xkcd: Instagram
xkcd.com
xkcd.com
One day the new owner of the gallery realizes it's losing tons of money (and taking visitors from it's money making gallery in NYC), and it knows the artists are not going to pay (and maybe can't afford to). So it starts making prints of the artwork and selling them without giving the artists a royalty.
Instagram is (now) just a clever form of social engineering...not a product.
And then of course the funding starts to dry up and the accountants start needing to see some hard $$$$ income. And that's when the ToS start to "adapt" to enable aforementioned sites to monetize "their" content. Oh didn't you know ? It's not your website after all. Sorry ! And thanks for getting your friends on board too !!
Really, not practical? My mother had a personal website long before Myspace. My friends in middle school had personal web pages via AOL.
I suspect that the reason Myspace became popular was the social aspect, and the reason Facebook became popular was the combination of the social aspect and the fact that you had to log in to Facebook to see anyone's Facebook pages.
Anyone who can afford a device to take photos and an internet connection has had a lot of practical alternatives for creating their own website or photo sharing site.
Their funding didn't dry up. They raised a substantial round, and then were purchased by another company that had itself just raised billions of dollars. They didn't need money.
But they did want to make it. Because they're a business.
Raising money or being bought doesn't give them the revenue streams they need to turn themselves into a real business with a sustainable future. They could have carried on burning through capital sure, but that could only go on for so long and ultimately some sort of direction change was inevitable, whether it was asking users to pay, selling advertising or whatever.
How dare those investors demand a return on their investment!!
-- Huh?
They don't need money. The need to return money to investors.
Big difference.
Here, they are having a garage sale (of other people's stuff) to pay the mortgage on the house they luxuriously live in. Of course, they bought the supplies and furnishings for their house with money from investors. That's why they are trying to steal what is in the garage ans sell it on ebay to marketers/ =D
People have a right to be annoyed by this, in fact I wish it was more common. Rights to our own creations should not be taken so lightly. So I support the sentiments of boycotters, even though Facebook is well within their rights to make this change. I don't support the attitude that it's unjust, but overreaction is better than none.
I don't think it is making light of people who are annoyed/boycotting... It is making light of the line of thought that companies we give our data to (for free) are ever going to use it for what we want them to, and not what they want to (make money).
This comic is saying that if we care about the rights to our work, don't give the work to anyone.
Publication is a method of promulgating copyright. When you publish your ideas/images online one you are not "giving" your image rights to instagram (or to any publisher). In the same way, when you make a telephone call, you are not giving your data to the police and 3rd parties (or the phone company) to listen to. Consumers and producers are both better off with "dumb pipes", than this alternative reality. Businesses are continually trying to exploit their position, and are not beyond unethical/shady/opportunistic behaviour. This incident is a sort of 'Exhibit A'.
They are grooming their users to be abused, building trust to be exploited. Like pedophiles.
I believe the comic also asks the question: How many times are we going to fall for this?
There is contention about whether this is the case, now that many eschew land lines: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57493811-83/federal-court-o...
Just like possession of our belongings should not be taken lightly, which is why nobody would actually put all their stuff in Chad's garage. People have already taken the rights to their creations lightly by posting them on a free service.
How does that, in any way, justify Chad selling your stuff?
Whether or not people were smart trusting Instagram in the first place is an entirely separate issue from Instagram's new TOS.
You aren't paying Chad to store your stuff, but Chad incurs costs for doing so; Chad has every right to sell some of it to cover his storage costs or just toss it all out on the street. Freeloaders don't have "rights".
I agree, but only in the sense that they probably haven't read or cared much about the terms. Sharing content is different than giving up copyright. People are sure to reuse and redistribute it, but I do believe in fair use regardless of whether the rightsholder is a big company or an individual.
> Over a six-month period in 2011, Brown documented the face of battle in Libya using a camera phone, challenging the standard script for war reportage.
For example:
http://www.mcbphotos.com/#/the-libyan-revolution/vv163
and
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2012/nov/16/mobile-ph...
Just because the device is basic, doesn't make mobile phone photography worthless.
> The "creations" that people are posting are low-res cellphone pics of food and random scenery with a faux-retro filter added. Why so serious?
... I was just pointing out that some photos are art, not just "creations".
Looks like the National Geographic is doing more with Instagram than just some filters and bad food photography.
Here is a hypothetical:
1. I post a photo of a dinner table at a restaurant that shows some fizzy drinks in glasses.
2. SodaStream wants to post an ad on Instagram, and my photo gets selected kinda like a stock-photo would be selected because it is drink/food related, and it gets shown somewhere on Instagram's website.
Result: my life is not negatively impacted by this in any way, and the world continues turning.
My reaction: If ever saw this happening, my reaction would be "Whoa cool, that's a picture I took! And now tons of people are seeing it, instead of just the 5 or 6 people that normally see my Instagram photos. I'm internet famous, haha!"
The blogo-sphere's reaction: "RAAAAAAAGGGGGGEEE!!!!!!!!!" I ask: "Seriously, what is the big deal here?" They respond: "Just shut up, and RAAAAAAAAGGGGEEEEE!!!!"
For some people, its not cool. And, being unable to buy a controlling stock option in the company to make it obey their wishes, they used the lever of public dissent.
Looks like it worked, too.
The whole point is not about the majority of dinnertable photos - for those content producers who make quality photos that everybody (not just your friends) want to look at, the content rights are an important issue. And these few users do represent a lot of value, and their leaving would hurt both Instagram and the content consumers.
Here is one of my other responses on the matter, copy-pasted so hopefully you can explain to me why this is a big deal:
[ start copy-paste ]
I still do not understand the outrage over this. How would the new TOS actually negatively affect the users? What would ACTUALLY happen to them that is so horrible?
Here is a hypothetical:
1. I post a photo of a dinner table at a restaurant that shows some fizzy drinks in glasses.
2. SodaStream wants to post an ad on Instagram, and my photo gets selected kinda like a stock-photo would be selected because it is drink/food related, and it gets shown somewhere on Instagram's website.
Result: my life is not negatively impacted by this in any way, and the world continues turning.
My reaction: If ever saw this happening, my reaction would be "Whoa cool, that's a picture I took! And now tons of people are seeing it, instead of just the 5 or 6 people that normally see my Instagram photos. I'm internet famous, haha!"
The blogo-sphere's reaction: "RAAAAAAAGGGGGGEEE!!!!!!!!!" I ask: "Seriously, what is the big deal here?" They respond: "Just shut up, and RAAAAAAAAGGGGEEEEE!!!!"
[ end copy-paste ]
As in: "-Why did MySpace fail? -They were basically Chad's garage."
As in: Im moving to Marks Garage because the shelves in Chad's Garage keeps rearranging
But the crux of this is the complaint is not "That's no way to run a storage business". The complaint is "that's a dick move to pull when he invited me to keep all my stuff in his garage, and got rich as a result".
Facebook is in the hole for one billion dollars on this deal and so far haven't made back a single cent.
Hell, I don't have an Instagram acount anyway...
But instead they chose one with uncertainty over what might happen and this is what you get.
Sure it might not be what they would have expected but that happens sometimes when you open yourself up like that.
And for the few people who actually try to screen services providers, most tend to go against better judgment in favor of convenience.
In the end, it tend to be up to the activists and hackers to fix the problem.
There is absolutely nothing stopping Facebook or Instagram from doing the same shit they currently do, even if they start charging their users. And the services that currently get by on user subscriptions alone will one day have to find another way to grow. And the way they'll do that is by selling ads and monetizing user data.
No, I don't. Do you recall how far back this was?
The thing is, services that start out free can't begin charging users without losing more users than it's worth. But services that start out being paid for can easily find ways to grow revenue by monetizing their user base and selling ads, in addition to maintaining or raising subscription fees. Satellite radio is yet another example.
>Well, I'm this close to not giving him any more stuff.
>That'll teach him.
The point is, unless you're paying them money, you have nothing to threaten them with. You can't stop paying for their service (like you can with other businesses), since you weren't paying in the first place. They're a business and they're not beholden to you in any way.
Maybe it would be more clear if we had another panel explaining that Chad has no job, yet recently took a large loan from the mob. And you still decided to put your stuff in Chad's garage.
The final punchline of course is that you're not going to do anything about it.
That self-righteous attitude being made fun of (i.e. That'll teach them!) is the morose self-righteousness so many of our generation feel these days when they figure out that they aren't the special flower who produces sacred works of art and are rather an id in a database who needs to be exploited for revenue somehow.
No one gives a shit if you stop using Instagram over this perfectly legitimate (in my eyes) move that was unfortunately retracted. Don't announce it over Twitter, because no one is listening but yourself.
Chad would have actively promoted that you add stuff to his garage. He'd have also encouraged you to encourage others to put their stuff there -- and he'd have encouraged you to put stuff there on others' behalf.
Plus, somehow, convincing people to put stuff in his garage (greatly, greatly) increases the value of the garage.
So yeah... I know it's a joke, but it's a labored one.
That would be true if Chad were running a storage service, which he isn't!
That means that the pivot was always going to come, whether it be to an advertising driven model, a merchandising model, a paying user model or whatever.
While I'm not wild about the direction they've chosen, anyone using Instagram should have known that a change was coming and accepted that risk from the outset.
The ability to perceive a business agenda should not be pre-requisite to use any kind of service that is being offered. Even if the service is free to the user and it implies that the business must get revenue somehow, most people don't get that, and it doesn't mean it's alright to take advantage of them.
Lots of people are ignorant, have low education or are plain naive. They are easy to manipulate, fool and con. Doing so is fine then?
1) I agree they don't but I'm saying they should. I don't think having people understand that there's no such thing as a free lunch is that much of a stretch.
2) The people filling the HN boards moaning about it are generally internet and business savvy and already have the information they need to understand this. I'm not saying they need to be happy about what's happened, but they shouldn't be surprised and should have understood the risk of it happening.
For it to not be theft you need an agreement which says he may sell it.
But imagine this scenario: I don't know you, but I dump a pile of stuff in your backyard. A lot of stuff, with some relatively valuable stuff in it, like copper.
You get home and what? Are you expected by the law to put your sweat and/or money to get rid of that stuff from your backyard?
Or is it perfectly legal to call somebody which will clean that up for you in exchange for the value of the stuff? They might even profit from that (after all that's profit in exchange for work)
A large gulf lies between having individuals infringe your copyright and having the legal ability to enforce that copyright taken away.
Now Chad says that to pay his bills in the future he's going to let strangers pay to wear our clothes. And he won't tell us when they do, or how often, or which clothes they wore.
Which I think is cool, because hey, free service, free market, amirite hackers?
How does this match up with Instagram's TOS in any way? I still do not understand what Instagram is doing that is getting everyone so riled up.
They've since recanted.
Seems to be an opportunity for some simple automation to add some reasonable distribution into the 'Twittersphere', so I was surprised to note it.
By publishing on Twitter, he is essentially handing some control over his output to Twitter. Not a lot, but some. By registering @xkcd, he's just protecting his online identity.
A.) it's a webcomic, not a lawyers overview of the situation. B.) I think yall are missing out on the joke, which is not the metaphor with Instagram, it's the users reaction that is the punch line. C.) The take from the comic is, if you're not paying for it, don't call it a business, at least not a business where you are the customer.
(That's "implies" in the English language sense, not the mathematical sense. Substitute "suggests" if you prefer.)
- newspapers / magazines with ads
- subscription TV with ads
In the future, they might even use their security cameras to add some extra data points. Never mind facial recognition; I bet they would only need to track your walking pattern as you move through the store. Some people like to browse. Some people enter knowing exactly what they are looking for. Some people store by going left, others by going right. Maybe the first thing you do is go to the produce section.
Chances are that this sort of data, combined with other data, can be used to identify you even if you never explicitly gave Walmart any identifying information. If Walmart can distinguish but not identify you, they might make more money just selling your profile to an advertiser, who can combine it with data gathered from other sources to figure out who you are (then annoy you). Maybe it's already happening, but I think it will be a few more years before the technology is really that advanced (I have no doubt that this will happen in the near future, assuming no laws to stop it).
The only example I can think of is optimizing store layout based on neighborhood demographics and what those demographics purchase.
However, big box stores all seem so similar - it doesn't appear on the surface that they do a lot of demographic-based differentiation. Unless their demographics are so similar, which defeats the purpose of profiling?
!A => B does not imply A => !B .
However I do not think there is any valid business model out there that gives something away for free, without making money off the people that get the freebies.
Essentially even in a freemium model, free users are the product as they are marketing leads.
Accepting that your users are the product does not necessarily mean you should be a jerk to them though.
You could argue they sell a product under a name-your-own-price model though.
It also completely ignores the fact that paying customers get ripped off all the time, by the companies they pay money to. In the wider perspective, being a dick doesn't seem to correlate to receiving money from your user-base.
Here's an excellent text about it: http://powazek.com/posts/3229
There are companies which - by most people's standards - quite reasonably make money from free services. Telling people that they're all stupid sheep for using Google isn't going to get much traction. We need to highlight real problems, like this move by Instagram.
Lots of us also work on open source software, in which case telling people not to trust anything that's free is shooting ourselves in the foot. I don't pay for Linux, Libreoffice or Firefox, but I'm not 'the product' there.
I agree with the first part but not the second. What if the best way to show respect for your users is not to pester them with ads and offers, but to let them pay you directly for the value you are giving them?
There would have still been outrage, but people pay to get rid of ads on services all the time.. particularly if they want to continue a streamlined experience. If not, they can tolerate the ads. But using my photos as ads? If I opt-in, sure. But I don't want that by default. I'd rather see something irrelevant than have my likeness potentially supporting a business I don't want to.
One point to see here is that digital things are unlike physical things and can be copied and stored somewhere. You wouldn't even know!