Now we're getting somewhere!
The terms are very broadly written (see YouTube's for an example), and the ethical code would limit them. The code wouldn't give the company additional (or undisclosed) rights. It would LIMIT its use of the rights that it legally has, the rights that a user has already agreed to.
If someone believed in free use, they would know before registering with the site that there was the potential that their content could be sold or licensed to a third party. They would have the option not to register or post content. The potential is completely outlined. Corporate restrictions on that potential (under what was proposed) are not.
Let's assume full disclosure is not an option with regard to the ethical code. (Again, the terms and conditions are very explicitly presented to users.) I was asking if there was an alternative to presenting the ethical code. Would consistent ethical behavior on the company's part be sufficient? Would actions speak louder than words?
Of course, no is a potential answer. If that's what you think, that is entirely valid. There are obvious contradictions with this proposed situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Makaveli213  You tell them you will do what you want with the data. But then not tell them what that is when you know what it is. |
The thing is the company does not know what it will do with the content. That is why it wants to keep the broad terms. Again, should technology develop that makes the company either changes its products or its website, the broad terms allow it to adapt the content accordingly. This does not necessarily involve selling or licensing material to a third party. This could very well relate to internal changes at the company.
I hope that is a bit clearer. Your response certainly helped me better understand where you were coming from.