5 ms·
> But the content that they’re trying to protect isn’t theirs -- it belongs to their users. Kinda. Yes, Facebook says that content belongs to users (otherwise
by deepsun 3y ago
> But the content that they’re trying to protect isn’t theirs -- it belongs to their users.
Kinda. Yes, Facebook says that content belongs to users (otherwise they'd have harder time explaining they are not liable when it's illegal), but users also agree to give Facebook “non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook.”
For example, if a user deleted their* content, Facebook can still use it and show to their friends. That's why it's "kinda".
- waynesonfire 3y agoDid you read the posted sign? “no walking on the road outside my property”
- sib 3y agoThat doesn't change who the content belongs to. It just gives some rights to FB. Any, in fact, without something like "perpetual" and/or "irrevocable" in there, it doesn't imply that they could keep using it after you deleted it (or that you couldn't revoke a grant of rights.)
- antonf 3y ago> For example, if a user deleted their* content, Facebook can still use it and show to their friends. That's why it's "kinda". I don't think it is correct. If you asked Facebook to remove your data from platform, it will be a GDPR (and probably CCPA, etc...) violation for Facebook to not delete your data within 1 month.
- jeremyjh 3y agoA license is not ownership. Anyway that part of the article is just context - none of what you describe constitutes the legal basis for the suits or rulings discussed in it - it’s just explaining why property law isn’t being used.