lee

- Collapse -
Updated now. Is that better?
Sep 30, 2008 2:47AM PDT

Short and sweet! You now do the reading... Grin