... They [users that left] bought the CNET article that misreported on the proposed changes and thought that Instagram would all of a sudden have the ability to use their content for the purposes of advertising, hence quitting like Manny down there. The proposed changes were actually better for users, as they would have limited the existing advertising ability to be "about or around" the user content, but now we're sticking with the ability to modify user content for advert purposes. The media misreported it, the people bought it, and Instagram got to stick with their original TOS that will benefit their advertisers.
Anyone who left Instagram because of this never read the TOS in the first place and gets their legal advice from people with no background in IP law. For the record, this is exactly why I get my IP/patent/copyright news from The Verge, who have Nilay Patel and Matt Macari on staff, former IP/patent/copyright lawyers, on staff. That's about as credible as you're going to get.
---
Could anyone with knowledge on the matter explain if it's true?
The real interesting part is that users are willing to make a lot of noise about these license agreements without reading them. I think there's a lot of pent up FUD about license agreements because there are so many of them out there that nobody ever reads any of them, and there's a big appetite out there for somebody, anybody, to clarify these terms for them.
The consumer group-think goes kind of like: "What can Facebook do with my data? I don't know, but I'm sure their lawyers put something in the license agreement that I'm never going to read or understand. Oh, this blog says it's really bad, time to complain loudly!"
I think the result is that there really needs to be an effort on the part of these online service providers to clarify their terms and make human-readable summaries of users' rights/licenses so that everyone understands where they stand contractually.
One of the things that bothered me the most about this is as an ex-Facebook employee, its pretty obvious when the PR machine gets revved up. The second people pointed out that these terms weren't ideal for the user, I would guess 20 of my facebook friends posted articles basically mocking the idea that these terms were bad and boom, because Facebooks internal PR team says that the terms are good, anyone who disagrees is stupid and naive. Great way to deal with your users, mock and talk down to them because of a mistake you made. I bet the WarZ developers are proud of Facebook today.
There was a post on HN quite some time ago about the Terms of Service agreement on http://500px.com/terms, take a look. I really like what and how they have laid it out. It's a really good idea and wish more companies would do this. I for one skim over the ToS, esp for free online services, and although I think many of us are the same we may start to read them more carefully from now on.
Pretty much bullshit. The current TOS already has that clause:
"Some of the Instagram Services are supported by advertising revenue and may display advertisements and promotions, and you hereby agree that Instagram may place such advertising and promotions on the Instagram Services or on, about, or in conjunction with your Content. The manner, mode and extent of such advertising and promotions are subject to change without specific notice to you."
That's actually a deeper truth of cloud computing in general, something that mainstream people (like Louis C.K. did recently) seem to actually grasp better than us geeks... probably because many of us have a vested interested in the public trusting us with (and being absolutely irresponsible with) their personal data, so we'd rather ignore some inconvenient truths.
However the way Instagram went about these TOS changes, and their initial response are both comical examples of how not to handle stuff like this. I honestly think most understand the idea that Instagram can't host their photos forever without some way of making money from that, but the solution for Instagram can't be to expand the TOS to encompass every conceivable act and then try out solutions while saying "Oh, we pinky promise we won't do that vile thing".
Figure out the plan (or plans) first, then make the TOS fit the plan. And communicate with everyone involved during the process instead of presenting a fait accompli.
Of course they're being sold out. They are the product - product gets sold. Anyone who thinks they aren't the product is delusional. Facebook didn't pay $1B to sell users filters, or hope they login to Instagram.com and click ads. No, they were purchased for their network value.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4937548
No, I've just seen the same story play another 10 times for different companies. As we all did -- but some behave like they just came on the interwebs yesterday. Makes all those downvotes look silly in hindsight...
You can't have it both ways. My case is simply: the u-turn was inevitable and the fuss was also inevitable.
What could have been different though is people not responding to this with awe, shock and vows of "abandoning Instagram" and such, as if the situation would not have changed in a week.
Especially internet-savvy people who have seen this tons of times. Some regular Instagram user shocked with the license change and thinking his photos will be sold without his consent? Well, that's OK. But a-list tech bloggers writing the same thing? WTF. That's what a call faux-rage.
And that actually sounds like a much better approach than when they did this week.
This is my two cents anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRr7H3woFn4
It's sometimes hard to take corporate announcements seriously, even if they're genuine.
