Dropbox TOS Includes Broad Copyright License

Post by true_religion » Sat, Jul 02, 2011, 8:59 PM UTC

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…

Post by ldar15 » Sat, Jul 02, 2011, 9:11 PM UTC

  * Fuck up security[0]
  * Get hit with class action suit[1]
  * Change TOS

Post by mh_ » Sat, Jul 02, 2011, 9:19 PM UTC

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.

Post by sunchild » Sat, Jul 02, 2011, 9:21 PM UTC

stan_rogers wrote: post #50

sunchild wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 by sixtofour » Sat, Jul 02, 2011, 11:28 PM UTC

leon_ wrote: post #59

sixtofour wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 ...