——-

Not exactly “decentralized” (more on this in the next section).

Furthermore, if you read through the Opera Desktop End User License Agreement (which you had to if you installed the browser — shame on you if you didn’t!), you would have read section 7: USE OF SERVICES (emphasis mine):

Opera Unite and Transmission and Receipt of Content: Certain features of the Software and Services, including Opera Unite, may allow you to post or send content and/or links to content stored on your computer, that can be viewed by others (”User Generated Content”). Opera Software ASA exercises no control over User Generated Content passing through its network or equipment or available on or through the Services. You agree that Opera Software ASA is not liable for any loss of data. YOU MAY ONLY POST OR SEND USER GENERATED CONTENT THROUGH THE SERVICES THAT YOU CREATED OR THAT YOU HAVE PERMISSION TO POST OR SEND.. You agree not to use Opera Unite to upload, transfer or otherwise make available files, images, code, materials, or other information or content that is obscene, vulgar, hateful, threatening, or that violates any laws or third-party rights, hereunder but not limited to third-party intellectual property rights. We do not claim ownership of any User Generated Content. However, by submitting User Generated Content to us, you grant us and our affiliates the right and limited license to use, copy, display, perform, distribute and adapt this User Generated Content for the purpose of carrying out the Services.

You agree that we are not liable for User Generated Content that is provided by others. We have no duty to pre-screen User Generated Content, but we have the right to refuse to post, edit, or deliver submitted User Generated Content. We reserve the right to remove User Generated Content for any reason, but we are not responsible for any failure or delay in removing such material. We reserve the right to block any user’s access to any content, web site or web page in our sole discretion. Opera Software ASA reserves the right to terminate your account if you use your account privileges to unlawfully transmit copyrighted material without a license, valid defense or fair use privilege to do so.

Disputes may arise between you and others or between you and Opera Software ASA related to content or commerce, including User Generated Content. Such disputes could involve, among other things, the use or misuse of domain names; the infringement of copyrights, trademarks or other rights in intellectual property; defamation; fraud; the use or misuse of information; and problems with online auction or commerce transactions. You agree that all claims, disputes or wrongdoing that result from, or are related in any way to, the content of information that you post, transmit, re-transmit or receive through the Services, Opera Software’s network or Software are your sole and exclusive responsibility. Opera Software ASA may at it’s discretion, block certain web sites or domains and re-route you to other pages. By accepting these Terms of Use, You hereby consent to this.

——-

I encourage you to read Chris Messina’s entire post — it’s a good one!

UPDATE: Facebook did an about face and reverted to its previous ToS per a blog post on feb 17.

Well, now the terms indicate that anything you ever upload or share to your facebook profile — regardless of whether your account is active — is Facebook’s property to do whatever they want with. The language is similar but leaves less room for question. There are no longer references to “archived” content — but it’s debatable whether this is Facebook being more open about their intent or just being downright insulting and mischievous.

Did anyone receive notification to review the new Terms of Service before someone finally stumbled upon it — an outrageous 11 days after the fact? What if major publishers decide to boycott by removing “share on facebook” links? That’s not happening, not with the increasing traffic these blogs/sites receive via Facebook referrals.

This is the Internet, folks, and this is nothing new and hardly a surprise from Facebook — it was only a matter of time that they reworded the terms of content ownership (check out my previous posts on Facebook privacy here, here, and here).

If you’re someone who openly shares details and content on the Internet (as I do), you’re only fooling yourself if you believe said content cannot be “stolen” or used against you. Think you’re pre-February 4th content is protected (if you have since deleted your Facebook profile? Not likely. Facebook is the model for a walled garden online network. Now we’ll see how far they go with their power to abuse, sell, sublicense and manipulate user data and content.

The key passages of the ToS are below (new ToS / old ToS)

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.

That language is the same as in the old TOS, (per Consumerist) but there was an important couple of lines at the end of that section that have been removed:

You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content.

Furthermore, the “Termination” section states:

The following sections will survive any termination of your use of the Facebook Service: Prohibited Conduct, User Content, Your Privacy Practices, Gift Credits, Ownership; Proprietary Rights, Licenses, Submissions, User Disputes; Complaints, Indemnity, General Disclaimers, Limitation on Liability, Termination and Changes to the Facebook Service, Arbitration, Governing Law; Venue and Jurisdiction and Other.

Is this unique to the “Friends for Sale” App being advertised here or is this a standard policy allowed by developers who build Facebook Apps? Seems a little much to me… What do you think? Is this the kind of cross-promotion of your likeness you should expect when participating in an online community / social network?

We recently received a submission questioning Facebook’s Terms of Service:

Lowpoints: By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant… worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy… and distribute such User Content for any purpose…. You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time.

Highpoints: If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content.

Based on these terms, it should be clear to all that what happens in Facebook is Facebook’s. Sure, you can remove anything you submit / post on Facebook at any time, which consequentially terminates said liscences / sublicenses, but — does Facebook immediately archive all submissions? According to these terms, Facebook could stay out of trouble by immediately broadcasting all submissions/content via archival copies — which Facebook retains all rights to in perpetuity, whether or not the user withdraws said content. In essence, Facebook could hijack one’s copyright thanks by adding it’s stamp to an otherwise unchanged digital archive.

What deficiencies have you noticed in Facebook’s Terms and privacy policies in regards to third party applications? What issues do you fear / foresee and how can Facebook users further protect themselves? Moreover, what risk do these conflicts present to a company now “valued” at $15bn and how must it lead by example? Is Facebook breaking its own rules by allowing staff to circumvent the privacy policy, as Valleywag’s Nick Douglas alleged?

Check out this bizarre small print (emphasis mine):

Please Note: Virgin America does not currently have authority from the Department of Transportation to operate the services for which your ticket is being issued. You may, upon request, cancel your ticket and obtain a full refund from Virgin America at any time before the start of operations.
If operations have not started prior to your travel date, Virgin America will make reasonable efforts to arrange substitute air transportation for you. If substitute transportation cannot be arranged, Virgin America will refund to you 200% of the price paid for your ticket.

Hmm… so, purchase as many tickets as you want as long as you cancel what you don’t need before “start of operations” or August 8?

We’ll see what really happens at 1 p.m. GMT. Any guesses?

UPDATE: EMI’s offering their entire catalog (save for the Beatles) online sans DRM. How will the industry respond?

The kicker, after all, is that EMI is charging 30 cents more for the non-DRM tracks, or as EFF puts it, essentially placing a 30 percent surcharge on buying back your rights. Why not just by the DRM-free CD?

From the MIT Libraries blog:

The MIT Libraries have canceled access to the Society of Automotive Engineers’ web-based database of technical papers, rejecting the SAE’s requirement that MIT accept the imposition of Digital Rights Management (DRM) technology.

[.....]

At a time when technology makes it possible to share research more quickly and broadly than ever before, and when innovative automotive research is a matter of global concern, SAE is limiting access to the research that has been entrusted to the society. In addition to imposing DRM on access to the papers for paid subscribers, the SAE also prevents information about its papers from being found through any channel other than the ones they control.

—————-

The entire post is worth reading — it includes faculty and administration comments — and is a good model for universities.

http://news-libraries.mit.edu/blog/archives/388

Free Software Foundation’s campaign against DRM (defectivebydesign.org) is stepping up and needs our help. On April 1, they’re sending Jobs a letter that we should all sign on to (and add our comments). They’ve got 5,000 sigs already and are hoping to top 7,500!

Click here to sign the letter.

Lets get on Jobs’ ass to follow through on his “pledge” and sign on to the anti-DRM crusade.

The Patent and Trademark Office is starting a pilot project that will not only post patent applications on the Web and invite comments but also use a community rating system designed to push the most respected comments to the top of the file, for serious consideration by the agency’s examiners. A first for the federal government, the system resembles the one used by Wikipedia, the popular user-created online encyclopedia.

[snip]

“I’m sure there will be a degree of gaming. There always is,” [IBM VP and asst. gen. counsel David J.] Kappos said.

Interrrrresting. Read the article.

photo by Alexandre Dulaunoy.

> I’ll try to keep this quick. Been enjoying your pwned lectures a lot.
> Just got a Java update today for my computer and decided to give the
> ULA a read through and found these interesting:
>
> “You acknowledge that Licensed Software is not designed or intended
> for use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any
> nuclear facility. Sun Microsystems, Inc. disclaims any express or
> implied warranty of fitness for such uses.”
>
> ” This Agreement is the entire agreement between you and Sun relating
> to its subject matter. It supersedes all prior or contemporaneous
> oral or written communications, proposals, representations and
> warranties and prevails over any conflicting or additional terms of
> any quote, order, acknowledgment, or other communication between the
> parties relating to its subject matter during the term of this
> Agreement. No modification of this Agreement will be binding, unless
> in writing and signed by an authorized representative of each party.”
>
> with that last part, any agreement you had with sun is changed when
> you click accept to update Java.
>
> “G. Installation and Auto-Update. The Software’s installation and
> auto-update processes transmit a limited amount of data to Sun (or its
> service provider) about those specific processes to help Sun
> understand and optimize them. Sun does not associate the data with
> personally identifiable information. You can find more information
> about the data Sun collects at http://java.com/data/. “
>
> good to know i am telling them things.

The alternative, of course, being Adobe Flash?!?

photo by whurley via flickr.