Dewy-eyed Friends Of MySpace (and thus, by association, apologists for the Dirty Digger of Wapping who smashed the UK print unions two decades ago and who inflicted Fox TV on our transatlantic cousins) take a very blinkered view of the implications of meekly handing over all rights to their work just for a bit of free publicity. Guest 6.41 pm says:

Most agree that there is nothing sinister in the terms.

Most? On the fRoots forum AND even at the BBC, rather a lot of warning bells have been rung (despite being somewhat swamped by acres of space hijacked by a Longdogs (this is a band fansite) escapee under the illusion that MySpace was about to save the world and solve all its problems). I for one am glad to find that a few are beginning wake up and heed these.

Here is a clause recently added to the 'terms and conditions':

Proprietary Rights in Content on MySpace.com.

1. By displaying or publishing ("posting") any Content, messages, text, files, images, photos, video, sounds, profiles, works of authorship, or any other materials (collectively, "Content") on or through the Services, you hereby grant to MySpace.com, a non-exclusive, fully-paid and royalty-free, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense through unlimited levels of sublicensees) to use, copy, modify, adapt, translate, publicly perform, publicly display, store, reproduce, transmit, and distribute such Content on and through the Services.

Wide-ranging or what? Of course, MySpace is a fun place to poke around in and discover new music that's really worth discovering, though it gets tedious among the excess of dross. But I really don't think Murdoch is in it for the philanthropic purpose of providing the new electronic version of the floor spot at folk clubs. Do you?