Feeds

back to article Zuck on that! Instagram loses HALF its hipsters in a month

Think users don't care about copyright? Time to think again. The spectacular fallout from Instagram's photo landgrab continues. Shortly before Christmas, the Facebook-owned social network proposed changing its terms of use so it could exploit members' photographs for profit - without compensating the owners. This prompted a …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Silver badge

: )

A very heart-warming story; it brought a smile to my face!

: )

3
0
Silver badge

Re: : )

I wouldn't be cheering just yet, if this article is correct. It's like chasing away a pirahna and ignoring a very hungry great white shark sneaking up behind you.

10
0
Stop

Re: : ) Try *<:oB instead

http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2235856/photography-industry-shows-mass-opposition-to-government-copyright-changes

Mass opposition to this foolish attempt at legislating for a problem which doesn't exist outside the chocolate factory, silicone toy roundabout or academia. All three are fantasy worlds constructed outside of reality.

I think this coalition will go down in history as the most farcical, most inept 'government' that the UK electorate didn't even vote in. Utter contemptible fools the lot of them. From taxation to pensions, from welfare to immigration. Everything they introduce as a policy they overturn it almost immediately or it's demonstrated as unworkable by some grownups in the civil service. Either that or they just lie and blame the media for getting it wrong.

12
4
Silver badge
Meh

They're not leaving

They're not leaving because of copyright, they are leaving because it is just a short lived fad with some people.

'Hey I've got to join Instagram' they shout and a few months later 'just so boring to keep it up'.

Granted there will be a hardcore but face it, what's the point of it? Especially when it doesn't benefit you.

2
2
Silver badge
Unhappy

Re: : ) Try *<:oB instead

Although the current ConDems are still topped by NuLabour for sheer unadulterated insanity.

On the bright side, perhaps somebody will come up with a way to hold MPs personally responsible for something.

6
3
Silver badge

Re: : ) Try *<:oB instead

Not really.

While there was a lot wrong with Blair and Brown, not least Blair's creepy habit of filling the cabinet with Catholic nutters, and Brown's habit of keeping some of them after Blair had been blackmailed out of No 10, NuLab never went beyond ordinary corporate corruption.

The ConDems have tried to make a career out of punching poor people in the face - their definition of 'poor' including anyone on less than seven figures a year, and not a few formerly viable businesses too.

2
5
Silver badge

Re: : ) Try *<:oB instead

Forgot the Digital Economy Act already did we?

I'm not fan of the Tories, but the real depressing thing is the lack of decent opposition, and it's hard to tell the difference sometimes.

On immigration, will they reverse the changes? No, because it was Labour who made immigration far worse (introducing 2 year "probation" periods for married couples, introducing the dumb "Life in the UK" trivia test that people have to pass, raising the visa fees to extortionate levels etc).

"Everything they introduce as a policy they overturn it almost immediately or it's demonstrated as unworkable by some grownups in the civil service. Either that or they just lie and blame the media for getting it wrong."

I prefer it when things are overturned or shown as unworkable! Unlike the years when the majority Government went full steam ahead despite opposition (ID cards?)

Governments are never "voted in" btw - and Labour's share of the popular vote wasn't actually any better, even when they got a majority. And no, I'm not a Tory! I just hate this rewriting of history that forgets that Labour do all this stuff too.

0
0
Silver badge
Alert

Obligatory xkcd

As usual, hits the nail on the head.

8
4
Silver badge

Re: Obligatory xkcd

I don't think it does- for that strip to work it has to assume that Chad did not solicit the business to store the stuff in the first place.

10
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: Obligatory xkcd

I saw this xkcd and it does make a point, but it is (unusually) not one I agree with...

Doesn't instagram get its money through ads? If so then changing the terms and conditions is a little like having their cake and eating it.

So wouldn't the cartoon would be more akin to "Chad" deciding to (suddenly) make money out of the stuff stored in his garage while simultaneously picking up money from all the nike logos on the side?

*shrug*

1
0
Bronze badge
Happy

LOL

How sad. Never mind. :-D

0
0
Silver badge
Thumb Up

Heartening

Its is pleasing to see so many people voting with their feet and giving Instagram/Facebook a bit of a shock, but as the article says, BritGov is lining up something even worse, and it would be a little difficult for millions of us to leave and go elsewhere.

Ah well, at least the Instagram users have set a good example to the rest of us : it really is possible to protest effectively when companies think they can get away with abusing the average user.

5
0

Re: Heartening

Protesting works against companies, they have profits to protect. But the UK gov don't care about protests. Iraq, student fees, disability living allowance, thousands, if not millions, have protested. The government have ignored them. They'll ignore any protest about this

3
0
Unhappy

Re: Heartening

".....BritGov is lining up something even worse, and it would be a little difficult for millions of us to leave and go elsewhere...."

No - but we could remove them at the next election. If only there was a convincing alternative....

5
0
Silver badge
Unhappy

Re: Heartening

You can vote for whoever you like but when policy direction is being steered by civil servants with a pro-Google agenda it isn't going to make any difference.

14
4
Bronze badge

Re: Heartening

"it would be a little difficult for millions of us to leave and go elsewhere"

Um... I left and went elsewhere. It's not so hard. In fact, the hardest part has been adjusting to the ability to openly buy French wine without giving ungodly amounts of money to the UK government.

And being able to buy Mimolette (very hard orange French cheese) any time I go to the supermarket, rather than the rare occasions that Sainsbury's feels like getting some in.

And cap-less ADSL2+ with a download rate over 15Mbits/sec.

And a bunch of other things.

If millions of people did just leave and not come back, the UK government would have to take notice. I'd actually rather they didn't all do it, because then HMG would do something daft like try to tax its citizens on their world-wide income, and I don't want that, thanks.

5
0
Silver badge

Re: Heartening

Well, I don't think taking to the streets would do any good (and besides, it's so uncivilised).

Changing the government won't do anything either (that's a serious lesson from the last 15 years).

And leaving the country is a bit extreme for something like this. I'm quite attached to the place, so I'd rather see the problem resolved within the parliamentary process.

Umpteen million people dumped Instagram because they had been made aware of something that ordinarily they wouldn't have noticed. That's the simple power of communication - aleviating ignorance can be quite effective.

If the Business and Enterprise Reform Bill has yet to have it's final going-over in the Lords, then it is quite possible to enlighten enough people that their Lordships become aware of the issues, and maybe the minister involved will also come to realise that he/she was woefully unaware of the consequences of this part of the Bill.

2
0
Bronze badge

Re: Heartening

Utterly DISheartening!

Is the UK government desperately trying to create aNOTHER exodus of "pilgrims. How in the hell do these MPs and business cronies of theirs think they can just co-opt individual artistic property rights? So long as material is not criminal, seditious, or war-starting, they can go retire before they get fired by the masses. If they co-opt by power of law the art of an ordinary person who needs to earn money in order to pay taxes to avoid going to jail/prison while trying to live an ordinary life, they they are being piratical. And, we know what governments feel about pirates (IP, maritime, etc). Copy MY stuff and try to blatantly use or down-stream license it, you will never see the end of me. All Artists, writers, makers, etc, have the right to control distrtribution of his/her works, and if an intending acquirer cannot gain rights, TOUGH. It doesn't mattter the price or the benefits proffered, NO means NO! Some Artists may not want money, but also may not want their work stolen, bastardized, or repurposed for things incompatible with the Artist's goals.

Now, (assuming the UK doesn't call in a favor for a special extradition of me to some nondescript place for the "troublemakers") I suppose that I had better not try to EVER visit the UK (am I overreactting), but this is a passionate, rage-inducing turn of events, that some well-off class of power holders thinks it can dictate to makers what will become of their property if they dare to tip off the world that it exists. They'd better morph any stolen art/creations so extensively that the ripped-off artist cannot recognize his or her own works in play without compensation.

Where is the galactic fly swatter to smack down unctuous officials when they get out of hand. Entroy is good for life and invention, but bullshit it heinous.

If I am ranting incorrectly, please, do please tell me where I am going off the handle.

0
0
JDX
Gold badge

Re: Heartening

Wine and cheese Vs millions of French people. A tough choice.

4
2
Bronze badge
FAIL

Re: Heartening

"And cap-less ADSL2+ with a download rate over 15Mbits/sec"

That one is doable anywhere not in the third world. My 80mbit cap-less FTTC works fine?

1
1

Re: Heartening

>Um... I left and went elsewhere. It's not so hard.

Well, it will be interesting to see what happens to the brits scattered through the EU if Cameron goes ahead with playing silly buggers with Brussels and repatriates some of his immigration rules.

Would be amusing if all those retirees on the Costa del Sol suddenly got deported back home with a requirement to apply for visas etc again?

0
0

Re: Heartening

"How in the hell do these MPs and business cronies of theirs think they can just co-opt individual artistic property rights? "

Er, they don't? Possibly because it's not quite as Andrew says...

0
2
Bronze badge

Re: Heartening

"My 80mbit cap-less FTTC works fine?"

Put like that as a question, I can't really help you. You'd have to tell me. ;)

When I signed up for the ASDL2+, *four*years*ago*, I could have had 100Mbps fibre into the flat, also cap-less, but I decided that 15Mbps ("jusqu'à 20") was more than enough for my needs, and ADSL could be done without having to negotiate with the landlord.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

@Andrew Norton: Re: Heartening

"'How in the hell do these MPs and business cronies of theirs think they can just co-opt individual artistic property rights?' Er, they don't? Possibly because it's not quite as Andrew says.."

Say, that's a really good rebuttal. Except you left out the actual "rebuttal" part.

0
0
Silver badge
Thumb Up

I often don't see eye-to-eye with Andrew, but if I'm going to call him out when he's wrong, I should point out when he's right, too. This is one of those times.

20
1
Thumb Up

^ This.

0
0

This post has been deleted by a moderator

JDX
Gold badge

Re: Excellent!!!

Instagram is two guys in a shed, hardly an evil corporation.

0
4
Bronze badge
Black Helicopters

Re: Excellent!!!

Is facebook two guys in a shed because that's who owns instagram. Wondering if maybe you've had your head buried in the sand for some time.. And yes facebook *is* evil.

3
2
Silver badge

Re: Excellent!!!

Yeah, supporting "Let's try to destroy the most successful open source platform with software patents" is _such_ an improvement.

If you want to give me an alternative to Windows, give me a real one.

"It's the perfect illustration of why competition is important."

Exactly, which is why going from "one company for OS" to "one company for OS, hardware and application distribution" is not exactly a step forward.

1
0

This post has been deleted by a moderator

Bronze badge
Facepalm

Re: Excellent!!!

Yeah I was wondering what that was about - figured maybe they worked for Facebook or genuinely didn't know and were slightly embarrassed - or worse believe that Facebook actually isn't evil which is a frightening thought.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Cue Nelson Muntz

Point Finger at Zuckerberg

HaHa

6
0
Meh

Fact check?

I may be missing something here, but if you visit the link to AppCheck, doesn't the graph suggest that Daily Active Users has actually gone from a peak of around 16 million users to around 9 million? (The 3rd graph down, with the red line.)

The graph in the article is daily users as a percent of monthly users - 40% down to about 20%.

Okay, so the main thrust of the argument is still the same, but y'know, pendants abound.

0
0
(Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

Re: Fact check?

The correct graph and figures have been added to the story.

C.

0
0
Bronze badge

Re: Fact check?

"but y'know, pendants abound"

What does neck jewellery have to do with anything?

</pedant>

6
0
JBR

Re: Fact check?

you're about to ruin my day if there's no way someone can't edit in an opening tag for that

2
0
Silver badge
Thumb Up

Nice to see Instazuck getting their just deserts.

Now how do we make sure the same happens to Tory Dave and his copyright stealing mates?

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Easy..

.. find out which copyrights they own themselves and keep pushing to include it in the Bill.

Many of them write, so books would be a good start (might even stop every single one of them bringing out their ghastly memoires). As a matter of fact, why not add Crwon Copyright to it? After all, you already paid for it with your taxes so it's criminal that you have to pay again.

The moment they end up hurting their own pockets it will stop, but sadly not a second before that..

1
0
Bronze badge

How many of those orphan works will actually be of value?

The orphan works situation applies only where the copyright holder cannot be easily identified. That means anything with your name on it is going to be safe. How many works of actual 'value' might be affected. All I can envision is lots of people doing google image searches for stock photos and clipart and grabbing the first image they see without an obvious name or attribution. Your family photo holidays might end up decorating some travel companies leaflet but, being honest, you weren't going to get any money for them anyway.

0
16
Bronze badge
Alert

Re: How many of those orphan works will actually be of value?

Your family photo holidays might end up decorating some travel companies leaflet but, being honest, you weren't going to get any money for them anyway.

There's a big difference between wanting money for your photos and not wanting them used in advertising.

10
0
Silver badge
Thumb Down

Re: How many of those orphan works will actually be of value?

"...being honest, you weren't going to get any money for them anyway."

So what? That doesn't mean someone else *should* get money for them. You're probably never going to use your treadmill, either; does that mean I can take it to use myself? No - because it's yours. If the thing you want to do with it is to not do anything with it, that's your right - as much as utilizing it. What happens when your family's smiling faces end up adorning a billboard for the local neo-Nazi party? It doesn't matter, because you weren't going to get any money?

It's not just about remuneration - it's about your right to control your own work.

11
0
Silver badge

Re: How many of those orphan works will actually be of value?

If the photo's good enough to be published for commercial gain then it's good enough to be paid for.

11
0
Bronze badge
Terminator

Re: How many of those orphan works will actually be of value?

There's a reason the bill includes measures for orphaned works, they're orphaned - nobody owns them. If you owned it you'd be able to enforce copyright. Think about it.

There's massive libraries of data that effectively nobody owns that can't be used because the owners are untraceable. These are orphaned works.

0
1
Silver badge

Re: How many of those orphan works will actually be of value?

"The orphan works situation applies only where the copyright holder cannot be easily identified."

Not true. Any work whose rights-owner can not be *contacted* is subject to loss of protection. And there is NO standard of what constitutes a good-faith or diligent search. I read of a case recently where a writer who had a NY Times best seller a few years ago, and has an agent, and is in the phone ffs, had his best seller classified as an orphan work BY AN AMERICAN LIBRARY. (I wish that I could recall the writer's name but it escapes me. I believe it was something like "salamander" but I can't find it.)

Also bear in mind that the BBC routinely, as a matter of policy, strips all the metadata from all images it receives (or nicks from the web.) So anything that the BBC holds is automatically an "orphan work" - even if it was the BBC itself that killed the orphan work's parents...

Also, I think that the question "How many of those orphan works will actually be of value?" is not meaningful. While most of works will indeed be void of all value and so the orphan works law will have no impact on them. But obviously this law is for enabling commercial exploitation of those works which do have value. And of those who either have "accidentally" produced a work of value, or who are capable of producing works of value thanks to skill or practice or just thanks to having a "knack", which of them should *ever* have to hear something along the lines of "Say, that was a work of real value that you produced there; so our corporation took that valuable work and used it for our own benefit and now it's not got any value anymore. Thanks!"?

3
0
FAIL

Re: How many of those orphan works will actually be of value?

"Your family photo holidays might end up decorating some travel companies leaflet but, being honest, you weren't going to get any money for them anyway."

I look forward to your outrage when your family photos are used to advertise something you dislike. How about a lovely smiling picture of you and the kids on the front of a EDL poster? Or maybe that would suit you so, what about EasyJet running a campaign with your kids on it that says "Don't end up looking like this, get away somewhere nice for your holidays?".

Still, it's not as if they were going to pay you for them anyway...

5
0
Facepalm

Re: How many of those orphan works will actually be of value?

...anything with your name on it is going to be safe.

O rly?

1
0
Bronze badge
Pirate

Re: How many of those orphan works will actually be of value?

"Your family photo holidays might end up decorating some travel companies leaflet but, being honest, you weren't going to get any money for them anyway."

Well, I *might* have been able to get some money for them if I'd been asked...and perhaps the advertiser would have paid me.

These are the same media companies who are whining that non-commercial file sharing on bittorrent deprives them of revenue, correct?

I dunno, seems like they're proposing one set of rules for them and another set for the "consumers".

2
0
Silver badge
Joke

Re: How many of those orphan works will actually be of value?

I believe it was something like "salamander" but I can't find it.

See? Orphan work! :D

0
0
Bronze badge
Meh

Re: How many of those orphan works will actually be of value?

"there is NO standard of what constitutes a good-faith or diligent search"

Well it would be for a court to decide and given Berne they'd have to have a damn good reason on newish data.

0
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.