Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

There Are Some Super Shady Things In Oculus Rift's Terms of Service (gizmodo.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the buyer-beware dept.

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.

11 of 186 comments (clear)

  1. Pretty standard boilerplate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    By submitting User Content through the Services, you grant Oculus a worldwide, irrevocable, perpetual (i.e. lasting forever), non-exclusive, transferable, royalty-free and fully sublicensable (i.e. we can grant this right to others) right to use, copy, display, store, adapt, publicly perform and distribute such User Content in connection with the Services.

    (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.

    1. Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... by Calydor · · Score: 4, Informative

      By sending or transmitting to us Content, or by posting such Content to any area of the Sites, you grant us and our designees a worldwide, non-exclusive, sub-licensable (through multiple tiers), assignable, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right to link to, reproduce, distribute (through multiple tiers), adapt, create derivative works of, publicly perform, publicly display, digitally perform or otherwise use such Content in any media now known or hereafter developed.

      From http://slashdotmedia.com/terms...

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    2. Re: Pretty standard boilerplate... by Mashiki · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm not sure what countries you're talking about. Two parties who agree to arbitration of a dispute also agree to be bound by the arbiter's decision. Otherwise, it's not arbitration -- it's mediation.

      In Canada for example, you can't be forced into arbitration via a non-contractual agreement. Rogers Telecom discovered this to their surprise a few years ago, further cases have built upon this the most recent being Ebay discovering that you can't force people into arbitration via EULA's, nor can you force them to come to your venue for any court case or force a person to travel to, or force arbitration in any other place then the complainants home venue.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    3. Re: Pretty standard boilerplate... by NotDrWho · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, I live in the United States, where you can be prevented from suing a company for gross negligence of fraud simply by not opting out of some fake class action suit that you didn't even know about.

      "Sorry, you can't sue us. You missed the window to opt-out of the class-action lawsuit that we secretly initiated ourselves. Here's your share of the judgement: a coupon for $5 off your next purchase from us."

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    4. Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... by Desler · · Score: 5, Informative

      Why was this modded up?

      From clause 6(c) of the Youtube ToS:

      However, by submitting Content to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Content in connection with the Service and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. You also hereby grant each user of the Service a non-exclusive license to access your Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such Content as permitted through the functionality of the Service and under these Terms of Service. The above licenses granted by you in video Content you submit to the Service terminate within a commercially reasonable time after you remove or delete your videos from the Service. You understand and agree, however, that YouTube may retain, but not display, distribute, or perform, server copies of your videos that have been removed or deleted. The above licenses granted by you in user comments you submit are perpetual and irrevocable.

      https://www.youtube.com/static...

      That took all of 10 seconds to find.

    5. Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Informative

      I realize it's legalese but the difference is very important. YouTube gets a licence to use and distribute the content, but it remains the sole intellectual property of the creator. Most importantly it states clearly that if you withdraw from the service you can withdraw that right and YouTube will case to use your content.

      Now carefully read the Occulus TOS, specifically this part:

      a worldwide, irrevocable, perpetual (i.e. lasting forever), non-exclusive, transferable, royalty-free and fully sublicensable (i.e. we can grant this right to others) right to use, copy, display, store, adapt, publicly perform and distribute such User Content in connection with the Services. You irrevocably consent to any and all acts or omissions by us or persons authorized by us that may infringe any moral right (or analogous right) in your User Content.

      So they are saying that once they have your work you can never, ever take it back or withdraw from the licence they have to use it. The latter part about moral rights I believe means that you give up all rights granted by copyright for them and anyone they authorize.

      It's modded up because some people understand this very important difference.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  2. "I'm so surprised that facebook would be invasive" by choke · · Score: 3, Informative

    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"
  3. This again? by LoneBoco · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  4. No by sonamchauhan · · Score: 4, Informative

    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'.

    1. Re:No by sonamchauhan · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sure - they are collectively claimed to be services (plural) by Oculus. In the singular, their claim makes the headset hardware either a 'service', or a 'service component'. That means the conditions in the EULA apply to it also. Especially these ones:

      IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THESE TERMS OF SERVICE, DO NOT ACCESS OR USE OUR SERVICES.
      We reserve the right, in our sole discretion and where technically feasible, to disable your access to or ability to use Services that we believe present a health and safety risk or violate our community standards, agreements, laws, regulations or policies.

      I personally think a change in the EULA will be shortly forthcoming. If not, consider the EULA below and consider how things have changed for the worse:

      [DK2 EULA]
      https://www.reddit.com/r/oculu...

      OWNERSHIP. As between you and Oculus, Oculus shall own all right, title, and interest in and to the Firmware and any and all modifications or copies thereof or improvements thereto. You will have only the limited license to use the Firmware in accordance with these Terms & Conditions. As between you and Oculus, you shall own all right, title, and interest in any content that you create using the Product.

      (Emphasis Palmer Luckey's)

      And no - Apple does not sell you an 'iPhone service'. It sells you a tangible product (the iPhone), and licenses you software to use with it. Some aspects of phone functionality use online services (Apple iCloud, App Marketplace). But you don't lose the right to call mom if Apple 'in its sole discretion, and where technically feasible, disabled your access to or ability to use the iPhone service'.

    2. Re:No by allaunjsilverfox2 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Is it too much to ask to just buy some damn hardware? I expect there to be a driver, but that's it. I don't need some stupid always-on crap for the GPU, or a network connection, or online services. I'll buy my own games and apps thanks, just make the damn thing work and take your "value added" crap home.

      You could possibly looking to purchasing a Razer OSVR, I have not looked into their terms of service. But it seems more likely to serve your needs.

      --
      Restore the madness of youth's lechery