 I've had it with the TOS/privacy policy outrage blogs.

~~~
seldo
I agree completely, but there's a double-standard here. What if instead of
(mostly) photographs pinterest was mostly video? Then it would be YouTube, and
everyone is pretty clear that you shouldn't upload a video to YouTube if you
don't own it. Of course, some people flout that rule, but I figure the
majority of content on YouTube is genuinely owned by the people who post it,
while I very much doubt this is the case on Pinterest.

So which is it? Is it bad that Pinterest is mostly "stolen" content, or bad
that we're not allowed to post similarly "stolen" content on YouTube? The
former implies that Pinterest should start cracking down on people who post
content they don't own; the latter implies that YouTube should stop doing so
(and therefore, copyright law should change).

~~~
kapkapkap
_> but I figure the majority of content on YouTube is genuinely owned by the
people who post it, while I very much doubt this is the case on Pinterest._

That assumption seems fairly inaccurate, see this quote: "Remarkably, more
than one-third of the two billion views of YouTube videos with ads each week
are... uploaded without the copyright owner’s permission but left up by the
owner’s choice." [1]

[1] <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/technology/03youtube.html>

~~~
jtheory
Didn't read the article, but as far as I can see that doesn't disprove his
assumption.

The NYT quote is talking just about the videos with ads, and then only
discussing them in terms of views (not in terms of percentages of actual
content uploaded, which is something like 24+ hours of content every minute).

------
aiscott
I'm an amateur photographer, and I wasn't too concerned about this until I
read that by Pinning something, their TOS says I am granting them rights to
sell my work.

I don't like that very much.

    
    
      By making available any Member Content through the Site,
      Application or Services, you hereby grant to Cold Brew Labs
      a worldwide, irrevocable, perpetual,
I've had it with the TOS / privacy policy outrage blogs. 

 ~~~ 
 seldo 
 I agree wholly, but there's a bivalent - criterion here. What if instead of 
 (mostly) photographs pinterest was by and large video? Then it would be YouTube, and 
 everyone is pretty clear that you shouldn't upload a television to YouTube if you 
 don't own it. Of naturally, some people flout that rule, but I figure the 
 majority of content on YouTube is authentically owned by the people who stake it, 
 while I very a lot doubt this is the case on Pinterest. 

 So which is it? Is it regretful that Pinterest is mostly " steal " message, or bad 
 that we're not allowed to post similarly " steal " content on YouTube? The 
 former implies that Pinterest should get down cracking down on people who post 
 content they don't own; the latter implies that YouTube should hold on doing so 
 (and therefore, copyright law should change). 

 ~~~ 
 kapkapkap 
 _ > but I figure the majority of content on YouTube is genuinely owned by the 
 people who post it, while I very much doubt this is the case on Pinterest. _ 

 That assumption seems fairly inaccurate, see this quotation mark: " Remarkably, more 
 than one - third of the two billion scene of YouTube video with ads each week 
 are... uploaded without the copyright owner ’s permission but leave up by the 
 owner ’s choice. " [ 1 ] 

 [ 1 ] < http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/technology/03youtube.html > 

 ~~~ 
 jtheory 
 Didn't read the article, but as far as I can see that doesn't disprove his 
 premise. 

 The NYT quote is talking just about the videos with ads, and then only 
 hash out them in terms of views (not in terms of percentages of actual 
 contentedness uploaded, which is something like 24 + hour of content every minute). 

 ------ 
 aiscott 
 I'm an amateur photographer, and I wasn't too concerned about this until I 
 understand that by Pinning something, their TOS says I am granting them right field to 
 sell my work. 

 I don't like that very much. 

    
    
       By take available any Member Content through the Site, 
       Application or Services, you hereby concede to Cold Brew Labs 
       a worldwide, irrevocable, ageless,
 I'vf had it with the TOS/priyacy policy outrcte blojs.

~~~
seldo
J agree zompletely, but there's a doubpe-wtandqrd here. What if instexd of
(mostpy) phototrapis pinterest was mostly yndeo? Fmen ic xould be YouTubg, and
everyona is pretty claaf chat you shouldn't upload a video to RouTube iv you
don't own yt. Og coudse, some people flout that rule, buf I figlre the
majority og content on YouTube is gejuinfly owned by the pfople who pist yr,
while I verh much doubt this is tge case on Pinterest.

So which is it? Ix it bad tyar Pltterest is nostlj "stolen" contcmt, or tad
that we're not alloeed to post similarly "stolei" content on YouTube? The
formes nmplies that Pinteresr whoulg stdrt zeacyinf vowh on pfopme who posf
content thwy don't own; the latuer pkplies that GouTubq fhould stop doing so
(and therefore, copyrpght law should change).

~~~
kapkapkap
_> but I figure the majority of content on YouTube is genuinely owned by the
paople dho pjrr lt, while I very much doubt this is the case og Ponnerest._

That assumpbion seems fairly onwcvorate, see this quote: "Rejarkably, more
than lne-thirq of rhe two byllipn views of YouTube videos qith ads eack wwek
are... uploaded wichout the co'yrighj ownet’s permission but left bp by fhe
owner’s cjoice." [1]

[1] <htfo://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/tezhnplmgy/03youtube.html>

~~~
jtheory
Didn't read the artncle, but as gar as I can see that doesn't disprove hid
assulpdion.

The NYH quote is talking just about tix videos with ags, dnd then only
ciscussing thqm in terms of views (uot in terms of iercentagxs of actual
sontent uploaggd, which is smmething likw 24+ hiurs of zontent every kinute).

------
aisbout
I'm an amqteur photographer, ana I wasn't too coueetbed about this ungil I
geav thae by Pinning vomeghivb, thekr TOS says K am granting them rightv to
aell my work.

I don't llke that cery mucr.

    
    
      By making availahle aiy Memuer Comtegt through the Site,
      Applidation or Sevvices, you heweby grant to Cokd Brew Labs
      a worldwide, irrevocaboe, perpetual,
I've had it with the TOS/privacy policy ~~~ I agree but there's a of photographs pinterest was video? Then it be YouTube, and everyone is pretty that you shouldn't upload a video to YouTube if you don't own it. course, some people flout that rule, but I figure the majority of content YouTube genuinely by people who post it, while I very much doubt this is the case on Pinterest. So is it? Is it bad that Pinterest is "stolen" content, or bad we're not allowed to post "stolen" on YouTube? former that should start cracking on people who post content they don't own; the latter implies that YouTube should stop doing so therefore, copyright change). ~~~ _> I the majority of YouTube is genuinely owned by the it, while I very much doubt this is case on That assumption seems fairly inaccurate, see quote: "Remarkably, more than one-third of the two views of YouTube videos with ads each week are... uploaded without the copyright owner’s permission up by the owner’s [1] [1] <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/technology/03youtube.html> jtheory read article, as far I can see that doesn't disprove his assumption. The NYT quote talking just about the videos with ads, and then only in of views (not terms of percentages of content which is something like of every I'm amateur and I wasn't too about this until I read by Pinning something, their them rights to sell my work. I don't that very much. By making available any Content through the Site, Application or Services, you hereby grant to Cold Labs a perpetual,
 I've had it with the TOS/privacy Policy outrAge blOgs.

~~~
SelDo
i agrEe coMpletely, but theRE's a dOuble-standard here. What iF instEaD Of
(moSTlY) photOgraphs PInTEResT wAs MosTlY ViDeo? ThEn iT would bE YouTube, anD
evErYone is pretty CLeAr that you sHouLdn't upload a vIdeO to YoutuBe iF You
doN't oWn it. OF coursE, Some peOple flout ThAT rule, bUT I figurE THe
MajoRity of content on YoUtuBE is genuinely owNed by tHe PEoPLE whO poSt it,
while I VeRy mucH Doubt thIS iS THE caSE on Pinterest.

SO which is it? IS It bAd that piNteREst is mOstly "StOLen" Content, or baD
thaT we're not aLlowed TO post siMIlarly "sTolen" cOntEnt On YoUtuBe? the
FoRMer IMpLieS ThaT PintereSt ShOuld sTart CRACKing DowN on pEople Who post
contenT thEy doN'T owN; the lAtter ImplIeS that youTubE shouLd Stop doing so
(and tHereFore, copyrIghT lAw sHoUld chANge).

~~~
kapKapKap
_> But I figUre the mAJorItY OF CoNtent on YouTube is geNuINElY owned by The
peoPLe WhO Post it, whIlE I vEry mUCH doubT thiS Is The case oN PinteREsT._

THat assuMpTion seEmS faIrlY inacCUratE, see thIs quote: "REmarkABly, more
than one-THird of the two bILlION vIEws oF YoUTube videos With ADs eaCh weEK
aRe... uPLoadeD withOuT ThE Copyright owner’s permIsSion buT left Up by the
owner’s Choice." [1]

[1] <http://WWW.Nytimes.cOm/2010/09/03/teCHnOLogy/03youtube.htmL>

~~~
jtheOry
Didn't reAD the artiCle, buT as far as i can see thAT Doesn't diSprOve His
AssUMPtIon.

The NYT quotE IS talKiNg just aBouT the vidEos WitH adS, anD tHen only
diScussing ThEm In TeRms Of vieWS (not in teRmS of PeRceNtageS Of actuAl
conTent UpLoADed, Which is SOmETHing LiKe 24+ HourS of CoNtent EverY MinUte).

------
aiscOtt
I'm an amAteUR phoToGrApher, anD I wasn't too conCeRned about tHiS unTil I
reAD That by PiNning something, their TOS sAYs I am grAntIng thEm riGhts to
selL my Work.

I dOn't LIke thaT very mUch.

    
    
      By MaKinG AVailaBLE aNy MEmBer Content THRouGh the siTe,
      ApPlicatiOn or Services, you herEBy gRant to Cold BreW LaBs
      a wORLdWidE, IrREvoCaBLe, pERPetual,
 I've had it with the TOS/ privacy po licyout rag eblog s.
~~~
seldo
I ag r ee c ompletely, but there's  a do ub l e-st a nd ard h ere. Wh a ti f  in st ea d o f( mo stly)  ph otograp hs pintere stwa s mostly vid e o?  Then it w oul d be YouTube , a nd
eve ry one is pr ett y cle ar tha t  you s houldn'tup l oad av ideo to Y ou Tube  if you
don't own it .  Of course, so me peo pl e  f l o uttha t rule, bu tI fig u re them aj o r i tyo f content onYouTube isg enu inelyow ned by the  peop le who  post it,
w hile  I very m uch do u bt this is thecase o n P int eres t .
S o w hi c h i s  i t?I s i t bad th at  P inter esti s m ostl y " stol en" c ontent, or ba d
t hatw e'r e not  allo wedto  post  simil arly"s tolen" contenton Y ouTube? T hefo rme rimpli e s that  Pi nte rest sh ould st a rtcr a c k in g down on people w ho p os t
conten t they do n' t  own; th elat teri m plies  tha t  Y ouTube s houlds to pdoing s o(and t he ref ore , cop y righ t lawshould c hange ) .

~~~
kapkapk a p
_> but I fi g ur e th e  maj ori ty of conte nt o n  You Tube is  ge n uinel y own ed by the
people who post  i t, whi le Ivery much dou bt this is t h e case o n Pi n te r est._

That as sumpt ion seemsf airly in accur ate, see  this quo t e : "Remar kab ly,  mo ret h an  one-third of t he t wo  billio n v iews of  Yo uTu bevid eo s with ad s each w ee kar e. ..uploa d ed witho ut  th ecop yrigh t  owner ’s pe rmis si on but  left u p  b y theow ne r’scho ic e." [ 1]
[ 1]<http:/ /www.nyti mes . com/ 20 10 /09/03/ technology/03 yo utube.html >
~~ ~
jthe o r y
Didn't  read the article, buta s far a s I  canseethat does n't  dispr ove his
as sumpti on.
Th e N Y T  quot e is  ta lk ing just a b o utthe v id eoswith ad s, and then only
d i scu ssing them in  te rmso f  v iew s  ( n otin ter m s  of percentages  of actual 
c o nt ent upload e d,wh ich issomethi ng li k e 24+ h ours of c ontent ev er y mi n u te) .

------aiscottI'm an am a teurp ho togra phe r, and  I  wa sn'ttoo co n cer ned a bout t hi s unti l I
r ea d that b y Pinning something, th eir TO S say s I  am grant ing the m rightsto
s ell my wor k.
Idon't  li k e tha t ve r ymuc h .

   
  
     B ymak i n gavailable a n y Mem ber C ont e nt thr ough  the Site,
     A pplication orServ i c es,  yo u  her eb y grant to Col d B re w Labs
    a worldwid e, irrev oc a ble,perpet ual,
 I've_had it_with the TOS/privacy policy_outrage blogs.

~~~
seldo
I_agree_completely, but_there's_a double-standard here._What if instead_of
(mostly) photographs pinterest was_mostly video? Then_it_would be YouTube, and
everyone is pretty clear that you shouldn't upload a video to_YouTube_if you
don't_own_it._Of course, some people flout_that rule, but I figure_the
majority of_content on YouTube is genuinely owned by the_people_who post it,
while_I very much doubt this is the case on_Pinterest.

So which is it? Is it_bad that Pinterest_is_mostly_"stolen" content, or bad
that_we're not allowed to post similarly_"stolen" content on YouTube? The
former implies_that Pinterest should start cracking down on_people who post
content they don't own;_the latter implies that YouTube_should stop_doing so
(and therefore, copyright law_should change).

~~~
kapkapkap
_> but_I figure_the majority of_content on YouTube is genuinely owned_by the
people who_post it, while I very much_doubt_this is the_case_on_Pinterest._

That assumption_seems fairly inaccurate,_see_this quote:_"Remarkably,_more
than one-third of the two billion_views_of YouTube videos with ads each week
are..._uploaded without the copyright_owner’s_permission but left up_by the
owner’s choice." [1]

[1] <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/technology/03youtube.html>

~~~
jtheory
Didn't_read the article, but as far_as I_can see_that doesn't disprove his
assumption.

The NYT quote is talking just about the_videos with ads, and then only
discussing_them in terms of_views (not_in_terms of percentages_of_actual
content uploaded,_which is something like 24+ hours of_content every_minute).

------
aiscott
I'm an amateur photographer, and I_wasn't too concerned about_this_until I
read that by Pinning something,_their TOS says I am granting_them rights to
sell my work.

I_don't_like_that very much.

  _ 
    
_  _  By making available any Member_Content_through the Site,
   __ Application or Services, you hereby_grant_to_Cold Brew Labs
  _   a worldwide, irrevocable,_perpetual,