PowerSwitch

A mate of mine passed this on. I don't know how "legal" it actually is. But I thought I'd share:

Today, 26 June 2013, making full use of my mental faculties and my ownership of this account in Facebook, I declare, to whom it may concern, and in particular to the administrator of the company Facebook, my author rights are related to all my personal information, comments, texts, articles, illustrations, comics, paintings, photos, professional videos and other publications in electronic format that I spread on this site under my signature. The above on the basis of the principle enshrined in the Berne Convention for the protection of literary and artistic works, as well as with regard to the respective national copyright law. For commercial use of the aforementioned items, always be my written consent. By this statement, I notify Facebook, that it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, or take any other action against me based on this profile and/or any of its contents. These prohibited actions also apply to employees, students, agents or members of any team, under the direction or control of Facebook. The content of this profile is private and confidential information. The violation of privacy can be punished by law (UCC 1-308 - 1 1 308-103 and the Rome Statute).

Interesting. But what does "putting at the top of their facebook accounts" mean? Sorry for being a dunce. Any clues about how one puts something at the top of one's facebook account?

It would be better written in plain English. A unilateral statement such as this I doubt will constitute a contract. A contract needs agreement between two parties. I don't have any problem with Facebook, I don't have an account.Why would I need one?

UndercoverElephant wrote:Interesting. But what does "putting at the top of their facebook accounts" mean? Sorry for being a dunce. Any clues about how one puts something at the top of one's facebook account?

I'm not sure, but my guess is that is is an attempt at legally claiming copyright of one's own material. Hence the slightly tortuous, legalistic language. How legally effective it might be in any legal contest, I have no clue.

I think he put it in his "signature". Don't ask me what a facebook "signature" is. I am probably a bigger dunce than you on that I'm afraid.....

woodburner wrote:It would be better written in plain English. A unilateral statement such as this I doubt will constitute a contract. A contract needs agreement between two parties. I don't have any problem with Facebook, I don't have an account.Why would I need one?

I don't think it is an attempt at a mutual contract. It is more statement of a claim of copyright ownership in much the same way a copyright statement in the front page of a book claims such ownership.

I don't have many problems with facebook. I pay them no money, I never look at the adverts and anyone is free to use whatever I post there in any way they like - I put it in the public domain.

And there are lots of pictures of cats to look at.

biffvernon wrote:I don't have many problems with facebook. I pay them no money, I never look at the adverts and anyone is free to use whatever I post there in any way they like - I put it in the public domain.

And there are lots of pictures of cats to look at.

Would you care equally less if a picture of a family member was sold by face-book to a far right fascist party so that they could use it in their promotional literature?

Do you not object that face-book keeps a record of every site you have jumped to off face book? Do you not object that face-book keeps a record of every "friend" you have ever had on face-book, including the ones you have "de-friended". Do you not objective to face-book having the right to sell any data in your face-book account to any third party marketing company for any reason. Or, indeed, that they may pass any and all information from your account to US espionage agencies?

Just to be clear.

stevecook172001 wrote:

biffvernon wrote:I don't have many problems with facebook. I pay them no money, I never look at the adverts and anyone is free to use whatever I post there in any way they like - I put it in the public domain.

And there are lots of pictures of cats to look at.

Would you care equally less if a picture of a family member was sold by face-book to a far right fascist party so that they could use it in their promotional literature?

Do you not object that face-book keeps a record of every site you have jumped to off face book? Do you not object that face-book keeps a record of every "friend" you have ever had on face-book, including the ones you have "de-friended". Do you not objective to face-book having the right to sell any data in your face-book account to any third party marketing company for any reason. Or, indeed, that they may pass any and all information from your account to US espionage agencies?

Just to be clear.

Just to be clear, I have never put a picture of a family member on facebook. In fact I've never even posted a picture of a cat.

As I said, everything I post on facebook (and PowerSwitch) is in the public domain and anyone can do what they will with it. Somebody has to pay for facebook and I'd rather it was third party marketing companies than me. I guess if there wasn't all that stuff going on it would have to be a subscription service and then I wouldn't use it, so that far, I am content to sup with the devil.

I do think it is very important that we all understand just what use government agencies make of the internet and that everything is open and transparent. I'm not at all surprised by the recent revelations about GCHQ as I had assumed this was all going on. Indeed a little while ago I posted the Google Map location data for the Widemouth Bay Landing Site, the main building from which GCHQ surveillance takes place. It says "Cable and Wireless" on the gate but really there should be a more descriptive sign. We all should know.

I regard Edward Snowdon as another hero of our times, along with Bradley Manning and Julian Assange. The Nobel Peace Prize now needs to be split three-ways.

I pretty much agree with Biff. One of my Facebook friends told me off for being cynical about an item about politicians I posted yesterday, but it crossed my mind that cynical comment might be safer than the alternative "when the revolution comes they'll be first up against the wall" comment, in case someone who hasn't read the works of Douglas Adams spied on it!

I rarely post pictures of cats, but post plenty of dogs .

And of course one must mention the benefits of facebook. There is, for example, the PowerSwitch facebook Group, a sort of Ambridge Extra to this place, and then those of us who are facebook friends can say rude things about PowerSwitch folk who aren't, in the sure knowledge that our comments will be shared only amongst ourselves and GCHQ.

biffvernon wrote:And of course one must mention the benefits of facebook. There is, for example, the PowerSwitch facebook Group, a sort of Ambridge Extra to this place, and then those of us who are facebook friends can say rude things about PowerSwitch folk who aren't, in the sure knowledge that our comments will be shared only amongst ourselves and GCHQ.

And all the useful stuff we post here that we find through Facebook!

Facebook is a tool - use it as much or as little as you want. However, folk who say it's a waste of time, pointless, of no use etc. are wrong in my opinion.

Sometimes you get pictures of cats AND owls.

If you accept facebook's T&C's when you sign up, you can't just alter the agreement by making a statement.

Presumably.

extractorfan wrote:If you accept facebook's T&C's when you sign up, you can't just alter the agreement by making a statement.

Presumably.

Wot he said. Posting quasi-legal statements on your page won't make a blind bit of difference.