As for Amazon commenting: I agree, in the abstract, that your words could be taken away for someone else to use to make a big pile of money. If that happened, it would be a shame.

But, realistically, the chances that I’m going to blurt some blurb that someone else can use to make big money seems remote. My view of the comments on Amazon is that they often help me to decide whether or not to buy something. As a way of giving back, I am happy to post my own reactions to a product that I particularly like or dislike. To me, this seems to embody the same spirit that supports open source software.

I suppose it’s people like me who use these sorts of services without complaint who are at root of the problem of which you speak. So, while I debate you as to the probabilities in the here and now, I thank you for being alert, and vocal, to the potential downsides.

The original article from the EFF (http://www.eff.org/wp/eula.php) had some links to successful cases (the footnotes I removed from the quote). IIRC, I believe that a common reason we now have to click ‘I agree’ type buttons is due to some legal case in the US…

I believe that some of my points were contradictory… but also believe I was considering two major opposing viewpoints - consumer and producer (which I am both in parts).

To outline in a touch more detail my ‘disgust’ at the Amazon comment copyright issue, though, they can choose to do what they like with your work, with your name or without it… I know my comment about the advertising slogan seems mercenary on my part, but I honestly doubt that anyone posts comments in the hope of making Amazon a pile more money (but they certainly wouldn’t begrudge a few extra dollars for a few extra sales).

First, I have a vague recollection of EULAs being viewed as unenforceable, since they are obviously too long, and there are too many of them, for “a reasonable person” to expect that anyone would read them.

In particular, there are so many head-to-head product comparisons out there, including ones involving various software products, that I can’t believe this particular aspect of EULAs is enforceable. It might hold enough water for, say, Microsoft, to threaten to tie up in court some prominent magazine, were the comparison viewable as completely unfair, and so the magazine might pull its punches a little out of fear of a Pyrrhic victory, but I’ve seen way too many articles harping on the crumminess of MS products to believe that this aspect of the EULA works.

Second, I think the Amazon policy you mentioned is there mostly to cover them should they decide that they want to delete posts by wing nuts, or clean up language, or filter out URLs, or things of that nature. Most lawyers, by instinct, will try to claim as many rights as possible up front, so as to have some sort of foundation for possible future situations that they know they can’t completely envision at present. This is one of the strategies to forestall the sort of frivilous lawsuits that are all too common in this day an age. It reminds me of the signs one sees on roadways on the US whenever construction is taking place: “This road is legally closed.”

Partial solution for your Amazon example: If you’re worried about your commentary on Amazon being abused by them, why not just cross post the entries on your blog at the same time (or right before)?