Re: [silk] Facebook's New Terms Of Service: We Can Do Anything We Want With Your Content. Forever.
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Sumant Srivathsan suma...@gmail.comwrote: Isn't it just easier on system resources to link users to a primary copy of uploaded content, rather than make multiple copies for each user with whom it is shared? I think this is more with regards to private messages and wall messages than anything else. If you send me 100 messages (or emails) on Facebook, and then delete your account, the messages you sent me should still stay in my inbox. This is the case with all email accounts -- if I delete this gmail account tomorrow, alll the gmail messages I have sent you remain with you. I think that is all that Facebook was trying to ensure. This is much ado about nothing, imo. -- Amit Varma http://www.indiauncut.com
Re: [silk] Facebook's New Terms Of Service: We Can Do Anything We Want With Your Content. Forever.
Amit Varma wrote, [on 2/17/2009 1:48 PM]: I think this is more with regards to private messages and wall messages than anything else. If you send me 100 messages (or emails) on Facebook, and then delete your account, the messages you sent me should still stay in my inbox. This is the case with all email accounts -- if I delete this gmail account tomorrow, alll the gmail messages I have sent you remain with you. I think that is all that Facebook was trying to ensure. This is much ado about nothing, imo. Even assuming infinite goodwill on the part of facebook (more importantly, the current incarnation thereof) I think that what the ToS *gives them the freedom to do* is alarming. The mystic phrase fiduciary responsibility is usually used to justify any way to screw the end user that is not outright, prima facie criminal (and sufficient counter-examples for that last assumption exist as well) All that is not forbidden is (eventually) mandatory Udhay -- ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
Re: [silk] Facebook's New Terms Of Service: We Can Do Anything We Want With Your Content. Forever.
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Udhay Shankar N ud...@pobox.com wrote: Even assuming infinite goodwill on the part of facebook (more importantly, the current incarnation thereof) I think that what the ToS *gives them the freedom to do* is alarming. I'm not assuming infinite goodwill, I'm assuming fear of the market. In the competitive market that Facebook is in, if they fuck around with user content -- like, say, use pics without permission -- the market will screw them over. To mess with users in that manner would be business suicide. Any examples of where similar clauses by big companies -- not fly-by-nighters-- have been misused? -- Amit Varma http://www.indiauncut.com
Re: [silk] Facebook's New Terms Of Service: We Can Do Anything We Want With Your Content. Forever.
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Amit Varma wrote: I'm not assuming infinite goodwill, I'm assuming fear of the market. In the competitive market that Facebook is in, if they fuck around with user content -- like, say, use pics without permission -- the market will screw them over. To mess with users in that manner would be business suicide. I really doubt that the main target audience of facebook knows/cares/reads about things like updated terms of service. Otherwise they would not be exhibiting all that personal information information to start with...
Re: [silk] Facebook's New Terms Of Service: We Can Do Anything We Want With Your Content. Forever.
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Amit Varma amitbl...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not assuming infinite goodwill, I'm assuming fear of the market. In the competitive market that Facebook is in, if they fuck around with user content -- like, say, use pics without permission -- the market will screw them over. To mess with users in that manner would be business suicide. Ah, but at a point ( a price) the short-term profit might be more lucrative than the risks posed by the market. Also, you are ignoring the fact that the competitive scenario could change some time in the future. Any examples of where similar clauses by big companies -- not fly-by-nighters-- have been misused? Why do we need examples to express a fear. Do we have to wise up to this nonsense only AFTER someone has sold our data? As it is, mobile companies in India ( I dare say a host of companies, retailers, etc. in the West) do it all the time. - Mo
Re: [silk] Facebook's New Terms Of Service: We Can Do Anything We Want With Your Content. Forever.
Also check out http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/14/AR2007041401444_pf.html And I'm sorry if i came across as rude in the previous mail. I just hung up on a telemarketer (the 4th in the day) who insist on calling me despite my name being on DNC list. (And inspite of my having explained it to them every time). Also, having been a part of the corporate world for 11 years, and having dealt with companies of every hue, I'm sorry to say that I do not accept the notion that the invisible hand of the market will always result in a company doing good. - Mo On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Mohit (मॊिहत) mohitmo...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Amit Varma amitbl...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not assuming infinite goodwill, I'm assuming fear of the market. In the competitive market that Facebook is in, if they fuck around with user content -- like, say, use pics without permission -- the market will screw them over. To mess with users in that manner would be business suicide. Ah, but at a point ( a price) the short-term profit might be more lucrative than the risks posed by the market. Also, you are ignoring the fact that the competitive scenario could change some time in the future. Any examples of where similar clauses by big companies -- not fly-by-nighters-- have been misused? Why do we need examples to express a fear. Do we have to wise up to this nonsense only AFTER someone has sold our data? As it is, mobile companies in India ( I dare say a host of companies, retailers, etc. in the West) do it all the time. - Mo
Re: [silk] Facebook's New Terms Of Service: We Can Do Anything We Want With Your Content. Forever.
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 02:14:11PM +0530, Udhay Shankar N wrote: Even assuming infinite goodwill on the part of facebook (more importantly, the current incarnation thereof) I think that what the ToS *gives them the freedom to do* is alarming. The mystic phrase fiduciary Anyone who has been putting his private info into corporate or federal hands (regardless of what the TOS or the law says) is a damn fool, and need to be sterilized before she has a chance to breed. responsibility is usually used to justify any way to screw the end user that is not outright, prima facie criminal (and sufficient counter-examples for that last assumption exist as well) All that is not forbidden is (eventually) mandatory Does anyone else these days feel like a character from Idiocracy?
Re: [silk] Facebook's New Terms Of Service: We Can Do Anything We Want With Your Content. Forever.
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Mohit (मॊिहत) mohitmo...@gmail.com wrote: Also, having been a part of the corporate world for 11 years, and having dealt with companies of every hue, I'm sorry to say that I do not accept the notion that the invisible hand of the market will always result in a company doing good. Sure, but the outcry from users will certainly ensure that the ToS are reworded now, which is the invisible hand at work. My point wasn't that these ToS are justifiable, but that the outrage against it seemed to imply that the Facebook guys acted out of malice, while all that really happened was some clumsy phrasing from their lawyer. Facebook is not some evil empire here trying to surreptitiously steal everyone's content -- they just bungled up on some legal wording, that's all. -- Amit Varma http://www.indiauncut.com
Re: [silk] Facebook's New Terms Of Service: We Can Do Anything We Want With Your Content. Forever.
Amit Varma wrote, [on 2/17/2009 6:04 PM]: My point wasn't that these ToS are justifiable, but that the outrage against it seemed to imply that the Facebook guys acted out of malice, while all that really happened was some clumsy phrasing from their lawyer. Facebook is not some evil empire here trying to surreptitiously steal everyone's content -- they just bungled up on some legal wording, that's all. Possible (also plausible), and I am as much a fan of Hanlon and Ockham as you are. But I also believe that Murphy trumps the abovementioned gentry, hence my alarm. Udhay -- ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
Re: [silk] Facebook's New Terms Of Service: We Can Do Anything We Want With Your Content. Forever.
Thanks for posting that, Thaths. It's helpful sometimes to see a comparison with other ToS'es. In this case, I'm seriously curious what the hell FB's lawyers were thinking when they crafted this nonsense. As it states in the TOS: You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers), any User Content you (i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof subject only to your privacy settings or (ii) enable a user to Post, including by offering a Share Link on your website and (b) to use your name, likeness and image for any purpose, including commercial or advertising, each of (a) and (b) on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof. 1. Facebook's usurpation of Right of publicity and perpetual copyrights will be challenged, assuming this little stunt doesn't get changed quickly. Its just _too_ broad to fly, and I can hear a court screaming 'unconscionable' -- particularly where the 13 year-olds are involved. 2. How many bong rips were these guys taking when they thought they could get you to sign away the rights to content created by third parties to your web site? I mean, privity of contract was taught within the first weeks of my 1L year. There is no privity here to outside third-party created content posted on the website of a consenting user. That's insane. And let's not even consider the works that are covered by CC. Trust me, I dig that FB wants to have its ass covered when it comes to wall posts and the like (managing the content implications of a user who posts to his buddies and then quits, does strike me as daunting on a mass scale), but this is insane. Perhaps another rationale for discontinuing my FB obsession. Carey On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Thaths tha...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 8:02 PM, Udhay Shankar N ud...@pobox.com wrote: A follow-up on Consumerist: http://consumerist.com/5154745/facebook-clarifies-terms-of-service-we-do-not-own-your-stuff-forever Facebook Clarifies Terms Of Service: We Do Not Own Your Stuff Forever By Chris Walters, 6:52 PM on Mon Feb 16 2009, 10,958 views It is interesting to compare Facebook's ToS against others: http://amandafrench.net/2009/02/16/facebook-terms-of-service-compared/ Facebook terms of service compared with MySpace, Flickr, Picasa, YouTube, LinkedIn, and Twitter February 16, 2009 – 2:28 pm With today's outrage over Facebook's newly altered Terms of Service at its peak, I figured I'd do a quick comparison of their terms of service as regards user-uploaded content to the terms specified by other social networking sites, just to see if said outrage is fully justified. It looks as though the finger-pointing at the Bush robots.txt file wasn't justified, for instance, and I was guilty of spreading that story. Conclusion? Go ahead and be outraged. Facebook's claims to your content are extraordinarily grabby and arrogant. Here's the rundown, which I go through in more detail below: 1. Facebook apparently wants to keep all its rights to your stuff after you remove it from Facebook, and even after you delete your Facebook account; they just removed the lines that specified that their rights end when your content comes down. Nobody else (of those I looked at) would dream of that; mostly they specifically state that their rights to your content end when you remove the content from their site or delete your account. 2. This one kills me: Facebook claims it can do whatever it wants with your content if you put a Share on Facebook link on your web page. Unbelievable–and unique, as far as I can tell. People can post links in Facebook to your content just by copying and pasting the URL, but if you want to save them a few keystrokes by putting a link or a widget on your site, Facebook claims that you've granted them a whole mess of rights. Count me out. 3. Other sites point out in their terms of service that you still own your content: Facebook doesn't mention that little fact. Facebook also neglects to remind you that you're giving other Facebook users rights to your Facebook content, too — YouTube, for example, makes it clear that other people besides YouTube have a right to use and spread around the videos you upload. In general, other sites' terms of service just have a more helpful tone. So let's look at what other popular user-generated content sites say about their rights to your stuff: MySpace's rights to your stuff: 6.1 MySpace does not claim any ownership rights in the text, files, images, photos, video, sounds, musical works, works of authorship, applications, or any other materials
Re: [silk] Facebook's New Terms Of Service: We Can Do Anything We Want With Your Content. Forever.
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Udhay Shankar N ud...@pobox.com wrote: Possible (also plausible), and I am as much a fan of Hanlon and Ockham as you are. But I also believe that Murphy trumps the abovementioned gentry, hence my alarm. To nit-pick: I believe the most common spelling is Occam. -- b
Re: [silk] Facebook's New Terms Of Service: We Can Do Anything We Want With Your Content. Forever.
On Feb 17, 2009, at 9:45 PM, Biju Chacko wrote: On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Udhay Shankar N ud...@pobox.com wrote: Possible (also plausible), and I am as much a fan of Hanlon and Ockham as you are. But I also believe that Murphy trumps the abovementioned gentry, hence my alarm. To nit-pick: I believe the most common spelling is Occam. It depends. William of Ockham came from a place called, unsurprisingly, Ockham, a town that still exists in England by that very name. While it is indeed common to spell it Occam when referring to the philosophical concept of Occam's Razor, I believe that spelling is a Latinate form and a reference to the man (as above, though indirectly) would refer to his town of origin per custom. It reads odd when you consider that Occam refers to a place rather than a person. Because the town William was from was called Ockham and is still called Ockham, the pedant in me would argue that the man was William of Ockham even if he is associated with Occam's Razor. Or Epicurus' Razor or Kolmogorov's Razor depending on how far backward or forward in time you want to attribute the formulation of that concept. Cheers, J. Andrew Rogers
Re: [silk] Facebook's New Terms Of Service: We Can Do Anything We Want With Your Content. Forever.
Occam or Ockham, either way, it appears that the masses of concerned citizens have won: From the FB Blog: Update on Terms Share by Mark Zuckerberg http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=4ref=blog Today at 1:17am A couple of weeks ago, we revised our terms of use hoping to clarify some parts for our users. Over the past couple of days, we received a lot of questions and comments about the changes and what they mean for people and their information. Based on this feedback, we have decided to return to our previous terms of use while we resolve the issues that people have raised. Many of us at Facebook spent most of today discussing how best to move forward. One approach would have been to quickly amend the new terms with new language to clarify our positions further. Another approach was simply to revert to our old terms while we begin working on our next version. As we thought through this, we reached out to respected organizations to get their input. Going forward, we've decided to take a new approach towards developing our terms. We concluded that returning to our previous terms was the right thing for now. As I said yesterday, we think that a lot of the language in our terms is overly formal and protective so we don't plan to leave it there for long. More than 175 million people use Facebook. If it were a country, it would be the sixth most populated country in the world. Our terms aren't just a document that protect our rights; it's the governing document for how the service is used by everyone across the world. Given its importance, we need to make sure the terms reflect the principles and values of the people using the service. Our next version will be a substantial revision from where we are now. It will reflect the principles I described yesterdayhttp://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=54434097130around how people share and control their information, and it will be written clearly in language everyone can understand. Since this will be the governing document that we'll all live by, Facebook users will have a lot of input in crafting these terms. You have my commitment that we'll do all of these things, but in order to do them right it will take a little bit of time. We expect to complete this in the next few weeks. In the meantime, we've changed the terms back to what existed before the February 4th change, which was what most people asked us for and was the recommendation of the outside experts we consulted. If you'd like to get involved in crafting our new terms, you can start posting your questions, comments and requests in the group we've created—Facebook Bill of Rights and Responsibilitieshttp://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=69048030774. I'm looking forward to reading your input.
[silk] Facebook's New Terms Of Service: We Can Do Anything We Want With Your Content. Forever.
Facebook's New Terms Of Service: We Can Do Anything We Want With Your Content. Forever. By Chris Walters, 6:14 PM on Sun Feb 15 2009, Source :: http://consumerist.com/5150175/facebooks-new-terms-of-service-we-can-do-anything-we-want-with-your-content-forever Facebook's terms of service (TOS) used to say that when you closed an account on their network, any rights they claimed to the original content you uploaded would expire. Not anymore. Now, anything you upload to Facebook can be used by Facebook in any way they deem fit, forever, no matter what you do later. Want to close your account? Good for you, but Facebook still has the right to do whatever it wants with your old content. They can even sublicense it if they want. You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers), any User Content you (i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof subject only to your privacy settings or (ii) enable a user to Post, including by offering a Share Link on your website and (b) to use your name, likeness and image for any purpose, including commercial or advertising, each of (a) and (b) on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof. That language is the same as in the old TOS, but there was an important couple of lines at the end of that section that have been removed: You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content. Furthermore, the Termination section near the end of the TOs states: The following sections will survive any termination of your use of the Facebook Service: Prohibited Conduct, User Content, Your Privacy Practices, Gift Credits, Ownership; Proprietary Rights, Licenses, Submissions, User Disputes; Complaints, Indemnity, General Disclaimers, Limitation on Liability, Termination and Changes to the Facebook Service, Arbitration, Governing Law; Venue and Jurisdiction and Other. Make sure you never upload anything you don't feel comfortable giving away forever, because it's Facebook's now. Oh, you also agree to arbitration, naturally. Have fun with that. regards -- Ramakrishna Reddy GPG Key ID:31FF0090 Fingerprint = 18D7 3FC1 784B B57F C08F 32B9 4496 B2A1 31FF 0090 If you're going to get mad at me every time I do something stupid, then I guess I'll just have to stop doing stupid things! - Homer simpson
Re: [silk] Facebook's New Terms Of Service: We Can Do Anything We Want With Your Content. Forever.
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 10:39 PM, Ramakrishna Reddy ramkr...@gmail.com wrote: Facebook's New Terms Of Service: We Can Do Anything We Want With Your Content. Forever. By Chris Walters, 6:14 PM on Sun Feb 15 2009, Source :: http://consumerist.com/5150175/facebooks-new-terms-of-service-we-can-do-anything-we-want-with-your-content-forever A follow-up on Consumerist: http://consumerist.com/5154745/facebook-clarifies-terms-of-service-we-do-not-own-your-stuff-forever Facebook Clarifies Terms Of Service: We Do Not Own Your Stuff Forever By Chris Walters, 6:52 PM on Mon Feb 16 2009, 10,958 views Well, yesterday's Facebook post certainly blew up today, and it looks like Facebook is currently preparing an official response. In the meantime, a Facebook rep has written to the Industry Standard to emphasize that all rights are subject to your privacy settings, so even if they don't expire when you close your account, they'll still be subject to whatever restrictions you had when the account was active. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has also posted a more philosophical response on the Facebook blog saying that while the new Terms of Service are overly formal, they're only meant to give Facebook the legal ability to enable content sharing among users. Here's what the Facebook rep told the Industry Standard: We are not claiming and have never claimed ownership of material that users upload. The new Terms were clarified to be more consistent with the behavior of the site. That is, if you send a message to another user (or post to their wall, etc...), that content might not be removed by Facebook if you delete your account (but can be deleted by your friend). Furthermore, it is important to note that this license is made subject to the user's privacy settings. So any limitations that a user puts on display of the relevant content (e.g. To specific friends) are respected by Facebook. Also, the license only allows us to use the info in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof. Users generally expect and understand this behavior as it has been a common practice for web services since the advent of webmail. For example, if you send a message to a friend on a webmail service, that service will not delete that message from your friend's inbox if you delete your account. -- ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
Re: [silk] Facebook's New Terms Of Service: We Can Do Anything We Want With Your Content. Forever.
Here's what the Facebook rep told the Industry Standard: We are not claiming and have never claimed ownership of material that users upload. The new Terms were clarified to be more consistent with the behavior of the site. That is, if you send a message to another user (or post to their wall, etc...), that content might not be removed by Facebook if you delete your account (but can be deleted by your friend). Furthermore, it is important to note that this license is made subject to the user's privacy settings. So any limitations that a user puts on display of the relevant content (e.g.To specific friends) are respected by Facebook. Also, the license only allows us to use the info in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof. Users generally expect and understand this behavior as it has been a common practice for web services since the advent of webmail. For example, if you send a message to a friend on a webmail service, that service will not delete that message from your friend's inbox if you delete your account. Isn't it just easier on system resources to link users to a primary copy of uploaded content, rather than make multiple copies for each user with whom it is shared? Surely some kind of load-balancing system with built-in redundancies should take care of excessive demand. I have no background on the subject, so I could be talking through my hat here. But I'd like to be educated. The bit that troubles me is that Facebook assumes that any content I generate can be used by other people just because I chose to share it with them. Just because I showed you my pictures doesn't automatically mean you can do whatever you want with it. Or by Facebook themselves, for any reason, promotional or otherwise (The ToS says they can). How does Facebook intend to compensate me if the content I create is used by them (the ToS says I get SFA)? And it reads to me that any content I upload to Facebook is theirs to use in perpetuity, even if I delete it (because those I share it with will keep copies). Also, what of content that is created off-site, but is shared on Facebook via applications/RSS? Do they claim ownership of that too? -- Sumant Srivathsan http://sumants.blogspot.com
