February 24, 2011 in Articles by admin

New Media discussion group for the community

We have recently set up a discussion group focused on New Media for those in the community (business persons, journalists, students, community leaders) wishing to get their hands on blogging, Facebook, Twitter and other SNS or to simply exchange notes.

The New Media group will meet at 6.30pm onwards every last Monday of the month starting February 28 at the Blacktown Workers Club, Campbell Street, Blacktown City.

The discussion group is a joint project with the Filipino Press Group of Sydney.

For more information, please leave us a message or call 1300 631 663.

We have recently set up a discussion group focused on New Media for those in the community (business persons, journalists, students, community leaders) wishing to get their hands on blogging, Facebook, Twitter and other SNS or to simply exchange notes.

The New Media group will meet at 6.30pm onwards every last Monday of the month starting February 28 at the Blacktown Workers Club, Campbell Street, Blacktown City.

The discussion group is a joint project with the Filipino Press Group of Sydney.

For more information, please leave us a message or call 1300 631 663.

February 18, 2010 in tweets by Romeo Cayabyab

Who owns your Twitter updates?

Last September, there was this commotion at Twitterland brought about by changes in Twitter’s Terms of Service (TOS).

As we saw it, the issue mainly revolved around ownership of users’ tweets.

One criticism hurled at Twitter was something like:

If Twitter can do what they want with ‘our’ tweets, including reproduction for their own (financial) gain, what do we actually ‘own’?”… “If Twitter loses our data, closes our accounts or goes out of business, do we still own those tweets? Or are they retrievable in any way?”

Our was that, although the Twitter-ers retain copyright to their tweets (or updates), Twitter is justified in claiming re-publication or reproduction rights to the content. This is a standard practice among publishing websites.

Recently, we had another look at this issue to find out if there were any major changes or modifications to the TOS on account of the concerns raised by Twitter-ers.

That TOS version which was “questioned” by Twitter-ers is now archived as version 2. The replacement, and the current, version was made effective September 18, 2009.

Being long documents, we had difficulty comparing the two sets of TOS. At the end, we concluded that there are no major differences between the two documents.

We also checked the Twitter’s blog section. Was there a blog entry subsequent to the TOS 10 September 2009 which perhaps could give us an idea of any changes made?

We could not find any. So, that’s it. If ever the current version contains statements different from the TOS of 10 September 2009, we could only assume that the changes were not earth-shattering to warrant another blog entry or new announcement.

The position of Twitter as to its claim to having reproduction rights of the users’ tweets remains enshrined in the TOS.

*** The links to references in this entry may be found at (10 September 2001 TOS), (19 September 2009 and current version), and (Twitter’s blog section).

Last September, there was this commotion at Twitterland brought about by changes in Twitter’s Terms of Service (TOS).

As we saw it, the issue mainly revolved around ownership of users’ tweets.

One criticism hurled at Twitter was something like:

If Twitter can do what they want with ‘our’ tweets, including reproduction for their own (financial) gain, what do we actually ‘own’?”… “If Twitter loses our data, closes our accounts or goes out of business, do we still own those tweets? Or are they retrievable in any way?”

Our was that, although the Twitter-ers retain copyright to their tweets (or updates), Twitter is justified in claiming re-publication or reproduction rights to the content. This is a standard practice among publishing websites.

Recently, we had another look at this issue to find out if there were any major changes or modifications to the TOS on account of the concerns raised by Twitter-ers.

That TOS version which was “questioned” by Twitter-ers is now archived as version 2. The replacement, and the current, version was made effective September 18, 2009.

Being long documents, we had difficulty comparing the two sets of TOS. At the end, we concluded that there are no major differences between the two documents.

We also checked the Twitter’s blog section. Was there a blog entry subsequent to the TOS 10 September 2009 which perhaps could give us an idea of any changes made?

We could not find any. So, that’s it. If ever the current version contains statements different from the TOS of 10 September 2009, we could only assume that the changes were not earth-shattering to warrant another blog entry or new announcement.

The position of Twitter as to its claim to having reproduction rights of the users’ tweets remains enshrined in the TOS.

*** The links to references in this entry may be found at (10 September 2001 TOS), (19 September 2009 and current version), and (Twitter’s blog section).

November 7, 2009 in Blog, Site News by admin

New social network sites for emanila websites

emanila websites have recently expanded their reach to include blog sites hosted by WordPress.com and Blogspot.com.

emanila can now be found at the following social media sites:

Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Pinoy-Jokes/44426711523
http://www.facebook.com/pages/emanila-poetry/66278214988
http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Filipino-Australian/53096238902
http://www.facebook.com/emanila
http://www.facebook.com/romycayabyab

Twitter
http://twitter.com/emanila
http://twitter.com/FilAustralian
http://twitter.com/PinoyJokesnet
http://twitter.com/romycc

WordPress and Blogspot
http://www.emanila.wordpress.com
http://www.emanilacom.blogspot.com
http://romycayabyab.wordpress.com

Most emanila websites have also installed social bookmarks to enable members and readers to share with friends some of their emanila finds.