There is more to the claims then you are giving the litigants credit for. In 2004 Facebook had a somewhat reasonable ToS now the ToS is abusive to users that have contributed time and energy to making Facebook a top social network. If this ToS were a standard contract between equal negotiating parties this would never happen. When one party abuses a contract of adhesion like this there should be a cause of action.
Did the litigants in this case plead the right claims? I do not know, I will have to read the complaint closer. But the complainants have a very real problem with the ToS, they should not be abused like this.
Here is one example from the complaint of an unreasonable change:
2004
“You may remove your Member Content from the site at any time. If you choose to remove your Member Content, the license granted…will automatically expire.”
2009
On February 4, 2009, Facebook revised its Terms of Service, a document Facebook asserts it is legally permitted to update “AT ANY TIME WITHOUT INFORMING USERS.”
I pay more then 30k a year for law school, I sure as hell am going to share what I learn. Sharing what you learn or don't learn is an important part of being global citizen and helping free culture. I often contribute my notes directly to Wikipedia during class or live blog acedemic lectures. If I am going to take notes I might as well share them in real time.
Quoting with attribution to criticize is definitely legal. If the quote is copyrighted it is often fair use. Furthermore if the quote is not fixed by the professor it is not even copyrighted, fixation is a requirement to get copyright protection.
Copyright was designed to get works to the public, if works leave the public sphere and are kept from the public due to copyright, then copyright is failing. I agree that copyright needs an overhaul, an archival rights is a first step in the right direction.
Diane Zimmermann of NYU and Steve Davis of Corbis debated the issue of archiving last year at Seattle University Law.
I recommend Zimmerman's paper for people who want to read more about the topic;
Can our Culture be Saved? The Future of Digital Archiving
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=920517
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Brian Rowe.
ToS Abuse
There is more to the claims then you are giving the litigants credit for. In 2004 Facebook had a somewhat reasonable ToS now the ToS is abusive to users that have contributed time and energy to making Facebook a top social network. If this ToS were a standard contract between equal negotiating parties this would never happen. When one party abuses a contract of adhesion like this there should be a cause of action.
Did the litigants in this case plead the right claims? I do not know, I will have to read the complaint closer. But the complainants have a very real problem with the ToS, they should not be abused like this.
Here is one example from the complaint of an unreasonable change:
2004
“You may remove your Member Content from the site at any time. If you choose to remove your Member Content, the license granted…will automatically expire.”
2009
On February 4, 2009, Facebook revised its Terms of Service, a document Facebook asserts it is legally permitted to update “AT ANY TIME WITHOUT INFORMING USERS.”
Blog Away
I pay more then 30k a year for law school, I sure as hell am going to share what I learn. Sharing what you learn or don't learn is an important part of being global citizen and helping free culture. I often contribute my notes directly to Wikipedia during class or live blog acedemic lectures. If I am going to take notes I might as well share them in real time.
Quoting with attribution to criticize is definitely legal. If the quote is copyrighted it is often fair use. Furthermore if the quote is not fixed by the professor it is not even copyrighted, fixation is a requirement to get copyright protection.
Can our Culture be Saved? The Future of Digital Archiving
Copyright was designed to get works to the public, if works leave the public sphere and are kept from the public due to copyright, then copyright is failing. I agree that copyright needs an overhaul, an archival rights is a first step in the right direction. Diane Zimmermann of NYU and Steve Davis of Corbis debated the issue of archiving last year at Seattle University Law. I recommend Zimmerman's paper for people who want to read more about the topic; Can our Culture be Saved? The Future of Digital Archiving http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=920517