Facebook Terms of Service 0 comments
There is a lot of discussion over at Facebook about their new Terms of Service. I won't go into the details here - you can read all about it here.
In a nutshell, people are up in arms about the proposed Section 2.3 which states:
"2.3 For content that is covered by intellectual property rights (like photos and videos), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use, copy, publicly perform or display, distribute, modify, translate, and create derivative works of (“use”) any content you post on or in connection with Facebook. This license ends when you delete your content or your account."
The funny part is that this is ONLY a big deal because it has had such media attention. The current Facebook Terms state:
"When you post User Content to the Site, you authorize and direct us to make such copies thereof as we deem necessary in order to facilitate the posting and storage of the User Content on the Site. By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose, commercial, advertising, or otherwise, on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing. You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content. Facebook does not assert any ownership over your User Content; rather, as between us and you, subject to the rights granted to us in these Terms, you retain full ownership of all of your User Content and any intellectual property rights or other proprietary rights associated with your User Content."
Almost all other networking sites like LinkedIn, Yahoo etc have terms that are pretty much the same. I am willing to bet that more than 98% of the people who sign up for these free services NEVER read the Terms to which they agree, yet those same people (who claim to be professional writers, artists and photographers) are now going nuts about the Terms, claiming that their work will be stolen, sold or used without their permission.
First - If you ARE a professional writer, artist or photographer, why the heck are you using Facebook to post your professional work???
Facebook is a great social networking tool, so go ahead and use it to promote yourself, your business, your website, your services, but don't post your professional work there. Post samples with watermarks or copyright if you must, or link to your own website where you can control your material.
Second - READ THE TERMS when you sign up for an internet site! Don't complain later because you are too lazy to read.
Third - Understand that ANYTHING you post to an internet server / site should be considered able to be viewed by ANYONE. If you have that mindset - you will NOT POST anything that you don't want others to see. Most people don't really understand how the privacy options work and what can bypass them.
Fourth - Most people also do not understand what goes on 'behind the curtain' - the technology that gives them the cool features they want. As an example - a big part of 2.3 is so that Facebook can make sure applications work that share information. If you like these features - you need to let them have the legal right use them in the way needed - or forget the applications.
Fifth - Facebook is FREE. I can't really see how you can complain. You have the right to not use it.
I can't believe how people have become so used to getting free services like Facebook, agreeing to their Terms without reading them, and then going absolutely nuts when they discover something they don't even understand.
All I can do is shake my head and move on.
Reality TV - Part 2 0 comments
It has been two years since I posted about how bad I thought reality TV was getting, and not much has changed. Back in January 2007 I criticized Simon Cowell for going over the line in insulting people. I said that I was done with watching these kinds of shows, but like a car accident, I find myself unable to turn away. I justify my behaviour by saying I need to keep in touch with today's culture and be able to intelligently discuss and debate it, and I suppose that is true, but at times it feels like an excuse for falling into the trap of enjoying the drama, loose morals and gossip of reality TV. This time around, I'll try to see the good and bad in these shows.
Firstly, I had a frightening thought this morning as I was thinking about writing this blog. I had just seen on the news about Jade Goody of U.K. Big Brother fame. (I'm not even going to explain about her - click the link if you must know...) The point is that now that she is dying of cancer, she is still using Reality TV, and I suddenly thought of Stephen King's novel 'The Running Man'. At the time I first read the Running Man, it seemed absolutely ludicrous that someone would actually have a Reality TV show that might pay someone under those kinds of circumstances, but today we are actually edging closer to that reality.
Yes - Reality TV is starting to push the envelope. Witness the challenges in Survivor, where there are no rules and women and men together are getting quite violent in their bid to win. Witness the pressure in the Bachelor for the women to have sex with the Bachelor and show extremely intimate behaviour on TV. The trend is frightening and likely to get worse.
This year, I chose to watch American Idol, The Bachelor, Survivor, The Amazing Race and True Beauty. I'm not sure why some people deliberately choose to be on some of these shows. I suppose in a lot of cases it is the lure of winning a million dollars or the fame, but at the same time, if you watch any of these shows, you have to know the downside - how you may be insulted, humiliated and portrayed as a loser. I must give Simon Cowell some credit however - I do feel he has toned down a lot of his personal insults, and although he can be very insensitive, a lot of his honest criticism is the reason that some contestants rise to the challenge and push themselves to do their very best. He realizes that in today's society we are all brainwashed into thinking we can succeed without trying 100% and he comes from an old school where you get out what you put in, and I can't argue with that kind of work ethic. The good thing about American Idol is that if you are talented, you get exposure even if you don't win. I'm quite sure it kick starts some people's singing careers.
True Beauty seemed to be a great concept. Let's get people to think they are in a contest for physical beauty, but really secretly judge them on both outer AND inner beauty. It's too bad the concept did not tr
anslate well into reality. A poor choice of judges - (Vanessa Minnillo was ok, but Cheryl Tiegs and Nole Marin were just awful) - resulted in a show that was painful at times to watch. Asking the losers - 'Are you truly beautiful?' while subjecting them to watching their secretly taped flaws was uncomfortable and did not feel right. In the end the winner was the person with the most inner beauty, but Julia only won one out of seven challenges. True - she did pass all the hidden tests, but Billy who won five out of seven challenges also really showed how he had changed during the show and showed inner beauty and compassion. I'm pretty sure we won't ever be seeing this show again, and in a way it is too bad - since the concept of portraying inner beauty as important is rare in today's society. If anything the show's failure just emphasizes how today we place our importance on looks and self, and not on compassion for others and inner beauty and morals.I had quit watching the Bachelor a long time ago as it was one show that really seemed wrong to me on so many levels. It emphasized physical beauty and created an unrealistic - albeit cheaply entertaining atmosphere of catty women all fighting for a single eligible man.
This season the 'Bachelor' was a divorced man with a young son - Jason Mesnick which seemed different enough to be interesting. Never mind that Jason is not a Bachelor. (A bachelor
is a man who has never been married.) I decided to watch and of all the reality shows, this one once again proved to be one of the worst in my opinion. Putting a bunch of young women together in a house where the sole purpose is to win a man is not a good way to build a lasting relationship. I was impressed that a few of the women seemed to manage to evade most of the catty drama although in the end only one - Stephanie seemed to have her morals intact and in the right place. Have we really come to the place where it is not only expected that the finalists will sleep with the Bachelor but that the physical part is the deciding factor in a long-term relationship? Yes we have. If I was ever on the show as a Bachelor (and I never would be) the winner for me would be the woman who said 'No' to the Fantasy Suite. Wow - our morals have really turned around in a few short years. I am not trying to portray the final women as bad - personally I think the stress and pressure placed on them is so high that some of them probably ended up doing things they did not really want to do. It's not right that they should be put in that situation. I was initially impressed with Jason - he seemed more mature than previous bachelors, however as the show progressed, he ended up showing that most men behave the same way regardless of whether they are older, or have a kid. I know this is cheap entertainment designed to shock and create drama and controversy, but Jillian understood what long term commitment is about when he told Jason that when he is 90 you want to be with your best friend. Jason unfortunately like a lot of men was thinking with his wrong head.So, I am not going to promise never to watch Reality TV, and I think I will still report on how I think things are progressing, however I do kind of regret wasting four to six hours a week just to confirm what I already knew, when I could have been doing something more educational, fun or philanthropic. We need to challenge ourselves to not get lazy and fall into the ever cheapening world of not so 'reality' entertainment, and get back into the real world while we still have a chance to keep it real.
$$$ Billion Dollar Gambling... 0 comments
The U.S. Government has now passed it's $787 Billion stimulus package. In addition to the package is a $275 Billion Mortgage program. GM & Chrysler are asking for an additional $19 Billion on top of $17.4 Billion already given to them. Does anyone else have a frightening feeling that if this fails, we end up much worse?
Experts say we MUST implement the stimulus package to get the economy started on the road to recovery, but my greatest fear is that billions and billions of dollars does not really mean that people will make a tough fundamental change in the way they think or spend.
We are in this position because of the way society has moved to a norm of 'instant gratification', selfishness and materialism, and away from a life of relationship, helping others and faith.
Pumping billions of dollars into saving a badly bleeding auto industry and paying for mortgages that are worth more than the value of property only serves to reinforce the new way of thinking - that you can buy your way out of trouble - even if you don't have the money.
That scares me more than GM going bankrupt or millions losing jobs or homes - not because I am heartless and cruel, but because in my gut, I know it will not change the way we think or spend. Look at the 70's oil crisis. It did not take very long before the compact cars sold in the 70's were replaced once again with gas guzzlers like Cadillac Escalades and Lincoln Navigators.
People are too weak, too lazy, or lack the faith to walk the tough road, and ultimately will have to pay a much higher price when the party ends - and it will end.
What do we do, when the auto industry spends the almost $40 billion and still goes bankrupt?
What do we do when people still lose their homes even after the government has spent $75 billion on mortgages?
The media has been throwing around figures of billions of dollars for a while now - so much that we really don't understand what kind of money we are talking about.
Let me try to put it in perspective:
The bailout is currently $787 Billion.
There are approx 306,000,000 people in the U.S and approx 116,000,000 households. So right off the top that equates to $2,572 per person in the U.S. - every single man, woman, youth, teen, child and infant. It amounts to $6784 per household. EVERY household -regardless of what they earn.
But that is not the whole picture. Consumer Credit Card debt has soared over 200% from 1990 to 2003 to a whopping $8000+ per credit card consumer in the U.S. - and there are over 144,000,000 people who charge on credit cards.
That is an average. With an average household income of $50,000 and an average credit card debt of over $8000, the numbers start to mean something to individuals and families.
Add $6784 of bailout money to each household. Any of you struggling to pay down a $2000 or $5000, or $8000 credit card bill know how much you can afford to pay each month, and how slowly the balance declines.
The math does not lie. If we don't do an immediate U-Turn on our attitude to credit and spending more than we earn, no bailout is going to help.
Are we just adding to our credit and debt to try to solve this problem? Is it fiscally responsible to go out a buy a new GM car when credit gets loosened due to the bailout and you still don't have the money and owe thousands on your credit card?
Who are we kidding? The right road is the tough one, and it's going to hurt. This is a time we need to get together to help each other - remember when a family of 8 or more grew up in a little house with one bathroom, and had their grandparents living there too? Every family had one car - if they had one, and it was not usually new. One TV, one telephone, families actually spent time together. Overall I think they were less stressed and happier too.
To look forward, I think we need to look back.
