MitchLabuda’s Comments

• Jun 10th, 2013 @ 6:27am

  50 USC Chapter 36 - FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE

  on Sen. Lindsey Graham, Verizon Customer: I'm GLAD The NSA Is Harvesting My Data. Because Terrorists.
  The FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT is sometimes spoken about and cited as backing up the snooping.
  
  And in the act is the mention of war. And administrations have stated we are in a war on terror. So snooping is surprising in a time of war?
• Mar 23rd, 2012 @ 10:24am

  The TOS of Pinterest is the core issue (as Mitch Labuda)

  on For Those Freaking Out Over Pinterest's Terms Of Service, Have You Stopped Using Every Other Internet Site Yet?
  There is more to the TOS than the oft quoted and cited, responsibility for what you post part.
  
  The remainder of the TOS sets out what the site may do with member content, and a member cannot own content is not his or hers, which is another twisted part of puzzle.
  
  The site owners have made changes, but, none the less links to, Pinned via pinmarklet from
  google.com.au is not the content owner and is a defect of the site.
  
  To some of us, it is about attribution and proper credit
• Mar 14th, 2012 @ 2:34am

  Re:

  on For Those Freaking Out Over Pinterest's Terms Of Service, Have You Stopped Using Every Other Internet Site Yet?
  "if you know something is copyright, and post it, you are granting a fraudulent license."
  
  Very true, which is why the DMCA is in place for people to lodge complaints.
• Mar 13th, 2012 @ 5:55pm

  Re: Re: Read the TOS?

  on For Those Freaking Out Over Pinterest's Terms Of Service, Have You Stopped Using Every Other Internet Site Yet?
  Pinterest is creating derivative art?
  
  It is a social media site.
• Mar 13th, 2012 @ 4:59pm

  Re:

  on For Those Freaking Out Over Pinterest's Terms Of Service, Have You Stopped Using Every Other Internet Site Yet?
  The TOS sets out what the site could do, sell, modify, etc.
  
  Attribution is faulty at times. Google is not a content creator, but links on Pinterest point to google and not the content creator.
  
  Modifying content that neither the member owns or the site owns, is concerning as well.
• Mar 13th, 2012 @ 4:53pm

  Read the TOS?

  on For Those Freaking Out Over Pinterest's Terms Of Service, Have You Stopped Using Every Other Internet Site Yet?
  "Member Content
  We may, in our sole discretion, permit Members to post, upload, publish, submit or transmit Member Content. By making available any Member Content through the Site, Application or Services, you hereby grant to Cold Brew Labs a worldwide, irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, royalty-free license, with the right to sublicense, to use, copy, adapt, modify, distribute, license, sell, transfer, publicly display, publicly perform, transmit, stream, broadcast, access, view, and otherwise exploit such Member Content only on, through or by means of the Site, Application or Services. Cold Brew Labs does not claim any ownership rights in any such Member Content and nothing in these Terms will be deemed to restrict any rights that you may have to use and exploit any such Member Content."
  
  How does the site, sell, content it does not own?
  
  "modify"? Modify?
  
  Fair use allows for modification?
  
  What of the embed function, that allows anyone visiting Pinterest to snag a copy of content that the site does not own and the member may not own and the modify the content and paste it elsewhere?
• Mar 7th, 2012 @ 7:19am

  Re: Re: You don't get it

  on In All This Talk Of Pinterest And Copyright, The Fact That It's Driving Massive Traffic Seems Important
  The site, any site, depends on its member to follow the rules. Creative Commons does not stop people from linking and pinning any more than a big copyright C on an image from a stock photo site. Pinterest is encouraging people to go find things and pin them, but most don't understand the Terms of Service nor copyright and or trademark concerns.
• Mar 6th, 2012 @ 3:40pm

  People are complaining because

  on In All This Talk Of Pinterest And Copyright, The Fact That It's Driving Massive Traffic Seems Important
  The other reality is, that content that is not owned by the members of Pinterest is being used improperly by the members. Members are pinning and sharing stock images, as example. The concept of driving traffic to brands is one matter, the use of content that is not owned by the members is another and the TOS puts the blame squarely on the members for the copyright violations.
  
  Traffic out weighs the copyright of others? Wait until someone with deep pockets steps up and files a trademark claim and wants damages.