Also: noone seems to be talking about what this means to brands, celebrities or media companies who are who using Facebook's business pages. Are they granting Facebook indefinite rights to re-publish their image or content?
@Calli
· 9 months ago
Why should it be necessary that copies of private messages should remain in the inboxes of those sent to?
If you administrate a message board you will know that when a user is banned or deleted all the content sent by private message is deleted along with the user.
I would have thought that if a user was deleted for spamming or inappropriate behaviour then that option would be preferrable.
The change could have been better handled.
@Calli
Kim Werker
· 9 months ago
-- Zuckerberg writes, “In reality, we wouldn’t share your information in a way you wouldn’t want. The trust you place in us as a safe place to share information is the most important part of what makes Facebook work.â€
Seems to me this change in the TOS is undermining that trust, and that's why people are upset.
There's got to be a way FB (and any site) can cover itself legally, obtain the rights it needs to function properly, but *not* extract more control over users' content than it needs to do so. Maybe the time has come for new sorts of test cases that will allow for (or, um, force) innovation in the law as it applies to online content management. It just works too differently from hard-copy content management to expect the existing language and precedents to apply efficiently. (So it seems to me, a not-at-all lawyer.)
Shannon Okey
· 9 months ago
In addition (and I commented on his post; funny, isn't it, that those aren't publicly-viewable?), while I understand, say, leaving a copy of a message in your friend's Facebook inbox, I can't see the point to indefinitely archiving photos, etc. At the very least, why can't they, say, enable Creative Commons licensing on photos as Flickr does?
Nathan Gilmer
· 9 months ago
I agree. I understand the messages thing...I guess. But the idea of them keeping all my pictures and videos makes me nervous. As far as I know, neither Flickr or YouTube do this. I don't understand the point.
Matt
· 9 months ago
The thing is, they haven't contacted me to notify me that the terms have changed, wasn't there a law saying that people had to be informed on new changes to Terms of Services?
Also, is this retroactive in the fact that anything I uploaded in the past now becomes theirs?
KickTime borges
· 9 months ago
Creative Commons is the way to go, and remove material when the person leaves FaceBook. Simple as that, but it *I guess* not in their interests to do that. Never liked FaceBook, and like it less now.
Prokofy Neva
· 9 months ago
No, no, no.
Just because Facebook has the technical necessity to gain rights to a *copy* of our content in order to display it doesn't mean he owns the copyright to it, and nowhere is that acknowledged in the new TOS.
Twitter has a far more enlightened TOS on this, and Second Life has an even more elaborate one recognizing all the technical complexities but coming out four-square for intellectual property protection. Zuckerberg is hiding behind technicalities to make the biggest content grab in history. Stop him. He has no right, and his peers in this same world of social media have better TOS, more respective of user-generated content, even facing exactly the same set of issues. http://secondthoughts.typepad.com/second_though...
Mike
· 9 months ago
There are examples of other social networking and sharing sites with more agreeable TOSs. Whether FB says "trust us" or not, I don't. As you say, they are looking out for their own interests after all and what happens if they discover next year a business model that allows them to profit from user content? I am a professional photographer, so my interest in the TOS is different than that of my next door neighbor who may not care.
Getty Images is using Flickr as a source of images (with user permission and payment), so it's not unreasonable for FB to engage in something similar if the opportunity comes along. Their current TOS gives them the ability to use user content without compensation, regardless of what they "say". If they were to modify the TOS to be more specific regarding how they need to use the content, as the other newtorking sites do, it would be such a simple fix. It's possible because all the other big players are doing it, so I don't understand the reluctance of FB to follow.
Ajax Jones
· 9 months ago
They could do it, but they just don't have the will to. It would cost too much to track changes and leave them open if they failed at the task. Far easier to write it down in the ToS. I've done the same in contracts. Just stupid not to have made that sensible decision from day 1. Well no surprise there really.
Kristin Maverick
· 9 months ago
Our company Carrot Creative posted our response to the buzz about this news today as well. Check it out here: http://bit.ly/7ytr9
Kelly
· 9 months ago
I think it's important for all of us to use the Internet like there is no privacy and all of our content is public domain. It’s fairly likely that some day this may be the case, not because of Facebook, but more likely, because of our own government or a cultural shift toward transparency. (Think about it, 20 years ago we had no idea where the internet would be today, we shouldn’t take for granted that it’s going to stay as it is now, or that our privacy will not continue to change).
I don’t think this is a Facebook issue. It’s just the direction the world is trending and if you don’t like it then don’t share your content online. If you do share online, don’t do ANYTHING you could ever regret, because it is permanent.
For all of you concerned about Facebook selling your photos:
1) Amateurs: Are they really that good? ;)
2) Professionals: When you upload an image to Facebook they convert it to low resolution before it hits their server (to save space) so they never have a high res version of any of your images and therefore, even if their business model was built on stealing your photos, it would be very unlikely that they would succeed selling only 72dpi pics. If you’re really concerned about this, create your own unique low res versions just for FB. Then, even if they own that version, they don’t own any other version and certainly not the high res original. Simple loophole. Problem solved.
Tannim
· 9 months ago
Zuckerberg is being at best disingenuous and at worst a liar. Simple everyday scripts can be employed that delete all user content from a server when an account is canceled. There really is no need for Facebook to work this way, unless they have an ulterior motive.
No Fixed Office
· 9 months ago
I think one of the key points that was missed by Facebook is making people really aware that the terms have changed even to the extent that they have people agree again, like many other services do. At least this would give people a chance to remove information if they did not want to give it forever to facebook, maybe not updates and such but pictures and video's and that sort of thing.
NoMoreFacebook
· 9 months ago
Yesterday I deleted all of my photos on Facebook, all of my photo albums, Facebook profile photo, everything off my Wall, and changed as many settings as I could to viewable by me only. I was only on Facebook to communicate with a few people, but I am not willing to let my privacy be impacted like this.
I do NOT trust Facebook nor what they will do with my content. I have a stalker in real-life and I cannot be worried that Facebook will share something when, until this happened, I had my settings set to Friends only and my friends numbered very few.
I am extremely disappointed in Facebook for their piss poor way of handling this. Zuckerberg, you should be ashamed of yourself. You need to put it back, or give people six months and allow people to leave Facebook and take their content with them.
I hope someone brings a class-action lawsuit against Facebook for privacy concerns that will address us being able to completely delete our content on Facebook because I believe I should have the RIGHT to do that.
If Facebook wants to change its TOS, fine, but give us some warning, a reasonable warning, of a period of several months, so people have time to delete their content and leave Facebook.
This is way too reminiscent of what we went through with AOL when you couldn't leave AOL. In the end, AOL holding onto people's user names and never letting go of them and the other horrors that took place are very similar to Facebook's current public relations disaster.
Get your S$$$ together, Facebook. And put back a more reasonable TOS. I am leaving, and I'm sure I am not the only one.
Steve
· 9 months ago
Mark Zuckerberg seems to think that a Facebook account is just like an email account and they keep your info so that things like messages that you send to others can still be kept in everyone's inboxes even if an account is closed.
Now of course it is true that any information and content that is shared online is subject to being taken and shared by others. However, unlike email accounts, Facebook accounts have a lot more personal information and content attached to them. I see the content storage and message elements as two separate entities that should not fall under the same terms of use umbrella. The content storage elements of Facebook (profile, photos, videos, notes, etc.) I see as more like a personal web site than an email account. With a personal web site I can control exactly what's on it and delete all of my content if I want to with out any of it remaining on the server. Of course archive.org or any other person viewing the site can cache it, save it, or end up sharing that information without my control, but the part I can control, the web site server space, will no longer have it.
I don't have as much of a problem with the message storage if they are to be treated in the multiple copies way that email is as I do with the personal information and content storage. Having Facebook claim indefinite ownership and control of all of my personal content on Facebook even if I decide to close my account is still unsettling to me.
I can't believe anyone cares about this. "we live in public"
Luigi Cappel
· 9 months ago
Reading through the TPS, it seems to say that FB can take my songs that I have posted via Reverbnation and any music videos I have uploaded, they can alter them, adapt them and create derivative works and distribute them across multiple tiers. I get that they are saying that they won't do anything bad, but I have copyright over my music. At least I think I do.
If that is correct, what makes it worse with the changes, that even if I no longer use FaceBook, I have already given them perpetual rights. Is that correct? This is pretty scary. What exactly does 'multiple tiers' mean? Does that mean they can distribute my material outside of FB? Within FaceBook is fine, I uploaded my music in to find people who like my songs and build a following as a songwriter, but if they want to sell or otherwise use my IP outside of FaceBook that was far from the intent of my use of FB.
If I read this correctly, then I would have to be warning all people who have uploaded or are considering uploading music, songs, photos, works of art, literature and anything else, because it could cost them their livelihood.
It would be nice to have some clarification of the TOS. It may be partly about the intent. The thing is that most people don't read TOS or understand it, so there is no informed consent.
Hopefully a spokesperson will clarify some of this information before there is a mass exodus from FaceBook.
SolShine7
· 9 months ago
Facebook is sketchy.
Michael Downs
· 9 months ago
The additional TOS verbiage is a opaque. So, I've taken out extraneous words to show the worst case scenario. These are Facebook's words:
"You grant Facebook an irrevocable, transferable license to publicly display any Content you Post subject only to your privacy settings; and to use your name and image for any purpose, including advertising."
Here is my interpretation of the key points: 1. The grant is irrevocable – Even if Facebook was to subsequently change terms eroding rights further, the content I post to the site subject to these terms is done so irrevocably – no backsies, ever. 2. The grant is transferable – Maybe I trust Facebook, but do I trust all partners they may decide to work with now or in the future? Not so much. 3. Facebook’s use of my content is subject to my privacy settings – While they will honor my privacy settings, given the manner in which they've made these dramatic changes and the irrevocability of the grant, I feel that subsequent erosion is possible.
The Gist: I value Facebook’s service and will continue to use it to connect with friends. But, I have sanitized my profile to be consistent with my LinkedIn profile – no birth dates, no hometowns, no pics of the kids, etc. It’s sad b/c the result of this TOS change is, in effect, a significant decrease in site functionality.
Lauren McMullen
· 9 months ago
This just reminds me of something my grandfather taught me, "never put anything in writing you dont want read in court". Good words to live by I think. Lauren
WriterCPA
· 9 months ago
Now I get why me tech savvy, just made 17 daughter declines to have anything to do with Facebook. "Mom, I talk to the people I want to. I don't need to put stuff up there. Who knows what will happen to it?" As far as I can tell none of her friends have bothered to put things up there -- and these are bright, hip, young filmmakers. The consensus is that the best way to keep one's privacy is to be private -- don't put stuff where you can lose control.
So the kids who have truly grown up with the web, who teethed on my mouse, installed software independently at age 5 (why can't her grandmother?) are not 100% sold on the brave new world. Sounds a lot like things my 87 yr. old mother told me about keeping my business to myself.
Kids slightly older than mine jumped in with both feet, only to find problems when would be employers found out a bit more than they needed to know. The cohort behind them is a bit more cautious and less trusting.
My daughter's response to the Facebook flap: "I told you so."
Leif Skoogfors
· 9 months ago
Facebook is licensing work placed on the site now. Diana Gabrielle O'Brien, an eighteen year model was murdered on an assignment in China. On a site: http://www.digitaljournal.com/image/41477 Facebook is listed as the source of her photograph in the article. And Face book is listed as where the image was licensed from. Licensing, if not in fact, usually means that a license fee is paid to a copyright holder. I'd like to know if Facebook will continue to license material provided by Facebook members.
AHP
· 9 months ago
Y'all are being paranoid.
Terms of service is just a wall against stupid lawsuits by greedy people. It doesn't mean that Facebook would actually sell your photos or anything crazy like that!
Facebook wants to keep people happy, so they keep growing and making money. Do you really think they'd suddenly turn around and start selling people's lives? No, because they'd become hated and everyone would leave.
Wait till google or facebook or newco. roll out automatic face recognition. Every picture you appear in from now until eternity can be called up with a simple search or a "looks like" sidebar in some app or other.
How clever will that be when your new employee can see you in the background shot of a spring break extravaganza or party with some other unsavoury person in attendance. It's not just YOUR pictures, it is everyone who uploads a picture that is granting the rights away.
Start now with the elaborate excuses or saving for plastic surgery, especially if you ever hope to run for a public office oneday.
Mario-Pierre
· 9 months ago
Both me and my girlfriend are photographers, we used to upload some pretty nice picture up on the site but now, knowing that you can freely distribute our life's work, even with the copyright tag on the picture, that will change everything.
I also have songs from my bands on there, album covers... no this will for sure change the way I use facebook. It was already unappealing with all the damn add-ons and the overcomercialized crrap that was on there and I'm sure you're just going to lose more users over this.
It was running fine before, so why fix something that isn't broken?
Mark
· 9 months ago
I gave is some thought over the evening and reread their agreement and just finished deletion of all my photos and other materials. I posted a comment on my Photos by Q wall stating that it was done in response to the new agreement and invite people to enjoy the work at the website.
Would it work to make all uploaded content public domain rather than property of anyone?
Leif Skoogfors
· 9 months ago
I'm a photographer too. I had a very nice collector buy a print at an auction. He was so happy about it, he posted it on his web page as his latest purchas, all with credit to me. BUT, now Facebook can claim it as theirs to use? Yes, if you read the TOS. And I can't afford to hire a lawyer to argue it if it comes to that. Bad new.
mandingo
· 9 months ago
Apparently nobody is really listening to what is being said, but rather reading between the lines and pulling crap out of thing air.
Sergio P
· 9 months ago
The point is that by amending their TOS in such a way, they make users more weary of contributing content to FB. This means that users will write fewer updates, comments, will post fewer photos, etc. In essence, they will interact with FB less than before. Fewer interactions mean less revenue. I guess FB is OK with losing this revenue.
J
· 9 months ago
What about the content previously posted?
Kiwigal
· 9 months ago
Well it does nothing for me when I do not want my childrens photos being public license. It has clarified nothing except that they want us to trust them. Its a very hard thing to ask strangers. Yeah another comment wants to ask about brands, good point, what about that?
Calli
· 9 months ago
And now where were we - terms of service resumed.......
The power of the masses - thanks to mashable and twitter
I really haven't liked facebook since I started using twitter! All those facebook applications drive me nuts! I can't really say what I would do if I were in their shoes though about the legalities involving information posted on the site.
stazy
· 9 months ago
I think one of the key points that was missed by Facebook is making people really aware that the terms have changed even to the extent that they have people agree again, like many other services do. At least this would give people a chance to remove information if they did not want to give it forever to facebook, maybe not updates and such but pictures and video’s
Tom H. C. Anderson
· 9 months ago
Agree with the reaction to the new TOS, but felt the response by Zuckenberg was good. I posted about it on my blog yesterday, along with some tips for Facebook and other companies who may be involved in managing CGM. We've done a lot of work in this area, and these companies need to learn to trust their user community a bit more, if they do they can even be leveraged to keep moderation costs down etc.
Tom H. C. Anderson Managing Partner Anderson Analytics, LLC
Sara
· 9 months ago
Zuckerberg is being at best disingenuous and at worst a liar. Simple everyday scripts can be employed that delete all user content from a server when an account is canceled. There really is no need for Facebook to work this way, unless they have an ulterior motive..
Alkatraz
· 9 months ago
“trust us, we won’t do anything bad.”
This is a horrible way to conduct business. So in response to that quote, "Fuck You!" with that "Fuck You!" comes one of two reactions, 1) You laugh or 2). You get mad and start using people shit against them.
So to whoever owns Facebook, here's a nice, ice cold can of "Fuck You for you to drink.
But on another note, Thank you for the opportunity for me to reconnect with some old friends whom I would never reconnect with unless I move thousands of miles away to their hometowns.
All Comments
If you administrate a message board you will know that when a user is banned or deleted all the content sent by private message is deleted along with the user.
I would have thought that if a user was deleted for spamming or inappropriate behaviour then that option would be preferrable.
The change could have been better handled.
@Calli
Seems to me this change in the TOS is undermining that trust, and that's why people are upset.
There's got to be a way FB (and any site) can cover itself legally, obtain the rights it needs to function properly, but *not* extract more control over users' content than it needs to do so. Maybe the time has come for new sorts of test cases that will allow for (or, um, force) innovation in the law as it applies to online content management. It just works too differently from hard-copy content management to expect the existing language and precedents to apply efficiently. (So it seems to me, a not-at-all lawyer.)
Also, is this retroactive in the fact that anything I uploaded in the past now becomes theirs?
FaceBook. Simple as that, but it *I guess* not in their interests to do that.
Never liked FaceBook, and like it less now.
Just because Facebook has the technical necessity to gain rights to a *copy*
of our content in order to display it doesn't mean he owns the copyright to it,
and nowhere is that acknowledged in the new TOS.
Twitter has a far more enlightened TOS on this, and Second Life has an even
more elaborate one recognizing all the technical complexities but coming out
four-square for intellectual property protection. Zuckerberg is hiding behind
technicalities to make the biggest content grab in history. Stop him. He has
no right, and his peers in this same world of social media have better TOS,
more respective of user-generated content, even facing exactly the
same set of issues.
http://secondthoughts.typepad.com/second_though...
agreeable TOSs. Whether FB says "trust us" or not, I don't. As you say, they
are looking out for their own interests after all and what happens if they
discover next year a business model that allows them to profit from user
content? I am a professional photographer, so my interest in the TOS is
different than that of my next door neighbor who may not care.
Getty Images is using Flickr as a source of images (with user
permission and payment), so it's not unreasonable for FB to engage in
something similar if the opportunity comes along. Their current TOS
gives them the ability to use user content without compensation,
regardless of what they "say". If they were to modify the TOS to be more
specific regarding how they need to use the content, as the other newtorking
sites do, it would be such a simple fix. It's possible because all the other
big players are doing it, so I don't understand the reluctance of FB to follow.
It would cost too much to track changes and leave them open if
they failed at the task. Far easier to write it down in
the ToS. I've done the same in contracts. Just stupid
not to have made that sensible decision from day 1.
Well no surprise there really.
I don’t think this is a Facebook issue. It’s just the direction the world is trending and if you don’t like it then don’t share your content online. If you do share online, don’t do ANYTHING you could ever regret, because it is permanent.
For all of you concerned about Facebook selling your photos:
1) Amateurs: Are they really that good? ;)
2) Professionals: When you upload an image to Facebook they convert it to low resolution before it hits their server (to save space) so they never have a high res version of any of your images and therefore, even if their business model was built on stealing your photos, it would be very unlikely that they would succeed selling only 72dpi pics. If you’re really concerned about this, create your own unique low res versions just for FB. Then, even if they own that version, they don’t own any other version and certainly not the high res original. Simple loophole. Problem solved.
I do NOT trust Facebook nor what they will do with my content. I have a stalker in real-life and I cannot be worried that Facebook will share something when, until this happened, I had my settings set to Friends only and my friends numbered very few.
I am extremely disappointed in Facebook for their piss poor way of handling this. Zuckerberg, you should be ashamed of yourself. You need to put it back, or give people six months and allow people to leave Facebook and take their content with them.
I hope someone brings a class-action lawsuit against Facebook for privacy concerns that will address us being able to completely delete our content on Facebook because I believe I should have the RIGHT to do that.
If Facebook wants to change its TOS, fine, but give us some warning, a reasonable warning, of a period of several months, so people have time to delete their content and leave Facebook.
This is way too reminiscent of what we went through with AOL when you couldn't leave AOL. In the end, AOL holding onto people's user names and never letting go of them and the other horrors that took place are very similar to Facebook's current public relations disaster.
Get your S$$$ together, Facebook. And put back a more reasonable TOS. I am leaving, and I'm sure I am not the only one.
Now of course it is true that any information and content that is shared online is subject to being taken and shared by others. However, unlike email accounts, Facebook accounts have a lot more personal information and content attached to them. I see the content storage and message elements as two separate entities that should not fall under the same terms of use umbrella. The content storage elements of Facebook (profile, photos, videos, notes, etc.) I see as more like a personal web site than an email account. With a personal web site I can control exactly what's on it and delete all of my content if I want to with out any of it remaining on the server. Of course archive.org or any other person viewing the site can cache it, save it, or end up sharing that information without my control, but the part I can control, the web site server space, will no longer have it.
I don't have as much of a problem with the message storage if they are to be treated in the multiple copies way that email is as I do with the personal information and content storage. Having Facebook claim indefinite ownership and control of all of my personal content on Facebook even if I decide to close my account is still unsettling to me.
Am I incorrect in my belief that even if FB is covered users who access the materials through FB and download it do so knowing that its marked © and therefore protected?
posted via Reverbnation and any music videos I have uploaded, they can alter
them, adapt them and create derivative works and distribute them across
multiple tiers. I get that they are saying that they won't do anything bad,
but I have copyright over my music. At least I think I do.
If that is correct, what makes it worse with the changes, that even if I no
longer use FaceBook, I have already given them perpetual rights. Is that
correct? This is pretty scary. What exactly does 'multiple tiers' mean? Does
that mean they can distribute my material outside of FB? Within FaceBook is
fine, I uploaded my music in to find people who like my songs and build a
following as a songwriter, but if they want to sell or otherwise use my IP
outside of FaceBook that was far from the intent of my use of FB.
If I read this correctly, then I would have to be warning all people who have
uploaded or are considering uploading music, songs, photos, works of art,
literature and anything else, because it could cost them their livelihood.
It would be nice to have some clarification of the TOS. It may be partly
about the intent. The thing is that most people don't read TOS or understand
it, so there is no informed consent.
Hopefully a spokesperson will clarify some of this information before there
is a mass exodus from FaceBook.
"You grant Facebook an irrevocable, transferable license to publicly display any Content you Post subject only to your privacy settings; and to use your name and image for any purpose, including advertising."
Here is my interpretation of the key points:
1. The grant is irrevocable – Even if Facebook was to subsequently change terms eroding rights further, the content I post to the site subject to these terms is done so irrevocably – no backsies, ever.
2. The grant is transferable – Maybe I trust Facebook, but do I trust all partners they may decide to work with now or in the future? Not so much.
3. Facebook’s use of my content is subject to my privacy settings – While they will honor my privacy settings, given the manner in which they've made these dramatic changes and the irrevocability of the grant, I feel that subsequent erosion is possible.
The Gist:
I value Facebook’s service and will continue to use it to connect with friends. But, I have sanitized my profile to be consistent with my LinkedIn profile – no birth dates, no hometowns, no pics of the kids, etc. It’s sad b/c the result of this TOS change is, in effect, a significant decrease in site functionality.
Lauren
to do with Facebook. "Mom, I talk to the people I want to. I don't need to
put stuff up there. Who knows what will happen to it?" As far as I can tell
none of her friends have bothered to put things up there -- and these are
bright, hip, young filmmakers. The consensus is that the best way to keep
one's privacy is to be private -- don't put stuff where you can lose control.
So the kids who have truly grown up with the web, who teethed on my mouse,
installed software independently at age 5 (why can't her grandmother?) are
not 100% sold on the brave new world. Sounds a lot like things my 87 yr. old
mother told me about keeping my business to myself.
Kids slightly older than mine jumped in with both feet, only to find
problems when would be employers found out a bit more than they needed to know.
The cohort behind them is a bit more cautious and less trusting.
My daughter's response to the Facebook flap: "I told you so."
assignment in China. On a site: http://www.digitaljournal.com/image/41477 Facebook is listed as the source of her
photograph in the article. And Face book is listed as where the image was licensed from. Licensing, if not in fact,
usually means that a license fee is paid to a copyright holder. I'd like to know if Facebook will continue to license
material provided by Facebook members.
Terms of service is just a wall against stupid lawsuits by greedy people. It doesn't mean that Facebook would actually sell your photos or anything crazy like that!
Facebook wants to keep people happy, so they keep growing and making money.
Do you really think they'd suddenly turn around and start selling people's lives?
No, because they'd become hated and everyone would leave.
They are all ready selling lives. See, again, http://www.digitaljournal.com/image/41477
Every picture you appear in from now until eternity can be called up
with a simple search or a "looks like" sidebar in some app or other.
How clever will that be when your new employee can see you in the
background shot of a spring break extravaganza or party with some other
unsavoury person in attendance. It's not just YOUR pictures, it is
everyone who uploads a picture that is granting the rights away.
Start now with the elaborate excuses or saving for plastic surgery,
especially if you ever hope to run for a public office oneday.
I also have songs from my bands on there, album covers... no this will for sure change the way I use facebook. It was already unappealing with all the damn add-ons and the overcomercialized crrap that was on there and I'm sure you're just going to lose more users over this.
It was running fine before, so why fix something that isn't broken?
This is just a total rights grab for no reason. These people cannot be that ill informed on the © law that their attorney does not understand. I was just starting to enjoy the connection I found with people and was actually earning work from people I was reconnecting with..but I am not going to give them the rights to my work to do as they please. That is just wrong.
This is another reason why the DMCA of 1992 needs to be revisited by Congress with people who understand both the Internet and ©. The laws are 20 years out of date and its starting to become the wild west out here for creative professionals.
license. It has clarified nothing except that they want us to trust them.
Its a very hard thing to ask strangers. Yeah another comment wants to ask about
brands, good point, what about that?
The power of the masses - thanks to mashable and twitter
http://is.gd/jVOb
Post here: http://www.tomhcanderson.com/2009/02/18/we-the-...
Tom H. C. Anderson
Managing Partner
Anderson Analytics, LLC
This is a horrible way to conduct business. So in response to that quote, "Fuck You!" with that "Fuck You!" comes one of two reactions, 1) You laugh or 2). You get mad and start using people shit against them.
So to whoever owns Facebook, here's a nice, ice cold can of "Fuck You for you to drink.
But on another note, Thank you for the opportunity for me to reconnect with some old friends whom I would never reconnect with unless I move thousands of miles away to their hometowns.