| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Caihead
Canada8550 Posts
On December 18 2012 22:12 Sea_Food wrote: "i have no use for it, but because its popular it means its cancer, even thou it has never harmed me in any way" Cancer: Something that grows (in popularity) with out contributing anything positive to the body that it's feeding nutrients or energy off of. Sounds exactly like this program -_- | ||
|
theBALLS
Singapore2935 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
| ||
|
J_Slim
United States199 Posts
Not shocked in the least by this. | ||
|
emythrel
United Kingdom2599 Posts
When you upload something to the internet it is no longer private. its that simple. If I have my own website, that I built, someone could easily come along and rip all the photos and sell them on without me ever knowing. That is the nature of the internet, if you haven't figured that out yet... thats your problem. At least instagram have the balls to openly admit that is their intent instead of doing it on the sly, without you ever knowing... which is exactly what happens now. | ||
|
Caihead
Canada8550 Posts
On December 19 2012 03:04 emythrel wrote: people make such a big deal about this shit. the chances of YOUR photos being sold on are very slim unless you are a particularly good photographer or happen to have captured a particularly good image. I don't use instagram personally, I have photoshop for when the mood strikes me to add some filters to my pics, but the fact that they COULD use my pics (should i ever use the app) to make money doesn't bother me in the slightest. When you upload something to the internet it is no longer private. its that simple. If I have my own website, that I built, someone could easily come along and rip all the photos and sell them on without me ever knowing. That is the nature of the internet, if you haven't figured that out yet... thats your problem. At least instagram have the balls to openly admit that is their intent instead of doing it on the sly, without you ever knowing... which is exactly what happens now. Except somebody else stealing your work or posted property on your private space is what we call stealing, infringement, and can get that person into trouble if it's a significant enough infringement. Duh no shit right. Just because a phenonmenon is wide spread doesn't mean you have to defend it or justify it externally with "well what did you expect to happen?" when it's still wrong. People are exercising their right to uninstall the program after they hear about this, just as they used the program under the assumption that their work or private photos wouldn't be misused. | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
So if you don't want it, just don't use it and it won't bother you. Not especially hard or unreasonable for a free product. | ||
|
Daumen
Germany1073 Posts
| ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
| ||
|
DreamChaser
1649 Posts
On December 19 2012 03:20 Derez wrote: I don't use it but its not as nearly as bad as people make it seem. Instagram will still not be allowed to sell pictures with recognizable people, because that still requires a model release, and apparantly the new ToC only apply for photos uploaded after jan 16th. So if you don't want it, just don't use it and it won't bother you. Not especially hard or unreasonable for a free product. But..But.. when i take pictures i use black and white to make them look cool. you mean i will have to actually use a photo editor?! | ||
CTStalker
Canada9720 Posts
| ||
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
| ||
|
HorsemasterK
United States606 Posts
Claiming your IP? Check. Unilateral ToS change? Check. Sad monetization scheme? Check. But remember guys, people don't really want privacy, they just wanna SHARE! | ||
|
Golden Ghost
Netherlands1041 Posts
On December 19 2012 03:36 jdseemoreglass wrote: I'm repeatedly happy that I never got into this shit, instagram, facebook, etc. This. Even though a good amount of friends keep bugging me to get a Facebook account, every time I hear Facebook related things like this my heart rejoices the fact I haven't given in. I know real privacy is a utopia these days but the things Facebook (and sites owned by Facebook) makes it's users sign, mostly unknowingly, just goes against anything I want to believe in. I understand Facebook needs to make money. I also understand why they would want something like this. However a unilateral change of the ToS is in my opinion not the way to do things like this. For a change that has an impact like this (or perhaps even any change at all) a company should send the already registered users an email with a clear context. - This is what the paragraph in the ToS was when you signed on. - This will be the new paragraph and these are the changes we are going to make in the ToS (additions clearly highlighted / changed text crossed out - This is the date the new ToS will be implemented (at least a month in the future) - This is why we are making these changes If a company is required to announce the changes like this the existing users get a fair warning and a more clear view of what will happen and what the consequences are if they agree. And if they don't agree, they know well in advance and can look for and alternative and close their account. Everybody who signs up after the implementation date of the new ToS should read it carefully anyway so I have less problems with them being screwed if they don't read the ToS although it would be nice if a ToS was required to be written in easy to understand text instead of lawyer language. Preferentially bulleted short sentences instead of paragraph long wordings that say the same but hard very hard to read for most people. Most people just skip reading the ToS altogether because of the way it's formulated. Perhaps good for the company but bad for society as a whole imo. | ||
|
Denis Lachance
Canada162 Posts
| ||
|
sCCrooked
Korea (South)1306 Posts
| ||
|
dUTtrOACh
Canada2339 Posts
| ||
|
Elizar
Germany431 Posts
Who would have thought that facebooks wants to monetarize it? Yeah .... I hate facebook. What a bad company that thinks it can own everything just by saying so in the customer service terms ... | ||
|
sCCrooked
Korea (South)1306 Posts
On December 19 2012 04:36 Elizar wrote: Hallo, it belongs to facebook! Who would have thought that facebooks wants to monetarize it? Yeah .... I hate facebook. What a bad company that thinks it can own everything just by saying so in the customer service terms ... Hello, it belongs to you! Who would've thought people dont' want to be exploited by constantly-changing agreements that don't ask for your re-approval when they randomly change and don't notify you at all of the changes? | ||
|
Alryk
United States2718 Posts
On December 18 2012 18:28 Beavo wrote: So don't use their service anymore if you don't like their policies. Whats the big deal? I don't use instagram, but imo the big deal is that some people, who might not notice the new policy taking effect, or even be aware of it, could have private photos that they don't want being shared. If they don't realize that this is taking place (and don't delete their account), they could have those things shared. If the policy was that all pictures after Jan 16th were public, THEN a "don't use their service anymore" could easily make sense. But for people who are inevitably going to be unaware of the policy change, this could be a big deal. | ||
| ||
|
|
OSC
WardiTV Weekly
The Patches Monday
Sparkling Tuna Cup
PiG Sty Festival
PiGosaur Cup
Replay Cast
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
The PondCast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
