Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dropbox TOS Includes Broad Copyright License

hardware.slashdot.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 72 posts

Re: Dropbox TOS Includes Broad Copyright License

#31

Post by pbreit »

henrikschroder wrote: post #23
Indyan wrote: post #2

I am no lawyer, and most legalese is absolute greek to me, but that clause genuinely freaks me out. However, commonsense also tells me that Dropbox will never do something like sharing/profiting out of other's files. That will drive them to the ground. I am not really sure what to make out of this. Is this some clause that Dropbox had to put in to save their butt, or is there a sinister motive behind this?

Given how copyright law works, you need to grant Dropbox (and any similar services) those rights, otherwise they can't provide their service with your files. worldwide = For the whole internet non-exclusive = You can still license your stuff to others royalty-free = Dropbox doesn't have to pay you for this license sublicenseable = The license you grant Dropbox can be transferred to other companies, in the event of a…

I'm curious what could happen if they did not include this clause? Who would sue who and for what?

Re: Dropbox TOS Includes Broad Copyright License

#32

Post by sunchild »

eli wrote: post #24
rkalla wrote: post #16

When the new TOS were announced I think a lot of balked at reading those statements. The examples given in the TOS (e.g. "to convert your files") all seem reasonable, but as Indyan pointed out, it sure leaves the door open to some fuzzy interpretations. Quick question, if AT&T suddenly bought Dropbox, would you all feel as passive about the new TOS or be quick to get your files out of there? What about Facebook? Micr…

You are missing the point. Those companies do have similar terms in their agreements! Any service that accepts user content should. It's in everyone's benefit to make it clear that you own your content, but you're giving the service a license to copy it, display it, etc. AT&T: "while you retain any and all of your lawfully owned rights in such Content, you grant AT&T a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclus…

Actually, I think you're missing the point.

1. People seem to want to use Dropbox to store sensitive, private data. Most sensible people don't trust AT&T, Facebook, Microsoft, etc. for this purpose anymore because of their past gaffes.

2. Dropbox makes numerous "marketing" statements all over their site purporting to be safe for confidential, private information.

3. The licenses that companies need in their TOS can be scoped appropriately to what's strictly necessary for them to provide you the service you signed up for. Companies that reserve rights in their users' stuff beyond what's necessary do so for a reason – and it's not likely to be in the user's interest.

Re: Dropbox TOS Includes Broad Copyright License

#34

Post by branden »

matwood wrote: post #30
JonnieCache wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is standard because there is no other choice if you want to provide services of this nature. Blame the law, not the service providers.

Could it be worded in such a way that makes the rights granted to Dropbox only usable for making Dropbox functional?

"...to the extent we think it necessary for the Service."

Re: Dropbox TOS Includes Broad Copyright License

#36

Post by JonnieCache »

matwood wrote: post #30
JonnieCache wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is standard because there is no other choice if you want to provide services of this nature. Blame the law, not the service providers.

Could it be worded in such a way that makes the rights granted to Dropbox only usable for making Dropbox functional?

Possibly. Due to the fact that we are dealing with spoken language, even if it is legalese, there will always be some degree of ambiguity and room for interpretation. Here, that ambiguity lies in the phrase "we think is necessary."

Therefore there will always be a tiny chance left for one party to get bitten in the ass down the line. The company has to decide if its them or you that is exposed to that slight risk.

Good luck finding a company that picks them rather than you.

Rereading, I realise that I haven't been entirely clear. I hope you get the idea. IANAL.

Re: Dropbox TOS Includes Broad Copyright License

#37

Post by sunchild »

wavesound wrote: post #28

If my assumption of dropbox's intent is correct, I prefer facebook's approach to this problem. Instead of wording terms exclusively in their favor they could have extended an olive branch... "For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos ("IP content"), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusiv…

There are two factors that matter:

1. When the license ends.

2. What uses are permitted while the license is in effect. This is the part that is currently way too broad. It should be limited to what's necessary to carry out the user's instructions. In other words, Dropbox should only be able to use your content in your own interest, not in theirs or any third party's.

(This post is informational only, not intended to be legal advice or to create an attorney-client relationship.)

Re: Dropbox TOS Includes Broad Copyright License

#38

Post by Dylan16807 »

henrikschroder wrote: post #23
Indyan wrote: post #2

I am no lawyer, and most legalese is absolute greek to me, but that clause genuinely freaks me out. However, commonsense also tells me that Dropbox will never do something like sharing/profiting out of other's files. That will drive them to the ground. I am not really sure what to make out of this. Is this some clause that Dropbox had to put in to save their butt, or is there a sinister motive behind this?

Given how copyright law works, you need to grant Dropbox (and any similar services) those rights, otherwise they can't provide their service with your files. worldwide = For the whole internet non-exclusive = You can still license your stuff to others royalty-free = Dropbox doesn't have to pay you for this license sublicenseable = The license you grant Dropbox can be transferred to other companies, in the event of a…

= List your public files to others

But it doesn't say public files. They ask for that privilege for all files and then leave it to vaguely worded clarification in the privacy policy.

Re: Dropbox TOS Includes Broad Copyright License

#39

Post by jws »

matwood wrote: post #30
JonnieCache wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is standard because there is no other choice if you want to provide services of this nature. Blame the law, not the service providers.

Could it be worded in such a way that makes the rights granted to Dropbox only usable for making Dropbox functional?

That's why the sentence ends … to the extent we think it necessary for the Service.

Re: Dropbox TOS Includes Broad Copyright License

#40

Post by skarayan »

Jach wrote: post #11
skarayan wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if there is nothing sinister now, this is how power is abused. This worries me.

Can you provide me with some historical details of a case where some people thought sinister action could take place because of one small little detail, and it didn't for a long time, then suddenly things got really bad really fast specifically because of that little thing? Genuinely curious.

Is it a small detail? I look at it as the fine print. They most likely consulted with an attorney and decided that it should be worded like that to cover whatever they have in mind. Attorneys are very deliberate.

They don't have to plan something "sinister", but boundaries are pushed slowly. This sounds to me like a first step, and disregard for privacy.

Post reply on HN