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.

10 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 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 . . .

    4. 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...
    5. 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
    6. 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.

    7. 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. 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.