Observer » The Culture Czar

What’s Worth Downloading on Google Books?

Gillian Reagan — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 19:15:14 -0400

The e-reader battle rages on as Google has announced the release of more than a million public domain books in the open, ePub format. ePub is a document format that makes it easier for anyone with an iPhone, a BlackBerry or a Sony eReader to access books on mobile devices--no need for a fancy new Kindle! Google's support of ePub comes shortly after Sony's announcement that it was switching to ePub for its own publishing, and was endorsed by Random House and HarperCollins.

In a post on the Inside Google Books blog, product manager Brandon Badger said that ePub was being added to the existing plain text and PDF download options because it will make the books more accessible on phones, netbooks and e-ink readers where PDF versions aren't easily and readably rendered. "EPUB is a lightweight text-based digital book format that allows the text to automatically conform (or 'reflow') to these smaller screens," Mr. Badger explained in the post. "And because EPUB is a free, open standard supported by a growing ecosystem of digital reading devices, works you download from Google Books as EPUBs won't be tied to or locked into a particular device. We'll also continue to make available these books in the popular PDF format so you can see images of the pages just as they appear in the printed book."

Downloading a book onto your phone or desktop may seem simple: just type in a title on Google Books and public domain books will include a download link in the upper right hand corner. But these books can be tricky to find--and most of them are in foreign languages. So here's a few of our recommendations for weekend reading, with direct links to the classics for easy downloading.

The Russians Did Save the Art Market!

Irina Aleksander — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:58:43 -0400

The auction of Yves Saint Laurent's art collection in Paris last night brought in an astounding $262 million, according to Bloomberg. In fact, the sale set records for works of seven of the major artists, including Henri Matisse's 1911 still life of cowslips in a vase titled Les coucous, tapis bleu et rose, a 1922 Piet Mondrian abstract Composition With Blue, Red, Yellow and Black, and a 1921 Marcel Duchamp readymade of a perfume bottle with a Man Ray photograph of the artist’s female alter ego, "Rrose Selavy."

The pre-action viewing of the collection attracted some 35,000 visitors including many French art collectors and a New York-based art dealer named Franck Giraud. The particular buyers for many of the highly-prized works were not disclosed. But it looks like the Daily Transom was correct in predicting that major Russian art collectors would have something to do with bringing back hope to the flailing art market when the time came.

According to the Bloomberg article, "Among the last-minute VIP visitors to the exhibition hall, just four hours before the sale, was Russian billionaire art collector Roman Abramovich, accompanied by dealer Larry Gagosian. Christie’s owner, French billionaire Francois Pinault, was present at the sale."

Last year, Mr. Abramovich made headlines by purchasing a Degas for $26.5 million, a Francis Bacon triptych for $86.3 million, and a painting by Lucian Freud for $33.6 million. And his girlfriend Dasha Zhukova opened an art gallery in Moscow called The Garage not too long ago. Incidentally, Mr. Gagosian was a guest at the gallery's soft opening.

"I can now phone up my clients and say there is nothing wrong with the market," Paolo Vedovi, director of Brussels-based Galerie Vedovi, told Bloomberg after the auction was finished.

The Observer’s Own Adam Begley to Write Updike Bio for HarperCollins

Leon Neyfakh — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:00:08 -0400

Adam Begley, The Observer's longtime book review editor, has signed on with HarperCollins to write a biography of John Updike, who died last month of lung cancer at the age of 76. Mr. Begley sold the book through the literary agent George Borchardt, and will be edited by Tim Duggan. The publication date is set for 2011.

Speaking from his home in London, Mr. Begley said Mr. Duggan first approached him about doing a book about six months ago, but that at the time he didn't have any great ideas for what that book might be. Mr. Duggan got in touch again the day after Mr. Begley's Updike obituary ran in The Observer, and plans for this biography were hatched shortly thereafter.

Mr. Begley said his first contact with Updike came when he was a toddler, as a result of his father, the novelist Louis Begley, who graduated from the English department at Harvard with him in 1954.

Later, when he was 35-years-old, Mr. Begley interviewed Updike for a profile in the magazine Mirabella.

"He was doing a reading in a college town in Wisconsin, and I spent two days following him around," Mr. Begley said. "It was when Brazil came out, and I think I did it in lieu of reviewing the book, because it wasn’t one of his best. I thought it’d be more fun to talk about him than to talk about the book."

Mr. Begley interviewed Updike again in the fall of 2003 for an Observer profile. Afterward, Updike gave him a copy of the book Self-Consciousness, inscribed with a tender dedication: "For Adam Begley, the interviewer who makes me happy. Best wishes, of course, John Updike."

Single Person’s Movie: Meet the Parents

Christopher Rosen — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:32:17 -0400

It's 2 a.m. and you awake with a jerk, alone in your fully lit apartment and still on the couch. On TV, the credits of some movie you've already seen a billion times are scrolling by. It feels like rock bottom. And we know, because we're just like you: single.

Need a movie to keep you company until you literally can't keep your eyes open? Join us tonight when we pass out to Meet the Parents [starting @ 11:35 p.m. on HBO Comedy]

Why we'll try to stay up and watch it: The other day we made the mistake of trying to watch Righteous Kill, under the assumption that any movie featuring Robert De Niro and Al Pacino would have to be somewhat entertaining. Oh how wrong we were! Righteous Kill was so completely horrific that when the DVD started skipping during the final 20 minutes, we opted to turn it off without finishing. The whole experience made us very sad; what had happened to these two titans of industry that caused them to fall so far from grace? While conventional wisdom says it's Mr. Pacino who has hit rock bottom—starring in 88 Minutes will do that to an actor—we don't think you can sleep on just how badly Mr. De Niro's career has deteriorated. With a lone exception, the once-great actor hasn't been part of a decent movie in 11 years. But, like Rick and Isla, he'll always have Meet the Parents.

Directed by Jay Roach of Austin Powers fame, Meet the Parents accomplishes exactly what it sets out to do: make people laugh. This whole movie is like one big plate of comfort food. Though it's only a little over eight years old, it feels like a relic from a long-ancient time, back when people like the Farrelly brothers ruled the earth. (This doesn't bode well for the just announced third Meet the Parents film, cringingly called Little Fockers.) But! Even today, when everything is viewed through the prism provided by reigning comedy king Judd Apatow, you'd have to be made of stone not to find this thing really, really funny.

The idea to cast the gruff Mr. De Niro in a comedy wasn't original in 2000—he had already done a send-up on his mafia persona in Analyze This just the year before—but that doesn't make it any less inspired. Simply, Mr. De Niro is laugh-out-loud funny. He never overplays his hand like he did in Analyze This, instead relying on grumpy mutterings and stern glances to get his jokes across. It's also to his advantage that he has the perfect comedic foil in Ben Stiller. Their interplay works so well that it's hard to imagine Meet the Parents even existing with two different actors.

When we'll probably fall asleep: In addition to the leads, Meet the Parents is loaded with great performances—does anyone play a WASP mother like Blythe Danner?—but special mention must be given to Owen Wilson in a small but vital role. At the time of Meet the Parents, Mr. Wilson was still an up-and-coming actor, relegated to 12th man status on the call sheet in various blockbusters (his Hollywood credits had included parts in Armageddon, Anaconda, The Haunting). He had received some recognition for the Jackie Chan vehicle Shanghai Noon, which was released earlier in 2000, but it wouldn't be until after his appearance in Meet the Parents that he catapulted to stardom. As Kevin, the rich, handsome and successful ex-boyfriend of Mr. Stiller's almost-fiancée, Mr. Wilson is a riot; everything he says and does in his six minutes of total screen time is a nugget of comedy gold. So we'll make through 55 minutes of the film, when Kevin shows off his twin Sub-Zero refrigerators, talks about his extensive stock portfolio and tells Mr. Stiller that he became a carpenter because of … Jesus. As he says, "If you're going to follow in someone's footsteps, who better than Christ."

Tom Cruise: The Comeback Kid!

Christopher Rosen — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:27:00 -0400

A funny thing happened on the way to the funeral being held for Tom Cruise's career ... Valkyrie became a hit. Well, maybe calling it a "hit" is a bit too much. But still, the film, which was dragged through the muck for the better part of a year, grossed a respectable $153 million dollars worldwide and saw critics bending over backwards to say it was "not bad." Not bad! Couple that with his Golden Globe–nominated, over-the-top performance in Tropic Thunder, and you wouldn't be out of line if you called 2008 the year Tom Cruise made a comeback. Now the studios think he's viable again! (It also doesn't hurt that he hasn't had any tabloid-worthy outbreaks in nearly four years, making his career couch-jump free for 1,300 days.) So with all this newfound cachet, what's Mr. Cruise got lined up for 2009? Variety reports that he's attached to seven different projects, including ones that would pair him with Cameron Diaz (in the romantic comedy Wichita) and Ben Stiller (in the long, long, long gestating Hardy Men). Since we've always been fans of Mr. Cruise, we thought we'd give him some guidance. Here's a look at the three movies he should add to his IMDb page.

The No-Brainer!

David Cronenberg. Denzel Washington. Robert Ludlum. It doesn't take a genius to see that The Matarese Circle, an action thriller about an American spy who teams up with his archrival Russian counterpart to stop a larger threat, would be the first legitimate box office smash that Mr. Cruise has had since Mission Impossible III. Maybe if Mr. Cronenberg weren't directing and rewriting the script, we'd be a little less sure of The Matarese Circle; after all, Mr. Washington's track record is far from clean when it comes to these types of dual star movies—just look at the trailer for The Taking of Pelham 123, for reference. But with Mr. Cronenberg on board, The Matarese Circle has the chance to be something a little more special than just a regular blockbuster. And let's give Mr. Cruise some credit: He's one big star that doesn't balk at working with talented directors who possess their own distinct voice.

The Romantic Comedy!

The last time audiences got to love Tom Cruise—really love him—was all the way back in Jerry Maguire. That was 1996. Over the last 13 years though, Mr. Cruise been part of one action spectacle after another, pausing only a few times to tear down his well-worn screen visage (Magnolia, Eyes Wide Shut, Tropic Thunder). Well, it's time to give everyone back that loving feeling! Universal is hoping he decides on Lost for Words, a romantic comedy about an actor who finds himself embroiled in a love triangle with the beautiful Chinese director of the film he's working on and her jealous translator. Zoinks! Crouching Tiger's Ziyi Zhang co-stars, and while she might be too young for Mr. Cruise, let's remember that he is still married to Katie Holmes. If you think this sounds like the kind of quaint British romantic comedy that we've seen before (think Notting Hill), you aren't that far off base. Lost for Words was originally set to star Hugh Grant.

The Remake!

Every actor needs a remake on his or her ledger, right? The Tourist, a remake of the 2005 French film Anthony Zimmer, would find Mr. Cruise and Charlize Theron parading through Paris while avoiding the Russian mafia and the authorities thanks to a case of mistaken identity and various double-crosses. Valkryrie writer Christopher McQuarrie is working on the script, which, to us, sounds like a more serious version of Charade. Tom and Charlize on the same poster? Show them the money!

Facebook: Nevermind! We’re Reverting to the Old Terms

Gillian Reagan — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:12:02 -0400

After confronting an online uproar and a federal complaint from the Electronic Privacy Information Center, Facebook revised their terms of service early Wednesday morning, reverting to their original privacy policy. In early February, Facebook removed a portion of its terms of service that gave users the right to delete their content at any time, and the license would be null and void. They then added the rights for Facebook to keep their users’ content (pictures, videos, postings and whatever else) even after terminating the account. C.E.O. Mark Zuckerberg wrote a post on Facebook's blog to explain why he and his colleagues decided to revert the changes to the original terms:

Over the past couple of days, we received a lot of questions and comments about the changes and what they mean for people and their information.

Over the past couple of days, we received a lot of questions and comments about the changes and what they mean for people and their information. Based on this feedback, we have decided to return to our previous terms of use while we resolve the issues that people have raised.

So what comes next?

Our next version will be a substantial revision from where we are now. It will reflect the principles I described yesterday around how people share and control their information, and it will be written clearly in language everyone can understand. Since this will be the governing document that we'll all live by, Facebook users will have a lot of input in crafting these terms.

You have my commitment that we'll do all of these things, but in order to do them right it will take a little bit of time. We expect to complete this in the next few weeks. In the meantime, we've changed the terms back to what existed before the February 4th change, which was what most people asked us for and was the recommendation of the outside experts we consulted.

Mr. Zuckerberg said he welcomes questions and comments in a new group Facebook Bill of Rights and Responsibilities to help his company form new policies.

Facebook's Chief Privacy Officer Chris Kelly spoke with Kiran Chetry on CNN's American Morning today about the changes. Ms. Chetry asked Mr. Kelly to address concerns about Facebook potentially using pictures, photos, material, writings for monetary gain. "One woman wrote, 'I'm wanting to share with my friends and chapters of a novel and I’m very afraid that Facebook would then claim they could sell my book,' some other concerns like that. How do you address this"

Mr. Kelly replied:

We never would have done that even under the new terms or use or under the old terms of use. And in fact, we don't believe that the new terms of use would have given us the right to do that. But again, there's been a great deal of confusion in the marketplace, and we wanted to be crystal clear about what rights we're claiming and what ones we're not. And we're taking only a very limited, limited rights to make sure that we can offer people the service.

He noted that "the open dialogue that we're promoting right now will build user trust about this."

So what does all this mean for privacy on the Internet? Well, certainly that people pay attention to what happens to the content they put on the Internet, especially on Facebook, and maybe they will consider what they're signing up for instead of just clicking through the terms of service without reading it. Mr. Zuckerberg wrote in his blog post today, "More than 175 million people use Facebook. If it were a country, it would be the sixth most populated country in the world." So maybe it's time for Facebook to start taking care of their little country of Facebook citizens, if only by being more open and honest with them.

As Caroline McCarthy wrote in her CNET column, 'The Social': "Facebook can credit its rise to change: being willing to change to fit trends, technology, and the times. But on the flip side, that change has to be consistent. When appropriate, changes in features need to be accompanied by changes in the rules that govern those features. And a service dedicated to the evolution of social interaction needs to be in touch with what the millions of members who enable that social interaction are saying. With three big PR kerfuffles under its belt now, perhaps the company has realized that simply justifying an unpopular, privacy-sensitive change usually isn't enough."

"Luckily, Facebook has consistently shown that it listens."

The Academy Awards Go Disney

Christopher Rosen — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 13:38:30 -0400

We're not sure if you realize this, but the Oscars are this Sunday! We'd say they snuck up on us, but since the awards season is now longer than a pregnancy, we'd be lying to you if we did. The Hugh Jackman-hosted 81st annual Academy Awards were supposed to be cloaked in secrecy, but fortunately for us, producers Bill Condon and Laurence Mark are leaking information out faster than Scooter Libby and Dick Cheney used to do in their heyday. And if you're a 14-year-old girl, prepare to get excited! E! Online is reporting that Beyonce, High School Musical stars Zac Efron and Vanessa Hudgens (who are totally in love!), and Mamma Mia! co-stars Amanda Seyfried and Dominic Cooper are all scheduled to appear and perform, despite the fact that none of their movies were nominated for... well, anything. Additionally, Mr. Efron joins Twilight's Robert Pattinson as a presenter, meaning for the first time in Oscar history, at least two winners will be getting their awards from people who have previously appeared on the cover of Tiger Beat.

This news, combined with the reports that Queen Latifah will be singing during the In Memoriam segment, and, new mom M.I.A. might perform on stage while in a bed, have us wondering: what the hell is going on here? We know the Academy Awards are in a tough bind, increasingly becoming a niche broadcast--instead of Hollywood's version of the Super Bowl, the Oscars now play more like Hollywood's own NBA All-Star Game--but do they have to seem so desperate? If Messrs. Condon and Mark think that throwing a bunch of pretty looking teens and Top-40 stars onto the stage will get a younger demographic to watch the show, they are just completely lost. Lest we forget, does everyone remember what movies got nominated this year? The Reader. Milk. Frost/Nixon. Combined those three films haven't even grossed as much as Twilight did during its opening weekend. Even Slumdog Millionaire hasn't attacked the zeitgeist; Juno, it is not. People, both young and old, aren't going to watch the Oscars this year because they simply don't really care about any of the movies that were nominated. And to paraphrase a slogan that we heard ad infinitum during the presidential election: it's the movies, stupid.

Of course, there was one simple way to get more viewers to watch this year: The Dark Knight. Nominating the biggest movie since Titanic would have been like having fifty Zac Efron's on stage at the same time covering a Jonas Brothers song. Not that we're bitter...

Watchmen-mania at a Fever Pitch on the Internets!

Christopher Rosen — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 13:30:07 -0400

That sound you hear rumbling in the background isn't your CPU tower about to explode from overuse (seriously, you should think about turning your office computer off when you go home), it's the geek stampede about to unleash itself over Watchmen. We're nearly two weeks away from Zack Snyder's "visionary" take on the groundbreaking Alan Moore graphic novel, and the internet is ripe with embargo-breaking reviews and first glimpses of the 163-minute movie. So strap on your hats and party like it's 1985!

Let's start with that aforementioned review: Matt Selman, an executive producer on The Simpsons, posted a wrap-up of his feelings on the film over at Time magazine's "Nerd World" blog, despite the fact that Warner Brothers has instilled a pesky media blackout on critics until March 6th. But apparently, since Mr. Selman has decided he is neither journalist nor critic, the rules do not apply to his sphere of influence (never mind the fact that he is writing for Time!). Thankfully for his sake, it's doubtful the review will get him taken off of any Christmas card lists over at Warner Brothers--to call it glowing would be an insult to the adjective. Of Watchmen, Mr. Selman writes, "it's a surreal mind-trip the likes of which my 14-year-old self would never have believed". If that's not enough praise, try this: "Sitting in that screening room and watching the visual world of the Watchmen movie unfold was one of the most powerful experiences I've ever had. Not film experiences. Just EXPERIENCES." (The all-caps are his doing, not ours.) Despite the protestations of some bloggers, who act as if Mr. Selman burned a flag on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, we don't have a big problem with this whole incident. Let's be honest: embargoes are broken all the time. Mr. Selman isn't the first man to do this, and he certainly won't be the last.

Meanwhile, four short clips of Watchmen have hit the web and they have admirably succeeded in completely diminishing our expectations. Between the ridiculously unnecessary slow motion peppered throughout (we wouldn't be surprised to learn that there's a shot of Rorschach getting something out of the fridge in slow motion) and the troublesome casting, Watchmen looks like it has the potential to make all the haters very happy over its failings. We get that no one wanted to put a bunch of stars in Watchmen, thus overwhelming the characters, but there had to be better people to cast than Malin Akerman, Matthew Goode and, Denny Duqette himself, Jeffrey Dean Morgan. Plus, in one of those clips, did we hear "I'm Your Boogeyman" by KC and the Sunshine Band? We know the film takes place in the 70s and 80s (and we love the song) but doesn't that feel a little out of place when rolled over images of men in tights? If Mr. Snyder was going for a Quentin Tarantino-plays-Steelers Wheel sort of juxtaposition, he missed.

Regardless, we'll all be watching Watchmen when it hits theaters (and IMAX!) on March 6th.

We Love You, Hollywood’s New Trend

Christopher Rosen — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 13:25:38 -0400

Whether it's dual movies about giant asteroids hitting earth or a couple of television programs dealing with the inner workings of a late night sketch comedy show, we're always up for a good Hollywood trend. While Entertainment Weekly has already gone ahead and proclaimed mall cops as the trend of 2009, we've actually found something a little more substantial to hang our hats on. As they say, trends always come in threes anyway, right? Well allow us to introduce you to the "I Love You" movies. No less than three films coming out this year have "I Love You" in their titles. And that can only spell one thing: trend alert! Here's a handy guide to help you tell them apart.

I Love You, Man

Logline: Every Judd Apatow movie meets every David Wain movie.

What you can expect: A recently engaged guy (Paul Rudd) doesn't have any male friends to select for his best man so he sets out to find one. Enter Jason Segel as the crass, ne'er-do-well ready for the challenge. You'd be forgiven for thinking this was a Judd Apatow production since in addition to Messrs. Rudd and Segel, people like Joe Lo Truglio (Superbad), Carla Gallo (Undeclared) and Liz Cackowski (Forgetting Sarah Marshall) all make appearances. But the sneaky thing about I Love You, Man is that it isn't actually a Judd Apatow production at all; Meet the Parents' screenwriter John Hamburg co-wrote and directs.

Prognosis: People might be getting tired of these bromantic comedies, but not us! Plus, the hilarious trailer prominently features The Pixies' "Here Comes Your Man". We've already pre-ordered our tickets.

I Love You, Beth Cooper

Logline: The Girl Next Door meets License to Drive.

What you can expect: At his high school graduation, the valedictorian (newcomer Paul Rust, who also has a part in Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds) professes his love for Beth Cooper (Heroes' Hayden Panttiere), the most popular girl in his class. Since this is a movie, later on that evening she shows up to his house and treats him to the greatest night ever. Chris Columbus directs, and while you wouldn't normally expect to see his name on such a benign rip-off of John Hughes, remember that he's already done it -the '80s romp Adventures in Babysitting.

Prognosis: Apologies to Ms. Panttiere and Mr. Rust, but this movie was a whole lot more fun when it starred Elisha Cuthbert and Emile Hirsch.

I Love You, Phillip Morris

Logline: It has already been described as Catch Me If You Can meets Brokeback Mountain.

What you can expect: Surprisingly, this has nothing to do with the tobacco company. In the film, Jim Carrey falls in love with Ewan McGregor (who happens to be named Phillip Morris) while the two share a prison cell. However after Mr. McGregor is transferred to another facility, Mr. Carrey keeps trying to escape the jail so that he can be with his love. I Love You, Phillip Morris premiered to fairly strong reviews at Sundance in January.

Prognosis: Mr. Carrey has said that the only three scripts he's ever felt compelled to do were The Truman Show, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and I Love You, Phillip Morris. Those first two didn't work out too badly, so consider us cautiously optimistic.

Facebook’s New Terms: We’re Gonna Use Your Content However We Want to and Keep it Forever [UPDATED]

Gillian Reagan — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 19:04:32 -0400

If you aren't already, you might want to be extra careful about what you post on Facebook. The site recently revised some critical words in their terms of service agreement which some claim allows them to use your pictures, videos, updates, or whatever else you post on the social network however they want to, for as long as they want to, even if you delete your profile.

UPDATE: Mark Zuckerberg wrote a response to the terms of service concerns on the Facebook blog to clarify the changes. He wrote that Facebook needs a license to use the information you post on your profile to share with your friends. True. And if you delete your profile, your friend should still be able to see the messages you sent them. "We think this is the right way for Facebook to work, and it is consistent with how other services like email work. One of the reasons we updated our terms was to make this more clear," he wrote.

But what about all that other information? Will it be shared outside of our networks? Well, he dances around the subject:

In reality, we wouldn't share your information in a way you wouldn't want. The trust you place in us as a safe place to share information is the most important part of what makes Facebook work. Our goal is to build great products and to communicate clearly to help people share more information in this trusted environment.

We still have work to do to communicate more clearly about these issues, and our terms are one example of this. Our philosophy that people own their information and control who they share it with has remained constant. A lot of the language in our terms is overly formal and protective of the rights we need to provide this service to you. Over time we will continue to clarify our positions and make the terms simpler.

Furthermore, this stuff is complicated! Mr. Zuckerberg:

People want full ownership and control of their information so they can turn off access to it at any time. At the same time, people also want to be able to bring the information others have shared with them—like email addresses, phone numbers, photos and so on—to other services and grant those services access to those people's information. These two positions are at odds with each other. There is no system today that enables me to share my email address with you and then simultaneously lets me control who you share it with and also lets you control what services you share it with.

He continues on here. Maybe this statement is enough to calm the Twitterati for now, but unfortunately for Mr. Zuckerberg and friends, the red flags have already been thrown.

The changes were made on Feb. 4, but with Consumerists' post on Feb. 15, the Internet is in a frenzy.

Consumerist points out that most of the agreement had stayed the same:

You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers), any User Content you (i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof subject only to your privacy settings or (ii) enable a user to Post, including by offering a Share Link on your website and (b) to use your name, likeness and image for any purpose, including commercial or advertising, each of (a) and (b) on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof.

But the new version removes an important couple of lines at the end of that section:

You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content.

Furthermore, the "Termination" section near the end of the TOS states:

The following sections will survive any termination of your use of the Facebook Service: Prohibited Conduct, User Content, Your Privacy Practices, Gift Credits, Ownership; Proprietary Rights, Licenses, Submissions, User Disputes; Complaints, Indemnity, General Disclaimers, Limitation on Liability, Termination and Changes to the Facebook Service, Arbitration, Governing Law; Venue and Jurisdiction and Other.

J.F. Quackenbush at WetAsphalt.com calms the flames by noting an an important line to consider:

You are only granting those rights "on or in connection with the Facebook Service or in the promotion thereof." What does that mean? Well, it means that you are licensing the use on Facebook branded websites or any other media and the Facebook Platform, which is the legal name for the APIs that allow third parties to create Facebook applications. So if there was a Facebook TV show, they could use your stuff on that. Or if they launched a Facebook concert series or a Facebook magazine, they could use your stuff in that. Presumably, if there were a Facebook dogfood, they could use your content on that. Or if they wanted to make an advertisement FOR any of those things, they could use your stuff in that. Precisely WHY Facebook would want to do any of those things, I leave to the reader to speculate on. What they most emphatically CAN'T do is what Walters claims, that "We can do anything we want with your content forever." They can do anything they want with your content ON Facebook or to Promote Facebook forever.

But others are more concerned about how this could affect our activity off Facebook. What about all those applications we use to bring in content from other sites, like Flickr and YouTube? Or even materials from our personal websites? "The license which you, as a Facebook user, grant to Facebook is very broad and it covers not just your content on Facebook but content you may have linked to from outside Facebook," explained Paul Jacobson, an attorney who specializes in social media and law, in a blog post that elaborates on Facebook's terms of service. "What the terms don't do is grant ownership but the license is so broad Facebook may as well own your content. What alarms me the most is that Facebook takes a license to the content you may only link to on Facebook and don't upload to the service. This covers photos you may have stored on Flickr, videos on Zoopy or Vimeo and more. This virtual land grab makes these terms of use a particularly invasive set of permissions."

Especially compared to other terms of service, according to New York University's digital cirriculum specialist Amanda French. She rounded up other social media networks' terms on her site, adding: "This one kills me: Facebook claims it can do whatever it wants with your content if you put a Share on Facebook link on your web page. Unbelievable–and unique, as far as I can tell. People can post links in Facebook to your content just by copying and pasting the URL, but if you want to save them a few keystrokes by putting a link or a widget on your site, Facebook claims that you’ve granted them a whole mess of rights. Count me out."

Should you delete your Facebook profile too? Maybe not. The important thing to remember about Facebook is this: They're not just there to play nice and let you share your every photo, note or status update with your friends. They are a business trying to create new money-making models with all of your information. So go ahead, have fun. But don't be fooled into thinking you can keep everything private and your content is yours and yours alone. And if you're really going to delete your profile in a huff, consider getting an internet drop from drop.io to share your info. instead.

Correction appended: J.F. Quackenbush's name was misspelled in an earlier version of this post.