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 ...

talking about BREAKING THE DAMN LAW

"I love all the people on here, frolicking around, all happily talking about BREAKING THE DAMN LAW"
-Myself when first posting in a thread on Gaia about Limewire/ISP/Net Neutrality

In a thread where several people were discussing the proper ways to illegally download music/movies, there were only two people discussing the legality of it. The rest were talking about their right to steal from others. This was my opening post into that thread.



“If you could, would you steal a car? Would you steal a purse? Would you steal a boat? Most likely, unless you are a kleptomaniac, you probably said NO to all of those questions. Now, why would you steal a movie/song?”
You should know this quote. It is the line that is at the start of many of your DVDs, usually it features attractive looking ladies and men stealing expensive looking cars. While I think that the ad has good potential, it really does not touch the issue. When you steal a car, you are taking the only one of it that exists; with a song, you are taking a copy. Most people, when asked “if you can make a copy of this car, and take the copy, would you?” would answer with a resounding YES. This is what file sharing is, you are not actually taking an item, you are copying it and taking the replicate (shouldn’t Harrison Ford have retired them all by now?)

Please keep in mind, I am not touching personal use here, that is a different topic for a different day. I am merely touching the sharing and copying of files for other persons.

If you would not steal an actual version of something, what makes you think that you have a right to a copy of the same thing? If I make money per book I sell, then how would selling my book to one person, having that person copy and distribute it to ten others, help me in the long run. Sure, I get my money for selling one book, but I should be getting the money for selling eleven. This is the basic principle of file sharing, and this is why it is wrong.

Now, I really don’t like the slippery slope fallacy, and I hate all fallacies in general, I must use it for this issue. If a person is able and willing to download a file (illegally), odds are that they will do it again. Also, if one person seeds a download, odds are that thousands of people will download it. This is not just speculation, this is supported by current downloading evidence.

Currently, several record, movie, and porn companies are suing users of programs like bit torrent, kazaa, and limewire over their seeding of songs and movies and pleasures. These companies are getting millions of dollars in rewards, and they look as though they are planning on taking on more and more users. This, to me, is a good thing. Persons should be secure in their property, be it real or intellectual. A song is the property of the record company (usually) or the artist, not the property of the person who has a CD. Hopefully, as these cases increase, more and more people will stop downloading illegally.

You are wondering why it is that I am talking about this. Admit it, you know you were. I am talking about this for the same reason I keep talking about parents and their teens. who is the main downloader of illegal things? TEENS. Who will pay for the teens actions if they go to court? PARENTS. Yep, once again, I am looking at parental responsibility. You would not let your kids steal from others, beat people up, or anything like that, so why are you letting them use the internet to steal properties? Step up, police what they are doing, and teach them what not to do. Windows XP, Vista, and I believe OSX all have controls you can use to stop this sort of thing. Various flavors of Linux do as well.

As I keep saying, it is the parents responsibility here to make sure that their kids are following the law. Take their phone away. Take their computer away. Take their car away. Sure, they may hate you, but you are a parent, not a friend. Start acting like it. Read more ...

I Hear That Change in Your Pocket Going Ching-A-Ling-A-Ling

Post 47

*MAP UPDATE*
Over the last week it looks like Obama regained control in the state of Colorado. McCain, however, then took control of Indiana while reinforcing his ground in Ohio. McCain also gained ground, though did not take the lead, in both New Mexico and New Hampshire. If New Hampshire switched, with all other states remaining the same, then we would have a 269-269 tie. The overall outlook nationally is +1.8 points for Obama.

*END OF MAP UPDATE*

So, I had been planning on making this entry about Biden being chosen as Obama's running mate but decided to trump Lisa over at GCJ with this story today. Biden SHOULD be up by this coming Wednesday. Enjoy

So, I was looking through the AP Wire on my IPhone on Saturday and came upon a funny story in the local news section of it; it appears as though a court in Ohio refused to accept a 'heavy fine payment'. The fine payment happens to be for speeding tickets and is being paid for in pennies. Now, after I stopped laughing and cleaned up everything I threw around when convulsing I started to think about this. I think that there are several things wrong with the court not accepting this payment. Amongst them, the three most prevalent are: You were not specific - This is legal tender - Your precedent sucks. Frankly, I think that the court should be required to accept this mans payment, or, deny taking it but count it as being paid. I really have nothing that grinds my gears to end this paragraph though... damn.

You Were Not Specific:
When a court makes an order of any sort they are usually quite specific. If they are asking for property back they will ask for specific property - you stole a Pentium 4 (ick) computer with 2 gig ram and Vista they expect a Pentium 4 (ick) computer with 2 gig ram and Vista returned. Courts rarely leave this sort of thing up in the air. If a court asks for payment in cash, credit, or check then they should expect payment in cash, credit, or check. If the court just asks for payment in anything they should expect payment in anything. This is the fundamental problem of this decision to avoid accepting the payment; the court was not specific enough. Unless they ordered the payment to be specific they have NO RIGHT to require it to change AFTER THE FACT. Hopefully the court learned from this mistake.


This Is Legal Tender:
If the defendant had come in and paid with Canadian Pennies or Euros the court would have had the right, no, the duty, to refuse his payment (though why they would, when those are worth more, is unknown). However, the man came in and paid his fees with what is considered legal tender in the United States. In fact, the Coinage act of 1965 says:

“United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues.”

To me, this clearly shows that these pennies should have been accepted by the court. Now, I understand the courts position; they are saying that there is an unfair undue burden on the court now due to this. However, I also can see that all they need to do is take the pennies to the bank, have them weighed, and then have them converted (for free) into real monies. Unless the court is trying to say that they have the right to determine federal law in currency, they should accept all legal tender.


Your Precedent Sucks:
While discussing this case with Lisa from GCJ she sent me a link to some precedent that the court could use to defend itself. In _State v. Carroll_, 1997 WL 118064 (Ohio App. 4 Dist.), the courts ruled that:

“"It defies logic and common sense that this Congress intended such a wooden and broad application of the statute beyond the control of the payee regardless of the circumstances." [At 4-5] The Court reasoned that under the law authorizing the clerk to collect and issue receipts for the payment of fines, etc., the clerk could "provide a reasonable procedure for the place, time and manner of accepting fines consistent with the efficient operation of the clerk's office."”

The problem with this ruling is that it uses no case law from before and actually overrides several cases in other states. I understand the concept of a reasonable procedure for time place and manner but can not understand how pennies fit any of these three categories. You can close shop at 5 and open at 9, you can say it needs to be sent to a certain address, and you can even say that it should be paid in certain coins - BUT, unless you say that in the order, you have NO RIGHT to change your mind AFTER THE FACT. I don't care if an earlier court said that you could, this is illogical and a gross overstepping of the courts bounds.

This decision throws common sense out the window as it allows the courts to change their orders on the whim of the judges and secretaries. It also creates precedent that allows the courts to challenge FEDERAL STATUTES THAT ARE FEDERAL ONLY.









As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.
Feel free to e-mail me if you so wish too instead.
Thanks,
Robert M. Barga,
Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/
barga.24@osu.edu



Stumble It! Read more ...