Quit FaceBook.

[womb raider 940]

Come on Mat, why do you feel the need to sully this thread with truth? It's much more exciting to get your panties in a bunch over a false rumor.

lol. what a jerk

[Materdaddy]

Ha, sorry about that... And Brian, I agree, I do like that Max keeps us all thinking whether people agree or not, it is usually good discussion that arises.

I just wanted to post this because good discussion also deserves facts and updates.

:thumbs_up

[Max7]

Debunkees...

http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=110636457130

Matt,
I believe what you have referenced is a entirely different topic.

The original topic I posted was in reference to the TOS agreement changing and how People Own and Control Their Information. This became news six months ago on February 17, 2009. The issue was, "Basically, Zuckerberg told Facebook devotees that he'd never, ever do anything bad with their posted content — even though the user agreement says he's perfectly entitled to do so." The issue was then settled by Zuckerberg asking for the users to essentially vote for what we wanted. The TOS has been modfied to my knowledge the TOS is better defined and I am re-involved with my account. Here is a link to the story: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,494064,00.html

The topic you have brought up is a fresh one, dated Friday, 24 July 2009. "In the past couple of days, a rumor has begun spreading that claims we have changed our policies for third-party advertisers. The advertisements that started these rumors were not from Facebook but placed within applications by third parties."

I do not believe Rumors about Advertising and Photos has anything to do with my original TOS agreement issue and /or posting. Those that were involved with the first issue worked it out.

Best, Maxwell Britton

[Materdaddy]

Matt,
I believe what you have referenced is a entirely different topic.

The original topic I posted was in reference to the TOS agreement changing and how People Own and Control Their Information. This became news six months ago on February 17, 2009. The issue was, "Basically, Zuckerberg told Facebook devotees that he'd never, ever do anything bad with their posted content — even though the user agreement says he's perfectly entitled to do so." The issue was then settled by Zuckerberg asking for the users to essentially vote for what we wanted. The TOS has been modfied to my knowledge the TOS is better defined and I am re-involved with my account. Here is a link to the story: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,494064,00.html

The topic you have brought up is a fresh one, dated Friday, 24 July 2009. "In the past couple of days, a rumor has begun spreading that claims we have changed our policies for third-party advertisers. The advertisements that started these rumors were not from Facebook but placed within applications by third parties."

I do not believe Rumors about Advertising and Photos has anything to do with my original TOS agreement issue and /or posting. Those that were involved with the first issue worked it out.

Best, Maxwell Britton

Sorry, my mistake!

I saw the update when I went to change privacy settings on facebook and I blindly dug up this thread, and forgot to read it for relevance. In my mind, I lumped all the facebook issues together and posted. Carry on!

[seapahn]

This thread totally cracks me up.

Max, you do realize that copy-pasting entire articles as you often do is in itself just as bad as what you are complaining about, right? There is this whole notion of "fair-use" but it almost never can be extended to just blatantly copy-pasting entire articles that don't belong to you to begin with.

[Max7]

Solution

This thread totally cracks me up.

Max, you do realize that copy-pasting entire articles as you often do is in itself just as bad as what you are complaining about, right? There is this whole notion of "fair-use" but it almost never can be extended to just blatantly copy-pasting entire articles that don't belong to you to begin with.

Seapahn,
Thank you for your constructive criticism. Here is the solution you forgot to offer: After speaking with an agent from the U.S. Copyright office and explaining the situation, he offered this information:

"In order to respect the author's rights under the copyright laws.
Do not paste entire articles as posts... Instead, write an introduction to the article (in your own words) - and include a link to the news story." "There are a great number of people that are not aware of this law, and it is largely unnoticed and / or unenforced, but it's always a good idea to follow the principals of the law."

You may also quote segments from an author and site their work under the fair use doctrine in United States copyright law.

Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use, found here: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html

"The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission." source: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

I will personally implement the lawful practice, and hope others find this helpful.
Best, Maxwell Britton

[blackZZR]

Interesting how the discussion has gone,
but to bring back the subject about facebook.
I wonder how many guys are getting upset over a service that links friends? I mean I use facebook as a way to watch daily posting from a few pro access guys, (we kinda post up useless drivel about what we are doing and nothing important that we would email or call each other about)I get info about what is going on in another group of friends lives that are way to involved into facebook, And I pass on info to my friends such as when I wrecked the Jeep. Nothing that I would be embarrassed to have the public see and nothing like photos I want to copyright. I think those getting upset need to stop using facebook, or not post anything that they do not want allover the net.
Face a few facts, if you post it on the net, anywhere, it is usually going get copied somewhere.
If you discuss it on the net, then someone will throw it back atcha one day. If you publish it on the net your chances of controlling the copyright laws are slim to none as it spreads to every computer in the world at the touch of a button.
So why worry about it, accept that it was you who put it out there to be taken advantage of.
Some people take the net too seriously. they need to get out and wheel more often.

[Max7]

Interesting how the discussion has gone,
but to bring back the subject about facebook.
I wonder how many guys are getting upset over a service that links friends? I mean I use facebook as a way to watch daily posting from a few pro access guys, (we kinda post up useless drivel about what we are doing and nothing important that we would email or call each other about)I get info about what is going on in another group of friends lives that are way to involved into facebook, And I pass on info to my friends such as when I wrecked the Jeep. Nothing that I would be embarrassed to have the public see and nothing like photos I want to copyright. I think those getting upset need to stop using facebook, or not post anything that they do not want allover the net.
Face a few facts, if you post it on the net, anywhere, it is usually going get copied somewhere.
If you discuss it on the net, then someone will throw it back atcha one day. If you publish it on the net your chances of controlling the copyright laws are slim to none as it spreads to every computer in the world at the touch of a button.
So why worry about it, accept that it was you who put it out there to be taken advantage of.
Some people take the net too seriously. they need to get out and wheel more often.

Face Book users have a choice to agree or not agree with the terms of service. I made a choice to quit, and try to help other users by sending a clear message to Zuckerburg. I believe it made a difference, the out come was, they changed the TOS.

I am sincerely happy to hear you use FB as a form of communication. But a social internet network can also be a tool, according to a person's ability, there is a broad spectrum of people that use tools differently.

Are you aware that more and more congress members have FB pages? I believe that reaches out to the constituent in an entirely new way. I like that I can send and receive messages directly to them, and they answer.

"Some people take the net too seriously, they need to get out and wheel more often."

For the sake of the liberty. I don't take your comments personal. I wheel when I can. I spend my time wisely, according to me.
Best,
Maxwell Britton

[peteyg]

You all DO know that when the uproar over the new FB TOS rules came up, they revised the section and deleted the part about complete ownership of photos, right?

Another note...

When you upload a pic to the FB server, it wildly reduces the resolution of the picture. I really, really don't care if they keep a low-res version of ANY picture I take.

If you're worried about privacy, it is inadvisable to participate in ANY online community, including forums such as MJR. Just sayin'....

[Max7]

You all DO know that when the uproar over the new FB TOS rules came up, they revised the section and deleted the part about complete ownership of photos, right?

Another note...

When you upload a pic to the FB server, it wildly reduces the resolution of the picture. I really, really don't care if they keep a low-res version of ANY picture I take.

If you're worried about privacy, it is inadvisable to participate in ANY online community, including forums such as MJR. Just sayin'....

My FB concerns have been satisfied for almost six months, I'm just answering posts on this thread for fun now....
Best, Maxwell Britton