Please note that the following is in no way a comment on
dannye's points about the applicability of the writing.com model to E2. After cooling his writeup and seeing other noders in the catbox talk about going over to check out this other website and post some material to explore the option for themselves, I wandered over in search of first-hand impressions. I ran into a bit of a block right away. This is because I tend to read
fine print.
Now, I'm sure that their ToS will, in fact, be fine for most people. However, I wanted to post a quick warning about them, because I know that in their eagerness to go check it out, there's a chance people will zip past the oh-so-familiar step that so many web sites offer - "check-this-here-box-innicatin'-you-read-our-membership-'greement-hokay?"
I offer the following points I find problematic. Close reading may provide you with others. Conversely, you may not have a problem with them at all. All italicized text is from http://tinyurl.com/gx8vx as of the date of this writeup.
2. Copyright; Restrictions on Use
...
"Registered Users and Authors who upload content to Writing.Com grant Writing.Com an unrestricted and non-exclusive right to display and utilize the uploaded content."
Hmm. Okay, I get that they'd need the right to display it. The unrestricted right to utilize it seems a bit broad, though. Although their expanded copyright FAQ says [b]y posting to Writing.Com, you grant us non-exclusive rights to display and store your work on our site, it doesn't actually eliminate the possibility that they could utilize your work for other purposes - that word 'unrestricted' is still in there. I am a suspicious bastard.
11-G. Termination for Inaccurate Personal information
Users found to have provided incorrect or inaccurate personal information when signing up for or editing their Writing.Com member account may have their Writing.Com member account terminated without prior notice or warning. Personal information in the signup and account details editing area is required and must be correct, verifiable and accurate.
Er, what? Even if I don't have a paid account, I can't be anonymous, and can be terminated if that happens? This isn't sounding fun. And what happens to my content in that event? The terms are silent on that matter.
There are other issues - you can be terminated for ad-blocking on your browser if you have a free account, for example, and they explicitly warn you that anything you post is fair game for dataminers, including any information about yourself - but those I don't really have a problem with. Some might.
I don't really think that these terms are of themselves 'bad.' They look like fairly standard self-protection boilerplate. I also know little or nothing about the site, their motives, their history, or indeed much of anything at all save the terms of service. You are, however, about to hand them your work. You should be aware of what you're signing.