Facebook Reverts ToS Change After User Uproar 260
rarel writes "CNN and other media outlets report that Facebook reverted their TOS update and went back to using the previous one. 'The site posted a brief message on users' home pages that said it was returning to its previous "Terms of Use" policy "while we resolve the issues that people have raised."' Facebook's controversial changes to its Terms of Service, previously commented on Slashdot, included a mention that (users) 'may remove (their) User Content from the Site at any time. ... However, (they) acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of (their) User Content,' triggering a massive uproar from users and privacy groups."
Creative works (Score:5, Informative)
I didn't have a problem with them retaining phone book information, wall posts, ... my beef was with creative works uploaded. Their land grab on rights in perpetuity was insanity. They could use any image I had uploaded for any purpose including commercial and advertising without any compensation whatsoever. They could sell rights to their image database to publishers, the AP, and others without regard for privacy or payment to me.
Backups... (Score:4, Informative)
One can encrypt backups with keys that are "expire" (read: are thrown away) according to some schedule, so that they can have e.g. backups for the last year, but cannot read backups that are older than that. Should be pretty simple to set up, really.
Re:As if the terms weren't draconian enough... (Score:3, Informative)
They make money, just not by payment from the users.
They are loaded with advertisements.
Signups to Bebo and myspace are up over 200% (Score:1, Informative)
Check out their blogs. The people have voted with their feet.
AG
Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last. (Score:4, Informative)
They'll probably just wait for the fuss to die down, reword it a bit, and try again.
Then they're doing a poor job of it; Posted in a huge section on the top of every page:
Over the past few days, we have received a lot of feedback about the new terms we posted two weeks ago. Because of this response, we have decided to return to our previous Terms of Use while we resolve the issues that people have raised. For more information, visit the Facebook Blog. If you want to share your thoughts on what should be in the new terms, check out our group "Facebook Bill of Rights and Responsibilities."
They're deliberately asking the enraged folk to weigh in on the new ToS. Hopefully they'll announce the change this time.
Re:How good was the original ToS? (Score:5, Informative)
It was simple - they took the right to reproduce anything you posted - writing, photos, etc. It was non-exclusive. The key was that if you deleted something or left Facebook, those rights were terminated.
The change was that you could not terminate those rights by leaving; they were indefinite. The lawyer-speak used was not clear that the allowed use of your content on facebook was exclusively limited to facebook. Now, that's not a huge deal if you can terminate those rights should they attempt to abuse them. That's a big stick held by the content creator, even in light of the all-encompassing rights they took in order to operate their business (and, technically they needed nearly all those rights to generate the facebook pages without running afoul of copyright law).
By removing the revocation provision, they basically granted themselves perpetual rights to everything. That's a major change. The original TOS had some real safeguards in it, and I read them quite thoroughly when I signed up. This was, dare I say it, the lynchpin of those safeguards - a last, final way to undo what you had done.
Facebook has real copyright issues with the content they manage, and they don't want to set themselves up for a legal collapse. This change would have made the legal side very, very clean for them. And very unbalanced against members.
Re:"Remember Facebook" (Score:1, Informative)
It appears you were wrong.
Re:Big deal about nothing? (Score:5, Informative)
So, Facebook changes its TOS to be clear that it might still have backups of your data around for a while, and people get MAD?!
You're wrong, and stupid too. The TOS said that not only could they keep backups of your data around, but that they could use them for any purpose. They also granted themselves the right to use your image, likeness, and other materials for any purpose. Ostensibly this is for the purpose of advertising facebook. But what you are missing is that facebook is a corporation and corporations never die. When facebook dies it gets bought by someone else who gets all that personal info, and the right to use it for any purpose. 30 years down the road when no one gives one tenth of one shit about facebook, all that personal info could still be used for any purpose including advertising gay porn. (Which mind you, is okay stuff if you want it, but probably not something that most FB users want their picture on. Or in! They have the legal right to filmgimp your face onto a pornstar!
This is not much ado about nothing. If this was only about backups they would only need the right to retain your information indefinitely, and maybe make copies of it. They don't need the right to use that media for any purpose, period the end. They CERTAINLY don't need the right to use your likeness for ANY purpose.
Re:huhu (Score:5, Informative)
That's just the point. Facebook's TOS would have allowed them to take your previously private email-like data and published it wherever they felt would be profitable.
Re:Oh, I'm sure that this will last. (Score:5, Informative)
You got a bad lawyer fired. That was a week well spent.
Re:huhu (Score:5, Informative)
There were two other points to their TOS change, besides the "rights continue past the closing of the account" that got people riled up:
1. Facebook could sell your uploaded content (including writings, photos, etc) to third parties.
2. Facebook didn't notify users of the TOS change. Instead, you "accepted" the change by continuing to use the service even if you didn't know that the terms had changed.
Combine this with Facebook shutting down accounts for certain actions (like posting breastfeeding photos) and you could get the following situation:
1. User logs in, is unaware that the TOS has changed.
2. User uploads photo to Facebook.
3. Facebook deems photo inappropriate, closes down account.
4. Facebook takes content from the closed account (remember, they own rights to it past account closure) and sell it to an ad agency without the user's approval or notification and without the user/copyright holder being compensated.
Don't like it? Well, you can't take them to court because the TOS binds you to Mandatory Arbitration [consumerist.com] and who do you think is going to win that? You? Or the company that chooses and pays the arbitrator? (If you answered that you would win, I've got a bridge to sell you.)
Re:huhu (Score:4, Informative)
5. If the photo contains persons, the ad agency won't buy the photos without a signed model release, or if they do, you (or the person in the photo) can sue them.
Re:huhu (Score:2, Informative)
Maybe in the States. In the UK, you cannot write a contract against UK law. If I decide I signed the TOS under UK law, there's nothing Facebook can do about it. It WILL go to UK court and the LAW dictates the outcome.
Which is why I think it's a pity they chickened out; I was quite looking forward to the first hilarious court case where the entire TOS would be thrown out as an invalid contract.