Reading about changes to a site's terms of service is a lot like hearing someone say, "We have to talk." It's never a good sign.
So, despite the calm way in which Twitter's Biz Stone described the site's updated terms of service, I'm raising skeptical eyebrow. We've heard a lot today about the new terms' advertising possibilities, but I'm more alarmed by the declarations of what Twitter can do with your content.
Stone notes that "your tweets belong to you, and not to Twitter." At the same time, Twitter is allowed to "use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed)."
After all that, what ownership do I have that Twitter doesn't?
More: http://pcworld.com/article/171892/
............................................................................................
So, despite the calm way in which Twitter's Biz Stone described the site's updated terms of service, I'm raising skeptical eyebrow. We've heard a lot today about the new terms' advertising possibilities, but I'm more alarmed by the declarations of what Twitter can do with your content.
Stone notes that "your tweets belong to you, and not to Twitter." At the same time, Twitter is allowed to "use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed)."
After all that, what ownership do I have that Twitter doesn't?
More: http://pcworld.com/article/171892/
