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.

47 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 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?
    5. 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=-
    6. 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
    7. 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*
    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. 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.

    11. 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 . . .

    12. 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...
    13. 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
    14. 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.

    15. 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
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.

    19. 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.

    20. 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.

    21. 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.
    22. 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.

    23. 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.

    24. 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. The Matrix... by tacarat · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... Started as a EULA.

    --
    "Common sense will be the death of us all"
  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...
  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. 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: 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.
    3. 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. 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 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.

    2. 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. 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...

  8. 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 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
    3. 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
  9. 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 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.
    2. 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?

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.