I know it's humor, and suspect Randall is generally far brighter than I, but comparing a photo sharing social network to a friend's garage is fallacious. In point of fact, people feeling like they were being sold out and getting vocal about it -from Zuck's wedding photographer to National Geographic and regular users in between- did make a difference, did it not?
You're right that it's not a 1:1 analogy, as for example the National Geographic photos probably brought enough traffic by themselves to be useful for Instagram, if they could figure out how to benefit from traffic alone. But for most people Randall is spot-on, Instagram holds their photos and gets... ?
However the way Instagram went about these TOS changes, and their initial response are both comical examples of how not to handle stuff like this. I honestly think most understand the idea that Instagram can't host their photos forever without some way of making money from that, but the solution for Instagram can't be to expand the TOS to encompass every conceivable act and then try out solutions while saying "Oh, we pinky promise we won't do that vile thing".
Figure out the plan (or plans) first, then make the TOS fit the plan. And communicate with everyone involved during the process instead of presenting a fait accompli.
I know it is redundant to make a "well said" type comment, but "well said!" The sense that users are just pawns waiting to be monetized once scale is reached and the proprietors figure it out is what I think unsettles more informed users.
Some might say PR is meaningless window dressing but I think it's critically important -even for start-ups- if they're operating or intending to operate at scale.
You're missing the point. Whether a garage owner is "sensible" or not, or whether he is a friend or a professional, the fact is that he is still the owner, not you.
That's actually a deeper truth of cloud computing in general, something that mainstream people (like Louis C.K. did recently) seem to actually grasp better than us geeks... probably because many of us have a vested interested in the public trusting us with (and being absolutely irresponsible with) their personal data, so we'd rather ignore some inconvenient truths.
Look, obviously Instagram's servers, infrastructure and software are their own. I think that's so obvious on the face of things that it's trite to labor the point. They are in fact a company, serving users, and need those users' trust to do what they want to do. I am totally fine with Instagram or any free service making money and experimenting with ways of doing that. I have no issues with contextual advertising or trying to sell me something. The issue people complaining about is one of trust and a feeling/fear of broken faith. (e.g. "Hey, use our cool site for photo sharing! Oh by the way, now all your photos are belong to us.")
> I think that's so obvious on the face of things that it's trite to labor the point.
No, it's not. It's the dirty little secret of "free" cloud services: you're using somebody else's resources to store your own (intellectual) property, relying on vague TOS clauses that can change from one minute to the next. This is exactly why this brouhaha took off: all of a sudden people "felt" those clauses were now abusive; they realised they were relying purely on Instagram's benevolence, and they "felt" that benevolence was now gone.
This is the case for any cloud service, including Dropbox, iCloud etc; there are probably a few exceptions (I'd expect Salesforce to have tighter TOS), but the overwhelming majority of consumer-oriented cloud services are in the same boat. Last I checked, Dropbox reserved the right to go through your files -- for troubleshooting purposes only, no doubt, but again we have to take their word for it. How many times did you actually read those TOS? For what I know, they might now state that Dropbox can sell your data to China.
The hard truth is that the garage is not yours and it will never be yours; in the best scenario, you are renting it with a tight contract , but in most cases you just had a chat with the owner once and he sorta promised not to resell your boxes full of comic books. Sooner or later you'll find a less honourable owner, and shit will fly.
So what are you saying: don't trust or use any cloud services whatsoever? Or only use ones you pay for? I think that's taking it to another extreme. There is obviously an equitable balance between free services and the level of privacy/control one sacrifices. It's up to each individual user to decide. I think an important component of that is how the company communicates with its users, and in this case, the track record of its parent company on similar matters.
So, I don't take an "all or nothing" view, but I genuinely understand where you're coming from. I just don't think it is a "dirty secret" (not with this crowd anyway)
Edit - I'd like to add or underscore that I agree with what you're saying that ToS can change at anytime, etc. My emphasis is on how companies treat and talk to their users. I don't think all cloud services should be painted with same brush, they should be judged on their own merits and how they do business generally. A Facebook-owned Instagram already made people nervous. This change in ToS brought back memories of other unpleasant changes.
2nd Edit - Munroe's comic ends with the idea that it's useless to complain or drop the service. Clearly it isn't because Instagram responded and reverted back to their original ToS. They need users too. They acknowledged that they heard them. The joke misses or ignores that fact.
I agree that the main difference at the moment is how companies manage the conversation, and I'm not a maximalist -- I use tons of cloud services myself -- I just don't think the issues they raise can forever be swept under the carpet. Unless the industry gets its shit together, more and more companies will abuse their position and try to "pull a Facebook" or "pull an Instagram", leading to an inevitable backlash at the legislative level (certainly from Europe, if not the US).
In the meantime, users should be educated on the risks of cloud platforms as much as their benefits, and in this sense I think the strip is very useful.
Of course they're being sold out. They are the product - product gets sold. Anyone who thinks they aren't the product is delusional. Facebook didn't pay $1B to sell users filters, or hope they login to Instagram.com and click ads. No, they were purchased for their network value.
I don't think Facebook's master plan is for us to log-in and click ads, I think their plan is for us to log-in and be ads. This is an important distinction from most ad-supported free web services. I do not mind being "targeted" and shown relevant advertising based on my interests of behavior patterns on the site or group of sites. I very much mind being used as an someone else's endorsement or having my actions and relationships themselves be monetized. I think most everyone does. Just pointing this out because it's a nuance of the "you are the product" philosophy that differs from most other free services.
... They [users that left] bought the CNET article that misreported on the proposed changes and thought that Instagram would all of a sudden have the ability to use their content for the purposes of advertising, hence quitting like Manny down there. The proposed changes were actually better for users, as they would have limited the existing advertising ability to be "about or around" the user content, but now we're sticking with the ability to modify user content for advert purposes. The media misreported it, the people bought it, and Instagram got to stick with their original TOS that will benefit their advertisers.
Anyone who left Instagram because of this never read the TOS in the first place and gets their legal advice from people with no background in IP law. For the record, this is exactly why I get my IP/patent/copyright news from The Verge, who have Nilay Patel and Matt Macari on staff, former IP/patent/copyright lawyers, on staff. That's about as credible as you're going to get.
---
Could anyone with knowledge on the matter explain if it's true?
Instagram gets to stick with whatever TOS it likes. Users get to delete their accounts and use a service that isn't an obnoxious content thief. Everyone wins!
The Verge had a great summary (as posted above) so I won't go into the actual 'law'. I don't even think the issue is really about what they can or cannot do in the license - Instagram is entitled to write whatever they want in the license agreement, and the original TOS was drafted in a very lawyerly way to basically allow them to do almost anything (advertising-wise) they wanted with your photos anyway.
The real interesting part is that users are willing to make a lot of noise about these license agreements without reading them. I think there's a lot of pent up FUD about license agreements because there are so many of them out there that nobody ever reads any of them, and there's a big appetite out there for somebody, anybody, to clarify these terms for them.
The consumer group-think goes kind of like: "What can Facebook do with my data? I don't know, but I'm sure their lawyers put something in the license agreement that I'm never going to read or understand. Oh, this blog says it's really bad, time to complain loudly!"
I think the result is that there really needs to be an effort on the part of these online service providers to clarify their terms and make human-readable summaries of users' rights/licenses so that everyone understands where they stand contractually.
I love how everyone just accuses Instagram users of being irrational here. Maybe they just realized that Facebook pulls this same shit over and over and when Facebook bought Instagram and started making changes, people felt they were doing the same thing as Facebook and left. There is a reason you don't shit on your users and then mock them, it makes them stop trusting your brand, which is what happened here. The response would have been different if GOOG, Twitter or even Yahoo had bought Instagram because they seem to communicate with their users in a way other than talking down to them.
One of the things that bothered me the most about this is as an ex-Facebook employee, its pretty obvious when the PR machine gets revved up. The second people pointed out that these terms weren't ideal for the user, I would guess 20 of my facebook friends posted articles basically mocking the idea that these terms were bad and boom, because Facebooks internal PR team says that the terms are good, anyone who disagrees is stupid and naive. Great way to deal with your users, mock and talk down to them because of a mistake you made. I bet the WarZ developers are proud of Facebook today.
I think the result is that there really needs to be an effort on the part of these online service providers to clarify their terms and make human-readable summaries of users' rights/licenses so that everyone understands where they stand contractually.
There was a post on HN quite some time ago about the Terms of Service agreement on http://500px.com/terms, take a look. I really like what and how they have laid it out. It's a really good idea and wish more companies would do this. I for one skim over the ToS, esp for free online services, and although I think many of us are the same we may start to read them more carefully from now on.
It does seem as though they acknowledge that most users won't read or completely understand the entire terms, and invite users to rely on the summarized terms instead. So if there were ever litigation that involved careful interpretation of the terms, might the "basically" sections be construed as estoppel and override the main text?
If so, doesn't this make the summarized text the actual controlling terms of service, leaving full "legalese" to clarify ambiguities only to the extent that is consistent with the "basically" sections?
Not sure, there is quite a few comments on the original hn article. I think the crux of it is that the "basically" and effectively summarize the point without trying to sneak something in which the "basically" does not cover. I think it would very much depend on you ToS if you are able to use this. I'd imagine the likes of Facebook have such complex ToS that they could not effectively summarize like this without missing out on a lot of important detail.
>The proposed changes were actually better for users, as they would have limited the existing advertising ability to be "about or around" the user content, but now we're sticking with the ability to modify user content for advert purposes.
Pretty much bullshit. The current TOS already has that clause:
"Some of the Instagram Services are supported by advertising revenue and may display advertisements and promotions, and you hereby agree that Instagram may place such advertising and promotions on the Instagram Services or on, about, or in conjunction with your Content. The manner, mode and extent of such advertising and promotions are subject to change without specific notice to you."
There are lawyers ... and there are lawyers. Nilay's arguments were very eloquently tossed into his shoe for him to eat by other lawyers. Read the comments on the Verge for pretty good online lawyer brawling .. Ok not a brawl, but Patel had it completely wrong and other lawyers weighed in.
What if I want them to use my pictures in ads... I don't mind! I take a really good picture, and I'm sure Sam Adams would love some of the jolly good times I have with the product in my hand.
So the plan now is to still experiment with new business models, but instead of just letting people guess what the heck they are, they're going to be more explicit in a future blog post, before, presumably, rolling out TOS changes to go with them.
And that actually sounds like a much better approach than when they did this week.
No, I've just seen the same story play another 10 times for different companies. As we all did -- but some behave like they just came on the interwebs yesterday. Makes all those downvotes look silly in hindsight...
See the contradiction? You first call the u-turn "inevitable" and then go on to say that "without kicking up a fuss there would not have been a u-turn".
You can't have it both ways. My case is simply: the u-turn was inevitable and the fuss was also inevitable.
What could have been different though is people not responding to this with awe, shock and vows of "abandoning Instagram" and such, as if the situation would not have changed in a week.
Especially internet-savvy people who have seen this tons of times. Some regular Instagram user shocked with the license change and thinking his photos will be sold without his consent? Well, that's OK. But a-list tech bloggers writing the same thing? WTF. That's what a call faux-rage.
The genie is already out of the bottle. People have already lost their trust with Instagram, I did at any rate. Problem is if you try high handed strategy like they did, as in we will sell your pictures without giving you a single dime, people will react. And they did. What they should do was to follow deviantart's model. Grab a percentage from the sold, printed out photos. Or put in a premium package. Or both.
Copyright laws are archaic and backward, because only the photographer have right and the person in the picture don't have any, We can't even make a copy of our own picture.. instead of a shared rights and responsibilities....
35 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 92.3 ms ] threadHowever the way Instagram went about these TOS changes, and their initial response are both comical examples of how not to handle stuff like this. I honestly think most understand the idea that Instagram can't host their photos forever without some way of making money from that, but the solution for Instagram can't be to expand the TOS to encompass every conceivable act and then try out solutions while saying "Oh, we pinky promise we won't do that vile thing".
Figure out the plan (or plans) first, then make the TOS fit the plan. And communicate with everyone involved during the process instead of presenting a fait accompli.
Some might say PR is meaningless window dressing but I think it's critically important -even for start-ups- if they're operating or intending to operate at scale.
That's actually a deeper truth of cloud computing in general, something that mainstream people (like Louis C.K. did recently) seem to actually grasp better than us geeks... probably because many of us have a vested interested in the public trusting us with (and being absolutely irresponsible with) their personal data, so we'd rather ignore some inconvenient truths.
No, it's not. It's the dirty little secret of "free" cloud services: you're using somebody else's resources to store your own (intellectual) property, relying on vague TOS clauses that can change from one minute to the next. This is exactly why this brouhaha took off: all of a sudden people "felt" those clauses were now abusive; they realised they were relying purely on Instagram's benevolence, and they "felt" that benevolence was now gone.
This is the case for any cloud service, including Dropbox, iCloud etc; there are probably a few exceptions (I'd expect Salesforce to have tighter TOS), but the overwhelming majority of consumer-oriented cloud services are in the same boat. Last I checked, Dropbox reserved the right to go through your files -- for troubleshooting purposes only, no doubt, but again we have to take their word for it. How many times did you actually read those TOS? For what I know, they might now state that Dropbox can sell your data to China.
The hard truth is that the garage is not yours and it will never be yours; in the best scenario, you are renting it with a tight contract , but in most cases you just had a chat with the owner once and he sorta promised not to resell your boxes full of comic books. Sooner or later you'll find a less honourable owner, and shit will fly.
So, I don't take an "all or nothing" view, but I genuinely understand where you're coming from. I just don't think it is a "dirty secret" (not with this crowd anyway)
Edit - I'd like to add or underscore that I agree with what you're saying that ToS can change at anytime, etc. My emphasis is on how companies treat and talk to their users. I don't think all cloud services should be painted with same brush, they should be judged on their own merits and how they do business generally. A Facebook-owned Instagram already made people nervous. This change in ToS brought back memories of other unpleasant changes.
2nd Edit - Munroe's comic ends with the idea that it's useless to complain or drop the service. Clearly it isn't because Instagram responded and reverted back to their original ToS. They need users too. They acknowledged that they heard them. The joke misses or ignores that fact.
In the meantime, users should be educated on the risks of cloud platforms as much as their benefits, and in this sense I think the strip is very useful.
Of course they're being sold out. They are the product - product gets sold. Anyone who thinks they aren't the product is delusional. Facebook didn't pay $1B to sell users filters, or hope they login to Instagram.com and click ads. No, they were purchased for their network value.
... They [users that left] bought the CNET article that misreported on the proposed changes and thought that Instagram would all of a sudden have the ability to use their content for the purposes of advertising, hence quitting like Manny down there. The proposed changes were actually better for users, as they would have limited the existing advertising ability to be "about or around" the user content, but now we're sticking with the ability to modify user content for advert purposes. The media misreported it, the people bought it, and Instagram got to stick with their original TOS that will benefit their advertisers.
Anyone who left Instagram because of this never read the TOS in the first place and gets their legal advice from people with no background in IP law. For the record, this is exactly why I get my IP/patent/copyright news from The Verge, who have Nilay Patel and Matt Macari on staff, former IP/patent/copyright lawyers, on staff. That's about as credible as you're going to get.
---
Could anyone with knowledge on the matter explain if it's true?
The real interesting part is that users are willing to make a lot of noise about these license agreements without reading them. I think there's a lot of pent up FUD about license agreements because there are so many of them out there that nobody ever reads any of them, and there's a big appetite out there for somebody, anybody, to clarify these terms for them.
The consumer group-think goes kind of like: "What can Facebook do with my data? I don't know, but I'm sure their lawyers put something in the license agreement that I'm never going to read or understand. Oh, this blog says it's really bad, time to complain loudly!"
I think the result is that there really needs to be an effort on the part of these online service providers to clarify their terms and make human-readable summaries of users' rights/licenses so that everyone understands where they stand contractually.
One of the things that bothered me the most about this is as an ex-Facebook employee, its pretty obvious when the PR machine gets revved up. The second people pointed out that these terms weren't ideal for the user, I would guess 20 of my facebook friends posted articles basically mocking the idea that these terms were bad and boom, because Facebooks internal PR team says that the terms are good, anyone who disagrees is stupid and naive. Great way to deal with your users, mock and talk down to them because of a mistake you made. I bet the WarZ developers are proud of Facebook today.
There was a post on HN quite some time ago about the Terms of Service agreement on http://500px.com/terms, take a look. I really like what and how they have laid it out. It's a really good idea and wish more companies would do this. I for one skim over the ToS, esp for free online services, and although I think many of us are the same we may start to read them more carefully from now on.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3831357
If so, doesn't this make the summarized text the actual controlling terms of service, leaving full "legalese" to clarify ambiguities only to the extent that is consistent with the "basically" sections?
Pretty much bullshit. The current TOS already has that clause:
"Some of the Instagram Services are supported by advertising revenue and may display advertisements and promotions, and you hereby agree that Instagram may place such advertising and promotions on the Instagram Services or on, about, or in conjunction with your Content. The manner, mode and extent of such advertising and promotions are subject to change without specific notice to you."
http://instagram.com/legal/terms/
And that actually sounds like a much better approach than when they did this week.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4937548
No, I've just seen the same story play another 10 times for different companies. As we all did -- but some behave like they just came on the interwebs yesterday. Makes all those downvotes look silly in hindsight...
You can't have it both ways. My case is simply: the u-turn was inevitable and the fuss was also inevitable.
What could have been different though is people not responding to this with awe, shock and vows of "abandoning Instagram" and such, as if the situation would not have changed in a week.
Especially internet-savvy people who have seen this tons of times. Some regular Instagram user shocked with the license change and thinking his photos will be sold without his consent? Well, that's OK. But a-list tech bloggers writing the same thing? WTF. That's what a call faux-rage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRr7H3woFn4
It's sometimes hard to take corporate announcements seriously, even if they're genuine.
This is my two cents anyway.