As an internet/technology/copyright attorney, I have been wondering about the ability to enforce the "all messages become the property of the purseblog" terms. I just attended a seminar about legal issues related to user generated content sites like blog forums, MySpace and YouTube. It was really interesting. It seems that most forum sites simply request the ability to use, edit, delete, etc. the content posted by users and a rights to use it. It seems that all that is really needed to protect the blog owners is a non-exclusive broad license to USE the content posted by users. Can you explain why the blog terms seek to transfer ownership to the content vs. just a broad license to use it? There has not been a court case yet specifically dealing with the issue of if a clickwrap statement that "we own what you post" is sufficient to transfer copyrights as the copyright act Section 204A requires a signed writing to transfer ownership. The ESIGN Act does state that electronic agreements should be just as binding as paper ones (yet you do have to give the user the ability to print the electronically signed agreement which shows their electronic signature), however it is not yet a settled legal issue regarding clickwrap agreements ability to assign copyright ownership. My guess is that in the current format this clause would not be enforceable in court. The things posted here probably don't rise to the level of people caring about someone else owning the material they post and I find this intellectually an interesting issue but I am just wondering if there was a reason why it was decided to get complete copyright ownership of the materials vs. just a broad license to do what you want with it form the users?