Dear Dennis Budd and LSTOWN-L Folks, >except that for most publically accessible material >on the site Yahoo is granted a perpetual license >to use it in any way it sees fit. In my view there is not much practical difference between owning material and perpetual license to use material in *any* way, but you've made that distinction. >Yahoo makes no claim of any right to distribute >material that is meant to stay private. I didn't read it that way, at that time. I doubt that 12 independent parties would have identical interpretations of the practical meaning of your phrase "material that is meant to stay private." I doubt that Yahoo will always see "material that is meant to stay private" in exactly the way you do. When your lawyer talks to their lawyer, other interpretations may surface. A good test would be to have an unsubscribed third party try to buy the material from Yahoo, for, say, $50,000. If they refuse cash money, then, in practicality, your distinction is operative, for now. How about $250,000? How about in three months or three years when their chickens have come home to roost? As to >*incredibly* misleading I gave my interpretation and I asked for yours. Thanks for your enlightening opinion. Are you also finding the list owner forum on Yahoo groups to be incredibly useful and helpful? Pax, Ballew Kinnaman <[log in to unmask]> 206/463-2322 Discussion list owner: Allergy ---> http://www.Immune.Com/allergy/index.html Arthritis ---> http://www.Emissary.Net/arthritis/index.html Latex Allergy ---> http://www.Immune.Com/rubber/index.html Thyroid ---> http://www.Emissary.Net/thyroid/index.html