<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Laura Creekmore &#187; legal</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.lauracreekmore.com/tag/legal/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.lauracreekmore.com</link>
	<description>Content strategy consulting, training and speaking</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 01 Jan 2012 02:14:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>The Facebook TOS debacle: You probably don&#039;t care</title>
		<link>http://www.lauracreekmore.com/the-facebook-tos-debacle-you-probably-dont-care/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lauracreekmore.com/the-facebook-tos-debacle-you-probably-dont-care/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2009 22:59:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Laura Creekmore</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Facebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[digital rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TOS]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://creekmoreconsulting.com/?p=52</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Facebook terms of service mess: No one really cares. And there's no good solution for those of us who do.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Today, Consumerist made a big splash in certain geeky communities by identifying <a href="http://consumerist.com/5150175/facebooks-new-terms-of-service-we-can-do-anything-we-want-with-your-content-forever">a passage that&#8217;s been removed from the Facebook terms of service agreement</a>. Now, Facebook asserts the perpetual, non-exclusive right to any content you post on the site, even if you [or they] delete your account.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m actually one of those geeks who reads TOS agreements. I think I&#8217;ve read them for every major social network/content site I use. I don&#8217;t agree with all the provisions in all of them, but so far, I&#8217;ve been willing to agree to them legally, because the benefits of using the services have outweighed my disagreements with their legal positions.</p>
<p>The reality is outlined nicely by my Twitter friend <a href="http://www.twitter.com/eyebee">Eyebee</a>, however. <a href="http://wildcabbage.net/the-facebook-tos-issue-the-real-enemy/">Most people just don&#8217;t care.</a></p>
<blockquote><p>&#8230;most people aren’t even going to read about it, and most that do won’t understand the implications, or even care about it anyway.</p></blockquote>
<p><strong>If you still care</strong><br />
I found a great <a href="http://mashable.com/2009/02/16/facebook-tos-privacy/">analysis of the whole situation over at Mashable</a>. It&#8217;s worth reading and understanding&#8211;and it makes a decent guess at Facebook&#8217;s motivation.</p>
<p>My thought here is that both points are relevant. Most people don&#8217;t care, but this situation clearly highlights an issue that we haven&#8217;t yet figured out the right way to resolve legally.</p>
<p><strong>The real problem</strong><br />
Copyright law and digital rights management simply haven&#8217;t kept up with technology. I&#8217;m not one to advocate more regulation and legislation, particularly in this area&#8211;frankly, I think most in Congress understand less about the implications of our print-based copyright law on the Internet than most 22-year-olds at this point. I&#8217;m trying hard to think of something Congress has done about copyright recently that I liked. Hmm. Still thinking.</p>
<p>But situations like this one at Facebook&#8211;where posting content from various sources, and allowing it to be shared on various destinations&#8211;simply aren&#8217;t covered by existing law. And so we&#8217;re going to continue having these copyright and licensing issues for a long time.</p>
<p><strong>Update:</strong> <a href="http://is8.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/16/facebook-we-have-never-claimed-ownership-members-content">The Industry Standard gets the scoop from Facebook</a>, who&#8217;s now also <a href="http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=54434097130">blogging about the TOS issue</a>.</p>
<p><strong>My final point:</strong> Facebook may CLAIM it intends to play nice here. And I suspect it does. But the new TOS agreement allows it not to.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lauracreekmore.com/the-facebook-tos-debacle-you-probably-dont-care/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

