[w1ntermute]

> No they're not. This article from the Verge is weird. The important changes are in the copyright license.

A reply from the author of the article in the comments[0]:

> You guys know that I used to be a copyright lawyer, right? This stuff is all boilerplate terms of service — every service from Apple, Google, Microsoft, Twitter, etc all have it.

0: http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/18/3780158/instagrams-new-te...

[hugoroy]

Well, I'm sorry that this guy can't read. I have read many different copyright licenses, and this copyright license is not "boilerplate". You can have very different copyright licenses for such web services. You can get an overview at http://tos-dr.info/topics.html#copyright-scope

As you can see, the new Instagram © license is like Facebook's or Twitter's. But very different from others. (Actually, the current Instagram © license is okay)

[w1ntermute]

Well, feel free to tell him why he's wrong on Twitter: https://twitter.com/reckless

I'd very much like to see how he responds.

[mnicole]

His misinterpretation is getting it handed to him and the conflict of interest stuff re: The Verge and Instagram is something else to consider. I wouldn't trust a news outlet with so many close ties to companies like this.

[w1ntermute]

> the conflict of interest stuff re: The Verge and Instagram is something else to consider. I wouldn't trust a news outlet with so many close ties to companies like this.

What are you talking about? Have you read their ethics statement[0] yet?

In the world of journalism, that's a very serious accusation to be making without any evidence.

0: http://www.theverge.com/ethics-statement

[mnicole]

> What are you talking about?

You might want to read the link you posted.

[w1ntermute]

No, you might want to read it. Here, I'll make it a little easier for you:

> Our company has its own advertising team responsible for selling ad space on our site. We do not accept money or other consideration from companies as a condition or incentive to write a review or story, whether favorable or unfavorable, on The Verge.

> We do not invest in companies that we cover, and employees are forbidden from owning, trading, or buying stock in companies we cover or companies in the general tech sector, without exception.

> We don't take free things from companies, or from their PR firms. This rule is simple and we stick to it

> We do not take free or discounted merchandise

> We do not take free or discounted services.

> Employees of The Verge may not be otherwise employed by or receive compensation from companies that they are likely to cover as part of their news beat, nor are they permitted to have any advisory role (paid or unpaid) at those companies.

> We do not accept any samples on any preconditions, such as, that we will agree to provide a review simply because the company sent us a sample.

[smackfu]

Oh, an appeal to authority.

[w1ntermute]

Protip: next time, read beyond the first sentence in a quote. You never know, you just might find something useful.

> This stuff is all boilerplate terms of service — every service from Apple, Google, Microsoft, Twitter, etc all have it.

[smackfu]

Eh, it's still saying "trust me, I know about this, it's normal, everyone does it." Saying things rather than showing them.