?

Log in

Facebook - Kalemburoj aux Poezio / Puns or Poetry [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
traevoli

[ website | Traevoli Dot Com ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Facebook [Mar. 13th, 2009|12:47 am]
traevoli

Facebook

Do mi konsideris krei konton cxe Facebook. Tamen mi nun havas dubojn post kiam mi legis tion kion oni konsentu antaux ol rajti uzi gxin ( http://www.facebook.com/terms.php ): So I was considering setting up a Facebook account. But then I read the user agreement (at http://www.facebook.com/terms.php ) and have re-read what plenty of people have been upset about:
[Multaj oficialaj tradukoj legeblas cxe la supra ligilo.] By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose, commercial, advertising, or otherwise, on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing.
Sxajne Facebook rajtas uzi cxion kion uzantoj afisxas cxe la retejo iel ajn. Do kial diable mi kreus konton? It would seem that Facebook has to right to use everthing you post in any way they please. So why the hell would I create an account there?
LinkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: stoic_sorrow
2009-03-13 03:09 pm (UTC)
Por esti en kontacto kun aliaj Esperantistoj kaj amikoj?

Notice, Facebook doesn't FORCE you to post anything of great consequence. No one is FORCING people with Facebook accounts to do things like post compromising photos or personal information. Facebook is a tool that can also just let people stay in touch when used with appropriate caution.

(Parantese, mi kredas ke pli malpli duono de chion ke mi afishas tie estas en Esperanto chiokaze. Certe Facebook ne komprenas ghin kaj sekvante ne volus havi au uzi ghin.)
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: traevoli
2009-03-22 09:54 am (UTC)

Kie estas vi?

Nu, mi decidis aligxi, sed sxajne vi estas nevidebla. Iu kun via nomo estas amiko de Hoss, sed kiam mi klakas sur via nomo, Facebook diras ke mi ne rajtas fari tion.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: kvarko
2009-03-13 04:19 pm (UTC)
Jes, ne necesas enmeti fotojn aŭ longajn tekstojn por bone uzi la retejon Facebook. Vi povas krei konton kun preskaŭ neniujn informojn pri vi (sed helpus havi etan foton kiel tiun kiun vi havas ĉi tie ĉe LJ) kaj tiam, sen enmeti ion alian, vi povas almenaŭ sekvi la agojn de viaj amikoj: legi la status-tekstojn kiuj similas al tiuj ĉe Twitter (kaj pluraj homoj simple aŭtomate kopias la tekstojn de Twitter al Facebook), vidi la retpaĝojn al kiuj amikoj ligas, legi la komentojn de aliaj (pri preskaŭ ĉio: statusoj, pli longajn tekstojn, fotoj, ligojn), vidi la fotojn de amikoj, ktp.

Mi tre ĝuas la kontakton kiun mi havas kun amikoj tie. Mi bone informiĝas pri iliaj vivoj -- ofte la hazardaj aferetoj kiujn oni ne ekscias per aliaj komunikoj. Mi mem enmetas fotojn ktp kaj ne zorgas, ĉar estas tiom da aĵoj ĉe Facebook, kio povas okazi pri tiu eta parto kiu estas mia?

(Reply) (Thread)
From: (Anonymous)
2009-03-14 04:48 pm (UTC)
Two things. First, what they are saying is that you are warranting that you have the right to provide a license for reproduction and distribution, for any of those purposes. In other words, you cannot post a recording of someone else's music that you do not own the rights to. You cannot post something that uses a Creative Commons Non-Commercial license, either.

Why? The reason for the first example is obvious. They don't want the headache of having to constantly police for copyright infringement, so they give themselves the ability to just terminate your account if there are complaints. The second example is a little trickier. Let's say Facebook licenses their service to a phone company (which I believe they do), so that the company's phones can provide a sweet interface to the Facebook and allow customers/users to keep in touch with their friends. Money is changing hands and that could be considered a commercial use of the content you posted.

The other observation is that LiveJournal's TOS provides a much less explicit license for use of your material.

"XIV. 4. LiveJournal reserves the right, without limitation except by law, to serve any user Content on the web, through the downloadable clients and otherwise. LiveJournal also reserves the right, without limitation, to resell any portion of a user's LiveJournal back to that individual;"

I didn't notice anything that said what would happen to your content when the account was terminated. They simply say that you might lose the content.

They also have clauses that make any inappropriate postings the responsibility of the user.

So the difference here is that Facebook, perhaps due to their partnerships with phone and other companies and perhaps due to their much larger user base, have a much more explicit TOS to protect themselves.

Anyway, has already been pointed out, nobody is twisting your arm and demanding that you post any material that you do not wish to.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: traevoli
2009-03-15 08:25 am (UTC)
> Let's say Facebook licenses their service to a phone company (which I believe they do),
> so that the company's phones can provide a sweet interface to the Facebook and allow
> customers/users to keep in touch with their friends. Money is changing hands and that
> could be considered a commercial use of the content you posted.

You make a good point here. But not everthing in there is so easy to explain. The thing about being able to publicly perform the content, for example. With a strech of the imagination, one could argue that text-to-speach software is a "performance" of the content that has a legitimate use for the blind. The bit about translation could allow them to incorporate Babelfish. And the bit about the derivitive work could allow them to paraphrase excerpts and fictionalize users before using them in advertising.

> a much more explicit TOS to protect themselves.

Maybe you've honed in on why the Terms make me so uncomfortable. The Company has done such a good job protecting itself that it seems that a User wouldn't have any recourse at all against them.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: (Anonymous)
2009-03-19 03:09 pm (UTC)
So don't post anything that you'd feel uncomfortable with them using (and no - it's not a leap of the imagination to say text-to-speech is a public performance - it is, So is the playing of embedded videos.*If* played publicly or in public (schools, coffee shops, etc.). It makes sense that they would need to protect themselves. Every example you listed is, I think, fair and reasonable use. They have publicly stated that they will not infringe on users' rights - a statement that makes it easier to seek recourse if you feel they do.

All that aside, at some point you have to have a little faith. So much mistrust will give you ulcers, heart attacks, or ?.

People want to get in touch with you - that seems to be the main purpose of facebook - to reconnect, to stay connected. If you get an account, you don't have to use it for more than that. You don't have to write posts - though you could simply direct folks here.

/rant
(Reply) (Thread)