Facebook, and rights grabs

[pecunium]

I've written before about the sweeping claims (and specious reasoning) Facebook makes in their ToS (all your content is belong to us). I've said I'm, perhaps, overblowing it.

Then I see them using things like people's photos in ads and I wonder.

Well they just upped the ante. Facebook bought FriendFeed, to the tune of 47.5 million. The idea is, almost certainly, to streamline the reposting of things, but the nature of such services is that people who now don't post their flickr stream, or their Blogger, HuffPo, etc., comment and the like to their Facebook stream will start.

Which is good business for Facebook. It gets more eyes on the screen, which gets more exposure for whatever it is Facebook is selling (which is probably eyes on the screen). But it also means a whole lot more content which Facebook suddenly gets the absolute right to mine for profit. It might suddenly become profitable to hire people to run data-mining for photos suitable for a stock agency (forgive me if my personal interests lead me to photography related exploitations of peoples creative efforts).

It's not impossible, and, given the almost certain to be huge influx of Facebook linked content, I'd bet a decent sum that it will happen.

Comments

[saoba.livejournal.com]

I didn't find Facebook useful and I don't like their interface or terms of service so I deactivated the account.

Rights grubbers annoy me.

[starcat-jewel.livejournal.com]

I've never heard of FriendFeed, and I don't WANT to spam my Facebook account with my Flickr photos, or every comment I post somewhere else. Is this something I can control?

[sylphslider.livejournal.com]

I actually don't remember if you were the person who posted the instructions on how to opt out of all that Facebook data mining, but in case you aren't, it's not difficult. Settings -> privacy -> newsfeed and wall -> facebook ads.

I, for one, think that anything like what Facebook is doing with our photos ought to be opt-in, but at least we have a choice. That is, once people are made aware of it.

If I'm misconstruing your post, forgive me. I'm over a day short on sleep, which means I should not be writing anything, but of course my judgment lapses most when I'm tired. So if I'm way off base, please forgive me.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

It's not a question of opting out. Facebook's ToS says anything which resides, even for a moment, on a server they own, is theirs to do what they choose with, in perpetuity.

It's not opt in, or opt out.

[hal-obrien.livejournal.com]

Until there's actual case law on the validity of Facebook's claim (or of your interpretation of it), I'd be skeptical how enforceable it is.

Imagine if Facebook wrote into their ToS that all of their users shall be deemed immortal. Would that make it so?

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

I don't know how enforceable it is. I do know what they claim, and some of the things they have been doing (using user photos in ads shown on Facebook).

I'm not in a position to fight the court case, so I'll continue to refrain from crossposting there, and certainly from posting photos.

[zeeth_kyrah]

For this, and for various other reasons, I have consistently refused to touch Facebook. It wants me to create an account before it will let me see what other people are trying to share. It wants me to give up my rights in anything I post there. And now it is assimilating a service that lets it locate and devour content from every other site a member stores content? Hell no I won't go. My ten foot pole just became a 10^10 foot pole and I still won't touch Facebook with it.