Blog Straight Talk
Who Controls your Online Content?
Posted by mattonen • 10/15/07 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS]
Topics: blogs, censorship, content management, copyrights, forums, social networks
Hi Richard,
Thanks so much for the opportunity of being a guest on Blog Straight Talk. Especially for a chance to discuss the following topic – Censorship and Social Networks.
Who owns your data? What happens if you become Censored on a network, and no longer have the freedom to access any of your information or the data or data that you once belonged to? Who really owns or should own the right to the data? The Social network or the author?
This has become a sensitive topic for me due to personal reasons. For over 8 Years I was an avid contributor, Moderator and author on a professional, social network; A few months ago I was censored, and my membership was terminated. Today, I no longer have the ability to access, or have fair or creative common ownership and rights to my data, or information, which also includes rights to my Moderated Groups and Membership lists, and the ability to correspond with my members. I am also unable to Visualize any comments and remarks that are based upon my material, or have the ability to respond and defend my words or character? What also if this individual also loses not only data, but also the rights to their Moderated Groups, and their membership list, including ability to correspond with those members. The part that becomes even more challenging – in asking the owner of the network to remove my name, profile and posts from the network has been met with a resounding “no, it will be an inconvenience for the network”, so today they have the “right” to permanently “own” my name and material.
Okay, like with many social networks there was a user agreement that defined these conditions, but, it may be important to mention that it wasn’t the same user agreement I agreed to 8 years ago, but it appears that many of these agreements on these social networks have a tendency to change on a whim, or circumstance, as does your membership acceptance with it. These user agreements on these networks like the one I am dealing with often have clauses that state that they are immune and won’t be held liable for any of the comments, data or contributions on these networks. I agree to this, we fought for those rights and I think this is truly fair.
But, somehow, Somewhere, the lines starts getting blurred, because the user agreements will then continue to say though we aren’t liable we still own your material, content and yes, possibly even your name or profile. What an interesting contradiction of terms. Let me be able to eat my cake and of course still own it too. Censorship takes many forms, and this is indeed the utmost of censorship.
Either these networks have gotten very confused, greedy, or they just don’t seem to understand the difference in being a Service versus a publisher – the law clearly defines that a Provider of an Interactive Computer Service must Not be considered a Publisher or Information Content Provider. What gives? Either you are a Service or an Owner/Publisher? Where do you draw the line? Quite often I wonder if these networks have forgotten the reason that we fought for the protection in the first place - for allowing fair and honest freedom of expression, discussion, and exchanging of ideas. I guess it is good for some but not for all.
User Comments
-
Thank you for this insightful post.
So, what about moderation? Let's say you have a message board that has no noticeable moderation. Several people make comments that are within the TOS yet their posts are deleted while others which do violate the TOS are allowed to remain. The same people continue to have their posts deleted which appears to be targeted moderation.
When questions are raised about this they go unanswered.
Thank you. -
After having Rich on my show... I take a stronger view of freedom of speech. One thing that we have to realize is that rules, regulations and TOS in this case have to be followed.
The problem arises when the rules are not enforced fairly and to everyone in the community.
I hate to say this, but if you violated the TOS then they have the right to kick you out. With that said I feel that if you have been doing the same thing for 8 years then you have been given the right to violate the TOS. TOS must be enforced 100% of the time and enforced on everyone in the community.
The problem is that every one loves freedom of speech until it pisses someone else off.
Do you think that we can have a network that is truly based on freedom of speech?-
Hi Gylon,
That is a fair comment. In my situation, I received my “one and only” warning from the Service which gave me three rules that I needed to follow which had nothing to do with the original TOS – But, before I delve into these interesting rules, it may be imperative that the Service had stated to me on not only then, but on several other occasions, that I had Not violated the rules of service – their comment stated was that there was “no concern to the Content of my messages “-
Here were the extremely censoring “rules” I was to follow –
1. simply ignore anything that you perceive as a negative attack;
(so this allows individuals free reign to attack me at anytime, which ultimately happened, the ‘preferred member instigated an attack, which ultimately led to my membership being cancelled)
2. restrict your comments on the discussion boards to the substance of what is being said without attacking the person doing the speaking; and
(again, I was told, that there had never been any incidents of my attacking anyone, or concern of the content of my messages)
3. limit the volume of your comments to an amount that will not drown out other conversations in the groups –
(This is confusing? What exactly does Limit the volume mean? How many, and why is this only presented to me? Not to the community as a whole? )
But, let’s say that I did break the rules, does that give them the authority to Hold my data as hostage? Or even my Name? My personal Identity? Should I be treated differently from others?
When I asked them to remove my profile from their site, they said No, it was an inconvenience. Yet, their own TSA/Privacy agreement states clearly that an individual has the Right to Remove and disable their account, should that therefore not apply to me as well?
If my posts were so “awful” or against the TSA, then why would they even want to keep them on the site? Or for that matter even My name? -
1. I feel that the content does belong to them
2. Your name should be removed.
Yes it is a double standard....... they kick you out but keep your content and your name. I think that in most cases the case can be made that they own the "content" but they don't own your name... well maybe, what if you are writing for Time Magazine, or CBS and well you get fired, Don't those companies own the body of work that your produced. What does the TOS say about your posts that you produced while on the forum. If there is nothing in the TOS, then I feel that you have a good case to have the forum remove your name and any content that you contributed. -
Good point Richard,
for any contract (terms of agreement) there must be 3 important elements - offer, acceptance and consideration - there are very few factors which will allow for copyright to be exclusive and that is when one is working for the company, (consideration as employee) and another is when one is paid for the work done - in the case of say the WSJ, even then, one still has permission to access or utilize one's material after a period of time has passed.
In my case, there is no consideration on my behalf. The company gains financialy, and they obtain major traffic to their site, not to mention the benefit from my posts. I on the other hand gain nothing, not even an opportunity to Glance at my posts
There is another interesting factor to be addressed here in regards to TOS's a Non-exclusive right which means that the grantee, the publisher/owner, has some rights but the creator also has some rights to their material - In my case the company says, they offer non exclusive rights, but then go on to mention they own the material fully? This is very ambiguous, not to mention unduly opressive as it exploits my rights completely
Not to mention that they took away my rights in regards to not allowing me to access my own material. Again, this may be considered unduly opressive, with a one sided clause that benefits this company, and puts me in a extremely limited position that does not allow me fair or equal consideration. -
Gylon,
It is 2:30 am, and was thinking about this discussion, mainly what you mentioned, and I wanted to ask a couple of questions –
1 - Regarding TSA’s – if a TSA is over restrictive, or vague, would that not invalidate them? For example, let’s say I offer you a position, and the terms of the non compete I offer you stated, you indefinitely can’t work for any other company should you leave mine. Oh, and these terms are offered to you After you started working for me. Wouldn’t that seem a bit unfair?
2 - It is odd that although I was kicked for violating TOS, all my posts and comments are still up. Nothing was deleted.
3 - In regards to ownership – it seems that we concur that I should have the personal rights to my name, but, in regards to material - Okay, let’s say that they should have some ownership to my material and data. But, on the same token, should I not be allowed fair access and use of it all as well? Including the groups that I moderated?
-
-
Hi Barbara,
thanks so much for the response. You bring up an excellent question, and one we should all be concerned about.
The site which censored me, has had very similar issues as well; There was and has been considerable preferential treatment, which ultimately led to my being removed, because unfortunately due to several conversations where I challenged the comments with this Preferred individual
When instituting the protections of copyright on the internet, congress’s main focus was to allow for the preservation of the freedom, sharing and development of flow of ideas and conversation, and the competitive free market. A desire to promote unfettered speech, as it allows for a “true diversity of political discourse, .. cultural development and intellectual activity.”
The censorship of posts on the internet, as well as removing individuals from sites because one doesn’t agree with the discussions; preferential treatment; or whatever blows an individual’s skirt up appears to be totally against the grain of the first amendment and what congress had in mind in regards to the DMCA and the CDA.
Which brings up another question –Richard, your thoughts on this area would be appreciated. I noticed last week that there was a loophole in Regards to the DMCA/CDA Exemption for liability –
When reviewing what an exempt Computer Service Provider, it appears that when a provider is involved with selection, editing, or provide searchable data, and also most importantly states they Own the material then it appears that the exemption no longer applies to them.
This stands to reason, the exemption basically outlines that the Provider only transmits the information, they don’t “own” the information, they have “no involvement” with the data.
What are your thoughts?-
Thanks Karen. If you have time to look at this I have laid out the situation here:
arabellesalley.blogspot.com/2007/10/cbs-just-say-no-to-unfair-moderation.ht...
-
-
I think we have a few issues here specific to Karen's case. First is TOS and whether or not she was in violation of the forum's TOS. That's somewhat irrelevent to this discussion as we don't know what the TOS were and what the alleged violation was. But it seems to me as though the forum's moderators pick and choose when and how TOS will be enforced (or not).
But what really troubles me is that Karen was terminated and removed from the forums, yet her content....her work...and her name....remain. I think the publisher/portal or whatever they are calling themselves in this particular case is walking a thin line here. As someone already pointed out, they want to have it both ways. They want to use the content without liability.
If a person is banned or otherwise removed from a forum (doesn't matter why), then they should reasonably expect that all traces of their input should be removed as well. If not, they should be allowed to request that all of their work and posts be deleted in total (NOT edited). For the group/forum to do otherwise hints of a violation of intellectual property rights.
They're keeping her name and her posts there for a reason. I think I can guess what it is. -
Where does the public domain fit into this? I could quit BlogCatalog, but I don't think that that would give me the right to ask them to delete every comment I ever made here. These are public statements I made. On the other hand, I don't think BC owns these statements either. They just have the right to maintain them on these forums.
-
Hi Stoneman,
maybe I should clarify - I didn't initially ask for my comments to be removed.. I asked for my Profile and Name to be removed (deleted), as is part of their TSA. A person is allowed to delete their profile (only if active) as well as delete their posts at anytime.
Don't you think that it would at least be cool that I could be at least be allowed limited access to my data? and be able to utilize it?
It is my understanding that Censorship is Not limited to the Government but to any controling party who restricts ones civil rights. These guys have some really great info on censorship and bloggers rights w2.eff.org/Censorship/
That is a great question about public domain..
-
-
By the way, isn't the term censorship being thrown around here rather loosely? It's not as if the government is making you shut up.
-
Hi Rich,
but isn't it censorship if someone tries to limit someone from speaking because it may be something that they disagree with? or maybe it may be an issue of competition?
Greenspan the original founder of Myspace has filed a lawsuit against myspace in regards to their continual aggressive censorship - they claim that the new owners contine to block links and censor the names of products or blogs and websites on profiles that the company consider to be competitive - allegedly they also block anti war sites, blogs that discussed the censorship issues
www.freemyspace.com/?q=node/10
He also got involved with the creation of Censorspace.com which is a site to create awareness about censorship online
There are many groups including moveon.org which now have been implementing a "rights movement" www.civic.moveon.org/pdf/myspace/ to obring more awareness on this problem.
As someone recently said on a blog - they hadn't really noticed how important this topic is, until it happened to them.. -
Just a note. The lady I spoke with at EEF said that CBS could delete content or messages for any reason. She said there is not a lot we could do except start our own message board.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
