Some People Are Calling For A Boycott On Facebook - Regarding New TOS

[JamesG]

Facebook Users Up in Arms Over Content Ownership
by Lee Bains, posted Feb 17th 2009 at 2:18PM


A significant, yet stealthy, change to social networking site Facebook's Terms of Service (TOS) agreement has some of the Web site's users up in arms, reports FOXNews.

As do many sites of its ilk, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg stipulated in the original TOS that the site was entitled to use patrons' information or images, so long as their profiles remained on the site. Now, however, through the TOS, the site is laying claim to a "perpetual license," meaning that a dissatisfied -- or, for that matter, deceased -- Facebook user would always have a presence on the site, whether desired or not.

Some users -- like blogger Ed Champion -- have refused to continue their involvement with Facebook, while celebrity blogger (and celebrity, himself) Perez Hilton has called for a boycott. Of course, whether or not Champion and Hilton themselves are involved with the Web site, their old wall postings and images would be involved, remaining on the site for perpetuity.

In the new policy's defense, Zuckerberg wrote in his blog that, without this new stipulation, old messages or images would be lost from a current user's profile as soon as a former user resigned from the site. Although he didn't say so, we could imagine that letting such data escape into the stratosphere could not only be a source of irritation for users, but of legal trouble for the site, itself. Just think: If somebody had sent threatening or blackmailing messages via Facebook, only to later delete their profile (and thus evidence of their offense), where would that leave the victim? Probably, to their detriment, without much grounds for their intimidation case, or, to Facebook's detriment, with a lawsuit against the site in hand.

http://www.switched.com/2009/02/17/f...ent-ownership/


FOX News Story Here - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,494064,00.html

[robyrob]

Originally Posted by JamesG

[B]
In the new policy's defense, Zuckerberg wrote in his blog that, without this new stipulation, old messages or images would be lost from a current user's profile as soon as a former user resigned from the site. Although he didn't say so, we could imagine that letting such data escape into the stratosphere could not only be a source of irritation for users, but of legal trouble for the site, itself. Just think: If somebody had sent threatening or blackmailing messages via Facebook, only to later delete their profile (and thus evidence of their offense), where would that leave the victim? Probably, to their detriment, without much grounds for their intimidation case, or, to Facebook's detriment, with a lawsuit against the site in hand.

http://www.switched.com/2009/02/17/f...ent-ownership/


FOX News Story Here - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,494064,00.html

nonsense - it would remain in the server's - and Google's - cache for a reasonable period of time, and if some crime were involved it would still be retrievable within that period.

[catlover79]

Wow.

[Janice]

Facebook Admits Defeat, Retracts Terms of Service

Yesterday, Facebook ruffled the feathers on many of its users by issuing a new Terms of Service, or TOS, which some believed gave the site permission to use any content -- profiles, status updates, commentary -- posted on the site perpetually (even if Facebook members deleted their profiles and left the site). Facing a PR backlash of epic proportions, Facebook has now rather publicly reverted to its old TOS.

Logging onto your profile this morning shows the following message:

Over the past few days, we have received a lot of feedback about the new terms we posted two weeks ago. Because of this response, we have decided to return to our previous Terms of Use while we resolve the issues that people have raised. For more information, visit the Facebook Blog.

If you want to share your thoughts on what should be in the new terms, check out our group Facebook Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.

It's hardly an apology, making it sound like the company has no idea why anyone would be upset about handing over the rights to their photos forever, but people, of course, were mad. Gossip blogger Perez Hilton isn't cutting the company or its founder Mark Zuckerberg any slack, saying that "Facebook still sucks" and that MySpace is "so much more respectful" -- um, we're not entirely sure of that. Meanwhile, another critic, Ed Champion, seems to be back on speaking terms with the social networking site, but that may not last long, as Zuckerberg is indicating that another change is coming in a few weeks. Surely, the site won't try to push that change won't through quite so quietly.

Still wondering what all this means? Well, if you're one of the few hold-outs who hasn't yet joined Facebook, or just want to know how to maximize your social-networking experience, then check out our 25 tips and tricks for Facebook, which start after clicking the 'Next' button belbelow. If there's anything we missed, let us know! [From: The Facebook Blog]

[JamesG]

^ Thanks for update.