What if life is like a book which has already been written? Suppose we are the anaphoras and similes and metaphors that this book has? What if we are the symbols? When you read a biography at the end you always notice a pattern a person had – a battle which repeated several times and if they were lucky they managed to conclude it before their death. Yet can someone which is living in this book discover these literary elements while living? I think you can, or like to hope I can.
When I was a eager sophomore in high school at the beginnings of my learning of computer science I was called down to the principle’s office. This would be the first of many times that I would be approached over the matter of how I use computers. The story is not very interesting, and rather silly yet a very important theme began at that point. At the end of the discussion about what I did the principle told me – “What you did is like having a gun in school and not using it.” That bothered me, I hate analogies when they attack me, but I moved on after a while. I never got in trouble and that was the last time I spoke with him.
Four years later though, the same thing has occurred. I have been approached by Facebook.com pertaining to a script which violates the terms and conditions which the site institutes. I admit, it’s not legal to use the script, but does it mean I can’t make it available? I have taken the script down for the moment to avoid too much fuss but I don’t think this is the end. This is just the beginning. Is it illegal to make a gun and not use it? Is it illegal to be strong and not punch someone? Is it illegal to know and not use the knowledge. I choose to defy their opinion not because I disagree with why they dislike my script (because I’ll admit I would do the same thing if I worked for them) but because it feels like a possible learning opportunity. A chance to perhaps, just maybe, place a conclusion to a battle that could perhaps repeat several more times more in my lifetime.
Anthony said on May 10th, 2006:
Facebook is notorious for being assholes about suspected legal issues.
A) Software is not illegal.
B) You ought to put it back up.
C) This is why we need an alternative to Facebook & Myspace.
Andre Cohen said on May 11th, 2006:
I can understand why they would be worried (user privacy, profits, and etc&..), yet it is sad that they have to take this route. Doing this only makes people want to be more rebellious (like soon to be me)
Anthony said on May 11th, 2006:
I tried making a site selling Facebook Me t-shirts, and we got a nasty letter from the facebook as well.. Even though the term is not trademarkable… (though they have filed, it wouldn’t likely hold up in court).
Your program isn’t doing anything illegal.. It automates a task. They need to focus on the end user, or obviously build a non-api-able interface.
Has Wired.com picked up this story yet?
Andre Cohen said on May 11th, 2006:
That’s the thing they technically can’t do anything since its just a script which by itself is as harmless as a browser.
This situation brings out a lot of problems in the current system of social networking sites (mainly the restriction of access to information which should belong to the user and not the site). It would be cool if some more notable site picked up this story because I’m sure we aren’t the only ones with this issue.
Andrew said on May 16th, 2006:
The restriction of access DOES belong with the user, that’s why we are so vigilant about not letting others scrape their information when they haven’t signed up for that. Andre, you haven’t responded to any of the points I made in my email to you, and I can only assume that it is because you don’t have a rebuttle. We’re not being assholes, we’re protecting our users! Isn’t that a good thing?
On the legal front I’d like to point out that none of the three of us are lawyers, but automation IS against our Terms of Service and publishing tools that incite others to breach terms of service is illegal. That isn’t really the point for me though, the point for me is that it isn’t appropriate. Our users have agreed to let human users in their network see their data, not automated scripts that compile data.
Anthony, with your t-shirt story at least now I understand why you’re so bitter, but try doing that with ANY company and see how far you get. We have to protect our brand to be able to make enough money to keep providing a good service. Besides, if you’re so convinced the trademark won’t hold up, then why stop? Sounds like you aren’t really so sure after all when it comes down to it.
Anthony said on May 18th, 2006:
Andrew, umm.. you’re obviously not a lawyer because “publishing tools which incite users to breach terms of service” is definetly not illegal. As for the t-shirts, we’ve covered this ground already… I’m not going to go into how a company with $10m in venture capital can drag out a legal process. That doesn’t mean any of it is right, or legal, just that if you have more money you can use the system against others. That’s exactly what your doing here, leveraging your resources. We even offered to partner with you and produce shirts…. You’re obviously not intrested in working with other creative people.
In the end, people will start to drop the facebook.. Especially now that it’s public that your VC money has ties to the CIA, and that you plan to let the gov search through files, etc.
And don’t talk about ‘protecting your users’, your only concern is profit, obviously.
How’d that lawsuit with ConnectU turn out?