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

51–60 of 72 posts

Re: Dropbox TOS Includes Broad Copyright License

#51

Post by tptacek »

sunchild wrote: post #48
tptacek wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 its…

This reads like a smokescreen. If providers need these licensing terms to safely provide this service, then they either need to post them or get out of this business. "Actual history of disclosure incidents" and "trustworthiness" simply don't have anything to do with it.

If you're a lawyer, it would be helpful if you could just straight-up answer the question, which I'll restate for you: what are specific things Dropbox could do to their ToS to scope it down without making the ToS so narrow they can't introduce new features without constantly revising it?

Re: Dropbox TOS Includes Broad Copyright License

#52

Post by sunchild »

timmyd wrote: post #10

Let me clarify .... TL;DR - it's hyperbole. answer the negative. if they didn't get this permission from you - you could sue them for copyright infringement. every service does it. don't freak. Long Version: The key to the text is "non-exclusive" - generally this grants the nonexclusive rights to display the material on a Web site. It also allows the licensee (ala DropBox) let their company use, manage, display [etc]…

Non-exclusive just means that Dropbox isn't the only licensee. I've never once seen a consumer-facing TOS that purported to be exclusive. That's really not the issue here.

The issue is whether the scope of Dropbox's license is overly-broad, given the service that they're providing.

Under the Google TOS, Google says:

"This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services."

Now, take a look at Dropbox's new TOS:

"...to the extent reasonably necessary for the Service. This license is solely to enable us to technically administer, display, and operate the Services."

Dropbox's license is actually MORE limited in scope than Google's. I don't really understand why people are freaking out about this particular issue.

IMO, the security issue and their handling of that is more important.

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

Re: Dropbox TOS Includes Broad Copyright License

#54

Post by lemming »

As soon as I get time to investigate it properly, I'm going to be replacing Dropbox with Fuse + S3FS + EncFS. I recommended Dropbox to a lot of people and invited a lot of people to it, but assuming the above combination works I'll certainly be recommending it to techy friends in the future, and if I continue to mention Dropbox to non-tech folks (my parents etc) it'll be with a lot more qualifiers than previously.

I'd like to be sure that if all my data is exposed to someone it's as a result of my own cock-ups, not anyone else's. I don't think Dropbox are evil but I'm not feeling too confident about keeping sensitive data there any more. Their recent errors have probably only highlighted things I should have thought of previously - lesson learned there.

Re: Dropbox TOS Includes Broad Copyright License

#55

Post by sunchild »

tptacek wrote: post #51
sunchild wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 its…

This reads like a smokescreen. If providers need these licensing terms to safely provide this service, then they either need to post them or get out of this business. "Actual history of disclosure incidents" and "trustworthiness" simply don't have anything to do with it. If you're a lawyer, it would be helpful if you could just straight-up answer the question, which I'll restate for you: what are specific things Drop…

I'm not sure why you're being so cranky about this. I'm doing my best to be as clear as possible.

1. The Dropbox license is scoped correctly, IMO. It's as narrow as it should be, and not so narrow that it would impair their ability to provide the service.

2. All commercial relationships come down to trust. Contracts only take you so far. If a provider offers acceptable contract terms, but has also shown signs of incompetence or untrustworthiness, I would avoid them. After all, how likely are you to enforce the contract terms against them?

HTH – and again – this is not intended to be legal advice or to create an attorney-client relationship.

Re: Dropbox TOS Includes Broad Copyright License

#56

Post by tptacek »

sunchild wrote: post #55
tptacek wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reads like a smokescreen. If providers need these licensing terms to safely provide this service, then they either need to post them or get out of this business. "Actual history of disclosure incidents" and "trustworthiness" simply don't have anything to do with it. If you're a lawyer, it would be helpful if you could just straight-up answer the question, which I'll restate for you: what are specific things Drop…

I'm not sure why you're being so cranky about this. I'm doing my best to be as clear as possible. 1. The Dropbox license is scoped correctly, IMO. It's as narrow as it should be, and not so narrow that it would impair their ability to provide the service. 2. All commercial relationships come down to trust. Contracts only take you so far. If a provider offers acceptable contract terms, but has also shown signs of inco…

I'm confused. Upthread, you said (paraphrased) "companies that reserve rights beyond what's absolutely necessary tend not to be doing this in their users best interests". You didn't then qualify this with "but of course that's not what Dropbox is doing".

Maybe we just agree about Dropbox --- that this latest ToS karfluffle is just a banal legal/administrative thing, not evidence of any cavalier attitude at Dropbox about user data.

Re: Dropbox TOS Includes Broad Copyright License

#57

Post by grinich »

It's often good to look at how other companies do things to see if it's out of the ordinary. Turns out this line is extremely common. Google, for example:

    You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in 
    Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. 
    By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a 
    perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive 
    license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly 
    perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, 
    post or display on or through, the Services. This license is for the 
    sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the 
    Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the 
    Additional.
http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS

Also, Drew and Arash just posted an update to the blog with clarified language: http://blog.dropbox.com/?p=846

Re: Dropbox TOS Includes Broad Copyright License

#58

Post by leon_ »

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…

See, I wouldn't trust say my source code to AT&T or Facebook. I already get a fishy feeling with them having some of my pictures.

Drop Box on the other hand is a private data storage service (at least I thought they were) - where I expect to be confident with them having my sensible data. Such TOS additions are just undermining any trust I might still have to them (after their "encryption" and password fiasco).

Re: Dropbox TOS Includes Broad Copyright License

#59

Post by leon_ »

sixtofour wrote: post #26
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.

"given that Dropbox is a tool for sharing files" For now.

Then I misunderstood DP when I signed up. I thought it was a nice way to keep some files in sync on multiple computers. Didn't expect it to become the facebook of text documents ...

Re: Dropbox TOS Includes Broad Copyright License

#60

Post by nknight »

sunchild wrote: post #52
timmyd wrote: post #10

Let me clarify .... TL;DR - it's hyperbole. answer the negative. if they didn't get this permission from you - you could sue them for copyright infringement. every service does it. don't freak. Long Version: The key to the text is "non-exclusive" - generally this grants the nonexclusive rights to display the material on a Web site. It also allows the licensee (ala DropBox) let their company use, manage, display [etc]…

Non-exclusive just means that Dropbox isn't the only licensee. I've never once seen a consumer-facing TOS that purported to be exclusive. That's really not the issue here. The issue is whether the scope of Dropbox's license is overly-broad, given the service that they're providing. Under the Google TOS, Google says: "This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Servic…

Except that _wasn't_ the new TOS at the time the articles went up. They changed it _after_ the world exploded. See the bottom of their blog entry: http://blog.dropbox.com/?p=846
Post reply on HN