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.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Shane C, Feb 17th, 2009 @ 8:11pm

    TOS concerning pictures

    I'll preference this comment with the fact that I haven't read the new TOS. Legalese makes me break out in hives.

    Personally speaking, the thing that caught my attention (mentioned within the synopsis of the new TOS that I've read) is the supposed relinquishing of rights to photographs associated with defunct Facebook accounts. To find that one of my pictures has been used in a marketing campaign, or simply bundled and sold to a third party with out my consent would be less then unsettling.

    But then again, as a professional photographer, I don't put any pictures that I perceive to have value, up on Facebook.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    sfox, Feb 17th, 2009 @ 8:12pm

    Facebook TOS

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    sfox, Feb 17th, 2009 @ 8:15pm

    Facebook TOS

    Well, as an artist, I can tell you that it is not an "overreaction" to object strenuously to Facebook appropriating all rights to any images of my work that I post in perpetuity, without compensation. They are clearly ignorant, or were until yesterday, about copyright in regards to creative work. It's the equivalent of doing work for hire for free. No thanks.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    sfox, Feb 17th, 2009 @ 8:35pm

    Facebook TOS

    And....one more thought: you would have no problem if, five or ten years from now, you saw a photo that a Friend had posted on Facebook of a child in your family being used commercially in a way you found offensive? Because Facebook had been sold to some other corporate entity who was a little shaky on ethics and common courtesy? If I have read the TOS correctly, there is nothing to stop that from happening. How likely? Who knows? But why should you have to worry about it, knowing you have no recourse.

    And yes, I'm perfectly well aware of the fact that anything put on the web will stay there forever. But that is different from what Facebook users expect (naively, perhaps) and a not the same as making commercial use of it. That's not sharing, it's theft.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    Duane (profile), Feb 17th, 2009 @ 8:38pm

    Huh? I should hope this is how it works

    OK, if I'm reading and have read this right, the terms basically say if you send a message, photo, mp3, what-have-you, to someone, then they're going to make a copy of it. You get a copy, the recipient(s) get a copy. If you cancel your account, anything you sent to people, facebook isn't going to take away from them.

    Seems reasonable to me.

    Isn't that how things work? I mean if Yahoo reached into my mailbox and took away all of the e-mails from someone who canceled their account, I'd be pretty damn pissed. Likewise with images. If I receive an image from God him/herself in my inbox, I can't imagine the situation where it would seem OK to take that image away from me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    mk, Feb 17th, 2009 @ 8:56pm

    Corporate apologist much?

    I don't use Facebook, but the last line of this article makes me cringe. It seems to suggest that a company's PR is more important than the quality or terms of its service. "Yes, you too can infringe on the rights of your clients - just bullsh!t them enough not to realise it!"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Eadwacer, Feb 17th, 2009 @ 9:10pm

    Facebook isn't your friend

    There's a distinct difference between a friend having a copy of an email I sent them and a service providor having a copy of that email as part of the service. It's as if Google said that any email I sent through gMail could be kept on their servers forever, and used however they wanted. I have no expectation that a friend will destroy a copy of a photo, even if we stop being friends. I do have the right to expect that a service providor will delete copies of my files on their servers when I am no longer using their service.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2009 @ 9:16pm

    Who's decision was this anyway?

    If you put time into the work product without compensation from the host, who owns the work product? I know some people that put hundreds of hours into facebook, and if they decide to take their content elsewhere, it should remain owned by the creator, correct? But, whatever. I have no idea what civil liberties are waived when you sign up with their hosting service, and what's buried in the TOS.

    But be skeptical when Facebook has to put out a poll asking for input to their own TOS. Why are they working so hard to keep the new TOS? Why do they even have to ask for feedback? Just revert back to the old TOS.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    Duane (profile), Feb 17th, 2009 @ 9:19pm

    Re: Facebook isn't your friend

    Yes, but if your friend is keeping a copy of that email or photo in her inbox, then chances are it is also on the service provider's server. (Provided you both use the same service, which is the case here.)

    I can see the potential for misuse, but I can also see how this is just explaining what is a fact of life.

    My university has a copy of every message anyone has ever sent me. How and why? Because I keep all those messages and my e-mail inbox and archives are on their servers. That's it, and that's all. There's no way around that unless you force everyone to house all of their stuff on their personal computing device, and then we might as well go back to wearing flannel and listening to grunge rock.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    freakengine, Feb 17th, 2009 @ 9:41pm

    Oh get over yourselves!

    Nobody wants your crappy low-res pics! Geez. All this uproar from a lot of the same people who are angry at the music industry for not giving away their music. Hypocrisy anyone?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), Feb 17th, 2009 @ 10:10pm

    Re: Facebook TOS

    Well, as an artist, I can tell you that it is not an "overreaction" to object strenuously to Facebook appropriating all rights to any images of my work that I post in perpetuity, without compensation. They are clearly ignorant, or were until yesterday, about copyright in regards to creative work. It's the equivalent of doing work for hire for free. No thanks.

    That would be an issue if that were what they were doing. They were not. They were just explaining how their system actually works. It was never about using your content.

    So, yes. You are overreacting.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), Feb 17th, 2009 @ 10:11pm

    Re: Corporate apologist much?

    I don't use Facebook, but the last line of this article makes me cringe. It seems to suggest that a company's PR is more important than the quality or terms of its service. "Yes, you too can infringe on the rights of your clients - just bullsh!t them enough not to realise it!"

    Um. No. Try reading again. If this were a *real* problem with the quality of its terms of service, then that would be an issue. But it's not. It's a non-issue. Thus, the more important thing in *THIS SITUATION* is how they screwed up the PR handling of the change.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2009 @ 10:57pm

    DDOS FACEBOOK

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Heavydevelopment, Feb 18th, 2009 @ 12:16am

    This is not a little tweak.....

    Here is the actual wording from a Channel Web article:

    Under the license section of the TOS, Facebook said that by agreeing to the terms, users "grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, nonexclusive, transferable, worldwide license to use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain and distribute any user content you post."

    That means that your unsavory escapades in writing or photos potentially could be used to sell the service and, moreover, Facebook doesn't need to tell you or get your permission.

    According to the license, Facebook can "use your name, likeness and image for any purpose, including commercial or advertising. Facebook will be entitled to the unrestricted use of any such submission for any purpose, commercial or otherwise, without acknowledgment or compensation to you."

    Adding insult to injury, the site did not notify users of TOS changes and, in fact, said it doesn't have to.

    "We reserve the right, at our sole discretion, to change or delete portions of these terms at any time without further notice. Your continued use of the Facebook service after any such changes constitutes your acceptance of the new terms."

    Basically facebook is saying "trust us, everything is going to be okay". But would you personally give ANY company that free reign over your content? And also not ever have the obligation to tell you ANYTHING about future changes? Seriously fb should be called out on this and there shouldn't be blog posts that remotely defend what they are doing (stares right at techdirt).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Shane C, Feb 18th, 2009 @ 1:03am

    Reverting back to the old TOS

    As no one has mentioned this yet, Facebook has reverted back to their old TOS until their new TOS can be corrected, and I would guess properly addressed.

    So I would say kudos to Facebook for at least realizing their mistake (whether it be in the TOS, or simply incorrect PR over the new TOS), and taking some action. It could have been just as easy to continue on, brush everything off, and wait for this to blow over.

    Terms of Use Update

    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.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 18th, 2009 @ 1:26am

    WSJ: Facebook Backs Away From Policy Change

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    eleete, Feb 18th, 2009 @ 3:47am

    Re: Re: Facebook TOS

    I'd hate to disagree with Mike, but they were going pretty extreme with the new TOS. It's a mute issue at this point because I see this morning they have reverted to the old TOS while they 'discuss' the rights and 'responsibilities' of users. So clearly there Could be overreaction. However, those new terms were over the top. The short paragraph of legalese below seems to go FAR beyond a simple 'we need to be able to make a copy' clause. Why would they need a right to sub-license, or include commercial and advertising rights ? Especially a 'perpetual world wide license'. These are not just for pix and mp3s but also comments and discussions. I think the backlash was some what warranted and appears to have made them reverse the decision.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 18th, 2009 @ 5:38am

    BTW

    This morning, there was this on FB:
    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Your Gawd and Master, Feb 18th, 2009 @ 5:47am

    Re: Re: Facebook isn't your friend

    Let me recommend a movie for ya, skippy.

    Hype!

    There was no "grunge rock"; that term was made up for people like you. And flannel is just what they happen to wear a lot of in Seattle.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Your Gawd and Master, Feb 18th, 2009 @ 5:55am

    Re: Oh get over yourselves!

    It's not hypocrisy.

    The music industry wants people to be exposed to their work.

    The private individual only wants a select few to be exposed to their "work".

    In other words, a musician wants people to hear their music on the radio but I'm betting you'd be upset if we put your private telephone conversations up for the public to listen to, AND we could potentially make money from it without you having any say in the matter.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Lucretious, Feb 18th, 2009 @ 6:46am

    Re: Re: Facebook TOS

    technically speaking though, they COULD retain the rights if they so chose, right?

    I'm not completely clear on the issue but if thats the case, I can understand the "overreaction"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Lucretious, Feb 18th, 2009 @ 6:50am

    Re: This is not a little tweak.....

    This is precisely the problem with this issue and I have to wonder wtf people are thinking when they feel its an "overreaction". Those are pretty broad powers over what you put up.

    I guess it's another reason why people really need to read the fine print before they tic off the "I Agree" box.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Jake, Feb 18th, 2009 @ 1:15pm

    Compare

    Compare the Terms of Service for Facebook to those for Flickr. Flickr makes it very clear that their rights only go as far as making copies to provide the service. Facebook reserves the right to do just about anything under the guise of promotion, such as using your photo to advertise products to your friend.

    It's a real issue. That's one reason (among others) that pro photographers stay far away from Facebook. And it helps explain why the photos on Facebook are so generally crap.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 18th, 2009 @ 5:34pm

    What's that washing sound?

    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.

    If that was all they meant they could have easily written just that. They didn't, and it wasn't.

    Nice whitewash attempt, though.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Lloyd Shugart, Feb 21st, 2009 @ 10:38am

    Mike, I'm not suprised by your reaction

    Standing from your position in re that copyrights shouldn't exist, or maybe they shouldn't exist for some but should for others.



    Mike are you being honest with your audience? It seems to me you are using the copyright regime to benefit from CrowdSourcing.



    Lloyd




    Help Improve the Techdirt Insight Community by Mike Schinkel



    Monday, February 26th, 2007 @ 3:39AM
    icon
    Mike Schinkel



    Your legal agreement is going to keep me from contributing much. These are the specific problem areas, with a rating of 1 to 10 where 10 is a huge problem:



    1. >> we will have the right to republish your written work .... and alter your submissions as we may determine necessary



    Concern Level 5 - This is really after #4 is resolved.


    2. >> Techdirt shall hold all right, title, and interest, including all intellectual property rights, in and to the submission.


    3. >> You agree that the submissions shall be deemed "works for hire" under copyright law, and you agree to assign, and upon their creation, automatically assign, to us the ownership of such works, including copyright interests and any other intellectual property in such works, without the necessity of any further consideration.


    Concern level 10 - Joint copyright is acceptable, but not full rights.



    4. >> We may provide your written submissions to third parties without any indication of your authorship.


    Concern level 8 - One of the reasons to join is to build my stature. That can't happen if I'm anonymous

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    Lloyd Shugart, Feb 21st, 2009 @ 11:16am

    Really Mike...I mean REALLY

    Floor 64 TOS http://www.insightcommunity.com/terms.php

    6.2 Confidential Information; Nonuse and Nondisclosure

    It may be necessary for Floor64 to disclose to you certain proprietary or confidential information, which may include, without limitation, information that relates to Floor64’s or the Sponsoring Companies’ products, designs, business plans, business opportunities, finances, research, development, know-how, personnel, or other information that relate to confidential or proprietary aspects of our or their businesses ("Confidential Information").
    You agree not to use any Confidential Information for any purpose except only to the extent necessary to submit a Contributor Submission. You agree not to disclose or allow access to any Confidential Information to any third parties (including to Floor64’s competitors). You further acknowledge and agree that in the event of any unauthorized use or disclosure or threat of unauthorized use or disclosure of any Confidential Information (including, but not limited to, information concerning Floor64 or its Sponsoring Companies’ current or any future and proposed work, services or products, the facts that any such work, services, or products are planned, under consideration, or in production, as well as any descriptions thereof), Floor64 shall be entitled to preliminary and final injunctions, enjoining and restraining such use or disclosure or threatened use or disclosure.
    6.3 Nonconfidential Contributor Submissions: Grant of Rights

    If a particular Case is NOT marked as confidential by Floor64:

    i) You retain ownership of your Contributor Submission. For clarification, this means that, subject to the license to Floor64 below, you reserve all rights and retain the right to assign, sublicense, reproduce, distribute, display, perform, create derivative works from and otherwise use your Contributor Submission for any purpose whatsoever.

    ii) While Floor64 does not claim ownership of your submission, by submitting a Contributor Submission in response to an Case, you hereby grant to Floor64 a non-exclusive, assignable, sublicensable, paid-up, perpetual, irrevocable license to reproduce, distribute, display, perform, create derivative works from and otherwise use your Contributor Submission for any purpose (including, but not limited to, promotional use and sublicensing such Contributor Submission to third parties) at the sole discretion of Floor64 in any media now known or hereafter discovered. You also agree to irrevocably waive any claims and assertions of moral rights or rights of attributions with respect to any Contributor Submission. You understand that notwithstanding the foregoing, Floor64 makes no representations that it will publish or use your Contributor Submission in any way and may or may not use your Contributor Submissions in its sole discretion. You shall not have the right to enjoin the use of your Contributor Submission or to rescind any rights granted hereunder.

    iii) With respect to any Challenge Case, unless and until such Challenge Case is selected by Floor64, the foregoing license is limited to use by Floor64, Sponsoring Companies and reviewers in evaluating your submission; and your Contributor Submission may be retained for future consideration in connection with comparable Cases.

    iv) Additionally, while you retain ownership of your Contributor Submissions, nothing in this agreement grants you rights to or ownership of any other Contributor Submissions. Without written permission, you may not reproduce, distribute or display works from anyone else's Contributor Submissions.

    6.4 Confidential Contributor Submissions; Grant of Rights

    If a particular Case is marked confidential by Floor64, your Contributor Submission is subject to an additional "Confidential Contributor Submission Agreement" that you will have agreed to before taking on such an Case.
    6.5 Contributor Submissions Disclaimer.

    You understand that when using the Insight Community you will be exposed to Contributor Submissions from a variety of sources, and that Floor64 is not responsible for the accuracy, usefulness, or intellectual property rights of or relating to such Contributor Submissions. You further understand and acknowledge that you may be exposed to Contributor Submissions that are inaccurate, offensive, indecent or objectionable, and you agree to waive, and hereby do waive, any legal or equitable rights or remedies you have or may have against Floor64 with respect thereto. Floor64 does not endorse any Contributor Submissions or any opinion, recommendation or advice expressed therein, and Floor64 expressly disclaims any and all liability in connection with Contributor Submissions. If notified by a User or a content owner of a Contributor Submission that allegedly does not conform to this Terms of Service, Floor64 may investigate the allegation and determine in its sole discretion whether to remove the Contributor Submission, which it reserves the right to do at any time and without notice.
    7. Compensation
    7.1 Commission Cases

    If your Contributor Submission meets the requirements for a given Commission Case, as set forth in the applicable Case and in these Terms (as solely determined by Floor64), then unless otherwise specified in connection with a specific Case, fees will be paid within 45 days of the issue closing, except that Floor64 reserves the right to delay payment until the aggregate amount due to you is at least $250.

    7.3 Independent Contractor

    Nothing in this Agreement shall in any way be construed to constitute you as an agent, employee or representative of Floor64, but you shall perform the Services as an independent contractor. You acknowledge and agree that you are obligated to report as income all compensation received by you pursuant to these Terms.

    You are solely responsible for compliance with any state or federal tax law, tax law of any country, or any applicable international tax treaty. Floor64 will not: i) withhold FICA (Social Security) from any payments to you; ii) make state or federal unemployment insurance contributions on your behalf; (iii) withhold state and federal income tax from any payments to you; (iv) make disability insurance contributions on your behalf; or (v) obtain workers’ compensation insurance on your behalf. All payments are subject to your submission of appropriate tax forms for independent contractors.

    12. Ownership; Proprietary Rights.

    The Insight Community is owned and operated by Floor64. The visual interfaces, graphics, design, compilation, information, computer code (including source code or object code), products, software, services, and all other elements of the Insight Community provided by Floor64 (the "Materials") are protected by applicable laws. Except for any information provided in connection with Cases that are provided and owned by Sponsoring Companies, all Materials contained on the Insight Community are the property of Floor64 or its subsidiaries or affiliated companies and/or third-party licensors. All trademarks, service marks, and trade names are proprietary to Floor64 or its affiliates and/or third-party licensors. Except as expressly authorized by Floor64, you agree not to sell, license, distribute, copy, modify, publicly perform or display, transmit, publish, edit, adapt, create derivative works from, or otherwise make unauthorized use of the Materials. Floor64 reserves all rights not expressly granted in this Terms of Service.
    13. Indemnification.

    You agree to indemnify, save, and hold Floor64, its affiliated companies, contractors, employees, agents and its third-party suppliers, licensors, licensees, Sponsoring Companies and partners harmless from any claims, losses, damages, liabilities, including legal fees and expenses, arising out of: (i) your use or misuse of the Insight Community; (ii) any violation by you of these Terms; (iii) any claims, liabilities, or expenses relating to compensation, tax, insurance, or benefit matters; and (iv) any breach of the representations, warranties, and covenants made by you herein or any third-party claim inconsistent with any of the foregoing. Floor64 reserves the right, at your expense, to assume the exclusive defense and control of any matter for which you are required to indemnify Floor64, and you agree to cooperate with Floor64's defense of these claims. Floor64 will use reasonable efforts to notify you of any such claim, action, or proceeding upon becoming aware of it.
    14. Disclaimers; No Warranties.

    To the fullest extent permissible pursuant to applicable law, Floor64, and its affiliates, partners, assigning companies, and suppliers ("Floor64 parties") disclaim all warranties, statutory, express or implied, including, but not limited to, implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement of proprietary rights. No advice or information, whether oral or written, obtained by you from Floor64 or through the Insight Community will create any warranty not expressly stated herein. You expressly acknowledge that as used in this section 14, the term Floor64 includes the Floor64 parties’ officers, directors, employees, shareholders, agents, licensors and subcontractors. You expressly agree that the use of the Insight Community is at your sole risk. The Insight Community and any data, information, contributor submissions, reference sites, services, or applications made available in conjunction with or through the Insight Community ("Floor64 offerings") are provided on an "as is" and "as available", "with all faults" basis and without warranties or representations of any kind either express or implied. No warranty is made that the Floor64 offerings will be uninterrupted, or free of errors, viruses or other harmful components and no warranty is made that any of the foregoing will be corrected, or in terms of correctness, accuracy, reliability, or otherwise.

    You will be solely responsible for any damage to your property (including your computer system) or loss of data that results from the download or use of such material or data.
    15. Limitation of Liability and Damages.
    15.1 Limitation of Liability.

    Under no circumstances, including, but not limited to, negligence, will the Floor64 parties be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential, punitive, reliance, or exemplary damages (including without limitation damages arising from any unsuccessful court action or legal dispute, lost business, lost revenues or loss of anticipated profits or any other loss or damage of any nature whatsoever) arising out of or relating to these terms, the Floor64 offerings, the contributor submissions, or any other interactions with Floor64, even if Floor64 or a Floor64 authorized representative has been advised of the possibility of such damages.
    15.2 Limitation of Damages.

    In no event will any of the Floor64 parties total liability to you for all damages, losses, and causes of action arising out of or relating to these terms or your use of the Insight Community, your contributor submissions or your interaction with other Insight Community users (whether in contract, tort including negligence, warranty, or otherwise), exceed the amounts payable to you, if any for accepted contributor submissions, or one hundred dollars, whichever is greater.
    16. Limitations by Applicable Law; Basis of the Bargain
    16.1 Limitations by Applicable Law.

    Certain jurisdictions do not allow limitations on implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain damages. If you reside in such a jurisdiction, some or all of the above disclaimers, exclusions, or limitations may not apply to you, and you may have additional rights. The limitations or exclusions of warranties, remedies or liability contained in this terms of service apply to you to the fullest extent such limitations or exclusions are permitted under the laws of the jurisdiction in which you are located.
    16.2 Basis of the Bargain.

    You acknowledge and agree that Floor64 has offered its products and services, set its prices, and entered into these terms in reliance upon the warranty disclaimers and the limitations of liability set forth herein, that the warranty disclaimers and the limitations of liability set forth herein reflect a reasonable and fair allocation of risk between you and Floor64, and that the warranty disclaimers and the limitations of liability set forth herein form an essential basis of the bargain between you and Floor64. Floor64 would not be able to provide the Insight Community to you on an economically reasonable basis without these limitations.

    18.4 Severability.

    If any provision of these Terms or any Guidelines is held to be unlawful, void, or for any reason unenforceable, then that provision will be limited or eliminated from these Terms to the minimum extent necessary and will not affect the validity and enforceability of any remaining provisions.
    18.5 Case.

    These Terms and related Guidelines, and any rights and licenses granted hereunder, may not be transferred or assigned by you, but may be assigned by Floor64 without restriction. Any assignment attempted to be made in violation of this Terms of Service shall be void.
    18.6 Survival.

    Upon termination of these Terms, any provision which, by its nature or express terms should survive, will survive such termination or expiration, including, but not limited to, Sections 5, 6, 7.4, 8-18. The confidentiality provisions set forth in Section 6.2 ("Confidential Information; Nonuse and Nondisclosure") will survive for two (2) years following the termination of these Terms.
    18.7 Headings.

    The heading references herein are for convenience purposes only, do not constitute a part of these Terms, and will not be deemed to limit or affect any of the provisions hereof.
    18.8 Entire Agreement.

    This is the entire agreement between you and Floor64 relating to the subject matter herein and will not be modified except in writing, signed by both parties, or by a change to these Terms or Guidelines made by Floor64 as set forth in Section 4 above.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Lloyd Shugart, Feb 21st, 2009 @ 11:33am

    Mike I thought you Repudiated "COPYRIGHTS"

    So Mike am I to assume and then may all of us assume that you really don't take IP seriously, so that you don't intend to enforce your TOS? Is that only on Techdirt or is that also on Floor 64 site??

    http://techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20080425/124144950#c644

    Re: This Concept is Market Tested=Market Failure
    by Mike - Jun 12th, 2008 @ 3:47am


    So my only conclusion drawn from the facts is you believe in using the current intellectual property rights, laws and statutes, to engage in your business model. And that exclusive rights are part and parcel of that model

    Not at all. We are quite clear in our agreements: we are selling a *service*, not a product, and we retain no rights to the end result. Our customers are free to do what they want with the output, even if it's to redistribute or resell it.

    We do not rely on IP for our business model at all. In fact, we encourage our customers to do what they want with our works, knowing it only helps us more in the end.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This