Heh. I had to write an IoC container that would run on CLDC 1.1. Fun fun fun. No Serializable meant I had to re-compile all my code. Love that fragile base-class problem.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
George Lucas has done OK, who did he rip off?
That's one theory. However, if you are not sending them a letter, but sending it to someone by means of them, then they are closer to a common carrier, without an interest in your content. That's a model that would work without all the ick factor, at least from my perspective, and I'm happy to read the ads and buy the occasional thing I care about to support this functionality.
Facebook will be supplanted by someone or something that doesn't try to take over the world.
In this I sincerely hope you are correct. The service is incredibly useful to me, but I want it for the purpose I signed up for it, and no more.
Nope. You warranted that you had rights to grant such license, so Disney will issue a DMCA take-down notice, FB will remove it and suspend your account, and Disney will then sue Your ass for having claimed rights to their work, etc.
This is fine with me - if they never show or publish my content because my account is flagged "deleted", then it is the same to me. I object to their asking for more rights to re-license and create derivative works beyond the obvious purpose of my uploading.
It's not about cheap, it's about convenient. Even if FB were for pay, it allows for a central point of contact with content-management capabilities oriented around sharing with specific friends and communities. It's built for this sort of application. Throwing up a custom website isn't. And the user's laziness notwithstanding, it doesn't relieve FB from an expectation that if they offer the service for communication in this way, that they take care with people's data. They bill themselves as an infrastructure, a sort of application-level service provider. They're not a media broker, at least that's not how they presented themselves to me when I joined.
Technically, this would fall under the terms where the poster (your "friend") warrants that he has the legal right to post. So essentially, FB goes beyond their requirement by giving you means of unlinking such images from your account, so it's just that user's say-so. And you can use a DMCA take-down notice / copyright violation report to get Facebook to remove it from others' profile. That's not relevant to your own use of FB under their TOS. There are existing legal remedies for others posting your pictures, depending on context, no different from someone posting your picture on their own personal website.
But they did promise this. There's a whole section where they except backups from your content privacy, in that they can't reasonably technically un-persist your stuff. But until this, they were actually expected to remove the content. And it's not analogous to removing your pictures from other people's pages as if this was some laborious process. Those pictures are references, and if they remove the core item from their database, it simply won't show up in the database requests anymore, and therefore won't show up. And if that's not how they implmeneted it, then that's still their problem, because the technical solution could be easy.
Because you are keeping your private/personal information and selectively showing it to others. The fact that I have a private (physical) photo album doesn't mean I don't show it to friends, but I don't expect Kodak (for instance) to have the rights to use and/or sell and/or indirectly profit from the content they processed.
Private doesn't mean not-shown, it means I, the content owner gets to choose.