One thing which jumped out at me when I read the follow-up article was that AOL (in its damage control) said that they never intended to apply those clauses to user-to-user communication. I didn't hear anything about how they had revised or would revise the language to reflect that intent.
I was also amused that AOL's spokesman described how the fact that the controversial language was in a section titled "Content You Post" showed that it wasn't intended to apply to individual communications. Of course, anyone who has read a few legal documents would not be surprised by this quote in the last section: "The section headings used herein are for convenience only and shall not be given any legal import."
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
How they fix it reveals almost as much as what they did
Date: 2005-03-15 12:22 am (UTC)I was also amused that AOL's spokesman described how the fact that the controversial language was in a section titled "Content You Post" showed that it wasn't intended to apply to individual communications. Of course, anyone who has read a few legal documents would not be surprised by this quote in the last section: "The section headings used herein are for convenience only and shall not be given any legal import."