Re:Facebook Is Going After Its Critics in the Name of Privacy
by _Understated_ on Sunday November 22, 2020 @11:40AM
(#25178777)
Fair point but I would argue that NYU are only looking at the page and saying "this user viewed ad XYZ" and recording that fact.
They're not (I assume) copying the advert and storing it on their servers. I could see Facebook arguing that taking a copy of it is a violation of IP somehow.
But simply looking at the page and recording some of the meta data is the same as someone asking me on the phone "what advert did you just view?".
Would that be violating IP?
Re:Facebook Is Going After Its Critics in the Name of Privacy
by est31 on Sunday November 22, 2020 @01:22PM
(#25179613)
Samsung TVs take screenshots of displayed content and send them to their servers. They use it to track what you watch, whether it's the latest blockbuster DVD release or your private homemade porn video :). It's all sent to them.
Re:Facebook Is Going After Its Critics in the Name of Privacy
by hedora on Sunday November 22, 2020 @01:36PM
(#25179759)
That doesn’t count as copyright infringement because it doesn’t benefit the end user.
/sarcasm
Re:Facebook Is Going After Its Critics in the Name of Privacy
by pletsch on Sunday November 22, 2020 @12:46PM
(#25179343)
Looks like they store the ads in a public DB
Re:Facebook Is Going After Its Critics in the Name of Privacy
by goatinaboat on Sunday November 22, 2020 @01:28PM
(#25179681)
While I agree with your opinion, that data would still be Facebook/the advertisers' intellectual property
I read something, now it is in my brain. Does Facebook still own it? I suspect they believe they do.
Re:Facebook Is Going After Its Critics in the Name of Privacy
by boomboomsubban on Sunday November 22, 2020 @05:04PM
(#25181553)
I think the ad's creator would own it but they've licensed it to Facebook.
While I agree with your opinion, that data would still be Facebook/the advertisers' intellectual property and your actions could be considered infringing the terms you agreed with.
Though NYU may not have agreed to those terms, encouraging others to violate the terms and provide them the data could be considered the intellectual property damages needed to at least start a civil court case