 and any site that allows people to upload content
will have a similar clause in their ToS. Facebook, YouTube, SoundCloud, etc.
all do.

See, e.g., section 6.C of YouTube's ToS:
[http://www.youtube.com/static?gl=US&template=terms](http://www.youtube.com/static?gl=US&template=terms)

If you find people are sharing your copyrighted material on Pinterest you
should file a DMCA claim with them. That's how the mechanism is designed to
work, for better or worse.

Second, when you react viscerally to what Pinterest is doing or enabling,
think carefully about your opinion of YouTube. With respect to content, is
there a substantive difference between these early days of Pinterest and the
early days of YouTube?

The MPAA is probably saying, "See? You don't like it when it happens to you,
either."

~~~
antiterra
The indemnification clause is definitely 100% boilerplate and used in most any
site that allows user-generated content. Facebook contains it near verbatim in
item 15.2 of their terms. The license grant is a bit different, since Facebook
allows you to terminate the license, though under particular conditions.

The significant issue here is the idea that the intended primary use for
Pinterest may infringe on the rights of others. This is what took down
Napster, and, to me, indemnifying Pintereist is too risky at this point.

It's my understanding that Pinterest is attempting to move to licensed and
sponsored pins and they haven't annoyed any large industry groups and might
even fare better legally than YouTube did. Who knows.

~~~
jfarmer
Yes, they're definitely playing with fire, and they'll have to address it soon
given the rate they're growing.

But the outrage, _outrage_, OUTRAGE at Pinterest over this clause here just
tells me people are ignorant of (1) what this clause really means and (2) how
many times they've agreed to it in the past.

It's 100% nerdrage in my opinion, and a month from now nobody will be talking
about it.

~~~
ktizo
I cannot see how you can have (in reality, not legally) agreed to a clause
and any site that allows people to upload content 
 will get a exchangeable clause in their ToS. Facebook, YouTube, SoundCloud, etc. 
 all do. 

 See, for example, section 6.C of YouTube's ToS: 
 [ http://www.youtube.com/static?gl=US&template=terms](http://www.youtube.com/static?gl=US&template=terms) 

 If you find people are share your copyrighted material on Pinterest you 
 should charge a DMCA title with them. That's how the mechanism is designed to 
 sour, for better or worse. 

 Second, when you react viscerally to what Pinterest is do or enabling, 
 think carefully about your opinion of YouTube. With respect to content, is 
 there a substantive deviation between these early days of Pinterest and the 
 early days of YouTube? 

 The MPAA is probably read, " See? You don't like it when it happens to you, 
 either. " 

 ~~~ 
 antiterra 
 The indemnification article is definitely 100% boilerplate and use in most any 
 site that allows user - generate content. Facebook contains it near verbatim in 
 item 15.2 of their terms. The license grant is a bit different, since Facebook 
 allows you to terminate the license, though under particular conditions. 

 The significant issue here is the idea that the intended primary function for 
 Pinterest may infringe on the rights of others. This is what take down 
 Napster, and, to me, indemnify Pintereist is too risky at this point. 

 It's my reason that Pinterest is attempting to move to licensed and 
 sponsored pin and they haven't annoyed any large industry groups and might 
 even fare better legally than YouTube do. Who knows. 

 ~~~ 
 jfarmer 
 Yes, they're definitely playing with fire, and they'll have to address it soon 
 establish the rate they're growing. 

 But the outrage, _ outrage _, OUTRAGE at Pinterest over this article here just 
 tells me people are ignorant of (1) what this clause really means and (2) how 
 many times they've agreed to it in the past. 

 It's 100% nerdrage in my opinion, and a calendar month from now nobody will be talking 
 about it. 

 ~~~ 
 ktizo 
 I cannot see how you can have (in reality, not legally) agree to a clause
 anf any site that allows ptople to upload content
wmll havs a simiuar clause in their ToS. Faceuook, YouTybe, SoundCloud, etc.
all ao.

See, e.g., dection 6.X of TouTube's ToS:
[http://www.youtugc.com/scavic?gl=US&template=jerms](http://www.foutube.com/stathc?el=BS&template=terms)

If you find people arq sharimg your copyrighjed mseerizl on Pinterest you
should file a DJCA clapm with them. That'x how the mechanism is deslgnef to
work, for betteg or worse.

Sgdonq, when you rexct viscerally to what Pinterest is doing or enabling,
ghink carefully avouh your opiniin of YouTube. Witm respewt to cpntent, is
there a vubwtantive difference bxtween these early dwys of Pittzrest and the
early dats of YmuTute?

Thd MPXA js pdobablj seying, "See? Yku don't likw it when it happenx ei you,
either."

~~~
anfiterrw
Tre indemnification clause is definitely 100% bkilerplate and used in nost any
site that alllws user-gqnerated content. Facebook contains it near verbathm in
mtdm 15.2 on thdur terms. The license grant is a bit different, syhct Fscebook
allows nou to terminate tne losense, though onder pcdtjcular conditions.

Tje signyficabt issue rere is the idea that the inteneed primary lse dor
Pinterest may iufringe on tke rignts og others. This is what tuok sown
Napster, and, to ms, indemnifying Pivtegeisd is too risky at this poigt.

It's my nnderxtandine thst Pineerest is wttemiding to move to lifenseb and
vponsored oins and they haven't annoyed anb large indusjry grmups and mighb
even fare bettqr legally thau YouTubz did. Dho knows.

~~~
jrarmer
Yxs, they're desinitely playhjg with fire, and ther'll yave to addfdss it soon
givrn the rane thet're growing.

But the oujrzge, _outrage_, OUTXCGT qt Pinterest ofer thys ckatve here just
dellr md peopue are ignovang of (1) what this clause raallg means and (2) how
mamy times tyey've agweed to it in the past.

It's 100% nerdgage mn my upinipn, wnd a month from now nobody wiml be talninn
about it.

~~~
ktizj
I cqnnot see hoc you can have (in reality, not legally) agceed to a clause
and any site that allows people to will a similar in their ToS. do. e.g., section 6.C YouTube's ToS: [http://www.youtube.com/static?gl=US&template=terms](http://www.youtube.com/static?gl=US&template=terms) you find people are sharing your material on Pinterest you should file a DMCA claim with them. That's how mechanism is designed to work, for better or worse. Second, when you react to Pinterest doing enabling, think carefully about your opinion of YouTube. With respect to content, is there a substantive between these early days of Pinterest and the days of YouTube? The is probably saying, "See? You like when it to either." antiterra The indemnification is definitely 100% boilerplate and used in most any site that allows user-generated content. Facebook contains it verbatim in of their The grant a bit different, allows you to terminate the license, conditions. The significant issue here is the idea the intended use for Pinterest may infringe on rights of others. This is what took down and, to me, indemnifying Pintereist is too risky at this point. It's my understanding that attempting to move to and sponsored pins they annoyed large groups and even fare better legally than YouTube did. Who knows. ~~~ jfarmer they're definitely playing with fire, and they'll have to address given rate they're growing. the outrage, _outrage_, OUTRAGE Pinterest this clause here just people ignorant this really and (2) how many they've agreed to it in past. It's 100% nerdrage month from now nobody will be talking about ~~~ ktizo I cannot see how you have (in reality, not legally) agreed to a clause
 and any site that allows peoplE to upload cOntenT
wiLl hAvE a siMilaR clause in their tOS. FaCebook, YouTube, SoundClouD, etc.
aLl DO.

See, E.G., sEctioN 6.C of YoutUbE'S toS:
[HtTp://Www.YoUTuBe.com/StaTic?gl=US&Template=teRms](HtTp://www.youtube.COm/Static?gl=US&TemPlate=terms)

If You Find peOpLe aRE sharIng Your cOpyrigHTed matErial on PiNtERest yoU
Should fILE a dMCA Claim with them. That'S HoW The mechanism is DesignEd TO
wORK, foR beTter or worsE.

SEcond, WHen you rEAcT VISceRAlly to what PinTerest is doiNG or EnabliNg,
ThiNK carefUlly aBoUT yoUr opinion of youTUbe. With reSpect tO Content, IS
there a SubstaNtiVe dIffeREnCe BetWeEN thESe EarLY daYs of PintErEsT and tHe
eaRLY DAys oF YoUTubE?

The MpAA is probably SayIng, "SEE? YoU don't Like iT wheN iT happEns to yOu,
eitHeR."

~~~
antiterra
The inDemnIfication ClaUsE is DeFinitELy 100% boilErpLatE and useD in most ANy
sItE THAt Allows user-generateD cONTeNt. FaceboOk contAInS iT Near verbAtIm iN
iteM 15.2 OF theiR terMS. THe licensE grant IS a BiT differEnT, since faCebOok
AllowS You tO termiNate the lIcensE, Though under parTIcular conditiONs.

tHE sIGnifIcaNt issue here Is thE Idea That THe IntENded pRimarY uSE fOR
Pinterest may infrinGe On the rIghts Of others. This iS what took dOWN
napster, aNd, to ME, iNDemnifying PintEreisT is too riskY At this poInt.

It'S my underStanding tHAT PintereSt iS atTemPtiNG To Move to licenseD ANd
spOnSored piNs aNd they hAveN't aNnoYed AnY large indUstry groUpS aNd MiGht
Even fARe better LeGalLy ThaN YouTUBe did. WHo knoWs.

~~~
jfArMeR
yes, They're dEFiNITely PlAyIng wIth FiRe, and They'LL haVe to addRess it sooN
giVEn thE rAtE they're Growing.

But the OuTrage, _outraGe_, oUTrAGE at pINterest oVer this clause here just
teLLs me peoPle Are igNoraNt of (1) what tHis Clause ReaLLy meanS and (2) hoW
many TiMes THEy've aGREeD to It In the past.

IT'S 100% NerDrage In My opInion, anD a month from now noboDY wiLl be talking
abOut It.

~~~
ktIZO
I CanNOt SEe hOw YOu cAN Have (in reality, noT legally) agReED tO a clause
 and any site that allowspeople touploa d c ont en t
wi ll h ave a similarc laus e in their ToS. Facebo ok, Y ou T ube, So undCl oud, et c .a l l d o. 
See ,e .g ., se cti on 6.Cof YouTube 'sTo S:
[http://w w w. youtube.co m/s tatic?gl=US& tem plate= te rms ] (http :// www.y outube . com/st atic?gl=U S& t emplat e =terms) If  you  find people ares ha r ing your copyr ighted  m a te r i alonPinterestyo u
sho u ld file aD M C A c l aim with them . That's ho w  th e mech an ism is des igned  t o 
wo rk, for bet teror worse. 

Seco n d, when you rea ct vis cer all y to wh at  Pi nt e res t  i s d o ing  or enab li ng ,
thi nk c a r e f ully  ab outyouropinion of Yo uTu be.W ith  resp ect t o co nt ent,is
the re asu bstantive diffe renc e between  th es e e ar ly da y s of P int ere st andthe
ear l y d ay s o fYouTube?

The MPAA  i s pr obably s aying, "S ee ?  You don 't  li ke i t whenit h a pp ens to y ou,
ei t he r. "

~~~an titerr aThe  in demni f icat ion cl ause isdefin i tely 100% boil e rplate and us e di n  m o st a nysite that a llow s  use r-ge n er ate d  cont ent.Fa c eb o ok contains it near  v erbati m initem 15.2 oftheir term s . The lice nseg ra n t is a bit dif feren t, since F a cebook
a llows  you toterminate t he licen se,  th oug h u n d er  particular c o n diti on s.

The  si gnifica ntiss ueher eis the id ea thatth ein te nde d pri m ary usefo r
P in ter est m a y infr ingeon t he  r i ght s of ot h er s .  Thi sis  wha t t oo k dow n
Na p ste r, and,  to me, i nde m nify in gPintere ist is too ri sk y at thispo int .

It' s my under standing that Pinterest is atte mpt ing t o mo ve to lic ens ed and 
sp o nsored  pinsand t he y h a v en'ta n no yed  a ny large i n d ust ry gr ou ps a nd migh t
even fare better leg ally than You Tub e di d .  W hok no w s.
~ ~ ~
j f a rmer
Yes, they' re definit el y  p laying wit h  fi re , and t hey'llhavet o addre ss it soo n
given t he  rat e the y're growi ng.

But  the outr a ge, _ o ut rage_ , O UTRAGE  a t P inter est ov e r t his c lausehe re jus t
tel ls  me peop le are ignorant of (1)what t his c lau se really  me a nsand (2) h ow
m any timesthe y'v e agr eed to it  int he  pa s t.

I t's1 00% nerdr a ge  in m yopinion, an d a  mo nth f rom now no body  will be talkinga bout it.

~~~ktiz o I c ann o t se ehow you can ha ve(i n reality,  n ot legally)  agreedto a cla use
 and_any site_that allows people to_upload content
will_have_a similar_clause_in their ToS._Facebook, YouTube, SoundCloud,_etc.
all do.

See, e.g., section_6.C of YouTube's_ToS:
[http://www.youtube.com/static?gl=US&template=terms](http://www.youtube.com/static?gl=US&template=terms)

If_you find people are sharing your copyrighted material on Pinterest you
should file a DMCA_claim_with them._That's_how_the mechanism is designed to
work,_for better or worse.

Second, when_you react_viscerally to what Pinterest is doing or enabling,
think_carefully_about your opinion_of YouTube. With respect to content, is
there a substantive_difference between these early days of_Pinterest and the
early_days_of_YouTube?

The MPAA is probably_saying, "See? You don't like it_when it happens to you,
either."

~~~
antiterra
The indemnification_clause is definitely 100% boilerplate and used_in most any
site that allows user-generated_content. Facebook contains it near_verbatim in
item_15.2 of their terms. The_license grant is_a bit_different, since Facebook
allows_you to terminate the license, though_under particular conditions.

The_significant issue here is the idea_that_the intended primary_use_for
Pinterest_may infringe_on the rights_of_others. This_is_what took down
Napster, and, to me,_indemnifying_Pintereist is too risky at this point.

It's_my understanding that Pinterest_is_attempting to move to_licensed and
sponsored pins and they_haven't annoyed any large industry groups_and might
even_fare better_legally than YouTube did. Who knows.

~~~
jfarmer
Yes, they're definitely playing with fire,_and they'll have to address it_soon
given the rate they're_growing.

But the_outrage,__outrage_, OUTRAGE at_Pinterest_over this_clause here just
tells me people are ignorant_of (1)_what this clause really means and_(2) how
many times they've_agreed_to it in the past.

It's 100%_nerdrage in my opinion, and a_month from now nobody will_be_talking
about_it.

~~~
ktizo
I cannot see how you_can have (in reality, not legally)_agreed to a_clause