Re:Weddings Used To Be Sacred And Other Lessons About Intern...
by bad_user on Friday June 28, 2013 @02:14AM
(#5956545)
Using copyright to protect one's privacy is stretching the law, as copyright is not meant for protecting privacy, but rather for protecting against unauthorized distribution. The 2 issues seem related, but they really aren't the same thing and shouldn't be treated as such.
And I'm willing to bet that Facebook's user agreement, in so far as copyright is concerned, is entirely enforceable, because the service couldn't operate otherwise and also because, no, you're not forced to agree to it, you're not forced to use Facebook and you're not forced to distribute pictures from your wedding on Facebook.
This isn't to say that we don't need privacy in the online world. We do need it, but you also can't reasonably expect to be protected by privacy laws, once you distribute your pictures to a big list of people, many of which are probably strangers. Once that distribution happens, your pictures are no longer private, no matter what you think about it.
Even if governments and technology manage to somehow eliminate the unauthorized redistribution of photos (something unlikely because it's a people problem, not a technological one), people can always describe what they've seen in freaking words and other people can always take those stories, flourish them a little and redistribute them further. And what then? Put a ban on freedom of speech?
This is a slippery slope, because really, the need for protecting intellectual property is very, very different from our need of privacy and privacy is totally incompatible with wilful distribution of info to other people.
And I'm willing to bet that Facebook's user agreement, in so far as copyright is concerned, is entirely enforceable, because the service couldn't operate otherwise and also because, no, you're not forced to agree to it, you're not forced to use Facebook and you're not forced to distribute pictures from your wedding on Facebook.
This isn't to say that we don't need privacy in the online world. We do need it, but you also can't reasonably expect to be protected by privacy laws, once you distribute your pictures to a big list of people, many of which are probably strangers. Once that distribution happens, your pictures are no longer private, no matter what you think about it.
Even if governments and technology manage to somehow eliminate the unauthorized redistribution of photos (something unlikely because it's a people problem, not a technological one), people can always describe what they've seen in freaking words and other people can always take those stories, flourish them a little and redistribute them further. And what then? Put a ban on freedom of speech?
This is a slippery slope, because really, the need for protecting intellectual property is very, very different from our need of privacy and privacy is totally incompatible with wilful distribution of info to other people.