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

41–50 of 72 posts

Re: Dropbox TOS Includes Broad Copyright License

#41

Post by xsmasher »

pbreit wrote: post #31
henrikschroder wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Drop box is making a copy of your files every time they back up one of their servers. That might be a copyright violation without your explicit permission. This license fixes that problem.

Re: Dropbox TOS Includes Broad Copyright License

#42

Post by eli »

pbreit wrote: post #33
eli wrote: post #19

Well, of course you're granting them a license to your files. Otherwise you could sue them for copying your files to their server.

Could you? Would you win? Has anyone ever sued? Successfully?

Certainly you could sue. I don't think you would win. IANAL.

Re: Dropbox TOS Includes Broad Copyright License

#43

Post by tptacek »

sunchild wrote: post #32
eli wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

You've evaded this person's comment, possibly because it doesn't fit a point you want to make.

The comment you're responding to says, "Legally, any service that does the basic things we expect Dropbox to do for us probably needs to have these terms in place. The point raised about not trusting Dropbox after an AT&T acquisition is irrelevant; every large company already has those terms, because they have to."

You can want to trust Dropbox more than Microsoft, but that doesn't change the legal landscape.

Your third point comes closest to actually addressing the discussion here, but how do they scope their ToS narrowly enough to satisfy you? And how do they then do that without having to then announce ToS changes every time they add a new feature?

Re: Dropbox TOS Includes Broad Copyright License

#44

Post by Prometheu5 »

If you are technologically savvy (as one may assume, since you are here after all) and you feel uncomfortable with this change (as I do), I would suggest looking in to some of the other projects around that offer somewhat similar (albeit not as feature complete) self-hosted solutions: https://github.com/philcryer/lipsync http://sparkleshare.org/

Re: Dropbox TOS Includes Broad Copyright License

#47

Post by skmurphy »

I only use dropbox for backup of my computer and do not want Dropbox to share or otherwise access my files for any reason other than to preserve them for my use. I do not want Dropbox to make them available to anyone else without my explicit authorization. The revised TOS seems to stress the file sharing aspect which makes me very uncomfortable continuing to use Dropbox.

Here is what I wrote back to tos-feedback@dropbox.com (interesting that the default reply-to was no-reply@dropboxmail.com which doesn't make it seem like they are really interested in feedback)

   Please consider splitting the service into file sharing and backup and 
   having a different agreement for each.
   I cannot and do not accept these new terms for your backup service 
   and will have to look for an alternate supplier if you cannot amend 
   your new approach: these are not the terms I agreed to when I signed up 
   for the service. In addition, two weeks notice strikes me as a very 
   short window for such a significant change: please consider 
   extending the notice period.

Re: Dropbox TOS Includes Broad Copyright License

#48

Post by sunchild »

tptacek wrote: post #43
sunchild wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

You've evaded this person's comment, possibly because it doesn't fit a point you want to make. The comment you're responding to says, "Legally, any service that does the basic things we expect Dropbox to do for us probably needs to have these terms in place. The point raised about not trusting Dropbox after an AT&T acquisition is irrelevant; every large company already has those terms, because they have to." You can…

I don't think I've evaded the comment at all.

1. The issue is the scope of the license.

2. The overly-broad scope chosen by Dropbox (and many others) is a valid reason to question their trustworthiness as a custodian of sensitive private information.

3. In the case of AT&T, Facebook, etc., we have a history of actual disclosure incidents to draw from, adding some context to their trustworthiness. In fact, Dropbox itself has joined that club, with their recent security gaffe and their handling of it, and statements surrounding it.

4. As I say in a few places around this thread, I think the correct scope of the license would be strictly what's required to carry out the user's instructions. At the very least, it should be limited to uses that are in the user's interest, not the interest of Dropbox or a third party.

EDIT: I said "overly-broad scope chosen by Dropbox" above in error. In fact, I think the Dropbox TOS is dead-on in terms of the scope of the license. As far as I can tell, it's limited to what they need in order to "do what you ask us to do with your stuff (for example, hosting, making public, or sharing your files)".

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

Re: Dropbox TOS Includes Broad Copyright License

#49

Post by rkalla »

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…

Eli, no where did I say those companies don't have similar TOS, I was trying (badly?) to make the point that while some of the commenters below (and folks on Slashdot) wave-away concern over the open-endedness of Dropbox's TOS because the company isn't seen as evil, if we suddenly put a different company in charge of their data, do those folks suddenly have problems with the TOS?

If they did, then I was suggesting that the TOS could use improvement (tightening of terms) to better clarify what is happening to the data you are putting up there.

For example, given a TOS that is sufficiently well specified with regard to what rights are owned in what scenarios, etc... I wouldn't care which company had my data if the TOS protected me enough (let's wave-away the discussion of enforcement here) where as with open-ended TOS's, my level of OK'ness with it is directly tied to the company holding my data and their behavior more than anything.

To me, that suggests that TOSs could benefit from some user-favoring tweaks and clarifications, especially if the company doesn't need the wide birth they have written in for themselves for particular reason.

To address the followup question of amending the TOSs every time a new feature ships, sure on the other extreme end of the spectrum this would be a problem; I'm suggesting something more strict than we have now, but not so strict it's ridiculous.

Re: Dropbox TOS Includes Broad Copyright License

#50

Post by stan_rogers »

sunchild wrote: post #29
russell_h wrote: post #4

It specifically states that you the rights you grant them are limited "to the extent we think it necessary for the Service." The "we think" might be a little ambiguous, but given that Dropbox is a tool for sharing files (with yourself or others), it seems reasonable that you grant them rights to do so.

IMO, the right way to express this would have been "to the extent required for us to provide the Services that you use". Dropbox definitely does not understand the confidentiality requirements that (some of) their customers have. By reserving themselves so much leeway, Dropbox is driving away business users who need assurances of confidentiality. IAAL, and I can't use Dropbox today because I can't trust them with my…

"... to the extent required ..." would leave them open to liability related to the methods they use to implement the system; if it can be established that the service could have been implemented in any way that did not require them to expose, transform, etc., the information in question the way they did at a particular stage, they are suddenly in violation of copyright license.
Post reply on HN