What part of "neither permission nor forgiveness" do you not understand?

[lagilman]

HuffPo Fail: Yesterday, after several of us discovered our Tweetfeed being reposted via Huffington Post -- with ads posted alongside, which none of us had agreed to (using our content to generate money for someone else without permission) the outcry went up and the feeds disappeared, replaced with the following note:

"HuffPost is building a directory to help our audience discover and follow the very best Twitter users. The feature is currently being tested and will launch in the near future. Our initial tests resulted in some confusion so we will do more testing before making it public. Thanks, HuffPost Tech Team."

"Some confusion?" Oh no, we weren't confused at all. We were annoyed, upset, and pissed off, but not confused. Apparently it's not just Google that's a little hazy about the "if you don't own it, you don't get to claim it for your own profit" rule.

In very related news, I have finally decided to opt out of the Google Settlement. I'm not sure I did the smart thing, but I'm pretty confident I did the RIGHT thing (especially when I noted that they were listing as "not commercially available" several stories that are available via Fictionwise -- not sure how new Fictionwise owner B&N is going to feel about that...)


Why yes, we are serious about "my words are mine." Go look up "copyright" before they steal those words, too.

Comments

[chaoticgoodnik.livejournal.com]

That's pretty hilarious, since apparently someone on HuffPo has been making a big fuss over the pulping of unsold books. Because it's bad for the environment, don'tcha know. *eyeroll* (I agree this is wasteful, but from what I heard they were singling out Borders, as if they were the only ones who do this.) So I am not impressed with the general intelligence of the folks running HuffPo.

[lagilman]

Yeah, I posted about that at the time. It wasn't the fact of the disposal that was so frustrating in that case, but the scale. When a store shuts down entire, there are usually allowances made to return the books whole rather than strip them. But Borders couldn't be arsed to do that.

[chaoticgoodnik.livejournal.com]

Ah, I must have missed that post by you. I heard about it at iworkatborders, where the outlook is generally bleak.

[eldestmuse.livejournal.com]

There is a part of me that wants to do an essay for my copyright class about the weird opinions that companies have about what is ok to take off the internet and what is legally ok to repost without explicit permission as a sort of PSA I can post to my blog (and for extra credit, because my professor is awesome and lets us do research on things that interest us outside of the syllabus).

Because I am constantly amazed how few companies seem to understand that they don't get to take other people's stuff and blithely use it to make money. It's even pretty sketchy to re-post things in a public-service kind of way (just people usually don't get as upset... unless we're talking about torrents--as opposed to something like Baen's free library, which I have a lot of respect for--in which case yes y'all obviously get upset).

[deire.livejournal.com]

I understand just fine. I understand that they reposted my content as a way to make their money without my permission or even notification. Their condescending "Oh *some* people jsut didn't *understand* the feature" nonsense makes me want to smack them with the Giant Hole Paddle of Understandingness.

I need to reevaluate if I want to use Twitter at all. Yes, the space is free for me to use, and yet it must be purchased somehow. I thought I had come to terms with this. But I was viscerally upset.

[mtlawson.livejournal.com]

"Some confusion?" Oh no, we weren't confused at all. We were annoyed, upset, and pissed off, but not confused. Apparently it's not just Google that's a little hazy about the "if you don't own it, you don't get to claim it for your own profit" rule.

Sheesh. I don't know what's worse: that they thought they could get away with it, or that they tried to turn it into a backhanded compliment.

[blitheringpooks.livejournal.com]

Damn, I missed it.

Is it possible they didn't realize they were stealing the work of professional writers, and instead thought you'd just be tickled and thrilled and honored?

[lagilman]

It looks as though they were lifting EVERYONE'S feed. Benefit of the doubt is that they were checking the software by pulling randomly and didn't realize it would be visible, and they'll now roll out an opt-in invitation.

I'm not feeling charitable toward benefit of the doubt, these days.

[deire.livejournal.com]

What I'd like to know is how legal their TOS is. Because Twitter TOS says they own all copyright to what you post on their service. But really, that does not seem defensible.

[deire.livejournal.com]

I'm told this is their belief, as written in Twitter's Terms Of Service:
"By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed).

You agree that this license includes the right for Twitter to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals who partner with Twitter for the syndication, broadcast, distribution or publication of such Content on other media and services, subject to our terms and conditions for such Content use.

Such additional uses by Twitter, or other companies, organizations or individuals who partner with Twitter, may be made with no compensation paid to you with respect to the Content that you submit, post, transmit or otherwise make available through the Services."

Someone sent me this, can't findit to verify on Twitter, but I suspect it is accurate.

[deire.livejournal.com]

It's not a mistake or glitch. No, this is what Twitter intends.

[deire.livejournal.com]

https://twitter.com/tos Sorry, duh moment.

[lagilman]

Standard language, which is why I don't post things w/ real $$ value to Facebook or LJ, either. But actually implementing their TOS like this, without warning or advance notice, is not good PR at all, especially with creative-corporate (publishers, retailers, newspapers, etc) using Twitter to carry their messages.

It's not the fact of their doing it that's offensive to me so much as the "oops, too bad you saw that" reaction. However, once they go down that road, my usage will become significantly less creative, relying merely on "information blurbs" and links to info elsewhere. And I suspect I won't be alone, thereby actually reducing the value, overall, of Twitter as a social stream.

Or not. Who knows. They'd best be damned sure of the revenue stream before they go live, though. And hope that their payout isn't dependent on daily usage...

[eldestmuse.livejournal.com]

My professor is willing to let me do a paper on the issue (and by willing I mean has asked me to, yay!). I'm going to have a meeting about it tomorrow--will let Laura Anne know what comes of it and try to remember to send you a message too.

The thing to remember about Terms of Service, though, is that there's actually a lot of question about whether standard contract language is enforcable at all. Some companies throw illegal things in there -- or contracts that can't be enforced because people don't affirmatively know what they say when they agree to them -- just because the average user assumes that they're enforcable.

I can't actually look into it in any legal sense or give legal advice -- I'm just a student -- but I can certainly do a bit of research and share the paper I turn in with friends. :)

[deire.livejournal.com]

:nod: It just overall strikes me as skeevy and likely to have a chilling effect. Which, if they want interesting content on their site, means they aimed the shotgun at their own feet.

[mtlawson.livejournal.com]

Well, when I last checked a couple of months ago, Twitter was still not profitable either. I keep wondering what's going to happen, and what I still think is plausible is that Google or Apple buys them out.