3 ms·

"data" is a valuable asset, however, in many jurisdictions 'user' data is considered property of the user, not the agency that collected it. Think of it like s

by fleitz 11y ago

"data" is a valuable asset, however, in many jurisdictions 'user' data is considered property of the user, not the agency that collected it. Think of it like software, your data is not the property of Facebook, but rather, they have a license to use it.

Domenic_S 11y ago
Well sure, but when the license is perpetual and royalty-free, what's the difference? > For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you [...] grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms
- candu 11y ago
  The main difference is that "non-exclusive" part: you retain the right to license it out to other entities, or to use it for your own purposes.
  - ethbro 11y ago
    Not sure if you meant "you" or "they" there, but the "you" case is more interesting. No, "you" generally do not effectively retain the right to license your data collected by a third party out to other entities, because (as far as I know) there are no laws which require that third party to provide you with the data they've collected. Examples here would be 23andMe vs. Fitbit. 23andMe is in the business of collecting data from you (in essence), then providing it to you and using it for their own purposes. Fitbit is in the business of collecting data from you, then processing it and performing a number of black box calculations, then providing you summarized results. (Caveat: yes, I am aware that most activity trackers have API / export functionality. However, in all the instances I looked at that's limited and generally crap compared to the raw take the main party has access to)
- sangnoir 11y ago
  >Well sure, but when the license is perpetual and royalty-free, what's the difference? There would be a difference if the license is non-transferable. Then Facebook wouldn't be able to give or sell that data to 3rd parties as part of a bankruptcy sale. Edit: in the case of RadioShack's user data, I doubt that they got customers' agreement for a transferable license to the data.

by fleitz 11y ago

Domenic_S 11y ago

Well sure, but when the license is perpetual and royalty-free, what's the difference? > For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you [...] grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms

candu 11y ago
The main difference is that "non-exclusive" part: you retain the right to license it out to other entities, or to use it for your own purposes.
- ethbro 11y ago
  Not sure if you meant "you" or "they" there, but the "you" case is more interesting. No, "you" generally do not effectively retain the right to license your data collected by a third party out to other entities, because (as far as I know) there are no laws which require that third party to provide you with the data they've collected. Examples here would be 23andMe vs. Fitbit. 23andMe is in the business of collecting data from you (in essence), then providing it to you and using it for their own purposes. Fitbit is in the business of collecting data from you, then processing it and performing a number of black box calculations, then providing you summarized results. (Caveat: yes, I am aware that most activity trackers have API / export functionality. However, in all the instances I looked at that's limited and generally crap compared to the raw take the main party has access to)
sangnoir 11y ago
>Well sure, but when the license is perpetual and royalty-free, what's the difference? There would be a difference if the license is non-transferable. Then Facebook wouldn't be able to give or sell that data to 3rd parties as part of a bankruptcy sale. Edit: in the case of RadioShack's user data, I doubt that they got customers' agreement for a transferable license to the data.