Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook's New Terms of Service

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the are-we-really-worried-about-this dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Chris Walters writes about Facebook's new terms of service. 'Facebook's terms of service (TOS) used to say that when you closed an account on their network, any rights they claimed to the original content you uploaded would expire. Not anymore. Now, anything you upload to Facebook can be used by Facebook in any way they deem fit, forever, no matter what you do later. Want to close your account? Good for you, but Facebook still has the right to do whatever it wants with your old content. They can even sublicense it if they want.'" Oh no! Now they'll be able to license your super flair goblin poke 25 tag history!

11 of 426 comments (clear)

  1. Current users? by carlvlad · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How will they get agreement from current users? Does the TOS pops out the next time they login during the implementation?

    1. Re:Current users? by Aladrin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes, but if you discontinue use and disagree with the current terms, can you get them to delete you like they would under the old ones?

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    2. Re:Current users? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm a little sketchy on this one, can they actually do this? I mean, the users signed up under the expectation that copyright law would be honored. I don't think that they actually have a legal leg to stand on here. You can change the TOS so that new material uploaded will be owned by Facebook, but changing the TOS and expecting that to change the copyright on a lot of media retroactively? I only pray that this is what kills facebook so I can stop hearing people rant about how great it is and how I should join.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Current users? by French+Mailman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You will have to log in first in order to delete your account. So either log in now, which constitutes use of Facebook after the TOS have been published, and FB will keep the content you're about to delete, or never log in again and leave your content online for FB to do whatever it wants with it.

      Facebook: helping you give away your privacy since 2003!

    4. Re:Current users? by King_TJ · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I guess I'm having a tough time wrapping my head around why I should really care too much about this, though?

      I've had a Facebook acct. for a little while now (only "social networking" type site I ever really got into using), and the thing is FREE. I assume they ARE using me and my info as an advertising/marketing tool in some way, or else they wouldn't generate enough revenue to justify keeping it online.

      If you post any original content there you believe is of enough "value" so you'd be upset if they got to keep it after you left? Then I'd say YOU were the one being foolish, using their system as its distribution point in the first place!

    5. Re:Current users? by tlhIngan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      On a similar note, I think it's wrong that Apple is making so much advertising off of iPhone apps. If a particular app in a commercial sells the iPhone, shouldn't they get some of the profits? And have you seen the walls of an Apple Store?

      Actually, it's probably closer to quid-pro-quo. Apple sells more iPhones/iPod Touches, and the app featured in the ad (which was probably wholly developed and paid for by Apple) gets free marketing and they actually do sell significantly more.

      I'm sure the app authors have right of first refusal to have their app show up in an Apple ad, but it appears to go both ways - Apple sells more, and the app's developer sells more. There's probably a huge queue now for people who want their app featured in an Apple ad. And all the developer had to do was pay Apple $100. Given the amount of flotsam and jetsam in the iTunes store, anything that gets your app out helps...

  2. Data Protection Act by SimonTheSoundMan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    IANAL, but could someone, even if YANAL, please tell where this would come in under the UK's Data Protection Act?

    Surely they can't keep such information if you want it to be removed.

  3. Re:Naive thinking... by carlvlad · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I recall some time back on /. , when another social networking site (which I can't recall the name) did something like this. A fellow slashdoter comes up with an interesting approach by slowly replacing the contents with false data instead of deleting the account. I think that would work well providing the site does not maintain old archives.

  4. Re:Naive thinking... by mysticgoat · · Score: 3, Interesting

    On the face of it, this policy makes sense if FB realized that they could not assure timely clean-up when somebody quit. Too much risk of being sued.

    Avoidance of lawsuits is almost certainly the reason for their policy of taking ownership of anything posted to FB. It is an easy way, and perhaps the only way, of assuring that they can kill stuff that needs to be removed without being hassled with nuisance suits.

    I don't see any way of running something like FB without these kinds of policies. The only surprising thing here is that FB didn't realize it needed ownership forever until recently.

  5. Re:Once you upload or post it, it's no longer your by Zakabog · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That's been the rule of the Internet for nearly two decades.

    Is that why at the bottom of slashdot it says "Comments are owned by the Poster."?

    With respect to text or data entered into and stored by publicly-accessible site features such as forums, comments and bug trackers ("SourceForge Public Content"), the submitting user retains ownership of such SourceForge Public Content; with respect to publicly-available statistical content which is generated by the site to monitor and display content activity, such content is owned by SourceForge. In each such case, the submitting user grants SourceForge the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, all subject to the terms of any applicable license.

    They MUST have that right, otherwise you could sue them for posting your comments, and your comments stay INDEFINITELY. If you delete your Slashdot account, your comments still stay archived online, so exactly what's so evil about the new ToS?

  6. Here's an even more devious possibility. by a+whoabot · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Some pornography company sublicenses photos of one million girls in bikinis and their contact info from Facebook. They then send something like the following letter to the girls:

    "Recently, for inclusion in our published material, we purchased the rights to the enclosed photo you licensed to Facebook. We were concerned that you may not want to be included, so we are giving you the chance to opt-out. We need only a payment of $50 to cover the amount we paid Facebook and administrative costs. If you do not want to pay and wished to be included in our published material, you will be featured in our "Skanky Bikini Amateurs" collection on our website. Thank you."