I Repeat

[filkertom]

No, I see no reason to get a page on Facebook.

Comments

[sstaver.livejournal.com]

I think people over-react to things a bit too much.
I'm not saying that we should completely ignore these things, but people take them WAY too seriously.

But then again, I guess not everyone is Google, who promises to do no evil. Muahahaha

[scifantasy.livejournal.com]

This came up in tonight's InfoLaw session (a bunch of students with interests in these areas). According to one:

"The effect of this includes, if you put a 'post to Facebook' button on your blog post, Facebook now claims a perpetual license to that post. Now, what they probably intended was, if you put the button on your blog, you can't complain when someone posts it to Facebook with your content.

This is either bad drafting, or they're trying to slip something under the radar, having us assume they mean the latter while they get the former because we cut them slack for the bad drafting."

When I opined that Hanlon's Razor ("never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity") suggests the former, we both agreed that Hanlon's Razor doesn't cut it in law.

When it comes to this kind of thing, "we promise not to do it" is not enough. As the last eight years shows.

[jhayman.livejournal.com]

Sigh.

I have one. I have no idea how to use it. LJ is quite enought of a time sink.

[morpheus0013.livejournal.com]

Being over-reactive isn't good, I don't care what side you're on.

Here's a clarification for you, since your link was yesterday's uproar.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10165190-36.html

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Don't see how I'm overreacting. I have an LJ, a MySpace page, a page on Podsafe, my own blog, my own web site, and a few other pages. None of which compromise the rights to and ownership of my music. None of which are anywhere near as much trouble as Facebook. And Facebook seems to be a younger crowd. This is just one more thing that makes me go, "Nope, glad I'm not part of that."

[sstaver.livejournal.com]

I don't care about facebook, and rarely go on there. Myspace was the only place for awhile, and then I got into livejournal. a few people I know are mostly active on facebook, and so I check there.
Not sure what there would be that people would be so afraid of.

Are they expecting Facebook to post in 10 years "Well, on this date in 2009, this person posted a note "25 Things You Don't Know About Me". Please read and enjoy this piece of 'history' that no one cares about."

[dornbeast.livejournal.com]

Does anybody put short stories, or songs, or any other creative efforts on Facebook?

Is there anybody on Facebook that took a photograph of something newsworthy and lasting, and put the photo up there? The inaguration of President Obama, for example?

If anything like this happens, then according to a strict interpretation of Facebook's policies, if it is publically viewable, then Facebook owns that content now. Regardless of what they say they meant, this is what they said. I don't want to trust "they meant this" when I'm signing a contract.

On the bright side, finding something worth selling among all the Facebook stuff is a daunting idea. Forget Sturgeon's Revelation - in this case, 99.99% of everything is crud. So unless something on Facebook becomes a Big Thing That Everybody Looks At, this probably won't affect anybody.

[nomaddervish.livejournal.com]

if it is publically viewable, then Facebook owns that content now. Regardless of what they say they meant, this is what they said.

No. Just freaking NO. The did not say that.

For the record, I don't use Facebook. I never have used Facebook and I have never had any interest in using Facebook aside from one point when someone suggested that I should take one of my programs and turn it into a Facebook app (at which point I was interested for about 5 minutes, then decided "meh"). So I have no interest in defending them.

However, this whole overblown "issue" with them really pisses me off because everyone's running around saying "Facebook claims to own everything!"

If Facebook makes any claim to own anything - even just one thing - in their TOS, then I've never seen that section quoted by any of the sky-is-falling crowd. The incessantly-quoted sections claim a license to the content and, as anyone who follows the repeated fiascos perpetrated by the movie and music publishing industries should be painfully aware, a license does not constitute ownership.

Now, are they overreaching? Absolutely. Are they claiming powers that could be used for either immense evil or miniscule good? Definitely. If it became an issue, would those claims stand up in court? I highly doubt it. Using a not-even-clickwrap "agreement" to assert an irrevocable license without providing any opportunity for negotiation of the terms is far, far beyond what contract law would normally allow. The only reason it's still being done is because companies have settled every time anything of the sort has come close to seeing a courtroom because they know it would be struck down and they don't want to lose the ability to use such bogus "agreements" as a tool to intimidate those who don't know better.

[madamruppy.livejournal.com]

I am so glad that I am not the only one who has no interest FB.

[madmanotl.livejournal.com]

I tolerate facebook and all those goofy apps. Prefer LJ.

[loosecanon.livejournal.com]

This was on the radio today:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100778238

I found it creepy and insidiously prying.

[maikujaku.livejournal.com]

I'll be honest, right now, Facebook has been good to me. I've gotten back in touch with some of my family I haven't seen or heard from in years, and that does make me happy.

[ebenbrooks.livejournal.com]

I've read their new TOS, and...yeah. I don't want them owning part of everything I post there, such as my videos and such! SCREW THAT!

Unless the TOS changes, I'm outta there.

[alverant.livejournal.com]

I'm glad I'm not on face book. It smacks of "the rules are inconvenient to me so I'll change them" attitude. People signed on under agreement A and now they're finding out it was covertly changed to agreement B and if they don't like it, it's already too late.

It does raise some questions about IP. If you create something online or put something you created online, who owns it and who's responsible for it? The 1s and 0s are on someone else's computer. What happens if that computer malfunctions and looses the day or the company who owns that computer goes under?

One of the greatest strengths and problems with the internet is its ability to preserve information. The embarrassing picture of you at a party 10 years ago is still out there somewhere ready to pounce for that job interview. Opinions you made long ago are still fresh even if you've changed your mind. It would be easier if we could just follow the simple idea of not posting anything online you wouldn't want repeated to your boss/SO/family/friends. Of course we don't think about that and we believe some things are only for a certain group of people. If only that were true.

[kengr]

It does raise some questions about IP. If you create something online or put something you created online, who owns it and who's responsible for it? The 1s and 0s are on someone else's computer. What happens if that computer malfunctions and looses the day or the company who owns that computer goes under?

You own the copyright. The place you posted it has an implicit license to have it on their site.

But unless you have a contract with them to *maintain* a copy (as opposed to just having it on their site), if they lose the copy you posted or just go away or something, you've got no recourse.

Recently had this come up with the FictionMania website which had a major malfunction a few months back. The data was mostly ok, but the front-end wasn't. And since the hardware was in Canada, and needed help beyond what the colocation contract covered, repairs have waited until the folks in the US (all of whom are volunteers with real jobs) could get hardware shipped back and forth and various config issues settled.

There was a backdoor of sorts to get at the stories. Folks weren't supposed to be using it, but the site owners were ignoring it since it was low volume.

Then some author created a site that hot linked to not just his stuff (which wasn't allowed) but to that of a lot of other folks. So they had to shut down the backdoor.

He threatened to sue, claiming that they were denying him access to his data. Numerous folks pointed out that he had no right to access it. His rights were that he could tell the site to remove the data, but they had no obligation to make it available to him.

Using a web site as "offsite backup" is really stupid unless it is set up specifically for that sort of service and you are paying for it as such.


As for embarrassing stuff, I got started on usenet over 20 years ago. Around 1990 0r 91, Deajanews put up archives of usenet posts going back years. And the first page of hits on my name were evenly split between technical groups and alt.sex.bondage. Oops.

[alverant.livejournal.com]

What happened to fictionmania? I tried going to their site recently and I got an error message. Is it still/back up?

Are the usenet and alt newsgroups still around? If so, how do you access it?

Thank you!

For your message here's my concern; Mr.Smith pays a service to maintain a website. Now this website is engaged in illegal activity. Who's responsible for what? If the service doesn't know what's on its servers, can it be argued that they should know. If they look, are they violating Mr.Smith's rights? Should the service have an obligation to insure they're not helping illegal activities? What about monitoring the traffic to/from the website (for determining optimization or fees)? If they check the traffic and find something suspicious, what are they legally obligated to do?

(I'm trying to keep everything vague to cover as much as possible.)

[kengr]

What happened to fictionmania? I tried going to their site recently and I got an error message. Is it still/back up?

Some sort of server problem that's being worked on. There was a recent update posted to the TG_Fiction yahoo group.

Are the usenet and alt newsgroups still around? If so, how do you access it?

You need a newsreader on your computer (I use Forte Agent) and access to a news server that carries the groups you want to follow. Many ISPs either no longer provide access to news servers or restrict the traffic (how many gigabytes per month).

Giganews carries darn near everything and is priced fairly reasonably.

[kengr]

For your message here's my concern; Mr.Smith pays a service to maintain a website. Now this website is engaged in illegal activity. Who's responsible for what? If the service doesn't know what's on its servers, can it be argued that they should know. If they look, are they violating Mr.Smith's rights? Should the service have an obligation to insure they're not helping illegal activities? What about monitoring the traffic to/from the website (for determining optimization or fees)? If they check the traffic and find something suspicious, what are they legally obligated to do?

(I'm trying to keep everything vague to cover as much as possible.)

ISPs are *specifically* protected in the law against illegal activities by their users.

Part of that is so they don't censor things (though many do anyway).

Anyway, going from the rules that applied to BBSes, searching thru the content *makes* them responsible for stuff even if they hadn't seen it yet.

Monitoring bandwidth is fine. Monitoring content is where they get into trouble.

But what is and isn't legal is very much up in the air.

[zibblsnrt.livejournal.com]

Most websites have that same clause these days. If a majority of those have the "irrevocable" and "perpetual" bits, I'd be entirely unsurprised. I'm not sure why Facebook's so specifically being yelled at over it.

(I'm also deeply astonished that LJ hasn't implemented it yet; the main reason I reduced my account to a comment-only one is because I know they will eventually.)

[jannyblue.livejournal.com]

LJ TRIED to have it... causing a huge uproar, which caused them to change it.

But, in their version, if you deleted your account, their license to use/sublicense your stuff ended.

[edited after I re-read the TOS]

[sunfell.livejournal.com]

I don't have a Facebook page. I briefly had a MySpace page, but deleted it within two weeks.

I don't like 'noise'. And social sites are notoriously noisy, intrusive, time-sucking and very trivial. Facebook is one of those screaming, in-your-face sorts of places I avoid in real life. Being an introvert, I know my social limits. The very act of looking at a Facebook page drains me about as badly as going to a party drains me.

I don't like parties.

And this whole 'friend' thing- the excuse that Manjoo gave for being on Facebook, makes no sense to me at all. I do have friends- but I don't have a huge crowd of them. And I don't want a huge crowd of them. As it is, LinkedIn is getting annoying with waving all these passing acquaintances and 'colleagues' at me- people I barely know. Do I want to follow them? Do I want them to follow me?

No. If I haven't spoken to, emailed, written or phoned them in X amount of months or years, I have no interest in doing so. Same with old school mates, distant relatives and past colleagues. No time, no interest. I don't really want people from high school looking me up. I don't want old military colleagues looking me up. I won't remember them.

I suppose that I sound like an anti-social curmudgeon. I am, in some ways. But to be honest, I already have enough on my plate without the additional burden of wondering who the hell this person is, and why the hell they want to be my friend. Some of this comes from bitter experience- people who want to be my friend (and say so in so many words) never have my best interests in mind. Those who become friends without making a big fuss over it tend to be genuine friends.

So, I'll pass on Facebook. I am not a bandwagon person, and won't get on this one.

[bryanp.livejournal.com]

I have a Facebook account, which I mostly use to keep up with an entirely different circle of friends than the people I know on LJ.

In the meantime, it appears TPTB at Facebook have seen the light (it's that glowy spot in the middle of the shitstorm) and have reverted their TOS:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/02/18/facebook.reversal/index.html

[shockwave77598.livejournal.com]

I have one, but it is being filled with my high school classmates for some reason. I don't know why they'd care about me now, after a quarter of a century. My original reason for getting it was it looked like SexApart was going to drive LJ into disaster, so I picked up a spare system to be safe. Now I wonder why I keep it - I never look at it.

[lizreay.livejournal.com]

Thank you for that. Now I know not to upload my show to my Facebook, and to continue letting it languish unattended.

[jenrose]

They already reverted back to their previous TOS due to user feedback.

Facebook is fun, and great marketing, IMO.

[lemmozine.livejournal.com]

Well, me, I guess I'm a special case. High school was very traumatic for me, and bringing it back would be like that Firesign Theater game show, Stab From the Past. Also, I go by Blind Lemming Chiffon these days, and believe it or not, that was not my name in high school. I have no desire to create a web presence under the other name. It might confuse me further, and I was born confused. I am more a look to the future person, although I do cling to bits of the distant past, mostly musical bits I find interesting. I highly doubt that any of that past is on facebook, or even alive. Now, if Mississippi John Hurt and Ukulele Ike joined facebook, I'd be there.

Why isn't there a networking site for professional musicians called "Fakebook?" Or is there?