![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-280999-100x100.png\")
Ow-hay aboutay igpay atinlay?
Ow-hay aboutay igpay atinlay?
![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
While i think it's great that consumerist is pointing out FB's TOS changes, it seems somewhat interesting that the Consumerist User Agreement is similar:
Except as otherwise set forth in this User Agreement, by transmitting any public Communication to the Site, you grant Consumer Media an irrevocable, non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, unrestricted, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, reproduce, distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, modify, edit, create derivative works from, incorporate into one or more compilations and reproduce and distribute such compilations, and otherwise exploit such Communications, in all media now known or later developed. You warrant that you have the right to grant these rights to Consumer Media and that you will not post any content that infringes or violates any proprietary, privacy or publicity, or other rights of any party or that violates any law. You hereby waive all rights generally known as \"moral rights\" in your Communications to the extent they can be waived, under any existing or future law of any jurisdiction.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-809020-100x100.png\")
That's not true. You require an email address to register and participate in the site. That's personal data.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-16563-100x100.png\")
@sumgai: The expected value of a couple sentences of snarky comment concerning a topical subject, no matter how beautifully crafted, is close to zero two weeks after it's written. As Floraposte notes, it's standard for Letters to the Editor, for obvious reasons.
Not the same for artistic properties, particularly visual ones. Imagine if Farley had posted his HOPE Obama portrait to Facebook first, to show his friends, and if Facebook had gone nuts with the lawyering. That's the sort of thing that Facebook visitors are worried about.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-86968-100x100.png\")
@Ben Popken: What I'm more concerned with in the ToS for Consumerist is the clause saying you can change it at any time and we are responsible for checking to see if it's changed.
I'd like to see a policy saying that changes in the ToS will: take 48 hours to go into effect, and will be accompanied by a post indicating that the ToS has changed on the frontpage of consumerist.com
Currently, they say \"We may update this User Agreement from time to time by posting the modified User Agreement on this page, or elsewhere on our Site. By continuing to use our Site after the modified User Agreement becomes effective, you agree to the modified terms.\"
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-483565-100x100.png\")
@Reid Antonacchio: That's pretty much on a par with Letters to the Editor policies--you send in a comment on an article, the place you send it gets to do what they please with it. It's not problematic to me because the Consumerist is clearly its own venue upon which I may comment, not something offering a piece of its real estate for me to use in creative ways.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-16278-100x100.png\")
The one thing I would change is that any messages I send to people, be they \"private\" messages or wall posts, should stay.
This is great and it will really show just how much control Mr. Zuckerberg has over his company. He's always said he's doing it for the users. This is his chance to take a big stand and do a big first step. With the accessibility of information and the web constantly increasing you have to find ways to communicate user's rights without making them take a course or read a novel.
We need simple language to say what rights we're waiving and what we can expect from the company. Terms of the art are no longer acceptable because users are not lawyers. Users will not bring lawyers with them when ever they want to sign up for a new account online. If it takes too long to explain what a term means, you need to either do a better job or investigate if this particular is even important. If it is, there must be a way to impart that information to the layman.
Speedwell, what a stupid comment. Their are bad accountants and bad doctors who do very bad things in their private life. I don't anyone hurting young boys and girls, but we cannot change the past. Get a clue that most legal and doctors things are written in Latin because their foundations of these practices were adapted in these times. I know Doctors and Lawyers started before that time. In the end, Facebook should not allow to have user information forever because of the use against you in the future to get a job by what your said for a background investigation.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-614980-100x100.png\")
Maybe they can add in T-Mobile phone support as well.
We're talking about one of the WORLD'S largest cell providers, here, not some backwater upstart company.
Oh well, good job to the users for not falling victim to lemming syndrome.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-488475-100x100.png\")
If Facebook can respond to this in a satisfactory manner, then I might consider using it. It's in their best interest to revise their draconian policies.
@HogwartsAlum: I feel exactly the same way. If I can feel comfortable about posting my photographs to Facebook, I'd be a lot more likely to join.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-117360-100x100.png\")
Anybody else think that Facebook will eventually implement some TOS that will still largely go against what everybody has been saying the whole time?
Skeptical me thinks that this is a cheap PR stunt that Facebook has no intention of following through.
That's it, I'm creating a social network site called MugMag... who's with me?
Here's a simple solution: Don't put content on Facebook. The only reason I have one is to keep in touch with past college buddies. That's about it.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-4166-100x100.png\")
that sheep is one of the all-time great editorial images i've ever seen.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-297061-100x100.png\")
What \"rights\" do any of these users have? They are choosing what content is uploaded to FB's servers and if the ToS state that they lose their rights to that content upon upload then the onus is on the user to monitor themselves. If you don't like it then switch to one of the other hundreds of \"social networking/market research data collection service\" and upload your crap there!
How many people will actually close their account as a result of this anyway? Odds are they'll just create or join a group protesting the changes and still upload pics of themselves in horrible situations.
\"and the beat goes on...\"
@highpitch_83: Actually, many people - myself included - used Facebook to post some of our creative works and get people interested in them. Once the stink about the new TOS flared up, many such users removed the links and content because we didn't want Facebook using our creative works - most of which have existing copyrights and many of which are released or sold through other channels - with unlimited license for their own gain, commercial or otherwise. To reduce the issue to \"stoopid pictures of yourself\" is being intentionally obtuse and dismissive of legitimate copyright and licensing issues.
And \"the onus is on the user to monitor themselves\"... isn't this place called the Consumerist? That's about the most anti-consumerist thing I've seen here in ages. Facebook has the right to cover their ass, but to assert unlimited, perpetual and irrevocable license over anything that's posted or even linked through their service is overreaching their authority by an enormous margin and shouldn't be tolerated.
@Ubik2501: I couldn't agree more. I'm not on facebook now because of their TOS, but I know it would be an excellent networking tool for me. I'm a baby/family portrait photographer, and people my age are just starting to get married and have kids. I know exposing my business to friends-of-friends-of-friends would be great, but I just can't risk giving Facebook the license to one of my photographs - it would go against the model release I have my subjects sign when they agree to be in my advertising.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-112280-100x100.png\")
didn't hear about the latin part, that's pretty silly. I remember a friend wanted to use a midi program, but decided against it when the whole License agreement was musical notes!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-7101-100x100.png\")
@Swizzler121: Go read some court cases or other legal documents. What language do you think some of the more technical terms is in?
In the context of a profession, sometimes it is MUCH easier and more concise to use a predefined term rather than explain it in English (see: engineering, medical, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam), and it's not hard to look up the often long and exhaustive explanation and justification.
Craigslist has a spectacular habit of discussing changes in forums, then, depending on the feedback, goes thru with the changes (or not). That, and adapting a Creative Commons type license, similar to what Flickr does, would go far in re-establishing trust in Facebook.
Inspired picture, btw!
Consumerist is relatively anonymous, and its not immediately visible who a user is. Yes you can probably get that information, but it takes work. Besides its just text anyways, its not like your uploading incriminating photos of yourself or of friends.
My concern is the people who upload way too much stuff on there, I have a facebook account, I have no problem with listing my interests and other things, but I am not going to use it to conduct extremely personal conversations or to post every photo of myself known to man. If someone on there wants to contact me about a personal matter they can use my email address, which is posted right on my facebook account. I have one basic photo up so people can see who I am.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-631841-100x100.png\")
... and this is why I've removed my Facebook account. I hope others do, too, if only to send a consumer message.
Besides, facebook did nothing but foster my social retardation. Now I actually have to, I don't know, CONTACT people in real life?
This is crap. Anyone who thinks the internet is a private place is an idiot. If you put it online, it will be seen, and it will be shared, end of story. If it's not facebook just sharing it out, its a marketing company scraping the site to gather the info. IF YOU DONT WANT IT SHARED, DONT PUT IT ONLINE!
If you dont like the way Facebook runs their site, and the FREE SERVICE it provides you, build your own site with as much security as you want and send a link to your friends.
The language used in a ToS is legal language, it is a contract, and thus is written like one. It is not that confusing if you have a basic education and actually WANT to understand it.
As far as putting it up to a vote, that is ridiculous. You don't run the company, you have no financial stake in it if it gets sued and can't defend itself. Most of these users are not lawyers and even fewer have an expertise in this section of law, putting it to a vote is stupid.
I'm ok with them sending out a notification when they change their ToS, most companies do, and more than 99% of people don't read them.
A company blog is hardly an obscure place to post info. Most major companies have blogs now and that is where info to the public is posted. You want to use a website, then learn to use all features of a website.
This whole thing is stupid, and most people are only throwing a fit because it seems like the cool thing to do. Most wouldn't have even noticed if a few self important people, who think they deserve privacy in a public place, didn't speak up.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-530009-100x100.png\")
@xtc46: Of course. But, you see, Facebook isn't providing a \"FREE SERVICE.\" They are selling advertising and other access opportunities to clients who want to tap into a no-cost user experience. It's a business with profits, margins and everything else.
Since the site presents no cost to users, they hope they can get free content to sell. This free content hinges on their users' willingness to give it to them, which it seems, has its limits.
If Facebook wants to continue selling user access to advertisers, it had better find terms its content providers find reasonable.
Get it?
@xtc46: Most people aren't complaining about privacy. Of course you shouldn't post photos to the internet that you don't want people to see.
The problem is with facebook granting itself a perpetual license to all your content. Artist and business people who are sharing their work end up in a situation where they no longer can feel comfortable doing so - no one wants their photos sold to Dave's Adult Diaper Co. billboard, or the poem they wrote about the death of a friend sold to Hallmark. Its not that we think Facebook would do those things, its that the TOS said that they could, if they wanted to.
And since when is telling a company WHY you are unhappy \"stupid\"? You would prefer that they just stop using it and not say why? Or not tell the company how they could do better? Of course they don't run the company - what's your point?
People who are concerned about agreeing to terms of use that can be very detrimental are not \"stupid\" - they are thoughtful and smart. People who see an issue from only one perspective and call others stupid without stopping to think... well...
Hopefully facebook will continue to listen to us
I believe that the reason that legal terms (and yes science/medical terms) are frequently in Latin is that the academia of these fields decided that it was a good idea to have one universal language to communicate certain terms in. For instance scientific taxonomy. A potato in English is a kartoffel in German, a Pomme de terre in French, but regardless of whether you are an American, German or French botanist you all know that it is a Solanum Tuberosum.
Certain legal concepts are also standardized through latin. Honestly, there are plenty of googlable sites out there which explain the Latin terms in the language of your choice if you aren't familiar with them. Half of the people in the protesting facebook groups, probably didn't read the Terms of Service in the first place when they signed up.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1161-100x100.png\")
It contained Latin? I'm pretty curious as to why they would need to do that...
@termitehead: Given the choice between Sumarian, Urr, Sanskrit or Latin, the latter is seen as the most user-friendly.
...Writhing, virgin-blood-soaked demons from Hell aren't very comfortable communicating in any of our modern languages, in case you were wondering about the lack of Spanish, French or English.
@termitehead: I'm wondering to what extent this is allowed. For example, can some company write their Terms of Use entirely in Latin, and still expect them to be held up in court? Or, for example, if I had a company, could I write my Terms of Use in Swahili, and still have them legally binding?
@termitehead: Many legal concepts are known by their latin names. This apparently favors conciseness without fostering confusion (for lawyers).
@termitehead: \"forum non conveniens\" is right there in the article. It means \"inconvenient forum.\"
Just legal Latin. There are some terms of art that are really shockingly difficult to explain or take forever to explain if you don't use the term-of-art. Sometimes there's a very specific, technical meaning attached to the term of art. Sometimes it's just laziness, but sometimes there's good reason -- explaining \"per stirpes\" takes ages if you can't just say \"per stirpes.\"
(It's not necessarily the Latin that's confusing, either; the term \"ademption\" is terrifically useful in wills, but you're unlikely to run across it in everyday English, so you're going to need it defined or explained if it's used.)
My examples are will examples which Facebook is unlikely to ever use, but you get the idea. :)
@termitehead: To make sure they get things across to the pedophiles who were trained in Catholic seminaries.