Slashdot Mirror


Dropbox TOS Includes Broad Copyright License

mrtwice99 writes "Dropbox recently updated their TOS, Privacy Policy, and Security Overview. Included in the TOS is the following statement: 'By submitting your stuff to the Services, you grant us (and those we work with to provide the Services) worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable rights to use, copy, distribute, prepare derivative works (such as translations or format conversions) of, perform, or publicly display that stuff to the extent we think it necessary for the Service.' I think Dropbox is a great service, but what is the significance of granting them such broad usage rights?" Elsewhere in the same Terms of Service, which are a few notches above the norm in both brevity and readability, Dropbox says both "Dropbox respects others’ intellectual property and asks that you do too," and "You retain ownership to your stuff."

40 of 213 comments (clear)

  1. So they wont get sued by asshats by cgeys · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's the usual clause companies have to put now a day so that some asshat won't sue them for millions of dollars even if the service providers offered the services like advertised. Dropbox probably needs this clause to show your content in a public link that you link to others. Youtube and any other user submitted service has similar clauses. The law probably needs fixing, but that isn't the companies fault - blame the asshats abusing it.

    1. Re:So they wont get sued by asshats by sortius_nod · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Has nothing to do with that. Simple disclaimers fix that. They are doing it to profit off what they don't own.

      Oh well, my account is now deleted, not my problem anymore.

    2. Re:So they wont get sued by asshats by node+3 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Has nothing to do with that. Simple disclaimers fix that. They are doing it to profit off what they don't own.

      For example? And by 'example', I mean an example of something they are actually doing and not just something you think they could conceivably do.

      These sorts of clauses are almost always about trying to legally protect the way the site/service works. Why would Dropbox think it could just take your shit and sell it (what you seem to think they are going to do here)?

    3. Re:So they wont get sued by asshats by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If I make a journal entry, uploading it to slashdot gives them permission to post it. It does NOT give them permission to reprint it in a printed magazine or another site. This clause gives them permission to do anything they damned well please with your material.

    4. Re:So they wont get sued by asshats by cgeys · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just ask yourself why Slashdot has no such agreement. Somehow Slashdot manages to scrape by without this "essential" clause.

      You might want to read Slashdot terms before making such statements because

      In each such case, the submitting user grants Geeknet the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, all subject to the terms of any applicable license.

      Slashdot (and whole Geeknet) license agreement is actually even wider than Dropbox, as they don't even limit it to as-required-by-service.

    5. Re:So they wont get sued by asshats by cgeys · · Score: 3, Informative
      You might want to read Slashdot terms before making such statements because

      In each such case, the submitting user grants Geeknet the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, all subject to the terms of any applicable license.

      Slashdot (and whole Geeknet) license agreement is actually even wider than Dropbox, as they don't even limit it to as-required-by-service.

    6. Re:So they wont get sued by asshats by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You seem to have missed the part where it says, "...to the extent which we think it necessary for the Service." I think they would have trouble convincing a judge that allowing someone you did not designate access to your copyrighted material without your explicit permission for Dropbox's profit was something they legitimately thought was "necessary for the Service."

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    7. Re:So they wont get sued by asshats by HangingChad · · Score: 2

      Youtube and any other user submitted service has similar clauses.

      You realize the way that clause is written that you could use Dropbox to send a draft of your novel to your editor and Dropbox could publish it. Regardless of the intent, there has to be narrower language that would work. They could add something like "in the context of the service" which means their publishing rights are limited to the service itself.

      They might need the clause, but they don't need anything nearly that broad.

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    8. Re:So they wont get sued by asshats by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      There is no breach of trust, no corporate abuse, no amount of legalese overkill that someone somewhere won't excuse and apologize for.

      Ain't that the truth.

      And I willingly grant Slashdot the rights to all of my comments and journal entries because I think it's a worthy service and my comments and journal entries ain't worth shit.

      I don't know dropbox well enough yet to give them rights to any content I might upload. Hell, I was using dropbox to share musical work with my collaborators. Fuck that. They've got to change the agreement before I'll use it again.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    9. Re:So they wont get sued by asshats by iamwahoo2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The summary missed the true problem which is that this TOS requires that the user hold copyright or right to grant a license on the material in question. Which means you can only put up original content, public domain, etc... Legally purchased MP3s cannot be uploaded, GPL content cannot be uploaded (as there terms are not GPL compatible). It is a slippery slope and poorly thought out move by dropbox's lawyers. By opening door to the idea that users need to control certain copyright terms in order to use cloud based storage, you essentially make it useless from a standpoint of using the service legally and you will increase pressure from **AA to force cloud based storage managers to police and filter content.

    10. Re:So they wont get sued by asshats by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 2

      Yeah, the phrase "To the extent we think it necessary for the Service" would not be a terribly good defence for Dropbox if they took a user's screenplay and sold it to Disney. Sure they could try to argue that making money from selling a user's screenplay is necessary for "the service" but they'd be very lucky to find a court that would accept such an interpretation.

      I don't see anything iffy here. DropBox are securing the rights to provide their service without being sued by some chancer. This story is pure Daily Mail style scaremongering. Coming up next, man sues his broadband provider because the packets he was sending to Slashdot traveled via a series of third party routers instead of being sent directly to Slashdot.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    11. Re:So they wont get sued by asshats by John+Bresnahan · · Score: 5, Informative
      Maybe I'm missing the point, but when I post something to Slashdot (such as this) my intention is to make it available to the public at large.

      I haven't used Dropbox, but I didn't think it had a similar purpose. I thought it was more like a cloud-based hard drive.

      I see a significant difference between the two.

    12. Re:So they wont get sued by asshats by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2

      Correct. I have a Dropbox account, and that's exactly what it is, although it also has utility as a file-sharing service as well. You can create and designate folders as "shared with other users" and "shared with guest users (for people without an account)". Folders so designated will allow anyone to download files in those folders.

      So when I post on Slashdot, my intent is clear -- I'm making what I type available to the public at large. But this is also true for files that I put in my folders that are shared with guest users.

      OTOH, this license grant doesn't seem to make such a distinction. Perhaps it should.

    13. Re:So they wont get sued by asshats by maxume · · Score: 2

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

      They would have to go to court and argue they were stupid if they wanted to claim they needed to publicly share files you had marked as private.

      (or publicly share files that had not been explicitly marked for sharing, I guess defaulting to private would be more sensible)

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    14. Re:So they wont get sued by asshats by c0d3g33k · · Score: 2

      I know an author who lost the entire first chapter of her book this way. She uploaded it to Facebook in order to share it with her publisher. Facebook then sued her (and won) when her book was published. She now owes Facebook ALL MONEY she ever made on that chapter (a portion of her portion of the sales) AND over $100,000 in attorney fees that Facebook spent to sue her out of her own hard word and creativity.

      I have a hard time believing this anecdote - I suspect you just made this up.

      If true, it should have been all over the news, given that stories about the 'dangers' of FaceBook are fairly popular. A story about how FaceBook wants you to upload your IP so they can sue away your rights for their own profit would be making the rounds in no time.

      Provide some links to valid news articles describing this case or I'll have to call this a fictional fabrication.

    15. Re:So they wont get sued by asshats by dcollins · · Score: 2

      "For example? And by 'example', I mean an example of something they are actually doing and not just something you think they could conceivably do."

      You make it sound like you don't understand how contract law works at all. You read the contract and decide if the terms sound good before taking action on it. You don't agree to it by default, and then wait to see if you get screwed over and then smack your head.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    16. Re:So they wont get sued by asshats by spire3661 · · Score: 2

      "Don't worry. As a musician you are supposed to get by with merchandising and live shows."

      Isnt that pretty much the definition of a musician? The people you see on TV and in concert generally are performers, not true musicians.

      --
      Good-bye
    17. Re:So they wont get sued by asshats by spancel · · Score: 2

      Why would Dropbox think it could just take your shit and sell it (what you seem to think they are going to do here)?

      Because that is what it says in the contract

    18. Re:So they wont get sued by asshats by tftp · · Score: 2

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

      Note carefully, they don't say "necessary for providing the Service". Why is that? Is it because the money they attempt to get from selling your stuff is needed to motivate them to keep the servers running?

      I never had an account with them, and obviously I'm not going to ever get one. As matter of fact, I have my own instance of Open-Xchange on the Net, and I can store my own InfoItems from wherever I want to.

    19. Re:So they wont get sued by asshats by ajs · · Score: 2

      Has nothing to do with that. Simple disclaimers fix that. They are doing it to profit off what they don't own.

      Oh well, my account is now deleted, not my problem anymore.

      That seems a foolish overreaction. Yes, this TOS is fairly broad, but it releases them to implement many new services down the line that require automatic transcoding, format conversions, creation of Web sites, etc.

      The reality is that Dropbox has no interest in alienating their customers by selling off their stuff. However, consider one simple case: you have your music collection on Dropbox. They decide to offer a "share my photos" feature. You select that feature and they connect your photos to some N friends of yours who also use Dropbox via a browser-based client. They don't have to walk you through a pile of agreements just to sign up for that additional service, allowing them to do format conversion, store the resulting images on a separate server for their image service, or assign "performance rights." You've already done this, so they can just provide you with a service.

      I wouldn't bother dropping Dropbox as a service just because you think their TOS is broad. You're not likely to come across a cloud storage service without a broad TOS. Instead, I would base my choice of cloud storage provider on how their treat their customers.

    20. Re:So they wont get sued by asshats by t2t10 · · Score: 2

      The law isn't mathematics. Contracts are interpreted by courts and that is clearly not a reasonable interpretation.

    21. Re:So they wont get sued by asshats by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      who cares, I kind of expect slashdot to publicly display my comments. I wouldn't expect a "filesystem in the cloud" to have rights to publicly display some sketches I'd keep there - or them to sublicense that stuff.. fuck 'em, you can buy filehosting at better terms.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    22. Re:So they wont get sued by asshats by node+3 · · Score: 2

      Yes, it's completely paranoid.

      Dropbox is not going to sell your files. How can you possibly think they are going to sell/redistribute your files on their own? You even quote the relevant part and then paraphrase it. "The extent they think it necessary for the service". Do you think "selling your files" is "necessary for the service"? Do you think that Dropbox will try this? They will lose their customer base overnight if they did. And if they did, do you think it would hold up in court? How do you justify "selling customers' files" (in contravention of other parts of the TOS), as "necessary to the service"?

      This is clearly about being able to operate their service as it current functions under US copyright laws.

  2. Easy - encrypt it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    and don't give them the password.

  3. They all do it. by nagnamer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Google, deviantArt, Facebook, et al, they all have very similar or same wording in their TOS's. Point is, if they transfer data from your account to someone else's account, it is considered distribution, performance if they show video to others, etc, etc. So they need you to license your stuff to them so they're permitted to carry out their services. The fact that it, on paper, gives them right to do many other things is worrying, but not at all unusual. Good thing about Dropbox version is that it at least has the "to the extent we think we think it necessary for the Service." That is an improvement.

    --
    Every harsh word you utter has the right address. It only sounds harsh because the one on the envelope is the wrong one.
    1. Re:They all do it. by nagnamer · · Score: 2

      They all provide features that allow users to share content with other users. Legal paranoia says they need a license to do that.

      Exactly. Plus Dropbox does add that it's to the extent they deem necessary to provide the services. IIRC, not everybody limits themselves in this way.

      --
      Every harsh word you utter has the right address. It only sounds harsh because the one on the envelope is the wrong one.
    2. Re:They all do it. by Silvanis · · Score: 2

      Not really. Any time they display or send your content to another person, that's copyright infringement. So they need a license from you, it needs to be worldwide (since anyone can access the website), you WANT it to be non-exclusive, they don't intend to pay you to use their service so royalty-free, sublicenseable to the extent that if they use akami or some such to host the content, then akami doesn't comment infringement..

      Time duration's about the only piece of the typical grant that is questionable. Since Dropbox is something of a temporary service, theirs makes sense.

  4. Out of context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you read the whole agreement, it isn't as scary as the poster has implied.

    Your Stuff & Your Privacy

    By using our Services you may give us access to your information, files, and folders (together, “your stuff”). You retain ownership to your stuff. You are also solely responsible for your conduct, the content of your files and folders, and your communications with others while using the Services.

    We sometimes need your permission to do what you ask us to do with your stuff (for example, hosting, making public, or sharing your files). By submitting your stuff to the Services, you grant us (and those we work with to provide the Services) worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable rights to use, copy, distribute, prepare derivative works (such as translations or format conversions) of, perform, or publicly display that stuff to the extent we think it necessary for the Service. You must ensure you have the rights you need to grant us that permission.

    How we use your stuff is also governed by the Dropbox Privacy Policy, which you acknowledge. You acknowledge that Dropbox has no obligation to monitor any information on the Services, even though we may do so. We are not responsible for the accuracy, completeness, appropriateness, or legality of files, user posts, or any other information you may be able to access using the Services. We may disclose information about your account or your stuff to law enforcement officials as outlined in our Privacy Policy.

    1. Re:Out of context by BeanThere · · Score: 2

      Um, it still sounds just as bad to me even in context. Legally, the sentence "We sometimes need your permission to do what you ask us to do with your stuff (for example, hosting, making public, or sharing your files)." doesn't affect the meaning in any way, other than couch it in the implication - to the layman - that the extent of the sentence following, is limited by that sentence. However, it isn't; if you parse the English, the two sentences are not connected.

    2. Re:Out of context by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The entire thing is horrible from a legal standpoint. If that's their actual TOS, rather than an informal FAQ or similar, then run a mile from their service. They clearly haven't consulted a (remotely competent) lawyer in drawing up a legal document. From previous Slashdot stories, they haven't consulted a remotely competent cryptographer in designing their encryption either. I wonder if they've consulted anyone competent about anything at all...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  5. What you get for free by Wowsers · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If it bothers you that much, don't bee a freetard, get yourself a basic website with webspace, and you control your own domain and don't have to worry about companies making up such TOCs where they think they own copyrights they have no right to. (this was not a troll posting).

    --
    Take Nobody's Word For It.
    1. Re:What you get for free by mrtwice99 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Seriously, you are going to compare Dropbox to "a basic website with webspace", and this gets modded Insightful? I have lots of websites, there is a reason I use Dropbox, its a great product. I'm just concerned the terms are overly broad.

  6. Safe for Bitcoin wallet? by turkeyfeathers · · Score: 2

    Is it still safe to store my Bitcoin wallet there, so I can access it from anywhere?

  7. Not even under their control by antifoidulus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    At the end of the day, dropbox is really just a fancy front end bolted on to Amazon's s3 service. So basically if Amazon demanded no copyrighted material be stored on the service, dropbox must change it's TOS to match..... Ultimately your dropbox data is essentially in the hands of not just one, but 2 different companies.

    1. Re:Not even under their control by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2

      So basically if Amazon demanded no copyrighted material be stored on the service

      ...then they'd have to close that business unit by the end of the week. Hint: this post is copyrighted material. So is yours. So is the photo I took and uploaded to Flickr. In short, almost everything is copyrighted, and if Amazon tried to institute a no-copyrighted-material policy they'd be stuck with no customers but Project Gutenberg.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  8. Summary incomplete by davide+marney · · Score: 2

    It leaves off the last sentence of the quoted paragraph from the TOS: "You must ensure you have the rights you need to grant us that permission."

    IANAL, but I suspect that this is the linchpin of the terms. In order for any of the foregoing rights to be granted to dropbox, you must actually have rights in the first place. You are completely on the hook if you sync anything improperly.

    This all sounds fine in theory, but I bet there's not a single dropbox customer who isn't running afoul of this term. It's not really dropbox's fault, it's the fault of our cockamamie copyright laws which grant automatic copyright on EVERYTHING on first publication.

    When everything's covered, nothing's covered. Except for those who have the deep pockets to bring suit.

    --
    "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
  9. Re:Fails on yet another level by X3J11 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... they are now pretending they own everything people put there?

    No, they are being granted a license to use what people put there. There is a difference.

    Maybe it's time for law enforcement to get involved with these clowns and hit them with fraud for pretending to have a secure service.

    Yes someone better call the Internet Police and ... oh wait. This comment doesn't even make sense. Call which law enforcement exactly? And for what charge? "I don't like their Terms of Service" isn't, as far as I'm aware, something any country's laws have a charge for. You don't like the terms, you don't use the service.

  10. Translation: by kuzb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "We reserve the rights to be douchebags if we want, but we promise we won't be."

    --
    BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
  11. Or don't use DropBox. Use Wuala instead. by Weezul · · Score: 3, Informative

    Wuala offers both encryption and cheap storage via data deduplication. They simply AES encrypt your stuff using it's own SHA as the key. And they use the encrypted file's SHA for the identifier. In this way, any two people should encrypt the same file to the same encrypted file, but nobody who's never seen the original file could read it, including Wuala.

    Soon, we'll see the MafiAA perusing people's DropBox accounts to delete pirated content and/or sue its possessors. Wuala doesn't offer that much more technical protection here since they'll simply subpoena the list of people possessing a particular file, but they cannot actually just browse your account because each directory gets encrypted too and directories are usually unique. Also, Wuala is far more likely to fight a MafiAA subpoena because they're (a) based in Switzerland, (b) started as a P2P network, and (c) started by academics.

    --
    The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
  12. CYA in case of another password screwup by stabiesoft · · Score: 2

    Its probably in case they have another password malfunction and allow just anyone to download your data. With the new terms, they are allowed to.