Facebook Overreacts: Decides All Of The Pirate Bay Is Illegal

from the oh-really? dept

I didn't bother writing up the story from a couple weeks back about a The Pirate Bay feature to easily share links to torrents on Facebook, because it wasn't particularly interesting. But, you knew that someone would overreact negatively. The question was whether it would be the entertainment industry or Facebook first. It looks like Facebook may have won. Rather than dealing with it intelligently, it overreacted and has blocked any and all links to The Pirate Bay, noting that due to the ongoing lawsuit and "controversy" it's basically decided to assume all links to The Pirate Bay are infringing and a violation of Facebook's terms of service. Now, it may very well be true that the majority of content shared via The Pirate Bay is unauthorized and infringing. But, even so, this seems to go too far. There are plenty of legitimate uses for The Pirate Bay, and there is a significant number of legitimate offerings on the site. Furthermore a link should not be considered infringing by itself. No copyright is infringed by a link alone. There were plenty of more reasonable ways that Facebook could have handled this, and it chose the sledge hammer approach. And, as David Title points out, the likely end result is merely that an arms race has begun, where The Pirate Bay will create a workaround, and Facebook will have to block yet again...

Filed Under: copyright, infringement, links, terms of service
Companies: facebook, the pirate bay

Pissing Off Users By Changing Terms Of Service Along The Way

from the big-changes dept

One of the important things with online services is that users need to feel a certain level of trust with the service providers they use. Otherwise why would they take the leap and use them. It's no surprise that service providers often end up changing the terms of service to keep up with the times, legal changes or changes to the service itself. But, when you make a big change in the terms of service -- one that fundamentally alters what people thought they were signing up for, that's a pretty big problem. A bunch of folks have sent in the news that Kodak has changed their terms of service, such that its "free" photo sharing site (which was formerly Ofoto) is no longer free at all, but will cost users $5/year in additional services (i.e., you have to buy $5 worth of prints/year). If you don't, Kodak will simply delete your albums.

Now, obviously, Kodak is doing this to try to increase its revenue and get those who don't bring in much money off the site. Kodak certainly has every right to try to come up with a better business model. But, in changing the terms of what people had already agreed to, and in doing so, threatening to delete their photos and "treasured memories," it seems that Kodak is absolutely killing any level of trust people might have had with the site. There are tons of competitors out there (many of which do still include free options). Kodak may not mind the free users going elsewhere, but breaking that bond seems like a massively dangerous idea. Those "free" customers still can generate some revenue -- but they won't at all if you piss them off by suddenly charging them for what was previously free or deleting their photos.

Filed Under: changes, terms of service
Companies: kodak, ofoto

Facebook Fans The Flames Of Its TOS Change Overreaction

from the guilty-conscience? dept

Some Facebook users are in an uproar after the site changed its terms of service to say that it retains a license to users' content after they delete their account. As the company's founder, Mark Zuckerberg, explains, this change simply clarifies the point that actions on Facebook can create two copies of content. He says that when users add a friend or send a message, for instance, it generates two copies of the action: one for the user on each side. So say a user sends a message to a friend, then later deletes their account; the new TOS language clarifies that Facebook doesn't have to delete that message from their friend's inbox. As is often the case, the backlash over this change is largely an overreaction.

Even so, it's hard to think that nobody at Facebook anticipated it and took some proactive steps to address the changes and attempt to allay concerns and preclude the overreaction. Instead, Zuckerberg responds only after the fuss has been kicked up, and his explanation comes off as damage control, regardless of the motivations behind it or the TOS change. This situation seems akin to the scandal that emerged after the heads of US automakers took private jets to Washington when they went to ask for government bailout money. Whether or not the indignation over the private flights was warranted was mostly irrelevant, but the fact that nobody at the automakers anticipated it and raised a red flag smacks of stupidity. It's hard to imagine that nobody at Facebook could have seen this storm of complaints coming, generated by what many there saw as a minor TOS change. Is Facebook's TOS change really that bad? No, it's not particularly egregious -- but by not staying ahead of the backlash, Facebook comes off looking the worse for it. The point isn't that Facebook or any other company shouldn't change their TOS to better reflect their businesses and technology, but that in this day and age, any "minor" change is going to attract lots of scrutiny, and, in all likelihood, will be misunderstood and misinterpreted. This makes the handling of the change much more important than the change itself.

Filed Under: communication, mark zuckerberg, overreaction, poor planning, terms of service

Thanks To The Lori Drew Case, I Can Make Each Of You A Criminal

from the oh,-the-power... dept

We've already talked about how the Lori Drew case represents a dangerous slippery slope, in that it effectively turns just about everyone into an internet criminal who can face years in jail for "criminal computer fraud," simply because they disobeyed a website's terms of service -- even if they didn't read the terms or even approve them. With the initial verdict in, Orin Kerr -- who is involved with the case as a part of Drew's legal team -- demonstrates how awful this case is by changing the terms of service on the blog he writes for in order to demonstrate how easy it is for any website to turn pretty much everyone into a criminal:

New Terms of Use for the Volokh Conspiracy: In light of the verdict in the Lori Drew case, I have decided to promulgate new Terms of Use for the Volokh Conspiracy. You are only permitted to visit the Volokh Conspiracy if you are in compliance with the Terms of Use. Any accessing the Volokh Conspiracy in a way that violates these terms is unauthorized, and according to the Justice Department is a federal crime that can lead to your arrest and imprisonment for up to one year for every visit to the blog.

By visiting this blog, you promise that:

1. You will not post comments that are abusive, profane, or irrelevant. Civil and relevant comments only, as indicated by our comment policy.
2. You are not an employee of the U.S. government. Yes, that includes postal service employees, law clerks, judges, and interns. We're a libertarian-leaning blog, and we're for the private sector only. Government types, keep out.
3. Your middle name is not "Ralph." I've always thought Ralph was a funny name, and even odder as a middle name. No one with the middle name "Ralph" is welcome here.
4. You're super nice. We have strict civility rules here, and this blog is only for people who are super nice. If you are not super nice, as judged by me, your visit to this blog is unauthorized.
5. You have never visited Alaska. Okay, this one is totally arbitrary, but it's our blog and we can keep out who we want. Alaska visitors are out, too.

If you post an abusive comment; you are an employee of the U.S. government; your middle name is Ralph; you're not super nice, as judged by me; or you have visited Alaska, I have kinda bad news for you: You are a criminal, as you have just violated 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(2)(C) by accessing the Volokh Conspiracy's service without authorization or in excess of authorization. You are only authorized to visit the blog in compliance with the Terms of Use, and by violating these terms you have become a criminal by essentially "hacking in" to the Volokh Conspiracy.

Filed Under: computer fraud, lori drew, orin kerr, terms of service

'Free Software' Scammers Fined $2.2 Million

from the this-is-not-the-'free'-business-model-we're-talking-about dept

We've seen various incarnations of the scam (often found in infomercials) where a company offers you something for "free," but in the fine print, you're really signing up for an ongoing paid service. For years, some of the biggest "ringtone" companies made much of their money this way, offering "free" or cheap ringtones that actually involved the user signing up for a monthly service without realizing it. The infamous "Video Professor" has been accused of running a similar system, though the company vehemently denies this.

Either way, it appears that the FTC is starting to crack down on some of these practices, fining a competitor to "Video Professor," called ThinkAll, $2.2 million. Apparently ThinkAll took this scam to a new level. It offered "free" software, where you simply had to pay for the shipping and handling -- though, it sounds like that was really just so the company could get your credit card on file. After receiving that first free CD, customers were offered 3 more titles totally free (not even any shipping). If you decided to accept that software (and why wouldn't you?) it made you check a box saying you had read the terms of service. Of course no one reads the full terms of service, which include (hidden down in the 7th paragraph) the fact that in accepting this "free" software, you're actually agreeing to sign up for a monthly fee-based service. Quite sneaky... until the FTC stepped in. Hopefully other businesses take notice and start avoiding these types of scams.

Filed Under: fine, fine print, free software, ftc, scam, terms of service
Companies: thinkall

If You Don't See The Terms Of Service Until After You Buy, Are They Valid?

from the seems-a-bit-unfair dept

There have been lawsuits over software packages that only allow you to see the end user license agreement (EULA) after you've already paid for the software, but does that apply in other situations as well? Broadband Reports points us to the news that for people who sign up for Verizon's FiOS fiber optic broadband, you don't get to see the full terms of service until after it's installed. Verizon claims it's just easier this way -- and that all the important points are explained ahead of time. It also says that users can cancel within 30 days with no penalty if they're uncomfortable with the terms. However, that leaves out the fact that a lot of time and effort went into installing the actual FiOS system, which could also disrupt other systems (in fact, in a few cases -- though certainly not all -- a FiOS installation cuts the old copper line). So, in that case, it would be difficult to just go back to what you had before.

Filed Under: eulas, fiber optic, fios, terms of service
Companies: verizon

Comcast Sorta, But Not Really, Admits To Content Jamming

from the it's-all-in-the-weasel-language dept

Internet News is reporting that Comcast has put its "speed limit in writing." This is in response to the stories from last year about how Comcast was jamming certain kinds of traffic without being clear about it to users. However, the details suggest that the headline writer is being a bit generous. Comcast hasn't come close to putting the actual limits in writing. All it actually did was sneak some weasel language into its terms of service, saying that the company "uses reasonable network management practices that are consistent with industry standards." That's hardly being upfront about what's going on in a manner that will help subscribers actually understand why certain apps appear to not be working properly. Rather than better informing customers, this seems like a move designed to get the FCC to drop its investigation of the company's traffic shaping practices -- especially since the phrase used is copied straight from an FCC statement.

Filed Under: false advertising, terms of service, traffic shaping
Companies: comcast