![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-615231-100x100.png\")
Congratulations to everyone on their hard work on this.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-690585-100x100.png\")
Three cheers to Consumerist and its awesome staff. Great job, guys. Also, what do you think the Gawker \"leadership\" team's reaction was to the fury that Consumerist unleashed on the intarweb? My guess?
/facepalm
![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
Time to take all my precious photos off and check the TOS for insanity every single day...
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-324163-100x100.png\")
Consumerist, FTW! FTW!!! Nice job, guys. I would not have known the details without you.
@Maxwell Vincent Crabb: And what about the missing last word of the phrase, too? \"mthrfckr\"
(joking, no banhammer, plz)
@Ben Popken: I tease the trolls, but I'm serious. I could not have kept up on what all this meant without these posts, I would have given up long before you did. Thanks for working late. *AHEM* Not that I ever had anything to worry about.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-23588-100x100.png\")
Y gys r lltrt.
Cnsmrst jst gt PWND by CNN: [www.cnn.cm]
\"Fcbk's trms f srvc clm tht th cmpny ds nt hv wnrshp vr cntnt\"
Rdng cmprhnsn sklls ftw.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-83488-100x100.png\")
@GovernorWatts: My dear fellow, Facebook's reply was a strawman response. We all know they never claimed ownership of content. They \"merely\" claimed a perpetual, irrevocable license to do any damn thing they wanted with your content (like sell it or sublicense it). They're asserting all the advantages of ownership. Congratulations, you users still \"own\" your content---but you have no control over what Facebook, Inc. chooses to do with it. That part about \"we will respect your privacy settings\"? They could snip that bit out tomorrow, and what could you do about it?
They don't own your content, they merely pwn it.
Thank you LandruBek for that statement. I'm glad to see that I'm not the only cynic when it comes to reading and interpreting contracts.
@PatrickIs2Smart: I think it's like PWNED!
But what would I know? I guess I don't have reading comprehension skills. :)
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-542520-100x100.png\")
@Crabby Cakes' Anaconda don't want none.:
Ha nice, my comment is in the article:
\"Facebook should now be called The Information Blackhole,\" one Consumerist commenter proclaimed. \"What goes in never comes out. Be careful what you huck in there.\"
Too bad CNN is just doing damage control and their basic logic is 'most people don't give a crap so it doesn't matter'. Disappointing but not at all surprising from a major media outlet.
Barry Schnitt (Facebook) wrote20 minutes agoHi everyone,
First, I want to apologize for the delay in response. It’s been a long day with lots of interesting and constructive discussions. Second, I want to thank you for your questions and concerns. As Mark expressed in his blog post on Monday, it was never our intention to confuse people or make them uneasy about sharing on Facebook. I also want to be very clear that Facebook does not, nor have we ever, claimed ownership over people’s content. Your content belongs to you.
We do need certain licenses in order to facilitate the sharing of your content through our service. That’s where the Terms of Use come in. The fact that you’ve raised the questions you have is proof that we haven’t done a good job explaining these licenses in the actual language of the document. In fact, as we were working to answer your questions, we realized the new version of the Terms might technically permit some of the hypothetical situations people have offered. I can assure you, however, that these hypotheticals aren’t ones we had in mind when writing the Terms, and that selling user information for profit or using it to advertise Facebook in some way was never part of our original intent. Assurances aren’t enough, though, and we plan to codify this in our revised Terms through simple language that defines Facebook’s rights much more specifically.
In the meantime, we’ve decided to revert to the old Terms as we work to address this. Mark has explained this in more detail in another blog post (http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=54746167130), and we’ve created a group where people can provide input (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=69048030774). We hope you’ll join this group and post comments. We promise to use these comments to help construct a new Terms of Use that reflects the principles around how people share and control their information, and that’s written clearly in language everyone can understand.
I hope you don’t think your participation in this discussion was a waste of time. Honestly, your questions were very helpful to us in arriving at what we believe is the right decision. Also, I think your questions will continue to be useful as we’re crafting a new Terms.
Again, thanks for the fruitful discussion and a special thanks to Anne Katherine and Julius for setting up this feedback forum. We hope you’ll all join our “Facebook Bill of Rights and Responsibilities” group and continue discussing these issues there.
Best,
Barry
Barry Schnitt
Facebook Communications
barry@facebook.com
@EmilyMu: Dear Barry, I didn't like the old terms of service either, which is why I never signed up for a Facebook account. But I certainly am gratified to see people taking a critical view of absurd, hyper-expansive IP claims in websites' terms of service. IP agreements should balance the interests of both the users and the site, but for a long time the balance has been tipped unfairly in favor of websites.
The problem is not limited to Facebook, of course: it's why I won't do photoprinting with (for example) Snapfish. They say, \"As a condition to your Membership, you hereby grant Snapfish a perpetual, universal, non-exclusive, royalty-free right to copy, display, modify, transmit, make derivative works of, and distribute your Content, solely for providing or improving the Service\" and \"Snapfish may amend these Terms at any time, for any reason, and without notice, including the right to terminate the Service or any part of the Service.\" No thanks!
So I use a different photo printer that doesn't have such nonsense in their terms of service.
Facebook has maybe already sold all the informations to companies....Otherwise, great news for the new users. Great job the Consumerist!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-396144-100x100.png\")
Awesome, just remember they reserve the right to revert back at any time for any reason, and wouldn't technically, anything uploaded during the TOS period of the last 2 days still be their property forever in accordance with the previous terms. And if so, couldn't they have 1 second TOS reverts at awkward times to capture content without your knowledge and keep the rights forever?
@Lucky225:
You'll be safe as long as you wear your tin-foil hat. It also helps to frequently rub yourself all over with a magnet, which will scramble the control chips they've secretly implanted.
Well I finally deleted my account today after seeing a helpful post on reddit on how to do so, this all after having it 'deactivated' for close to 2 years.
I feel relieved and better knowing that its gone. I know Facebook can be a useful service but anyone else could do it without all the legal hyperbole. They say its for this and that and pull at your heart strings to gain sympathy but it also means a lot of scary things as well.
Often bad things are covered up in 'good intentions' to make them palatable for the public. I find their activity disturbing in a precedent setting way and I don't want to support that type of behavior as being acceptable. Those who don't respect their rights will have them taken away from them, especially with the tool of 'good intentions'
@Telekinesis123: I know what you mean. Everything I've heard about Mark Zuckerberg convinces me that he has no respect for people's privacy, and that is reflected in the way he executes Facebook.I haven't got rid of my account, but I am questioning my use of the site.
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.
More like:
Over the past couple of days, we received a lot of unfavourable media attention about the changes and what they mean for people and their information.
I'm sure they don't give a crap about what users actually want when it comes to rights in the digital world.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-353151-100x100.png\")
I sent that link to the original Consumerist article to one of my friends. Next thing I know, it started spreading like wildfire between my friends, their friends, their friends' friends...etc.
I'm happy to know they reverted to their old terms of service. This reminds me of that Beacon bull that they pulled a while back.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-169958-100x100.png\")
i'm going to post this on facebook when i'm done, but want to get some of your comments first:
(1) give me complete control over deleting (and i mean completely deleting, not just delinking) any photos/videos/my entire account
(2) recognize that i have the right to join and leave groups, friend and defriend people as i please. if you chose to keep this data for any internal purposes, keep it anonymous. you should not sell/give away data on what groups i joined and left, who i friended and defriended.
(3) realize that people may have private conversations on your site, especially with the facebook chat applet. at no time should any of my wall messages/private messages/facebok chat messages/status messages be sold or provided to a 3rd party without the express permission of both parties involved (if i write a message on Mark Z's wall, both him and i need to authorize before it's given to a 3rd party)
(4) there are lots of artists on the internet. you should not stifle their artistic potential by claiming rights to use their work when they post it on your website. What happens when i \"share\" a link to a webcomic that i didn't write? are you going to claim rights to that? also, i know that lots of people use copyrighted images as their \"face pic\" even though you require us to check a box that we own the copyrights... how are you going to claim rights to something that was illegally uploaded to your server?
@Gstein: it's late, and i've been wooting, so i still need to copyedit/tone down parts of this, i know (and spellcheck wouldn't hurt, either)
oh, and
(5) notify us of TOS changes upon login
Just gonna post one more thing here.
I've noticed in a lot of the comments people are downplaying the importance and/or power of the TOS like it doesn't matter well here is an example of facebook taking ownership of someone else's content, this was a comment I found on the original Facebook TOS post:
---
Willjan
Check out:
[www.digitaljournal.com]
A Canadian model poster her image on Facebook. On an assignment, she was murdered in China. Now Facebook is \"licensing\" her image for use in news reports.
---
If you look you will see they have All Rights Reserved and Attribution (The act of attributing, especially the act of establishing a particular person as the creator of a work of art): Facebook.com
Do you think they sent a representative to take a picture of this lady? No, of course not, they took it from her Facebook profile and now claim all rights to it.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-192310-100x100.png\")
A friend has been encouraging me to set up a Facebook account. After this, not gonna happen. Never gonna happen. I don't trust them.
Way to go, Team Consumerist! Putting right what once went wrong.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-6536-100x100.png\")
I don't know, I don't think I'd trust them to not operate under the terms of service they wanted to use any way and then call it a 'mistake' if and when they're caught using content that's been removed from Facebook.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-488475-100x100.png\")
That's why no matter what they say, I still won't get on Facebook. Especially now.
I echo other posters in thanking Consumerist for the post on this, and everyone who commented for making it clearer to me. Without you guys, I might have gone on it anyway and lost something important.
I'm glad they're listening to the outcry. The new terms were just way too overreaching. But I still deleted my account (thanks to the person who suggested reddit!) because I'm disturbed at how they can change them without telling you. I'd like it if they notified you before the terms take effect, so you can opt to leave if you want. That'll teach me to not read things before I cyber-sign them!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-6173-100x100.png\")
\"As we all know, there's reality, and then there's lawyers.\"
Hey now! Oh, wait, no, that's exactly the problem. :)
I could see exactly why they (or their lawyers, rather) went where they did with the TOS, which would have provided Facebook protection from some potentially very serious lawsuits. But I could also see at the same time why I would never, as a consumer, agree to that TOS.
As with the discussion about contracts of adhesion last week, I'm left wondering when we're going to get around to creating a new body of law that addresses contracts of adhesion, TOSes, and things like that. Because their lawyers aren't wrong to overreach to protect their clients ... but the users have no lawyers to overreach to protect them, and they don't get to settle on mutually-agreeable terms. Take it or leave it.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-483565-100x100.png\")
@Eyebrows McGee: So do you think the problem is that the lawyers were just thinking about protection, not PR, and nobody in PR has enough--what, sense? knowledge?--to see what those terms might have meant to the users? Because this has actually ended up damaging, not protecting, Facebook, and I'm thinking about who at the company I'd be mad it if I ran the thing. Perhaps TOSes, being so public, need to be examined more thoroughly for their PR impact and not just their legal impact.
@floraposte: I think the lawyers have a duty to their clients to cover their asses as completely as possible. They're not responsible for their PR (especially if they're using outside instead of in-house attorneys), and very few lawyers are used to thinking about PR.
I'm not \"condoning\" it, but it's very easy to see how they landed in that situation. To give a bit of an analog, I do a little legal consulting for churches & other religious organizations (and for litigation firms working on lawsuits where a church is a party). One constant and ongoing problem is that the lawyers are trying to protect their church-client as strongly as possible, while the church is trying to create a structure that expresses its religious mission and beliefs (which might involve, say, shared governance instead of a corporate structure of authority). The lawyers tend to be familiar with particular modes of doing things, and are reluctant to step outside those modes because it introduces uncertainty, which means potential liability. The churches are often not sophisticated enough to know if there's an alternative mode of doing things to what the lawyers suggest. So you end up with lawyers trying to do their jobs and protect their clients who not only create absurd structures that seem very antagonistic for their purpose, but where the lawyer/client relationship itself gets antagonistic!
There's some movement in law schools towards understanding underlying motivations, particularly as part of negotiation and mediation, which is sort-of a baby version of worrying about PR and perception, but lawyers just really aren't oriented or trained that way, and I can hypothesize situations where being concerned about PR might actually conflict with your duty to your client and become ethically sticky.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-809020-100x100.png\")
This is great news for consumers, but prepare for them to change the ToU at some point down the road when they think everyone is asleep at the wheel and has long forgotten about this little incident.
I don't trust Zuck & Co. They have shown that they are trying to be sneaky by not pointing out the changes like they did the reversion. They could just as easily post the updates, highlighting the changes, to our profiles and requiring us to accept the terms in order to continue using the service.
If the user is not made aware of the changes, he/she assumes they are the same as before. You cannot assume their agreement on unannounced changes. What reasonable man is going to read the ToU every day to see if there are any changes. That is essentially what they expect users to do if they are not willing to post a notice and require user acceptance to continue service.
I expect this to be a lead case in ToS/ToU for the future of web services. There will be major legal action in the short-term that will force web services to do a better job of notifying and explaining changes to users.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-78520-100x100.png\")
CNN is covering this now and gave credit to the Consumerist, nice!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-115008-100x100.png\")
Right now, I'm glad that they've changed their TOS/TOU. I had thought of leaving FB, but realized that it would be impossible to do so - I rely on it so much to promote my online magazine...it's a business tool for me. I'm going to keep an eye on their changes though. If it gets too far, I may have to rethink.
People complain and complain about the TOS, but they will continue to use the site as if it is some sort publicly provided utility that they have the god given right to use.
Yes, i do agree changing the TOS with out telling people was a bit shady...or wait, not it wasn't, considering one of the first lines of the original, and all subsequent TOS included the line \"TERMS MAY CHANGE WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE\"
If you don't want people seeing something, don't post it online, this is as bad as girls who post nudies to photobucket and then get mad when they turn up on another site.
I know im preaching to the choir, but i just wanted to give my 2 cents.
@AtwoodBullfinch: People like you keep missing the issue of the altered TOS's claim of \"perpetual, irrevocable\" license to anything posted on or even linked through Facebook. Those of us involved in creative pursuits like music, art, photography and writing take issue with Facebook surreptitiously claiming effective ownership of original works just because they touched Facebook in some way.
Yes, I realize that any TOS is going to claim license of some posted materials, but Facebook's altered TOS was ridiculously overreaching, executed behind the users' backs and written in impenetrable legalese, all of which are antagonistic practices to intelligent consumers.
Very clever response on two counts.
First is the concession on principle. It's a classic opening gambit in hardball negotiations. Doing so gets the noise level down, and hands the battle off to the lawyers, activists and fine print. And, as we all know, you can get pretty much anything you want by carefully crafting the fine print.
Second is the broad invitation to help draft the Facebook Bill or Rights. This engages the existing community, and only brings more attention to the site. And it might even result in the discovery of a virtual James Madison.
Evil, but Brilliant. John Malone would be proud.
After this latest 'hickup' and a recent news article where someone was able to hack into a FB members account and lock him out and then pose as him asking his friends for immediate $ help due to a supposed emergency abroad, I have now decided to remove my photos and content from FB and close my account. Too close to home and not worth the risk.
It took this individual 5 days to hear back from FB and clear up this mess - after which several friends were out 1,000s of dollars.
We aware!! Control your information.
I have de-activated my Facebook.com account, and the company indicates that I can re-activate it any time using my old ID and password. Where is my information stored after de-activation?
Heeeeeere ya go, it's the permant delete page...now with a message saying they made a mistake with the TOS.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-532329-100x100.png\")
@Crabby Cakes' Anaconda don't want none.: @undefined: I'm learning, bear with me:
Why was this comment disemvoweled? I get the gist of the content, but what that the only reason, or was it the tone?
The Bill of Rights group wasn't working when I was on it a few minutes ago.
As for perpetual rights, it's apparently common for online media. The Toronto Star and the New York Times both indicate that they have perpetual rights to use user-generated comment in any way, shape or form. Just a thought.
While Facebook has reverted to their previous contract, my biggest beef with the Facebook Terms of Service still hasn't changed. Specifically, the TOS has always said that they can sublicense your images, video, etc... to anyone without compensation to you. That essentially makes them a stock photo agency with the worst terms in history. See the underlined portion of the contract.
This is what I have a problem with: \"...fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense)...\" and \"....and distribute such User Content for any purpose, commercial, advertising, or otherwise...\"
Sublicense means to be able to rent your work, photos, video, music, etc... to others. You are still relinquishing your rights to your work according to the Facebook TOS.
@Dean Siracusa: You realize that most online media have some sort of perpetual license agreement, right? Just by commenting in Consumerist, you're granting the Consumerist to republish/broadcast, etc as many times as they want. It's pretty much a standard.
All my pictures are copyrighted and I only grant facebook to display the picture on my page and to my friends and whomever see them.
I do not grant them the license to, for example, use it on a billboard or a commercial. If they want to do that, they better be prepared to give me a cut.
it is NOT over! Facebook is duping everyone they've changed back, think again. Thier original TOS wasn't that different from the one everyone blew up about.
to quote facebooks TOS under \"User Content posted on the Site\" http://www.facebook.com/terms.php?ref=pf
\"By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose, commercial, advertising, or otherwise, on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing. \"
English translation, If you post anything to facebook, we can do anything we want with it, including sell it for $$$$ and we don't have to give you a dime.
The particularly galling part of the change in ToS is that they didn't give people the choice to opt out before implementing it! If they'd said 'These are our new terms of service, which will take effect on 1 March. If you do not agree with the new terms of service, you have until that date to discontinue the use of your account and delete any content you do not want retained by Facebook,' that would have been one thing. At least then it wouldn't have been an exercise in 'Hey, let's see how stupid and inattentive our users are!'
I deleted my Facebook account yesterday, and, despite their grudging admission of defeat, I will not be restoring it.
Their intent was quite clearly spelled out in the new TOS, and, even though they were forced to relent today, you can be sure that Facebook's lawyers are working even now on some other means of achieving their desired goal.
They're just lying low until the heat's off.
FB is a mess! They Suggest People You May Know and I add them. then they warn me that I am violating terms of use w/o saying what specifically I am violating. So I quit adding when I get the warning. But...but then i add as they suggest and BOOM! I am disabled. No matter what you tell them they respond via form letter always ( a bot I assume). No matter what suggestions you give them for improvement, or to keep this from happening, or anything else, it is the same old form letter.
Anything they do is really believable as they seem to look at everyone as just another number, not as anyone who matters.
Now, if they would police the members who are illegitimate as well as they do legitimate ones, I would believe they were really serious about running a clean operation, but they do not, and they do not even ask for details.
An arrogant company, as witnessed by recent events.
FB really does not tune in the issue of limits, but I do have the understanding that since there are biz accounts to address limits, or accommodations can be done in some cases by them. I do wish they start seeking some options such as membership for pay.
What upsets me most about this whole affair is the underhanded manner in which Facebook attempted their policy change. It took almost two weeks before anybody even noticed that Facebook had unilaterally claimed ownership of everyone's content.
I'm now committed to lobbying Facebook for better notifications of policy changes. If you'd like to help support this cause please join the group: \"Facebook Fair Notification Supporters.\" The direct link is: [www.facebook.com]
I think they have gone back again as this was copied on the site today \"When you post User Content to the Site, you authorise and direct us to make such copies thereof as we deem necessary in order to facilitate the posting and storage of the User Content on the Site. By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide licence (with the right to sublicence) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose, commercial, advertising, or otherwise, on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorise sublicences of the foregoing. You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. If you choose to remove your User Content, the licence granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content. Facebook does not assert any ownership over your User Content; rather, as between us and you, subject to the rights granted to us in these Terms, you retain full ownership of all of your User Content and any intellectual property rights or other proprietary rights associated with your User Content.\" I find this statement confusing as their taken rights allow them to \"By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide licence (with the right to sublicence) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose, commercial, advertising, or otherwise, on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorise sublicences of the foregoing.\" It is a partial retraction, but still IMHO leaves you exposed as long as you have images left on Facebook.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1161-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-60277-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-280751-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-433752-100x100.png\")
w00t!