Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 18th Dec 2012 17:31 UTC
Internet & Networking "Everyone from CNET to the BBC is freaking out today about Instagram's new terms of service. The new terms, they claim, allow Instagram to sell user's images. Users are understandably upset. Wired published a tutorial on how to download all of your Instagram photos and delete your account. But long-time Instagram users should think twice before pulling the trigger. The truth is that Instagram has always claimed full rights to your images, but has just re-worded their terms of service to make their intentions clearer." People should stop obsessing over individual service's privacy terms. There's a very simple rule on the internet that everyone ought to be aware of: the moment you put something on the web, it's no longer your property. Deal with it. Coincidentally: nobody cares about your stupid Instagram photos.
Thread beginning with comment 545882
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Comment by Alfman
by lucas_maximus on Wed 19th Dec 2012 18:12 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Alfman"
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

It's like if somebody invents a replicator that can copy physical objects... are you going to ask people not to clone a loaf of bread?


Ask Jesus if he thought it was easy? </joking>

However someone's time and skill went into making the original loaf much like a photograph. Should they not be compensated for making it so.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[8]: Comment by Alfman
by WorknMan on Thu 20th Dec 2012 02:33 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by Alfman"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

However someone's time and skill went into making the original loaf much like a photograph. Should they not be compensated for making it so.


I think a better question to ask is, if a replicator existed that could make infinite copies of his product for nothing, should he have bothered to make it in the first place, and then demanded to be compensated for each copy in existence?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[9]: Comment by Alfman
by lucas_maximus on Thu 20th Dec 2012 10:20 in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by Alfman"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I think a better question to ask is, if a replicator existed that could make infinite copies of his product for nothing, should he have bothered to make it in the first place, and then demanded to be compensated for each copy in existence?


Well depends what the original deal was if it was "We will pay you $x for each copy if you make the original" then yes he should be compensated.

Reply Parent Score: 3