The alternative take on that crucial clause on content was made thus by a contributor to Billy Bragg's site:

That clause does not mean myspace owns the content. it says they have a licence to that content. there's a big difference. The publisher/writer/etc. still owns all rights... but myspace gets to store, display, and use the content. It's like software, you the rightful (non-pirate ) owner are granted a licence to use the software -- but not to make copies of it or use the code etc. This clause i think basically protects MySpace from hassles over the fact that copywritten content is all over their site. by posting content here, you're granting MySpace a licence to actually have it on their site and display it to the world. (anything you create is automatically copyright to you BTW, unless you put it in the public domain, of course... and interestingly i'd interpret this licensing clause as meaning myspace isn't public domain, which means you keep ownership of anything you post say in your blogs... which is good)... so the ownership of the content is not in question... but according to that clause it seems like myspace basically gets to do whatever they feel like with the content... it protects them, it allows the site to function smoothly for everyone... but it doesn't seem to protect MySpace from "re-using" content or from giving it to other people. and that's where IMO the problem might be

I quote this not because I agree with it but because it's the only coherent, non-hysterical, contrary point of view I have come across. I think it's too complacent and I, like Bonnie, would be very wary indeed of entering into a contract that doesn't end with the removal of material. However, I've never heard of Russell Brand either and really don't know or care if this reduces my credibility in the nu-media blatant self-promotion stakes.