Perhaps it is a sign of the impending Web 2.0 apocalypse, but “display sites” are reappearing. Why is an idea that failed in late 90s making a comeback?

We can clear up this mystery with a simple example. Let’s say you’re trying to cash in on the new bubble the modern way, by throwing together a website in a weekend and getting bought by Yahoo!, or hopefully (cue angelic music) Google. You have all the right ingredients: a ratio of three business guys for every one engineer, a cutesy logo and domain name, and a hotshot web dev who knows how to make rounded corners and everything. Now you just need a business plan related to “social networking” and “user-generated content”. But what do these mysterious user-creatures manufacture that you can piggyback off of? Video? Locked up already by YouTube. Photos? Pretty crowded. Music? Sound? Hmmm. Text? Wait — doesn’t everyone have a book inside them? Yes! Books it is! Fabulous. [clink beer glasses]

And thus it came to pass in Teh Dawn of the New Millenium that new display sites began springing up like, errr, things that spring up a lot. Amusingly, of the seven sites Victoria Strauss mentioned in her post early this year, two of them are already dead. Less amusingly, Strauss just highlighted a new site, Associated Content (“The People’s Media Company”). As Strauss puts it:

No doubt many people will simply click “I agree” rather than slog through the whole of this dense, small-print document–but that’s never a good idea. If you read down far enough, you find the following clause (bolding is mine):

A. User Content. By submitting any User Content through or to the AC Network, including on any User Tools or User Pages, but excluding any User Content you submit on AC Blogs, you hereby irrevocably grant to AC, its affiliates and distributors, a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, and fully sub-licensable license, to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, translate, publicly perform, publicly display, create derivative works from, transfer, transmit and distribute on the AC Network, in connection with promotion or elsewhere, such User Content (in whole or in part) and to incorporate the User Content into other works in any format or medium now known or later developed. Notwithstanding the foregoing, when you submit a text, video, images , AC may modify the format, content and display of such User Content. The foregoing grants shall include the right to exploit any proprietary rights in such User Content, including but not limited to rights under copyright, trademark, service mark or patent laws under any relevant jurisdiction. With respect to User Content you Post for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of AC Blogs, You grant AC the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such User Content on the AC Network or on any media. You agree that the foregoing grant of rights by you to AC and its affiliates is provided without any the entitlement of payment of fees or consideration.

Just by posting on the site, you’re granting Associated Content the right to exploit your work in any way imaginable–and possibly to make money from that exploitation–without any compensation or consideration to you. Of course, the chances that Associated Content will actually exercise this right for any given piece of content are probably fairly slim. Also, since it’s a non-exclusive grant, you aren’t prevented from selling, re-posting, or adapting your work yourself. You may, therefore, consider it worth the risk.

Strauss goes on to say:

(This kind of language, by the way, is not unusual on the Internet. For instance, you’ll find something similar–though not as encompassing–in Yahoo’s Terms of Service (see Clause 9), and also in the User Agreement of Triond.com (see Clause 5), another content site. As katya l. points out in the Comments section of this post, just about any online service will require you to grant certain basic rights, otherwise they won’t be able to transmit content over the Internet without violating copyright laws. However, what Associated Content is asking its content providers to agree to goes some way beyond that basic license.)

Actually it’s much worse than that. Here are the terms of service for Yahoo! Groups (and most other Yahoo! sites that enable user to post text):

Yahoo! does not claim ownership of Content you submit or make available for inclusion on the Service. However, with respect to Content you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Service, you grant Yahoo! the following worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive license(s), as applicable:

With respect to Content you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of 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! 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. …

What about the good folks up the road in Mountain View? Here are the terms of service for Google Groups Beta:

Google claims no ownership or control over any Content submitted, Posted or displayed by you on or through the Service. You or a third party licensor, as appropriate, retain all patent, trademark and copyright to any Content you submit, Post or display on or through the Service and you are responsible for protecting those rights, as appropriate. By submitting, Posting or displaying Content on or through the Service, you grant Google a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce, adapt and publish such Content on the Service solely for the purpose of displaying, distributing and promoting the Service or any other Google Services. This license terminates when such Content is deleted from the Service. Google reserves the right to syndicate Content submitted, Posted or displayed by you on or through the Service and use that Content in connection with other services offered by Google.

Both Yahoo! and Google assert affirmatively that they do not own your stuff, that the “worldwide, royalty-free license” is scoped to “displaying, distributing, and promoting the ‘Service'”, and that the license terminates when you delete your content. None of this scoping is present in the Associated Content terms of service. They own your book and or their buddies can do whatever they like with it. Forever.

What makes this particularly odious is that on a site where people are putting up their books, you would expect a lot more protection than the boilerplate Yahoo! and Google Terms of Service, not less. I wonder how far you’ll get taking your work to a publisher and telling them, “Well, see, I’ve already granted these other guys the right to sorta kinda do whatever they like with my stuff… but you should totally buy it anyway!” I’m guessing that your average publisher would get a little tetchy to hear you say something like that. Now my guess could be wrong, since after all, I know very little about how the publishing industry actually works. Then again, neither do the employees and backers of these next-gen content sites, which is something that prospective users of these sites should perhaps keep in mind.