Slashdot Mirror
There Are Some Super Shady Things In Oculus Rift's Terms of Service (gizmodo.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Gizmodo: While the [Oculus Rift] is cool, like any interesting gadget, it's worth looking through the Terms of Service, because there are some worrisome things included. Quite a few of the items in the document are pretty typical in any sort of Terms of Service agreement. These include details like waiving your right to a juried trial and agreeing to go into arbitration instead. Oculus can also terminate your service for myriad reasons, and third parties can collect information on you. However, there are some even more devilish details in the Rift's full Terms of Service. If you create something with the Rift, the Terms of Service say that you surrender all rights to that work and that Oculus can use it whenever it wants, for whatever purposes. Basically, if you create something using the device, Oculus can't own it, but the company can use it -- and they don't have to pay you for for using it. Oculus can use it even if you don't agree with its use. Oculus can collect data from you while you're using the device. Furthermore, the information that they collect can be used to directly market products to you. As UploadVR noted, the Oculus Rift is a device that is always on (much like Microsoft's Xbox One Kinect feature) which leads to further concerns about when the information will be collected.
(emphasis mine)
It's a pretty boilerplate clause. Basically, they need that clause to transmit your user-generated content without it leading to copyright infringement.
... Started as a EULA.
"Common sense will be the death of us all"
I don't think anyone is surprised.
Said no one ever.
This should come as no surprise. The concept of grasping, overreaching and completely unnecessary IP assumption and invasion and elimination of privacy to the point of attack on the person is beyond absurd.
At least this narrows the field to either the steam VR, or nothing for me.
"No good deed goes unpunished"
Honestly when I first heard that Facebook had bought up Oculus, all I could think about was how they might go about using it to further track and spy on their users. Or at the very least how they would muddle an otherwise great idea with social networking malarkey. The only product facebook sells is YOU, so It's very unsurprising to find this all out.
Its owned by fucking facebook!
They have no idea of what people are likely to get up to with their Oculus Rift product, and if somebody does something that puts the company into any sort of jam, down come the safety nets. That's what I'm seeing in that legal boilerplate.
I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
when the answer to 'what will be collected' is "everything we can, all of the time, and for everyone willing to pay us for this data wherever and whenever"?
The arbitration clause is for when individuals have their data used for more 'blackmail' purposes such as rival business personalities, people one of your IT guys doesn't like, or anybody the FBI pays Oculus to change the logs on to transform an alibi into delicious guilt. You can't take them to court over bad things, it says. Oculus will pick someone to decide in its favor for you, it then declares.
Perhaps reporters should be saying "Facebook's Oculus Rift" rather than omitting the crucial information regarding the product. The amount of press this gadget has had is shocking. And that's not even getting into their always online DRM for a piece of hardware!
Back months ago, Facebook bought oculus.
"What could possibly go wrong?" everyone said. This. But of course it was not going to happen.
Yeah I don't like the wording, and it's finally hit a point where I actually flat out refuse to use or purchase certain technology strictly on their terms of use these days. Before it was protection, now it means something, since they have the ability to collect so much data.
How many times is this article going to make the rounds? Wanna know something fun? The Slashdot terms of use say the same thing! It is standard legalese that allows companies to share what you post or upload with other users. Gizmodo has the same terms. Reddit has the same terms. You will find these terms everywhere.
An awesome post & must read it.. http://indguru.com/2016/mppsc-... http://indguru.com/2016/ssc-cg...
You'll never believe this amazing stuff we've uncovered
more after the break...
I really don't understand the "gee this is boilerplate" milquetoast shrug-and-bear it response. Boilerplate dogshit is what it arbitration clauses are.
These include details like waiving your right to a juried trial and agreeing to go into arbitration instead
Did you know you can opt-out in many cases?
"All things considered" has more on why these arbitration clauses are evil and you should always say "no".. So does the la times, the nation, lifehacker", and pretty much everywhere.
When you agree to arbitration you're agreeing to wave your right to a try in lieu of a system that is biased for business and rules against consumers 94% of the time
TIL that the Oculus Rift is toxic.
Quoting a few sentences before ...
Oculus VR, LLC (“Oculus," "we," "us" or "our”) is pleased to provide you access to, and use of physical goods, platform services, software, websites, applications, and content (collectively, the "Services”). These Terms of Service ("Terms") apply to your purchase, access to, and use of, any Services.
[...]
Oculus reserves the right to change or modify these Terms [...] we will provide notice of such changes as appropriate, such as by [..] updating the "Last Updated" date at the top of these Terms.
Our Services may include interactive features and areas where you may submit, post, upload, publish, email , send or otherwise transmit content ...
So,
(a) Oculus (re)defined "physical goods" (i.e. the headset) as "Services".
(b) Its up to them to alter the deal
(c) Content you email the wife through their service can be 'performed' and 'sub-licensed'.
How many of you people upset that the Rift is "always on" installed Steam and let it sit in your system tray every second that your computer is on?
"Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try." -Homer Simpson
The terms of service are almost identical to those of, for example, Steam. Which is also "always on" by default. And nobody seems to have a problem with it. So could we please be rational, and stop pretending that Oculus is doing anything special here? And a lot of clauses highlighted in the article are pure boilerplate, and actually required for the service being allowed to publish, for example, your reviews or your screenshots. Yes, you can raise privacy concerns, but you would have to do so against any software storefront that lives in your system tray. This is worth discussing, but it is definitely nothing "Super Shady". And if you want to put on your HMD, and instantly see your home screen (or hit the xbox button on your controller), there needs to be some background service watching. The same goes for notifications / multiplayer invites / chat requests. You don't want that? Go to System Settings/Administrative Tools/Services, select "Oculus VR Runtime" and hit "stop". There, it's gone.
the Ripculus Oft?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
... in some legislations. E.g. in Germany you buy the product (buying contract), but there is no additional contract/terms connected with it. If you are forced to accept terms to use the product, the terms are just invalid, even though you "accept".
Wanna make sure your data doesn't get collected? Unplug from the network while using it, and do a factory reset each time you want to connect to the WWW. Want to develop something on it? Do exactly the same sans the factory reset - they will never have access to source code. How exactly are they supposed to use some app that wasn't uploaded to their servers? I see nowhere you're forced to provide source or even binaries. They might be able to use it legally, but how they acquire it is a whole 'nother story, a story that probably has lawsuit vectors all around it in favor of the developer (i.e. you, not Occulus). And by the way, I doubt the companies that have Occulus-compatible apps and games available right now abode to the same "can use for free" type of terms. They surely have paid licenses with very specific royalties involved, so I'm guessing if you don't publish in their platform and abide to further ToS's, you're golden. But that's the real difficulty, can you develop outside their ecosystem like you can with Kinect?
Anybody really surprised!? They should call this the Oculus Rape instead.
Preferably ones who understand things like the law and how it relates to tech. Of course you have to give a license to Oculus to use something which you created and THEN SEND TO THEM, otherwise they couldn't transmit that thing to other users without violating your copyright. Storm in a teacup. Outrage industry marches on. News at eleven.
Notch was right to not want to target the Oculus Rift after the sale. Fecebook has the reverse Midas touch. It turns gold to shit.
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
... what good is a EULA, if yoy are ... unable to sue?
I will vote with my wallet and not buy one. I may consider it when I have some rights, but for now, no. Should anyone be surprised? It is facebook.
We all knew this was going to happen the moment Facebook's involvement was rumoured.
This doesn't come as a surprised, and in most cases was expected... which is why I swore I'd never buy one.
Facebook is mostly owned by microsoft, microshit. They, microshit did the same with visual basic back in the 90's and put a few commercial applications makers out of business by including their customers, who were commercial busineses, applications that they were selling commercially, within new releases of visual basic effectively usurping their business products and reducing their worth. This was because if you used visual basic to make commercial applications after paying the licences to microshit they could still steal your stuff using boiler plate shit like they are still using. welcome to microshit still owns you. stop using this crap.
It's attached to your face and owned by facebook. Did you have doubts on their intentions?
Expectations set.
Yeah, no shit, Facebook is an ad and marketing company masquerading as a social media site.
They have one product: the collection and sale of your personal information.
That's how they make their money. The need that to make money. They exist to make money.
So, as usual, fuck you, Facebook. Not interested in your crap, not going to let the bullshit embedded tracking in web pages I didn't consent to to happen, and sure as hell not every going to use any of your products with an EULA which says "all your base are belong to us".
All companies these days are overreaching assholes, and Zuckerfuck is one of the worst.
I'm not surprised at all that Facebook are doing shit like this. This is just one more reason why they can piss off, and why I'll keep blocking their crap at my firewall -- no, you can't post to Facebook while using my network. Boo fucking hoo.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Shocked that Facebook, known trusted leader of privacy and caring about what the consumer wants would do such a thing.
-==- Buy a Mac and leave me alone!
Maybe I'm over simplifying things a bit, but isn't VR, boiled down to it's most basic concept just a monitor? OK, a monitor with some input, which make it closer in design to a touchscreen, or a Wacom Cintiq than the average PC display. When was the last time that you bough a display that required you to sight up for a service that needs a persistent connection to market to you? Show of hands which would you buy if you hand the choice, a 'smart' TV or a 'dumb' TV. I'm not saying the TOS is all brand new stuff, but seriously? I just want VR without a service. Is that even possible? Will I have to jailbreak an Occulus like a phone?
It might be standard but I thought in most countries to be enforceable the agreement had to be made before purchase of the item. You can't sell the item to someone and then try to add a whole load of terms and conditions which were not readily visible on the outside of the box after you already agreed to the sale.
The fact that it's standard doesn't make it ok, geniuses. If anything, your nonchalance just proves how troubling our acceptance of this shit is, or alternately, how incapable many are of imagining future repurcussions (though make no mistake, when they arrive, there will be whining aplenty). Use your brains, people. The most troubling thing of all is that by merely using the device you are waiving your legal rights. If you don't understand why that matters, you really need to get out more.
Sounds a lot like Facebook's terms of service. This in fact how Facebook makes money after all. At some point they need to monetize their $2B acquisition.
That's how they make their money. The need that to make money. They exist to make money.
So, as usual, fuck you, Facebook
So you're proposing that they provide untold billions of dollars worth of infrastructure to billions of people who use their services all day long, but make the money necessary to run all of that by ... what? Selling decorative accent carpets, car washes, and whole grain muffins? Please be specific.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Don't tell me it's cool. I'll decide if it's cool.
Hint: it's not.
A good point. It's even interesting that Facebook spent billions to own this, yet now that it's a product, they won't put their name on it. Maybe they realize that they have an Orwellian branding problem?
If you create something with the Rift, the Terms of Service say that you surrender all rights to that work and that Oculus can use it whenever it wants, for whatever purposes.
When I worked at Accolade/Infogrames/Atari (same company, different owners, multiple personality disorder), lawyers inserted similar boilerplate language into the NDA for employees to sign. If they left it at that, everyone would have signed. But, no. They included a requirement to previously list all past copyrights and trademarks held as individuals, which in theory could become company property. No one signed. Some people had attorneys, several promised to produce reams and reams of copyright citations, and everyone threatened to resign. HR stepped in, revised the language to something less harmful, and everyone signed.
So you're proposing that they provide untold billions of dollars worth of infrastructure to billions of people who use their services all day long, but make the money necessary to run all of that by ... what? Selling decorative accent carpets, car washes, and whole grain muffins? Please be specific.
Well in this case, they are selling us a $600 piece of hardware as well as running the storefront where we purchase software for said hardware. I imagine there must be some way to make money by taking dollars from people. The data harvesting clauses in this case are egregious and probably wouldn't be there if Oculus weren't owned by Facebook.
There's no surrendering going on AT ALL; that wording was added by Gizmodo, who -- shock horror -- are terrible journalists.
You grant all rights; you do not surrender them. This is pretty ordinary 'online service' legal boilerplate.
I call BS on all of the "they have to have this boilerplate in there in order to make the device function" arguments.
Thank you, Oculus / Facebook for simplifying my VR buying decision. (Guess what - with these terms, it certainly won't be from you!)
Wow! You, sir, are a total fucking douchebag. But I'm sure you think you're an Internet bad-ass for giving Facebook the finger. You're so cool!!!! Actually, you can kindly go fuck yourself. Don't want to use Facebook? Don't use it. It's a free service that a majority of users enjoy. No need to be a dick about it. Just go off and use some stupid shit like Diarrhea... oh, I mean, Diaspora, where you can rub e-peens with your fellow neck-beards.
that a company bought by Facebook would have shady as fuck ToS designed to harvest data and fuck you every imaginable way.
SHOCKED.
What you all seem to be missing is that the Oculus Rift is in version 1.0, right?
And in some future version of the Rift, there will be EXTERNAL CAMERAS attached and integrated, so that you can merge or overlay reality with VR. ...
At that point, the difference between using an Oculus Rift and posting on Slashdot becomes enormous.
And it might well start transmitting GPS data, and sound, and local WIFI identifiers, and who knows what the fuck else
If Slashdot mandated an always-on user-facing camera for anyone posting an article, you'd be up in arms.
But because you're too short-sighted to see where the VR world is going, you make ignorant equivalences as strawmen.
Thanks for playing.
Just told them one cant even come in the house.
Just because it's in a EULA doesn't mean it's enforceable. there has been plenty of times EULAs were taken to court and the clauses found to be both illegal and unenforceable.. a company will get away with whatever YOU allow them to, if you want your rights sometimes you have to stand up to the bully and kick them in the ballsack.
When every provider of a service in a region (ISPs, roofers, anything) includes a mandatory binding arbitration clause, then the civil justice system has effectively been eradicated.
Your freetard, invisible-hand-of-the-market schlock isn't very compelling.
The data harvesting clauses in this case are egregious and probably wouldn't be there if Oculus weren't owned by Facebook.
You're typing your thoughts on a web site, right now, that has essentially the exact same language in its TOS. It's boilerplate when running public-facing services and tools that do things like allowing you to publish your own words or things like avatars.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Hi Zuck,
Nice to see you posting at Slashdot again.
Cheers,
Another anonymous wanker
Don,t buy it.
Jack of all trades,master of none
[...]Zuckerfuck[...]
Surely 'Fuckerberg' is better, no?