Go Screw Yourself Facebook, With Your New TOS

For those of you who have been keeping your heads under some rocks, Facebook changed their TOS on the 4th. Now, according to their TOS, the version that has always been, they do not need to notify us of this change. Keep that in mind. Also to keep in mind, every time you log into facebook, even if it is automatic, you are agreeing to the new terms. Basically, they could change the terms and you are just fucked. To leave the contract you need to log on, thus agreeing to the terms... Arguably, however, if you immediately delete the account you did not agree.



Before we go any further, I would like you to read my Legal page; I am going to be talking some legal things here and want you to read that section very carefully.

So, the new TOS of Facebook states the following:
You hereby grant Facebook an 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), any User Content you (i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof subject only to your privacy settings or (ii) enable a user to Post, including by offering a Share Link on your website and (b) to use your name, likeness and image for any purpose, including commercial or advertising, each of (a) and (b) on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof.
Notice the bolded part. That is right, anything you post on facebook you are granting them rights to us, forever, and anywhere. It used to be that they had the rights unless you canceled the account, but that no longer is the case. Oh, and don't forget, you agreed to arbitration as well.

Now, before we move on to the issues with this, I would like to point out two things.
1) If you don't agree to this contract, and have not signed in since the 4th, then you are able to immediately log in and delete your account. If you have signed in since then, too bad.
2) This does not apply to anything posted PRIOR to the contract. They can not create an ex-post-facto agreement so we are clear in that manner. If Facebook uses a copyrighted image you posted prior to the agreement, and you have sense deleted your account, sue them (consult your lawyer first).

Moving On

Now, this starts to get interesting when you think about what this means. For starters, it creates a fun paradox for all the people who post others images on their facebook. If I post an image made by somebody else, and Facebook uses it in a commercial, what is going to happen? They have the right to use it, as stated in the TOS, but I didn't have the right to put it up there. I really want to see this issue in court at some point.

The other issue is the fact that you are giving Facebook grounds to use your image years after you delete your blog. Blackmail, or things similar, are easily within Facebook's prerogative here as our future leaders are posting harmful images of themselves on the site. Or if I make an image, post it on facebook, and later sell the rights to it. The new owner is screwed when Facebook uses it. The fact that it is an unendable contract is unique (as far as I can tell) to websites and could create some interesting precedent if you get it in court. Oh, wait, it can't be in court, ever...

So, we understand why this change is bad..


Mark, the all glorious and great founder of Facebook, decided to try and defend his decision. He explains that this is simply done to protect Facebook and that they really wouldn't use your information. Basically, he is saying the lawyers made them do it, so you can ignore it.

FUCK THAT

I do not trust Mark one little bit. If you wanted to protect Facebook, you could make it a lot easier by databasing the ones that were deleted. The wording of the TOS change is so unique, and so bloody pompous, that it is obviously intentional. Mark simply did not understand the backlash that this would cause, and he is trying to cover his tracks. Why the hell should I trust a company when it says it is not going to harm us, but claims the right to? That is the logic Mark is using.

Let me tell you something, this change is a bad thing, and we should all protest it the best we can
Comment and let me know what you think

Read more ...

The Rise of American Big-Buisnesses

While this might be a paper for history, I think that it is highly relevant to today's society. Carnegie, when he created the vertical structure of businesses (along with Rockefeller), created the system that is essential in modern day companies and governments. Without the integration that he proposed, no large-businesses would have been possible. In fact, with no multi-million dollar enterprise existing before Standard oil, the setup proposed by Carnegie and perfected by Rockefeller is factually known as the primary cause of American business growth.

Furthermore, think of this as a response to those who believe that these men, the Carnegie's, the Rockefeller's, the J.P. Morgan's, and the Chase's (as a side note, I think that it is funny that Chase talked his boss (Carnegie) into selling out to Rockefeller on a golf course) are robber barrens. Sure, they were rich. And, sure, they bought out their competition. But they created the country, and they did their best to make sure that it grew. These men made the country, and they employed thousands. Think of this paper as a defense to their impact on America.

RTAP Paper #1: On Carnegie Steel

Robert M. Barga

Steel is an expensive, difficult, and time-consuming product to make. To manufacture just one ton of steel, Carnegie Steel needed one and a half tons of iron, one and a half tons of coke, and one ton of limestone¹. The process of getting just one ton of steel required four tons of other materials, the transportation and refining of the same, and the man hours. Yet, somehow, this was able to be sold for two cents per three pounds. Owning all of the necessary materials (vertical structure), as argued by Carnegie, would become essential for big businesses around America.

Carnegie's main argument is that the only cost effective, for both the consumer and the producer, means of manufacturing steel is to own all the processes that are used. If one needs to pay attention to the middle man, then one is paying cost plus profit for each item; by doing ones own processing of all parts, one is only paying the cost. Carnegie is basically contending that the cheapest product is that which is produced by the company who will use it themselves.

Taking it a step further, Carnegie contended that the only possible large-scale business is one that fits his vertical integration model. To be a business you need to be able to output at the needed rate. To output at the needed rate, you needed a constant supply. Unless the company owned the supply, the company could not keep it constant. Basically, Carnegie was also contending, along with his cost arguments, that a company needed to own all of its components if it expected to become large and wealthy.

While these contentions had their objectors (usually companies that were either put out of business or had to drastically cut costs), the overall argument appealed to the American populace, be it in theory, or be it in their pockets. By showing the country, and the World, that a product produced by a company owning all of its components (be it an oil company owning the railroads, wells, and the lumber, for barrels or a steel company owning the boats, the trains, and the mining locations) is cheaper, and more reliable, Carnegie Steel was able to show the usefulness of vertical integration. The appeal to the pocketbooks, and to the schedules, made Carnegie's contentions prevalent and well received by the American populace.

Carnegie's argument was not only persuasive to the American populace, but it was also persuasive to other businesses, both past and present. Most large-scale producing companies now own their own materials, they own everything that is needed to make their product. From Ford owning rubber plantations and iron mills, to Dole owning fruit plantations and tin mines, to US Steel (formally Carnegie Steel) still owning all of its needed components, the vertical integration model proposed by Carnegie is essential in today's modern companies. By arguing that a company should keep all of its costs down, its resources at hand, and all under central control, Carnegie was able to show exactly why a company should own, or at least have stock in, everything that it needs. This argument, as well as its accompanying model, is essential as the wellbeing and foundation of all big-businesses, both now and then.

1Retrieving The American Past; Excerpt from Carnegie's Autobiography, page 29.

Read more ...