On to other news. Suddenly life has gotten really busy! Especially with LTUE coming up this week (Thurs-Sat in the Wilkinson Center at BYU), I have several things on the agenda that I need to get done today so that I can clear the schedule for LTUE. With Monday being a holiday, I took some time off to hang out with friends who normally work during the day, so I have had a bit of a shortened week myself and I’m playing catch-up now.

Coming up after LTUE, if you’re local, I’m working on scheduling a community class on writing science fiction and fantasy for children and young adults, which I’ll announce here when I’ve finalized plans (which will be tomorrow, when I print out the flyers I will bring with me to LTUE–grab one if you’re going to be there this weekend). We’ll focus on what editors look for, the craft of writing in those genres (especially when writing for young readers), and how writing for children in SFF differs from writing SFF for adults–not to mention how writing for children under 12 differs from writing for teens, and how that specifically applies in fantasy and science fiction. It’ll be a chance to get an in-depth discussion going with your questions in mind. It looks like the best time for it will be late March. If this goes well, I’m considering making it a series.

Even more interesting, though, is that EPIC is filing a complaint with the FTC over all this–so my little concerns have joined with a lot of little concerns and I feel a little justified now. As J.R. Raphael over at PC World put it,

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has attempted to calm the concerns, posting a blog entry stating that “people own their information” and that Facebook “wouldn’t share [it] in a way you wouldn’t want.” As an example of why the controversial clause is needed in its updated form, Zuckerberg explains that even if you were to delete your account, any messages you had sent to a friend would still remain in his inbox–so Facebook requires the expanded rights to make sure that could happen.

Isn’t that a far cry, though, from anything that’d warrant retaining a “perpetual” license to “use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, [and] adapt” any content you’ve ever uploaded, including the option to “use your name, likeness and image for any purpose”?

In my opinion, a far cry indeed.

We are not claiming and have never claimed ownership of material that users upload.  The new Terms were clarified to be more consistent with the behavior of the site.  That is, if you send a message to another user (or post to their wall, etc…), that content might not be removed by Facebook if you delete your account (but can be deleted by your friend).  Furthermore, it is important to note that this license is made subject to the user’s privacy settings.  So any limitations that a user puts on display of the relevant content (e.g. To specific friends) are respected by Facebook. Also, the license only allows us to use the info “in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof.”  Users generally expect and understand this behavior as it has been a common practice for web services since the advent of webmail.  For example, if you send a message to a friend on a webmail service, that service will not delete that message from your friend’s inbox if you delete your account.

One of the most important goals of the new Terms was to be more open to users by being more clear about how their data was handled.  We certainly did not — and did not intend — to create any new right or interest for Facebook in users’ data by issuing the new Terms.  None of the news or blog reports at the time we announced them on February 4 suggested any confusion or misunderstanding.

However, the legalese itself suggests other possible uses that could be tapped into at some point. Perhaps they should consider making it plain English that says just this directly in the ToS and emphasize that they still claim no license to continue to post anything that is directly in your account, such as blog posts and photos in your personal albums. I think would reassure many writers and photographers.

The Ninth Circuit disagreed heavily with the original ruling, saying that it was not reasonable to expect Douglas to check the company’s web site every day just to see if the terms of service had changed. “Parties to a contract have no obligation to check the terms on a periodic basis to learn whether they have been changed by the other side,” wrote the judges. “Indeed, a party can’t unilaterally change the terms of a contract; it must obtain the other party’s consent before doing so… This is because a revised contract is merely an offer and does not bind the parties until accepted.”

But what if the original user agreement involved signing away rights to be notified of subsequent changes? There is some question as to whether this ruling would also affect that type of agreement, but as Eric Goldman of the Technology & Marketing Law Blog says, it’s relatively safe to assume that the decision applies to this situation, “despite contract provisions putatively permitting unilaterally posted website amendments which put the onus on users to check back frequently for updates.”

The possible implications of this TOS change go beyond these concerns. Sure, you can choose not to use Facebook at all, but that doesn’t mean a thing. Someone can still take your photo, slap it on Facebook, and now neither you nor the author of the photo can stop Facebook from using the photo in whichever way they please.

Looking at it globally, millions of people are uploading bits of information on everyone and everything, to a huge online database, and by doing so they’re automatically giving away the rights to use or modify this information to a private corporation. And not only that; they now also waiver the right to ever take it back from it.

Note this clause–especially the words “fully paid” and “right to sublicense”:

You are solely responsible for the User Content that you Post on or through the Facebook Service. You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers), any User Content you (i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof subject only to your privacy settings or (ii) enable a user to Post, including by offering a Share Link on your website and (b) to use your name, likeness and image for any purpose, including commercial or advertising, each of (a) and (b) on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof. You represent and warrant that you have all rights and permissions to grant the foregoing licenses.

This means that they think they have a right to my photos and my blog, which I do not grant. Those of you who understand this kind of copyright more than me, what does it mean to you? I mean, I understand that if I post something there, I give them a non-exclusive right to post it THERE, but the idea that somehow that then allows them to sell my content? Not something I’m going to agree with, and I am of a mind to pull all my content off. I’ve already cancelled my blog feed and deleted the pictures from my portfolio.

I find it disingenuos and dishonest at best, even if they say that there are so many people on here and why would they want my content in practice–in reality, it’s my content, the product of my own work, and I own the copyright. I do not grant license to FB to sell my content without my express written permission.

It’s one thing to post things on the internet and know that they will probably be stolen by unscrupulous people who don’t understand or care that it’s wrong, but it’s another to say that by posting something on Facebook, I then say that it’s Facebook’s property. No, not gonna happen.

Any lawyer-type people out there who understand the ins and outs of this kind of law? I’m unsatisfied by the explanation in the article I linked above on The Consumerist.

Please forgive! I have always been so careful to never do that–I only invite people who are already on the site, and I NEVER send spam to my entire mailing list!

It seems simple and obvious, but the statement is at the heart of what usually goes wrong for those who only view social media as another channel to send the same old messages. Y
ou need to be a part of the community, connecting, contributing and sharing and not just broadcasting about your product or service. If you do this, the opportunities to introduce people to your product or service will present themselves naturally. But you have to listen and watch for them as part of the ongoing conversation.

Note that what he says is actually from a larger webinar which he links to.

Drove up to Salt Lake with  in what we thought would be light snow, which turned out to be a small, gentle snowstorm and lots of slush and ice on the roads. Oh, it was beautiful. But it was also annoying to drive in. Was going to drop in on a friend up there, but she was snowed in up in Park City, so we’ll catch up later. We did make it to the King’s English bookstore for the first time, and what an awesome children’s room they have! I think every time I go to Salt Lake it’ll be a required stop. It was fun to see signed copies on display from so many of my friends who are local authors, and even a book edited by real life and blogfriend Cheryl (Moribito: Guardian of the Spirit, which I’ve been DVRing and have wanted to pick up the book). And the snow coming down lightly in front of the store all lit up in the early evening was quite pretty.

We were getting hungry so we ate at Mazza, a really great Middle Eastern restaurant that my friend Cindy introduced me to last spring when I was out here for World Horror. On to Whole Foods, the nearest one of which is up in that area, to get stuff I can’t find in Utah County (whither the good yogurt smoothies without high fructose corn syrup??) and then it was back on the road to hope we made it back to Happy Valley without incident. It had snowed even more, so I was gripping the wheel a little tight, not because I didn’t think my trusty little CRV couldn’t do it, but because I really need to replace all my tires and probably should have let yedijoda drive her even trustier Pilot.

We had anime night later this evening. We’ve been watching the fan-subbed version of Vampire Knight, the manga of which is out in English here in the States but is far ahead in Japan–and the anime hasn’t been licensed here. I’m hoping it will be, though, because it is GOOD,  and I want. The manga is published here by Viz, and if you want to check it out it’s in any bookstore. Similar vampire story to Twilight, but with a really interesting twist: the humans and vampires live in close proximity in a private school, with Day Class students being protected by Yuki Cross and Zero Kiryu, the academy’s guardians, because the Night Class is all vampires. Here’s where the superficial similarities with Twilight come up: those vampires, for some reason, think that Yuki’s blood smells *really* good. Great mystery, great storytelling, and a vampire story I can really get behind. Fascinating characters. Complex, deep storytelling.

I’ve been thinking about Twittering all day, and really, I prefer the long version. Blogging is pretty short when you compare it to a conversation in person, but it’s pretty deep when you compare it to a tweet. Right as I was heading out on my afternoon adventures in snow driving, I happened upon a conversation on NPR’s Science Friday talking about Twitter and other forms of social networking as marketing tools and policy influencers. I do agree that a conversation can begin through the medium, and it’s another way to keep in touch and share interesting ideas, but mostly I’m pretty meh about Twitter so far. Those of you who t
witter, why? What’s the appeal? I’ve had limited conversations with teens I know and it doesn’t seem to be a big thing with them (a very limited sample) the way FB is. What’s your reading on the teen barometer in your area?