Let's Talk...

[glennagirl.livejournal.com]

mrua7 sent me an except from an email she received with emphasis on certain conditions of the new LJ agreement.  I'm writing this initially on Dreamwidth and copying it to LJ. Although there isn't an actual statement of intent to plagiarize or edit the work, if we're still looking at LJ then we have signed the agreement and our work is, for all practical purposes, no longer strictly our own.  Perhaps this was always true, but seeing it in print is a little problematic for me.  I'm open to counter opinions and enlightenment.
Please feel as free as you can to comment, either on LJ or at DW.  If you don't have a Dreamwidth account you can go www.dreamwidth.org
........................................

........................................................................................................................................................................................
"Basically they're saying the site has the right to take anything we post on LJ and use it as well as alter it as they see fit.   That holds true for private messaging too....

addendum about the new agreement. Credit to lj user kirathaune, who inserted the bold type.

Of particular note - CREATORS, PAY ATTENTION TO THIS:

“9. Content

9.1. By posting Content, User shall:

9.11. Guarantee to the Administration that Content and terms of its appearance on the Service meets all the requirements of the applicable laws, that User has received all rights and permits necessary to post such a Content;

9.12. In respect of any Content which constitutes intellectual property, User provides to the Administration a non-exclusive (simple) license to use his/her Content in order to provide the Service by reproducing his/her Content as well as by making it public for the entire period the Content is posted on the Service. If User participates in any rankings or if User’s Content is used in any editorial projects of the Service, User provides to the Administration an additional authorisation to modify, shorten and amend his/her Content, to add images, a preamble, comments or any clarifications to his/her Content while using it, and in certain cases based on the Service functions, an authorisation to use User’s Content anonymously.”

Also, in the definition of Terms, section 3:

“Content means User`s information within the Service, including any information published during the process of Registration, in Blogs and Communities as a note or comment as well as sent by User in private messages using the Service.”

Comments

[reapermum.livejournal.com]

For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), 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 any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.

When you publish content or information using the Public setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture).

You give us permission to use your name, profile picture, content, and information in connection with commercial, sponsored, or related content (such as a brand you like) served or enhanced by us. This means, for example, that you permit a business or other entity to pay us to display your name and/or profile picture with your content or information, without any compensation to you. If you have selected a specific audience for your content or information, we will respect your choice when we use it.

Does what LJ is bringing in differ in any significant way from the above? Those are extracted from the Terms of Service of Facebook and I remember seeing exactly the same arguments used when they were brought in a few years ago as I am seeing now. And from my point of view they are both applying foreign law to me.

[glennagirl.livejournal.com]

User provides to the Administration an additional authorisation to modify, shorten and amend his/her Content, to add images, a preamble, comments or any clarifications to his/her Content while using it, and in certain cases based on the Service functions, an authorisation to use User’s Content anonymously.”
While FB does repost at will it is never anonymously, at least not that I am aware. The various other services identify themselves and state that they will access or utilize information, to which we generally have the right to approve or decline. Perhaps I am mistaken, but that has been my impression.
This idea that our posts and even personal messages might be used for purposes other than which they were designed, and done so anonymously (compensation never having been an issue), is something that is tantamount to plagiarism. Again, perhaps I have misconstrued completely the tone of this, but others who have more experience and a wider knowledge of such things seem to support concerns regarding the highlighted portions of the agreement.
We aren't leaving just yet, and we have had the identical comms on DW for some time now. Our presence there will now be a constant rather than just catching up with LJ.