Rewriting Facebook's Terms of Service

[JakeMD 107]

Rewriting Facebook's Terms of Service

Daniel Ionescu

Feb 27, 2009 9:30 am

Facebook took the plunge into social network democracy. Photo by Samuel Cox

Facebook launched on Thursday a campaign polling users over its new draft Terms of Service (TOS). Applauded by advocates and seen as a revolutionary move toward democratic social networking, Facebook's new campaign is making its way on the Internet. But what are the new TOS all about?

Facebook created virtual Town Halls where users can comment and vote for 30 days (closing March 29) on the proposed draft Terms of Service. Two groups have been created: the Proposed Facebook Principles group, which highlights the rights and responsibilities of Facebook and its community and the Proposed Statement of Rights & Responsibilities group, which looks into the highly debated problem over who actually owns your content.

To refresh your memory, Facebook updated its terms of service (those long pages of small text that too many of us almost never read) on February 4. The changes went unnoticed, only until a consumer-oriented blog attacked them, sparkling an Internet-wide debate over why should the social network own your content. Shortly after, Facebook reverted to its old TOS, hence now polling users on what changes should be made.

Inside the Changed TOS

The most radical and noteworthy change in Facebook's proposed TOS addresses the concern of last week's debate -- who should own the content you post on Facebook. The new terms read: "You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, including information about you and the actions you take ("content")." That's a significant change from the previous grant of "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), [...]"

Photo: Scott Beale / Laughing Squid

So in the new draft TOS, by signing up to Facebook "You give us permission to use, store, and share content you post on Facebook or otherwise make available to us ("post"), subject to your privacy and application settings," which basically covers the fact that if you put for example a picture on Facebook you have to grant them the right to use in order for you to share it with you friends.

"You may delete your content or your account at any time with the understanding that removed information may persist in backup copies for a reasonable period of time (but will not be generally available to other users), and that content shared with others may remain until they delete it." That seems reasonable, considering that Facebook backs up its database on multiple servers and once you delete your account, the content you uploaded won't be "generally" available to other users.

As for "content that is covered by intellectual property rights (like photos and videos), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use, copy, publicly perform or display, distribute, modify, translate, and create derivative works of ("use") any content you post on or in connection with Facebook. This license ends when you delete your content or your account." The last phrase should put to rest any concerns that Facebook will us your pictures after you have deleted them or your account. However, a gap is left here over whether Facebook will obtain financial gain when using these pictures.

Not everyone will be happy

Voting over the new Terms of Service is now open and "If users approve the draft Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, then all future policy changes would be eligible for a vote by users, provided the level of intensity of user interest would justify it," reads a Facebook press release.

But Facebook's move cannot satisfy the 175+ million users of the social networks. Plenty of comments started popping up in the newly crated Town Halls with various opinions (of those who are actually on topic).

Blake Davis, a Facebook user, says: "Facebook is a private company and shouldn't have to solicit opinions of its users. Facebook is an oligarchy, not a democracy, and should be treated as such. Having people 'vote' on terms can only lead to havoc."

But another user, Albatros Jones disagrees: "Vote away! As with any other organization (i.e. HOA, School Groups, etc) the community creates the rules and determines what is appropriate within the community. Facebook has become too large; it isn't run by the creators anymore. If it was, the TOS that became so controversial would still be in effect and we wouldn't be having this conversation right now."

However, Facebook left plenty of loopholes in the draft TOS and judging by the number of comments already piling up on the Town Halls pages, opinions are divided. But such a debate Facebook created, in which millions have so much to say, could only lead to a discussion that will span way over the 30 days window the social network offered.

quote>

 

Looks like the pressure got to facebook.

[Duke87 1,070]

It never ceases to amuse me how worked up people can get over "ownership" of online content.

I mean, once you post something on the internet, who "owns" it is a completely moot point, since anyone can take it and do what they will with it and no one can exactly stop them.

As much as you're entitled to care about what happens with stuff you create, the fact of the matter is that if you put it on the internet what happens with it is out of your control - and, indeed, out of anyone's control. It's a simple reality that not enough people seem to be able to grasp or come to terms with.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Duke is right. Do you think your ISP doesn't keep way more track of where you go and what you do on the internet than Facebook does? Everything you do produces information that is bought and sold, and picked over by countless data miners.

It's a tempest in a teapot, to me. I still like Myspace better, and it's way more versatile.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: manticorefan Duke is right. Do you think your ISP doesn't keep way more track of where you go and what you do on the internet than Facebook does? Everything you do produces information that is bought and sold, and picked over by countless data miners.quote>

Okay, that's not what I meant.

I'm not talking about people spying on you or anything like that (paranoid much?).

I'm talking about "theft" of intellectual property.

Say I make a picture. A really nice picture. Stunning work of art. And then I post it on the internet. Is it really reasonable for me to expect that if I post something worth stealing, that nobody's going to steal it? Think about it. Anyone can save it to their hard drive. You can take measures to make it more difficult, but trust me, you can't make it impossible. No matter what measures you take to prevent someone from saving the file, it's pathetically easy for someone who knows what they're doing to do so. There are so many different tricks. I should know, I employ them to save things people are trying to prevent from being saved all the time.

Well, then, if someone can save it... what's then stopping them from reposting it elsewhere? What's to stop them from claiming it's theirs? What's to stop someone from turning it into something profane? In the real world, if someone did that, you could sue them, and that would be the solution (not to mention that it's an awful lot harder to copy and modify physical object than a digital file). But on the internet, the whole anonymity thing prevents that.

If John Smith at 104 Blah Drive in Durrr, Arkansas plagiarises the work of Joe Jones at 321 Dadada Lane in Deedledoo, Louisiana - it's easy for a case to be brought to court and for the matter to be settled. But when Va1kyn404 on Trekkie.com plagiarises the work of 1337nojutsu on Narutard.com.... well, dead end, those are faceless user accounts that could belong to absolutely anyone, anywhere. Granted, there are ways of finding out who's behind that user account (particualrly if your the cops or the FBI), but Joe internet user is not going to have the resources to do so nor will they be privy to all the information necessary to do so unless the other user gives it to them.

So, to people who post their work on the internet and then get all upset and throw a fit when someone steals it... all I can say is: "just learn to accept it, there's nothing you can do about it".

[Eastwinn 6]

Originally posted by: Duke87Anyone can save it to their hard drive.quote>

More like, everyone will save it to there hard drive. The data to view it isn't coming out of thin air; it needs to be downloaded somewhere along the line. So I agree, the thought that anyone could possibly own it is crazy. I think that facebook should just nip this in the bud quickly by claiming everything uploaded on their site as theirs in the TOS. That way, no one will create disputes over ownership.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Eastwinn

More like, everyone will save it to there hard drive. The data to view it isn't coming out of thin air; it needs to be downloaded somewhere along the line. quote>

I mean permanently saving it into your My Documents folder or something like that, not it being in your browser's cache.

Which, by the way, is a trick you can use to save things. Find it in the cache and mmm.... copypasta!

[Eastwinn 6]

I know that's what you meant

The point is that these images are being distributed widely to countless users. Users that don't even know what a browser cache is. That doesn't sound a whole lot like ownership to me.