Alex Neth › Comments

I'm less and less fan of apps in facebook. Usually external apps for the same service are working better. - Cyril Hanquez

I'm actually thinking of taking it off from Facebook to reduce the noise... I already took Twitter app off from there. - Orli Yakuel

I did exactly what Orli did: took out twitter and friendfeed. They render the-not-so-useful-anyway news stream of facebook, completely useless. - Nikos Anagnostou

Orli: I did that, but I sort of want my Facebook Fans to see all the stuff I'm doing here. - Robert Scoble

I'm trying to filter the content for the Facebook users, using the bookmarklet. (I really don't think they need to see all my activity in FriendFeed, some of it is sometime useless) - Orli Yakuel

Yes.. it got a lot more confusing in the new Facebook... however the final result is a lot cleaner - Aad 't Hart

Robert - please add me on Facebook as a friend - you were at 5K limit before. Yes adding apps to FB is more complex. I can't even edit the twitter app, but I do like the new layout better so I am cool with it - Susan Beebe

Susan: I'm already back at 5,000 limit on Facebook, sorry. - Robert Scoble

I don't get this limitation on Twitter and Facebook, so it's ok to have friends over the net but not too many?! - Orli Yakuel

I have the FF app added, but it doesn't work and it won't let me remove it. WTF? Susan, he doesn't love you enough to drop someone else. :) - Cyndy

I added the Twitter app ok and then removed it, but like Cyndy never got the FF app to load properly - Sally Church

Requires you to accept third party cookies... ick - Alex Neth

Cyndy - hahahaa!! true, i feel so unwanted now! ah the shame of it! :) His wife, brother and son like me! - Susan Beebe

@Robert: I made a random comment the other day that Facebook UI had gotten so bad it was laughable. So yes ... it's very hard IMO. - AJ Kohn

totally agree. Facebook UI is either hidden or convoluted, in multiple places without clear labeling. basically i could barely figure out where to post something so I now avoid it altogether and use FF to do it for me. :) I have wondered for a while now if I was in some alternate universe on FB and it felt stupid - Robert Denton

The Facebook UI fails. It is not user-intuitive and really does not present relevant information to the user. I had a friend request hanging for a couple of days (long enough for said friend to ask why I was not accepting) as I really just did not see the request indicator. Somewhere along the way, "Keep It Simple Stupid" was beat over the head by "Flash, Razzle, and Dazzle". - Robert Miller

What do you mean? Do you have to fill in a form or something and send to them? - Håkan Dahlström

I mean that this is not something that should be handled via DMCA. - Scott Beale

I'm confused as to why this sucks? - Rahsheen the Dream

Rahsheen, I think Scott means that a DMCA notice is overkill for something that can be handled by better structured Flickr policy. It's a "hatchet when you really need a scalpel" as Obama would say. - Mauricio

DMCA takedown notice process sucks. Actually sucks even worse of someone takes down your stuff wrongfully. DMCA needs an enema. - Tinfoil 2.0

Mauricio, that's exactly my point. - Scott Beale

here's the backstory: http://friendfeed.com/e... - Scott Beale

Ok, makes sense. Thanks for the explanation guys :) - Rahsheen the Dream

onerous. seems to me that flickr should build their own process -- perhaps similar to "Flagging" that asks the user to take it down, copies flickr hq, and gives a timeline for response. if no response, flickr acts. - Hillary Hartley

Seems to me they must follow legal standards. They can't just take your claim, investigate, and arbitrate because they would be liable if they were wrong. I'm not sure I have a problem with using DMCA for this. It is what it's for and provides a universal standard. Will you pressure every photo site to have an abuse policy? What if they don't? What if they don't respond? Do you want to request many times then follow up with DMCA? Easier to just do it in one fell swoop. - Alex Neth

do you watermark you photos and does that make any difference? - Kestrachern

Also abusing DMCA is perjury as I understand. With an abuse policy, the other guy could say you violated his copyright and you have little recourse. Under DMCA, he would have to commit a felony to take your photos down. - Alex Neth

As Mathew said as well. Craigslist community policing has serious issues. A small number of rabid flaggers controls the content there, and many people disagree with their choices, but there is no recourse. It is the tyranny of a minority of users. I have had issues as have many others w/Craigslist flagging. - Alex Neth

Does anyone have Heather Champ's work contact info? She's the director of community over there.... - Steve Lynch from twhirl

DMCA or not, How do you prove its yours? This is what I'm missing. I agree that DMCA is overkill, but any process would still need to figure out how to prove who the photo belongs to. - Eric Marden

Eric, you don't prove it is yours. You declare under penalty of perjury that it is yours. That is a sufficient barrier for most cases, particularly if there is very little value involved in the claim (No offense to Scott's pictures :) ). Most people won't sign something that says "I declare under penalty of perjury..." unless it is true. - Alex Neth

Alex, Flickr already has an abuse policy that leads to takedowns http://tinyurl.com/4xx5o8 - Steve Lynch from twhirl

Alex is exactly right. Sites like Flickr, YouTube, etc., need to stand behind a formal DMCA takedown procedure in order to protect legitimate users. The requirement of a sworn statement from the alleged copyright holder prevents large content companies (the Viacoms, Disneys, etc) from automatically flagging every single upload that matches fuzzy searches like "mickey", "britney". The hosting companies would be inundated, and would be taking down legitimate content by the truckload. - DeWitt Clinton

So the DMCA takedown process protects *you*, Scott, from the whims of the conglomerates. This process helps ensure that only copyright holders (under penalty of law) can ask for content to be removed. - DeWitt Clinton

You're all wrong. The DMCA process protects your content from being removed by just anyone, and ensures common carrier status for the carriers. I don't like it when i recieve a DMCA notice, but at least there's a formal arbitration process available. - netik

Netik, only half the people were wrong. The other half were saying what you just said. - DeWitt Clinton

You posted this photos under Creative Commons, If he included your name would not that we okay under Creative Commons? - Rich Thomas

Alright to re-upload my photos to their account. No. Why do you think that's kind of behavior is ok? - Scott Beale

@Scott, the reason I ask because it is creative commons. Not sure how posting it to a flickr account is different that posting to a blog. - Rich Thomas

@Rich - So I guess you're ok with people re-uploading your videos to YouTube as well? Is that also the same as a blog? I really don't get your logic here. - Scott Beale

I'm in agreement with Rich. If they gave you credit (Attribution) and weren't making money off of it (Non-Commercial), and they didn't change anything (No-Derivatives), then they may well be within the rights you granted with the CC license. But there's a caveat -- they don't have the right to apply a new CC license, as it is a non-derivative work -- only the copyright holder (you) can do that. @Scott -- can you link to the Flickr user who did this? - DeWitt Clinton

@Scott, I am asking what is the difference between creative commons and standard copyright. It is not want I am okay with. It is about what is allowed under creative commons. I see lots of people who re-upload video on different youtube accounts. I am unclear about the rules around creative commons - Rich Thomas

@DeWitt - I linked to the previous FF discussion on this, but here's the direct link to the Flickr user who is uploading other photographer's photos (including mine) to their account: http://www.flickr.com/photos... - Scott Beale

Also note this person does not make any distinction between CC or copyright and watermarking is also not a deterrent. - Scott Beale

@Rich - Actually what you said is that you didn't know how re-uploading another people's photos to your Flickr account is any different than posting their photos on a blog. The difference is pretty obvious to most people, unfortunately not all which is why this issue still comes up. - Scott Beale

Which ones are yours? Subject, I mean... - Paula W

Seems like DMCA is the only thing that protects both sides from abuse in this case. - Sam Pullara

@Scott - no question the person is violating the terms of the CC license by not giving you attribution, even setting aside the other questions. I'd send Flickr a formal DMCA takedown request. They will take down the photographs and inform him/her that they can file a counter-notice if they disputes your claim (which they won't do). That's exactly what the DMCA process is for, and Flickr may well ban the user if it is a repeat offense. Go get 'em! - DeWitt Clinton

@DeWitt - I'm more than familar with the DMCA process. You may recall my previous situation with Michael Crook which led to EFF suing him for false DMCA claims. My only point here was that I thought that DMCA was overkill in this particular case. Some people agree with me, others do not. I'm sure this debate could go on indefinitely. - Scott Beale