Slashdot Mirror
Your Personal Facebook Live Videos Can Legally End Up on TV (thememo.com)
Kitty Knowles, reporting for the Memo: Think you control what happens to your personal videos? Think again. One father who live-streamed his partner's labour on Facebook last May, has found out the hard way: he saw the birth of his son replayed on Good Morning America and numerous other media outlets. This week, he lost a high-profile court battle against the broadcasters. If you don't want this to happen to you, don't make the same mistakes. It's one thing wanting to share a life-changing moment with friends and family. But most would understand why Kali Kanongataa didn't want his child's birth aired for all to see. That hasn't however, stopped a US judge throwing out Kanongataa's copyright infringement case against the likes of the ABC, Yahoo, and Rodale, the company that publishes Women's Health. Apparently, the father-to-be realised his film was streaming publicly on social media about 30 minutes into recording, but decided to leave it that way. Media outlets broadcasting the clips have defended doing so on the terms of "fair use." Legally, "fair use" means that when pictures or videos are the focus of a major news story, selected footage can be used.Heads up, Facebook will soon release a video app for set-top boxes by Apple and Amazon to broadcast Live videos on the big screen.
You want to have some fun? Get shocked silly? Compare Gmail's TOS to Live's TOS. In my opinion, Microsoft is considerably less evil than Google (although Bing is still worthless when compared to Google search). Frankly, when I made that particular discovery I'm surprised I didn't stroke out on the spot with a heart attack. Totally not what I expected there.
Back to the main point - I'd love to believe that Slashdot readers are highly likely to have read the TOS before signing on here, at Facebook, on Twitter, via LinkedIn, . . . sadly, I doubt it. C'mon, people - at least the SysAdmins and Engineers out there should have. After all, on the job it's part of what we get paid for, yes/no?
Even non-technical Facebook users know that it is a privacy nightmare .. so why keep one?
You want to stay in touch with friends and family -- EMAIL. At least there are some modest privacy protections in place for email accounts.
-- RN
Good god, fuck no. Sorry but comparing email to a social network is like comparing a telegram to a video conference. The use cases are different. The presentation is different. The way it works is very different. What you can do with it is different.
You know what email is good for? Sending some long text to one person.
God you bring back nightmares of people trying to share something as simple as a few family vacation snaps via email. 30 people all getting nothing but messages that a sender has tried overloading your inbox, only to have it get resent in a format so badly compressed that no one can make out anything. Not to mention the persistency of things posted to facebook and the ability to modify collections of posts give it features that just aren't possible with email which are none the less great for when you're communicating with family and friends.
I'm not going to say you're comparing apples to oranges here. You're comparing apples to a medium rare pepper steak with mushroom sauce, and a side of wonderfully spiced wedges, yes you could eat the both but you wouldn't use one in place of the other.
I don't believe that I said that they were remotely equal. As for your "You know what email is good for? Sending some long text to one person." -- I guess you haven't heard of distribution lists? As for sending attachments -- uh, no. If I take a video of my niece, and upload it to Dropbox, I can get a link that I can paste into an email and send.... viola -- the family all has a copy, and Facebook (or anyone else for that matter) can't do shit with it.
Now, you are correct about the fact that isn't as efficient as Facebook, but again, I guess you don't care about your privacy -- I do.
-- RN
-- http://anonet.org -- The internet the way it was meant to be. Check it out, you may be surprised.
This case was hardly a "win for copyright." Under present law, any creator of content is supposed to get an innate copyright over his work, regardless of whether there is any formal filing. But in this case Hollywood has asserted its right to replay our content without credit or compensation over their media channels, while at the same time crushing as much fair use by hoi polloi as it can get away with. Yes, they are having it both ways.