Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Yahoo's license agreement

[Graham wrote:]
>A more worrying aspect of the change is that, according to the
>agreement I saw yesterday, Yahoo claim to own rights to all the
>content that we post. It looks like the same as the Geocities
>license.
>
>Here's a quote:
>
>"""
>(c) With respect to all other Content you elect to post to other
>publicly accessible areas of the Service, you grant Yahoo! the
>royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive and fully
>sub-licensable right and licence to use, reproduce, modify, adapt,
>publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform
>and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to
>incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now
>known or later developed.
>"""
>
>It may be the list itself is the "other Content" they can't do this
>with. It's not actually clear. But you should at least be careful of
>placing original music in the "Files" area.

Graham, thanks for bring this to our attention! When I post a file
to the tuning group's file area, it's invariably a sequence someone
else originally did; if Yahoo reserves the right to spread it all
around, that's not something I can give the ok to! I'm going to get
all the files I've posted OUT of there, to some other place.

Pbbbbt to Yahoo!

JdL

🔗Robert Walker <robert_walker@rcwalker.freeserve.co.uk>

The "other" category is spelt out more clearly here:

http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

It excludes photos, graphics, audio or video specifically, and
also, all material submitted to Yahoo groups or clubs - in other
words, doesn't apply to us at all as far as I can see.

The part that applies to us is:
"
With respect to Content you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible
areas of Yahoo! Clubs and Yahoo! Groups, the license to use, distribute, reproduce,
modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Service solely
for the purposes of providing and promoting the specific Yahoo! Club or Yahoo! Group to
which such Content was submitted or made available.This license exists only for as long as
you elect to continue to include such Content on the Service and will terminate at the
time you remove or Yahoo removes such Content from the Service.
"

In other words, basically, giving them permission to show the material on the web site,
for others to read, or play, etc.

They have to have that clearly.

If one is at all unhappy with the way ones file is presented on the site, one can remove
it, and the license to show it on the site then automatically terminates.

I don't think there is anything to be concerned about!

Robert

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

--- In tuning@y..., "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_18235.html#18235

When I post a file
> to the tuning group's file area, it's invariably a sequence someone
> else originally did; if Yahoo reserves the right to spread it all
> around, that's not something I can give the ok to! I'm going to get
> all the files I've posted OUT of there, to some other place.
>

I rather wonder, though, if they would actually bother to do this...
My guess is that they wouldn't... [I suppose I could be wrong,
though...]

_______ ____ ___ _
Joseph Pehrson

🔗djwolf1@matavnet.hu

>I rather wonder, though, if they would actually bother to do this...
>My guess is that they wouldn't... [I suppose I could be wrong,
>though...]
>
>_______ ____ ___ _
>Joseph Pehrson

As Pynchon's proverb for paranoids goes: "if they can get you asking
the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers."

This agreement is bad, in principle and in practice. I propose that
we look for a new listserv, preferably non-profit, and preferably
where we won't be classed as songwriters.

To this end, I've added a poll question to the tuning list pages at

/tuning/polls

Please vote on this.

Daniel Wolf
Budapest

🔗Todd Wilcox <twilcox@patriot.net>

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

--- In tuning@y..., djwolf1@m... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_18235.html#18251

> >I rather wonder, though, if they would actually bother to do
this... My guess is that they wouldn't... [I suppose I could be
wrong,
> >though...]
> >
> >_______ ____ ___ _
> >Joseph Pehrson
>
> As Pynchon's proverb for paranoids goes: "if they can get you
asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers."
>
> This agreement is bad, in principle and in practice. I propose that
> we look for a new listserv, preferably non-profit, and preferably
> where we won't be classed as songwriters.
>
> To this end, I've added a poll question to the tuning list pages at
>
> /tuning/polls
>
> Please vote on this.
>
> Daniel Wolf
> Budapest

I think Robert Walker pretty much outlined the situation here at
Yahoo. If one reads the agreement clearly, the so-called "usage
problem" has ONLY to do with the distribution of the materials for
the duration that they are on the site through the Internet.
Otherwise, Yahoo wouldn't be able to make them available!

Copyright is still retained by the original poster, as I understand
it. Frankly, they are mostly just concerned about "inappropriate"
content on the site.

There is plenty of "inappropriate" content on the Tuning List, and I
have to admit that I post some of it... but it isn't, strictly
speaking, what they have in mind...

Moving the list would be incredibly disruptive... when one considers
all the links to it throughout the Internet. I believe it would have
to be an extraordinary problem... like frequent transmission failure
or the like... Besides, this newsgroups has MANY advantages,
web-based viewing just for starters, AND the file repository.
Compare this to the CSOUND list, nice but in a somewhat primitive
state, as an example.

I voted a "no" that I hope will resonate. (Or, as George Bush said,
"resignate...")

_______ ____ ____ _
Joseph Pehrson

🔗PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:

> Moving the list would be incredibly disruptive... when one considers
> all the links to it throughout the Internet. I believe it would have
> to be an extraordinary problem... like frequent transmission failure
> or the like... Besides, this newsgroups has MANY advantages,
> web-based viewing just for starters, AND the file repository.
> Compare this to the CSOUND list, nice but in a somewhat primitive
> state, as an example.
>
> I voted a "no" that I hope will resonate. (Or, as George Bush said,
> "resignate...")
>
I'd have to strongly agree with Joseph and add that, not only are there many links that will lead
people to this site (I'm sure we lost a few potential members when we moved from Mills to
onelist), but the fact that yahoogroups is now so big means that hundreds of thousands of
people are just a few keystrokes away from joining if they're so inclined. In fact, I'd suggest we
add a few "keywords" to the list description, such as "microtonal", to make it easier for those
interested to find it. In the last year, the number of members has increased at an unprecedented
rate, and I don't want to do anything to disrupt that trend. I see absolutely no reasonable
argument on the other side, even the fact that much foolishness on my part will be immortalized.

It's bad enough we had to move from Mills and that much of the Mills archives appear to be
gone forever. We've been doing so well for the past two years -- why screw it up now?

🔗JSZANTO@ADNC.COM

--- In tuning@y..., PERLICH@A... wrote:
> I'd have to strongly agree with Joseph and add that, not only are
there many links that will lead
> people to this site

Links can always be updated. Hell, it's the web: links always *need*
to be updated, as change is inevitable.

>the fact that yahoogroups is now so big means that hundreds of
thousands of
> people are just a few keystrokes away from joining if they're so
inclined.

Paul, you are redefining "optimist"! :)

>In the last year, the number of members has increased at an
unprecedented
> rate, and I don't want to do anything to disrupt that trend.

The home page lists 447 members. This is not even remotely a lot
larger then when it was at Mills; IIRC, that group was somewhere more
than 300.

> I see absolutely no reasonable
> argument on the other side, even the fact that much foolishness on
my part will be immortalized.

Well, we don't want to discount *that* as a reason to stay! But,
seriously, my only point on the other side (as it always has been
since moving to eGroups) is that here there is no one in control of
this list, and while you may like it here it could all vanish in a
poof. Then (and maybe only then) will you rue a lack of foresight.

> It's bad enough we had to move from Mills and that much of the
Mills archives appear to be gone forever.

And that is only because no one sought to save them. I remember a
couple of offers before the move to eGroups from people at
universities to host, and if someone did that with one of the
standard list packages (majordomo, listserv), even if the institution
was to ask for the server space back the entire thing could be
relocated someplace else. With YahooGroups, we're hosed.

> We've been doing so well for the past two years -- why screw it up
now?

True. But there is nothing preventing a large dotcom from screwing it
up for you. Forewarned is forearmed...

Optimized by your optimism, nonetheless,
Jon

🔗PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM

--- In tuning@y..., JSZANTO@A... wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., PERLICH@A... wrote:
> > I'd have to strongly agree with Joseph and add that, not only are
> there many links that will lead
> > people to this site
>
> Links can always be updated. Hell, it's the web: links always *need*
> to be updated, as change is inevitable.

Yes, it's the web, and the web is woefully full of un-updated links. Who's going to seek out Joe
Schmoe who put up a web page two years ago and is off hand-gliding in the Andes to have
him update his link?
>
> >the fact that yahoogroups is now so big means that hundreds of
> thousands of
> > people are just a few keystrokes away from joining if they're so
> inclined.
>
> Paul, you are redefining "optimist"! :)
>
> >In the last year, the number of members has increased at an
> unprecedented
> > rate, and I don't want to do anything to disrupt that trend.
>
> The home page lists 447 members. This is not even remotely a lot
> larger then when it was at Mills; IIRC, that group was somewhere more
> than 300.

The Mills list was in place for over 5 years, so considering that it started with a few dozen
people (is that right?), we've clearly accelerated our growth rate. Moreover, I recall the number
being less than 400 just a couple of months ago.
>
> Well, we don't want to discount *that* as a reason to stay! But,
> seriously, my only point on the other side (as it always has been
> since moving to eGroups) is that here there is no one in control of
> this list, and while you may like it here it could all vanish in a
> poof. Then (and maybe only then) will you rue a lack of foresight.

Well, I think that is unlikely, but I'm very grateful to those who have volunteered to back up the
archives in case something like that does happen.
>
> > It's bad enough we had to move from Mills and that much of the
> Mills archives appear to be gone forever.
>
> And that is only because no one sought to save them. I remember a
> couple of offers before the move to eGroups from people at
> universities to host, and if someone did that with one of the
> standard list packages (majordomo, listserv), even if the institution
> was to ask for the server space back the entire thing could be
> relocated someplace else. With YahooGroups, we're hosed.

I don't see why you would assume that, but feel free to elaborate if you so desire.

🔗John A. deLaubenfels <jdl@adaptune.com>

🔗JSZANTO@ADNC.COM

Well, one thing is really great: I sense a change in the forms usage
for online posting (that's where I'm writing from right now) -- am I
the only one seeing many of the message with broken line wraps,
making it very hard to read the posts? Like the following:

--- In tuning@y..., PERLICH@A... wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., JSZANTO@A... wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., PERLICH@A... wrote:
> > > I'd have to strongly agree with Joseph and add that, not only
are
> > there many links that will lead
> > > people to this site

Yuck.

OK, from Paul:
> Yes, it's the web, and the web is woefully full of un-updated
links. Who's going to seek out Joe
> Schmoe who put up a web page two years ago and is off hand-gliding
in the Andes to have
> him update his link?

That is Joe's responsibility. Everyone is saying what a God(dess)send
this list is; wouldn't they at least update their links? And if it is
two years old, who's to say YahooGroups will be here -- eGroups isn't!

> The Mills list was in place for over 5 years, so considering that
it started with a few dozen
> people (is that right?), we've clearly accelerated our growth rate.
Moreover, I recall the number
> being less than 400 just a couple of months ago.

C'mon - most of the Mills people followed the moves as Mark Nowitzky
helped make it happen. I'm glad you are happy, but it hasn't been a
huge change, not to mention that quite a few people left after they
tired of the game.

> > With YahooGroups, we're hosed.
>
> I don't see why you would assume that, but feel free to elaborate
if you so desire.

Directly from the Yahoo ToS (Terms of Service):

--------------------------------------------------------------------
12. MODIFICATIONS TO SERVICE

Yahoo reserves the right at any time and from time to time to modify
or discontinue, temporarily or permanently, the Service (or any part
thereof) with or without notice. You agree that Yahoo shall not be
liable to you or to any third party for any modification, suspension
or discontinuance of the Service.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

When Jeff Bezos decided amazon.com could make money off of its email
address database, in the event the company needed a cash infusion,
they changed their privacy policy to include that database as part of
their assets. How could they do it? Language almost to the word as
the above -- it is their sandbox and they not only make the rules but
could change them at anytime, without your consent.

In just over one year we've seen the dotcom and IPO craze go from
stratospheric to Pink Slip City. Yahoo ain't making any money off of
these lists, and when and if they can't afford this 'public service'
it's gonna go buh-bye. Bet on it.

OK, I've wasted enough bandwidth on non-tuning for today, and
probably said all I need. Just my $.02...

Cheers,
Jon

🔗David Beardsley <xouoxno@virtulink.com>

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

--- In tuning@y..., PERLICH@A... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_18235.html#18306

> > The home page lists 447 members. This is not even remotely a lot
> > larger then when it was at Mills; IIRC, that group was somewhere
more than 300.
>
> The Mills list was in place for over 5 years, so considering that
it started with a few dozen people (is that right?), we've clearly
accelerated our growth rate. Moreover, I recall the number
> being less than 400 just a couple of months ago.
> >

I thought the list was a little more than 300 people not much more
than 6 months ago...Is that wrong?? I think that's what I remember.
We have gained, then, practically 150 members in a 6 month period...

Half of those people started on the list and are learning about
tuning because they initially just wanted to write songs....

[just joking, of course, but there could be a grain of truth
there somewhere!]

________ _____ ___ _
Joseph Pehrson

🔗Paul H. Erlich <PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM>

Jon Szanto wrote,

>And if it is
>two years old, who's to say YahooGroups will be here -- eGroups isn't!

Well, any of the links to onelist _or_ egroups will automatically lead you
to YahooGroups.

>C'mon - most of the Mills people followed the moves as Mark Nowitzky
>helped make it happen.

I'm assuming virtually everyone from Mills is still here.

>I'm glad you are happy, but it hasn't been a
>huge change, not to mention that quite a few people left after they
>tired of the game.

It's only natural to get tired of it, but more new people have kept the
number rising -- and in the last few months we've experienced a rapid
swelling.

>Yahoo ain't making any money off of
>these lists,

Then what's all the advertising for?