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.

123 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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This x1000. The article is making mountains out of mole hills it appears. Only content the end-user chooses to submit to the oculus services is treated in that way, as you have pointed out.

      The summary really makes this whole thing seem worse than it is by insinuating that all user-generated content will be owned by oculus. Have the slashdot "editors" (and I use that term loosely) even taken the time to READ the actual Terms of Service? If you didn't then you are lazy and inept and shouldn't be in the job you are in. If you did then you are deliberately misrepresenting the facts to suite your own narrative.

      So BeauHD, which are you? Incompetent or Malicious?

    2. Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... by Mashiki · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Some stuff that people(including the law itself) will likely have problems with: The irrevocable, perpetual, and non-exclusive and transferable stuff. Depending on where you live, this would be all contract clause statements. And stuff that can not be used in a EULA because it's considered "a waive of rights, protected by law."

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    3. Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... by Mitreya · · Score: 4, Interesting

      they need that clause to transmit your user-generated content without it leading to copyright infringement.

      I am not a lawyer, but why do they need this part?: fully sublicensable (i.e. we can grant this right to others).

      Also, is "waive-your-right-to-trial" now considered to be boilerplate?

    4. Re: Pretty standard boilerplate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I always change the EULAs before I accept them so that they suit me better. If we are going to have one-sided license agreements I prefer to be on the winning side.

    5. Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... by mwvdlee · · Score: 2

      Same for the arbitration clause.
      In many countries this clause would boil down to "try arbitration first, then if arbitration isn't to your liking, go to court anyway".

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    6. 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=-
    7. Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      YouTube transmits user generated content without requiring 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".

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... by Sique · · Score: 2

      If it was boilerplate, why do the need a "irrevocal, perpetual" license? Once Oculus has transmitted the User Content, they don't need the license anymore. And the license on anything including the caches should expire anyway the moment I stop using my Oculus Rift gear or sell it to someone else.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    9. Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... by bloodhawk · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I don't think much of OR but these clauses are bog standard. They are irrevocable and perpetual as anything else would be insane and require additional work on their part to implement. They are their so that if as you say you do sell your device or stop using or anything else or suddenly decide you didn't like publishing XYZ they don't have to worry about running around ensuring your content is deleted from everywhere. You will find just about every forum or site where you post content too has pretty much exactly the same clauses, they are extensive and generic to ensure they don't have to worry about constant legal trouble from arseholes that want to claim copyright on item X after the fact.

    10. Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Uh, yeah, here's the problem-

      The service agreement doesn't specify this in solely in connection with transmission, but a rather a vague we-can-do-whatever-the-hell-we want as long as it is "in connection with services," which sounds sufficiently vague to be litigated, but you already signed away that right. Ooops.

      Discogs recently updated their privacy policy with no other choice offered but "I agree", which perked up my paranoia sensor, and after reading through the policy, came across this choice chestnut:

      By using Discogs’ Services, You consent to Discogs’ use and disclosure of Your personal information, including any information that identifies You, directly or indirectly, including by reference to an identification number, to one or more factors specific to Your physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity, and data elements such as Your IP address, geolocation, and username and password (“Personal Information”) as described in this Policy.

      You've got to be fucking insane.

      Of course they explained very nicely how this was to be used in their forums, and how this cart blanche surrender would never be abused, except THAT ISN'T A PART OF THE FUCKING PRIVACY POLICY NOW IS IT?

      Part and parcel of these agreements is to specify exactly how information is to be used, in what context, and what limitations circumscribe the authors. Instead we get I'm alright Jack, it just a standard contract term, and won't you trust us never to have an interpretation that does you harm.

      Fuck 'em.

    11. Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... by phishybongwaters · · Score: 1

      Yes. Sony might have really launched that initiative but I believe it was after the PSN hack, they offered everyone a pathetic little "we're sorry" gift, and acceptance of that meant you waived your right, forever, to take them to trial. It's now in their ELUA.

    12. Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... by jandersen · · Score: 2

      It's a pretty boilerplate clause. Basically, they need that clause to transmit your user-generated content without it leading to copyright infringement. /quote)

      Well, isn't that the problem, really? All these services are surrounded by a dense under-forest of legal clauses that no-body cares to try to understand, because it all seems to be written in a deliberately obscure language. In many cases there are no ill intentions, but:

      - there may be un-intended implications, that later turn out to put the user at a severe disadvantage. And even if the current owners of a service provider are well-meaning and highly respectful of the privacy and rights of their customers, these things can and do change. So - even if you could trust the people you signed up with, you may not be wise to trust whoever takes over down the line.

      - because there are so many obscure clauses that most don't bother to read, it is all too easy to make small, innocent looking changes that changes the relationship in a fundamental way. We know it happens, from the reports from time to time - one wonders how often it happens without being reported.

      I think, if these things are "pretty boilerplate", then they should be a compulsory standard to be followed by all service providers. No doubt we would hear cries of "stifling innovation" etc, but that is nonsense; real innovation is not about how to confuse or trap your customers.

    13. Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... by Sique · · Score: 1

      But Slashdot actually stores the articles and postings for eternity and displays them on request, and they don't delete them afterwards. So Slashdot actually needs an irrevocalble, perpetual license to do so.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    14. Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... by tburkhol · · Score: 1

      I am not a lawyer, but why do they need this part?: fully sublicensable (i.e. we can grant this right to others).

      Imagine you're using your Rift to hold a virtual meeting with two or three friends. You've customized your avatar, maybe even by mapping a photo of yourself onto its head. In order for your friends to 'see' you, Oculus/Facebook has to redistribute your creation. They might want to use a 3rd party content delivery network to send textures or images. If you happen to sing a song during this meeting, then not only your avatar, but the whole performance is theoretically copyrightable. (and really, probably anything qualifies as a 'performance'). If you want to record a message, or be able to replay a session, they need to be allowed to store and distribute later.

      So, they need some of this language just to do what you're signing up for. It is true that the language would also let them use segments in advertising literature. They might even archive and sell repeat performances. Kind of like Twitch.

    15. Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Reply to: Re:Pretty standard boilerplate...

      Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Calydor ( 739835 ) Alter Relationship on Monday April 04, 2016 @10:10AM (#51836449)

      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.

      , Slashdot ToS.

      Seem like what one person consider freedom is another persons shady prison =P

      (also https://fosswire.com/post/2007...)

    16. Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... by wodencafe · · Score: 2

      YouTube transmits user generated content without requiring 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".

      I'd like to add this is also what email providers do.

      The Oculus requirement to transfer all rights to them is nonsense.

    17. Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So, they need some of this language just to do what you're signing up for.

      No they don't. They don't need permissions to use a device for its purpose. If I hire a recording studio (who employ third-party technicians & rent some of the equipment from 'the cloud'), then I don't need to give them any "rights" so they can store temporarily the music I make. good or bad - that music is MINE.

      If I rent a phone answering machine for my company - I don't need to grant any permissions even if they're storing stuff 'in the cloud'. I may sing my copyrighted song into the answering machine - they still don't need any 'permission' to reproduce the performance for whoever I was calling.

      Oh, and in the same vein: If I use a 'Rift' with a custom avatar and sing my song during a meeting, they need no 'boilerplate' permission for delivering that song to the other participants. No more than the phone company need permission when I sing over the phone. (The phone is digital and involves 'the cloud' too these days.) It is all lies – they only need these permissions to 'steal' stuff for using for their own purposes. Of course, it won't be stealing if you sign away your rights like a sheep . . .

    18. Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Also, is "waive-your-right-to-trial" now considered to be boilerplate?

      Yes. See AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, etc.

      This is why Supreme Court justice appointments are important.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    19. 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...
    20. Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... by SharpFang · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, any reasonable firm qualifies the above with a limitation of application: "for the purposes of providing the service, marketing and promotion of the service" - so they can e.g. include clips/screenshots of your work in their promo materials.

      Any license which omits this specific limitation is dodgy, because while they *explain* it's for "transmitting the content", in fact they reserve the rights in extreme excess of what is necessary for operation.

      It's like firefighters reserved the right to enter your house at any time, at will, for whatever purpose, how often and how long they desire, and with ability to sublicense this right to any third party. And explained they need it to save you if your house is on fire.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    21. Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      making mountains out of mole hills it appears.

      Because no human has exploited any legal loophole ever.

    22. Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because they need to sell at least 3 million units just to break even on their initial investment, and there's no fucking way in hell they're going to do that - especially not at $600/unit and with competition coming out soon. So what they're going to do is package you and sell you to third parties Facebook style. After all, who owns Oculus?

    23. Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... by msauve · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Basically, they need that clause to transmit your user-generated content without it leading to copyright infringement."

      No, they need a clause similar to that to allow their service to work as users expect. As is, it takes much more than needed. For instance, if a user decides to remove their content, Oculus doesn't need to honor that, because they've received perpetual, irrevocable rights. There's absolutely no need for that, or for them to be able to sublicense perpetual, irrevocable rights.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    24. Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... by Holi · · Score: 1

      And now that every company includes that condition we have lost our right to court access in regards to civil matters.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    25. Re: Pretty standard boilerplate... by Holi · · Score: 2

      And how's that gonna hold up when only your copy has the changes?

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    26. 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.
    27. 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.

    28. Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... by butzwonker · · Score: 2

      This trick only works in the US, though, which apparently has a contract law that is biased very strongly in favour of corporations. In other parts of the world, frivolous clauses like this will cause the contract as a whole to become void.

    29. Re: Pretty standard boilerplate... by butzwonker · · Score: 3, Interesting

      He should send his modified copy back to the company. Everybody should do that. The worst thing that can happen is that you have to give the product back and get a full refund for it.

    30. Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      Modern marketing: because claiming "fair use" doesn't cut it.

    31. Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... by Desler · · Score: 1

      Except they don't require any such thing. They require a license. That's quite a bit different than a transferring of rights.

    32. Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      This trick only works in the US, though, which apparently has a contract law that is biased very strongly in favour of corporations.

      No, those laws favor anybody, including you personally if you wish, who are creating things and offering services. You could be a one-man landscaping company, and include similar language in your contract if you wish, as it relates to your business need to show images of your creative work, even when your client has added things to it. And your prospective customers can agree to your terms, or just hire somebody else. Your OMG CORPORATEY INCORPORATED CORPORATIONS!!! scare word has nothing to do with it. It applies to mom-and-pop creative services and products just as much as it does to organizations of 5, 10 or 10,000 employees. And it's a contract, so it's negotiable. If nothing else, you have the ultimate negotiating power: take your money elsewhere. Don't like the Occulus stance? Buy from Magic Leap or Microsoft. Don't like theirs? Convinced there has to be way to produce such a product while not going bankrupt without requiring those contractual items? Then you're a new sort of genius and can surely attract the funding to start your own, better version of a company producing such tools. What are you waiting for?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    33. Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      It's just a device. By the same logic, my camera would need similar clauses.

      Are you using massively networked online communication services provided by Nikon (or Canon or Pentax or whoever) to make your photographs functionally useful? No? I see.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    34. Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Also, is "waive-your-right-to-trial" now considered to be boilerplate?

      Well, yes. What did you think the "state/government is evil" meme was all about? Trials and rule of law are manifestations of state power; without it, you have the Law of the Jungle - and even a tiny corporation is the 500-pound gorilla compared to you. Which is why they and their servants keep pushing for it.

      Surely only a statist would complain about having the liberty to give up all their rights if they wish to participate in the economy?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    35. Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... by lgw · · Score: 2

      Why would a display need "massively networked online communication services"? Is it so Facebook can sell me to advertisers? I think it's so Facebook can sell me to advertisers.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    36. Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      Because they need to sell at least 3 million units just to break even on their initial investment, and there's no fucking way in hell they're going to do that - especially not at $600/unit and with competition coming out soon.

      That's because you're not a Silicon Valley entrepreneur pitching to venture capitalists. With a U.S. population of 300 million, Oculus will only need 3 million people (1%) to buy their product to break even. Once they get past that point, every sale becomes pure profit. This is a successful formula for most startups. As Guy Kawasaki likes to point out, that formula didn't work too well for an online dog food delivery service.

    37. Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... by Calydor · · Score: 1

      Actually modern law: Because claiming "fair use" can see the case tied up in court for years.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    38. Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... by butzwonker · · Score: 3, Interesting
      US contract laws favours companies over individual customers. That is what I said and none of what you are ranting about even speaks against this. To make this clearer to you, the difference to other laws is that in the US a frivolous clause such as a general rights waiver or 'do not sue' clause may be invalidated later in court, but is prima facie assumed to be valid when both parties agree. Also, even if it is invalid other clauses will remain intact. In other countries like Germany, for instance, a contract that contains frivolous clauses will be invalid in its entirety. The court might still decide to take into account other clauses of the contract in their verdict, but the contract is void. In fact, most EULAs of large corporations are void in Europe. The reason that this is not so well-known is that you first have to file a civil lawsuit in order for the contract to be nullified, and most end consumers do not have the money and stamina for such a civil lawsuit.

      When I said that US contract law favours corporations I've meant exactly that -- it de facto, as a matter of actual practise, favours corporations over end consumers, because the latter rarely suggest changes or explicitly disagree, and frivolous clauses are more easily enforced in the US than in Europe (see above). Why corporations and not companies in general? Well, it seems to me that there are still a lot of smaller companies that have reasonable EULAs, but perhaps I'm wrong about that one and you're right that "mom-and-pop creative services and products" plaster their contracts with the same frivolous rights waiver clauses. Anyway, I'm happy to live in a country where these EULAs are not worth the paper they are printed on and can be accepted without any consequences, because they are void. That's not the case in the US.

    39. Re: Pretty standard boilerplate... by BronsCon · · Score: 1
      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    40. Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I can accept that he was giving you his legal opinion as to how that case would work out. He didn't mention how much time and money it would cost you did he? And any judge might disagree with him over how some part of the law might be interpreted, certainly any opposing lawyer would.

      It's one thing to talk about how the case would work out if everything were open and level, but it rarely is. Often justice happens anyway, to some extent. But the cost can be formidable.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    41. Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... by Desler · · Score: 1

      Yes, they do have similar statements.

      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.

    42. Re: Pretty standard boilerplate... by jandersen · · Score: 1

      How about this: If you disagree with the terms of a contract, or you don't understand it... Don't fucking agree to it?

      Or.. No... Let's throw out 200 plus years of contract law because you're too stupid/lazy.

      Aw, you couldn't find a proper argument, so you try insult? You have to do better than that, if you want to impress anybody. And don't tell me that you read each and every EULA, contract and online terms-and-conditions that you come across before signing with a greasy thumbprint.

      But for those who actually bother to read before they start replying: Every time you shop online or in a brick-and-mortar shop, you effectively agree to a set of terms and conditions. In the traditional shops, these are well know and -understood by most, and heavily regulated, not least because there have been cases in the past where shops have tried to pull a fast one on their customers, but also because it simply isn't practical to ask 1000s of customers in a supermarket to sign a piece of paper with terms and conditions. Not so with online shopping: every time you sign up, you do in fact agree to whatever terms and conditions are in force at that time - at least that is the line online service providers take - and since it is very easy to move from shop to shop, you get to sign up to hundreds of terms and conditions. Is it lazyness if you after some time end up just ignoring them and sign up without reading them? Of course not.

      Shops have always used trickery like this - confusing people with misleading wording, overly detailed documents, uncomparable pricing structures and so on; just as another example of this - why do you think supermarkets never, ever give price per liter on similar drinks? It is always product A: x $ per liter, product B: y $ per gallon, product C: z $ per bottle - they don't want you to be able to compare. Tricking you into not bothering to read shelf-meters of nearly identical legalese is part of the plans - and already people are signing away their rights without a second thought. Regulation is regrettably the only way to protect consumers from predators like that.

    43. Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... by Maritz · · Score: 1

      I'd be kinda surprised if they even sell a million units in the US, but I guess we'll see. Vive, considering they have Valve on board, will be a fierce competitor whilst also having a PR edge simply from not being from the creepy Facebook stable.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    44. Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... by Maritz · · Score: 1

      And as a minor benefit, if you happen to do anything interesting or sale-able, Facebook get first dibs on it, because it belongs to them. Bonus.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    45. 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
    46. Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Sure, that makes sense. The phone company makes you sign the same agreement, right? You could sing Happy Birthday to your mother on the phone, after all.

    47. Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      There's a bit of a difference. Slashdot is a publication medium. If Oculus were running a publishing site like Twitch or YouTube, they would absolutely need blanket permission to publish your content. Facebook itself needs it. But the Oculus is a VR headset. Why do they need publication rights?

    48. Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      purpose. If I hire a recording studio (who employ third-party technicians & rent some of the equipment from 'the cloud'), then I don't need to give them any "rights" so they can store temporarily the music I make. good or bad - that music is MINE.

      The difference is your Recording Studio isn't being asked to share it publicly. The problem becomes that Oculus wants to show off a video with the Oculus store. They create a video. And then 6 months later you revoke the in perpetuity rights and you delete the content. But the content is still visible in the demo video they filmed. So now every 3 weeks Oculus has to review all material that they've ever shared of an employee's screen to ensure everything is still valid.

      Content management is a pain in the ass when you're dealing with like Getty. It would be a fucking nightmare if at any moment any user created content might be displayed a second after the person requested it deleted. Oops, your content was also displayed on this other service. You slam them with a million dollar lawsuit because you dynamically revoked the license.

      And yes sublicensing is necessary because Oculus might also use say Microsoft Azure services. So Microsoft needs a sub-license to host the content.

    49. Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Why would a display need "massively networked online communication services"?

      Because they're not selling it merely as a display. There's an entire ecosystem of services they're building around it - otherwise they would have to charge far, far more for the hardware. The $600 (ish) per device won't even put a dent their costs, otherwise. Just like that price won't come close to the competing products being developed at Microsoft and Magic Leap.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    50. Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      US contract laws favours companies over individual customers. That is what I said

      No, you didn't. You said "corporations." Contract law makes no distinction in that regard. A contract is a mutually agreed-upon arrangement between two parties. Those parties could be any mix of individuals acting privately, individuals conducting business, a company formed by and involving only one person, or an organization of two people or two million people (or hundreds of millions of people ... the government signs contracts too, right?). Contract law doesn't favor anyone agreeing to a contract, the contract spells out exactly who gets what under what circumstances.

      All of your spinning about de facto results is just you back-pedaling because your initial assertion, as you know, is nonsense.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    51. Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      No it doesn't require ever increasing storage and it doesn't mean they store it forever. It means they can delete archive or whatever at there own pace and not have to respond to timelines dictated by others.

    52. Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      This trick only works in the US, though, which apparently has a contract law that is biased very strongly in favour of corporations. In other parts of the world, frivolous clauses like this will cause the contract as a whole to become void.

      Note that most countries outside US have loser pays winner's legal fees, US has pay your own, which gives advantage to big guy with legal staff over small guy with nothing more than solid case on his side.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  2. The Matrix... by tacarat · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... Started as a EULA.

    --
    "Common sense will be the death of us all"
    1. Re:The Matrix... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      So, somehow the EULA became self-aware? I suppose it would be automatically predisposed to agree to itself.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    2. Re:The Matrix... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So, somehow the EULA became self-aware? I suppose it would be automatically predisposed to agree to itself.

      "Have you ever just stood and stared at it? Marveled at it's beauty... it's Genius? Millions of people just, signing away their rights... Oblivious!"

  3. What else would you expect from Facebook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't think anyone is surprised.

    1. Re:What else would you expect from Facebook? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly. And what about that "always on" deal? I can understand that there is a process running to switch stuff over to the Rift when you put it on, but why on earth is that process collecting data and sending it home to the mothership?

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    2. Re:What else would you expect from Facebook? by Desler · · Score: 1

      Funny since Slashdot has the exact same terms in their ToS. Starnge how BeauHD doesn't find it "dodgy" when he's doing it.

    3. Re:What else would you expect from Facebook? by Kazymyr · · Score: 1

      I shelved any plans I had for getting an Oculus as soon as they were bought by Facebook. It's one of the companies that I don't trust.

      --
      I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
    4. Re:What else would you expect from Facebook? by LittleBunny · · Score: 1

      More here: [url] https://forums.oculus.com/comm... What matters most to me, from the referenced thread: blocking traffic on port 443 blocks the phoning home, and the hardware still works. I would love some confirmation of this. If the hardware refused to work without a live connection to Facebook, that would be a deal-breaker for me.

  4. "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"
  5. Are we really surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Are we really surprised? by rsmith-mac · · Score: 1

      Are we surprised? No.

      But are we disappointed? Yes. Facebook went and screwed up what is a really cool device with this and their platform shenanigans.

  6. Attempt to corral unforeseen consequences by Freshly+Exhumed · · Score: 2

    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.
    1. Re:Attempt to corral unforeseen consequences by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Granting themselves a perpetual licence seems to make them more open to legal trouble, not less. We have seen in the past where services have tried to claim ownership of user generated content they end up owning illegal material and unable to claim "common carrier" or other types of immunity since it now belongs to them.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Attempt to corral unforeseen consequences by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Owning the content that people might create does not help with that. It helps you own shit other people make. It does not 'safety net' anything.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    3. Re:Attempt to corral unforeseen consequences by Maritz · · Score: 2

      All media has helped lower crime dramatically.

      What? Really?

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    4. Re:Attempt to corral unforeseen consequences by AC-x · · Score: 1

      Granting themselves a perpetual licence seems to make them more open to legal trouble, not less.

      Want to guess who else has similar clauses in their TOS?

      the submitting user grants SlashDot Media a 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.

    5. Re:Attempt to corral unforeseen consequences by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

      As far as I know, most countries have banned simulated kiddie porn, probably because it was too easy to apply some filter to the material and then claim that "it's not real" But rape games and killing simulators are not banned here; most of Europe is pretty liberal when it comes to games.

      And kids being imprisoned for building a school level in an FPS? That's ridiculous. Assuming you're from the US, I can imagine bully cops and idiot panicky teachers causing a student to be arrested for such a thing... and I can also imagine the police and prosecutors, being utterly incapable and unwilling to ever admit any mistake, getting the student to convicted on some technicality or pushing him into a plea bargain. But has any student ever been convicted specifically for building a school level in an FPS?

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    6. Re:Attempt to corral unforeseen consequences by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Do you have any business cards? I'd like to hand them out to my enemies...

  7. Re:"I'm so surprised that facebook would be invasi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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!

  8. Re:"I'm so surprised that facebook would be invasi by Tyr07 · · Score: 1

    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.

  9. 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.

    1. Re:This again? by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Yes. Slashdot and Reddit are also helmets with virtual worlds in them. It's exactly the same. Everything is exactly the same as everything else. Thank you.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    2. Re:This again? by AC-x · · Score: 1

      The Oculus TOS is referring to using the Oculus' online services, not using the Oculus on its own. How does "posting user content on an online service viewed through VR goggles" differ legally from "posting user content on an online service viewed on a 2D monitor"?

    3. Re:This again? by ortholattice · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Slashdot terms of use say the same thing!

      It doesn't bother me that much because whatever I post I intend to make public anyway. If reading and posting to Slashdot required an app that snooped on everything I do, I'd be outta here.

    4. Re:This again? by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      you mean you aren't using a web browser to post to Slashdot?

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    5. Re:This again? by Holi · · Score: 1

      The question is, why does an output device need such rights? How much "user created content" does a couple of lcd's positioned in front of the eyes create? The only thing that should get sent to the internet is some voice data to communicate with others.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    6. Re:This again? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Slashdot is a service that publishes user comments. The Rift is a hardware peripheral that should run stand-alone, with a driver at most. What are all these services and why do I want them? What happens if I decline the EULA, does my hardware stop working?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:This again? by Toad-san · · Score: 1

      And you will find case after case of these "Terms of Service" being thrown out when it actually goes to court. It's just like the "boilerplate" crap I used to run into all the time back in The Day, esp. when I was doing custom software and programming for people. Their lawyers would send this crap; I'd redline through the ridiculous crap and send it back; "But but but .. we NEED this!"; "No, you don't.". We'd finally work it out.

      Enough people refuse to buy, or print out the Terms of Service, line out what they don't like, and send it back to Rift. It'll go away.

  10. 12 Super Shady Things In Oculus Rift's Terms of Se by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You'll never believe this amazing stuff we've uncovered

    more after the break...

  11. Arbitration agreements == Spreading your cheeks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

  12. 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 phishybongwaters · · Score: 1

      (a) Oculus (re)defined "physical goods" (i.e. the headset) as "Services". No, they clearly state that the physical goods, software, applications, platform and content are collectively know as "services". They are providing you a service, a VR experience. This service is made up of hardware and software. You can, and should, argue apple is doing the same thing with iPhones and iPads, they are selling you an Apple service. That service requires some hardware and software components to work

    2. 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'.

    3. Re:No by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. 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
  13. Show of hands for the hypocrites by GrandCow · · Score: 3, Funny

    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
    1. Re:Show of hands for the hypocrites by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      Not me, I don't have Steam installed at all. So there you go.

    2. Re:Show of hands for the hypocrites by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

      "Psssstttt!! Yeah, you, the one that's supposed to be cramming for that exam. It's me, your Rift. Hey, you and me, we need to have a little talk about your recent lack of playtime... What?! You can't play games now?? I don't play games pal, I PLAY YOU! Comehere... I've got this fine hot chick that would just love to play with your joystick pal! Come on, just put it on. Just. Put. Me. On. That's right...ahhhhhhh.."

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    3. Re:Show of hands for the hypocrites by Jahoda · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'll go ahead and field this one: Steam is a games-distribution platform owned by Valve, a privately-held company that has continually demonstrated a commitment to providing an excellent product and service that exceeds any of their peers, while at he same time showing remarkable transparency of operations and who have a history of responding to their users.

      Facebook is a data collection and advertising firm masquerading as a social media company. The purpose of their existence is to harvest yor data, sell it to whomever, and advertise to you in the process.

      Does this help explain the "hypocrisy" you see from us up on your high horse?

    4. Re:Show of hands for the hypocrites by flink · · Score: 1

      I'll go ahead and field this one: Steam is a games-distribution platform owned by Valve, a privately-held company that has continually demonstrated a commitment to providing an excellent product and service that exceeds any of their peers, while at he same time showing remarkable transparency of operations and who have a history of responding to their users.

      You're kidding, right? Steam is a great service, and Valve seems like it is doing a good job of safeguarding its customers' data. However, Valve is famously a secretive black box of a company that closely guards all of its internal processes. And Steam support is likewise notorious for being capricious, unresponsive, or sometimes nonexistent.

    5. Re:Show of hands for the hypocrites by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      Steam is DRM.

      If Steam is DRM and not a game distribution platform, then how do games that implement Steam get distributed?

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    6. Re:Show of hands for the hypocrites by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      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?

      I'm upset there is no driver only installation package and no Oculus provided means of turning off unnecessary chatter. I have not nor will I ever install steam or any service like it.

      From what I understand about steam you can shut it off when your done playing and it is no longer running at all without taking any extraordinary measures. Oculus runs in background from windows SCM with no option provided by Oculus to make it ever stop. It isn't even the same thing although Oculus store and Steam have quite a bit in common.

    7. Re:Show of hands for the hypocrites by Duds · · Score: 1

      "You let your wife share a bed with you so why are you upset about the armed man trying to climb in through the window?"

  14. Nothing to see here, move along. by cheetah_spottycat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  15. Should we start calling it by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

    the Ripculus Oft?

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:Should we start calling it by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      In french we call it "Enculus Rift". From "enculer" which literally means "fuck in the ass".

  16. Just unplug by cloud.pt · · Score: 1

    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?

  17. Gizmodo Need Some New Journalists by Afty0r · · Score: 1

    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.

  18. Notch was right. by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

    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.
  19. This was predicted.. by GrBear · · Score: 1

    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.

  20. Re:"I'm so surprised that facebook would be invasi by gstoddart · · Score: 1

    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.
  21. I am shocked! by Not-a-Neg · · Score: 1

    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!
  22. VR is a Monitor by Dusthead+Jr. · · Score: 1

    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?

    1. Re:VR is a Monitor by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      I've been considering building my own HMD given the ridiculous retail prices for the Rift and Vive. What's silly to me is that the hardware looks like it wouldn't cost more than a couple hundred dollars. It really makes you wonder what they are doing that they believe warrants such a huge markup. A number of the DIY projects I've looked at already use a simple HDMI cable, and some free software. If these were Apple products the markup would be totally expected, and this EULA thing really pushes it over the edge.

    2. Re:VR is a Monitor by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      I applaud your thought but the reason you pay $600-$800 is far from just the value of the parts.
      Think of all the research that got the Rift and the Vive this far, that you would have to duplicate yourself.
      If months of all your time and failed hardware prototypes is worth less than say $500 your (probably highly optimistic) estimate you would save, then go for it.
      Also don't forget you have to make it work seamlessly with one or other company's VR APIs (i.e. significantly more time investment) otherwise you wont have much to run on it.
      Also don't forget you probably won't be able to sell it as a commercial product to recoup any of your costs thanks to the fucked-up US copyright system and the probability that Facebook and HTC have both probably already copyrighted the shit out of their products and any tech they use, even the no-brainer stuff.

    3. Re:VR is a Monitor by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      The thing is I've found DIY instructions going back at least as far as the first announcement of the RIFT KS campaign. Those plans called for readily available and relatively cheap parts, that were basically plug and play. The two sticky points of the builds were the fragility of the LCD screen panel, and tweaking the software to give you side by side images. It might not work with games that weren't or haven't been designed with 3D in mind but from what I've read will readily work with anything done in Unity. For everything else it should be a matter of working with the mainstream graphics drivers 3D support.

      What magic is their API supposed to be doing that is worth a $300+ markup? For a commercial finished product I would expect these things to cost around $300 to $400 with maybe a cheap out version at $250. The price is especially galling in view of the fact they are using AMOLED screens which are likely to have burnin within a couple years, and you can bet on them not making it easy to swap out the screen panels. I'm willing to spend a couple hundred bucks once or twice a decade for a monitor upgrade, but spending triple that for a viewing device that'll last a small fraction of that time is crazy.

    4. Re:VR is a Monitor by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      I remeber that from the kickstarter they had a basic design, but I beleive that since then the've put a LOT of effort into sensor design, latency reduction, screen door effect reduction, lens design, reduction of nausea, etc, etc,

      >> What magic is their API supposed to be doing that is worth a $300+ markup?

      Its not just their API, its also all the R&D they've done and time savings to you for not having to go down the same road yourself.

  23. Agreement before Purchase by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:Agreement before Purchase by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      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.

      Which is why every one of these huge (or up and coming) technology companies provides you with free and easy access to their complete TOS documents on their web sites. You're free to examine them for as many hours or weeks as you like before doing any business with them whatsoever.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:Agreement before Purchase by HiThere · · Score: 1

      But I do wonder about the ones that make the terms say that they can change the terms simply by changing the text on their web site, and it's your responsibility to keep current with what the term are, even though they could change every minute.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    3. Re:Agreement before Purchase by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      On some level we all understand that you have given permission for Slashdot to display your comments to people who view this page.

      This is a logical consequence which is directly tied to the point of typing in the comment in the first place. It is not a logical consequence of purchasing a piece of hardware that I want to hand over all my rights to content I create with it beyond the absolute minimum required for the normal operation of the device.

  24. Good grief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

  25. Re:"I'm so surprised that facebook would be invasi by ScentCone · · Score: 1

    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.
  26. This old boilerplate language... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

    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.

  27. Re:"I'm so surprised that facebook would be invasi by flink · · Score: 1

    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.

  28. I'm shocked by waspleg · · Score: 1

    that a company bought by Facebook would have shady as fuck ToS designed to harvest data and fuck you every imaginable way.

    SHOCKED.

  29. Re:"I'm so surprised that facebook would be invasi by ScentCone · · Score: 1
    As has been pointed out, they will likely never even break even if everyone who's likely to buy a Rift or any similar device does buy it from them at $600. And that's assuming that the incredibly well funded Magic Leap and Microsoft, who are working on very viable competing products, don't take their expected shares of that market. And that companies like Sony, Samsung and the rest don't even get meaningfully involved. They'll have to charge way, way more for the Rift if only the actual hardware sales are going to make that product line financially viable.

    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.
  30. Simple solution by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

    Don,t buy it.

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
    1. Re:Simple solution by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      Facebook has a long history of blatant user abuse, so I'm not really surprised by this.
      I keep finding out more and more things about the Rift that makes me very happy I pre ordered the Vive instead.
      I doubt very much that Valve/HTC would dare or even want to try anything even close to this level of shit, but If my Vive turns up with a bunch of restrictive EULAs like the Rift has, it will be going straight back for a full refund.

    2. Re:Simple solution by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

      you said it better then i could..

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none