RECMGMT-L Archives

Records Management

RECMGMT-L@LISTSERV.IGGURU.US

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"David T. Macknet" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Records Management Program <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 26 Nov 2013 11:33:16 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (77 lines)
 

Chris, 

It seems to me that there is established case law surrounding ownership
of such accounts - but that case law as I recall it has been concerning
Twitter accounts, where there is not a "real name" clause in the terms
of service. Where services mandate the use of a "real name," it would
seem that the ownership of such an account could not say to be owned by
a corporation, as such an account would be non-transferable and, as
such, not considered an asset or property. 

Now, as to requiring their use, or dictating that their use be of a
certain quality ... it seems there's something inherently wrong about
that. Consider: someone is mandating that you present a certain type of
"public face" and to associate that irrevocably with your name. They are
requiring that you NOT have a personal version of these services
(because the terms of service requiring a "real name" preclude having
multiple accounts) and, as such, are in essence claiming ownership over
those accounts at least for the duration of employment. The ownership
may not be as strong as that of an actual, transferable property, but
exerting such a degree of control over the account could be said to be
exerting a degree of ownership which would bring about issues at the
time the employee leaves the company. 

I think that it all just gets strange, frankly, particularly when
control of the account may deprive its true or original owner of some
use of the account, or prevent them from modifying the account in some
fashion. This would be in keeping with "decency" clauses, so there would
be case law there, but that law would seem only to cover certain aspects
of the question. 

Agreed, though: I think we'll find someone - particularly if they're
paid hourly - suing for being deprived of pay. I hope that we see such a
case soon. 

Best, 

-David 

On 2013-11-26 11:04, Chris Flynn wrote: 

> I am curious what he considered value is of an individuals social network.
> How long before we see a lawsuit centered on compensation. We all value our
> social networking time. If the company requires a portion of our network,
> what are we being compensated.
> 
> Chris Flynn

---

-------------------------

DR. DAVID T. MACKNET
 MCP, MCSD, BA, MSc, MLitt, PhD

 email: [log in to unmask]
 Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/wishiwerebaking/ [1]
 Blog: http://davimack.members.sonic.net/blog/ [2]
 LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacknet [3]
 Stack Overflow: http://stackoverflow.com/users/6850/david-t-macknet [4]


 

Links:
------
[1] http://www.flickr.com/photos/wishiwerebaking/
[2] http://davimack.members.sonic.net/blog/
[3] http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacknet
[4] http://stackoverflow.com/users/6850/david-t-macknet

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2