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