A few weeks ago, DropBox had some security problems (where, as it ultimately turned out several hundred users could have been compromised…in theory). This is the sort of publicity which occurs, and which most online services dread. Now comes a new Terms of Service agreement… I am curious as to whether they see this as a way to gain more users, or to lose those they already have…
I’ve deleted my Dropbox account
http://scripting.com/stories/2011/07/03/imDeletingMyDropboxAccount.html
By Dave Winer on Sunday, July 03, 2011 at 11:03 PM
First, it’s ridiculous that Dropbox made a major change to their Terms of Service during a holiday weekend in the US. Right off the bat that tells you something very bad is happening.
Near as I can tell, they’ve changed their user agreement to be like Twitter’s. Unbelievably, they claim rights to use the stuff you store on Dropbox. Breathtaking… It’s one thing to cast your 140-character tweets out there into a hamster farm, quite another for the kinds of stuff we’ve been using Dropbox for.
I pay them $99 per year for the service. I felt it was wrong to accept this kind of service without providing them with compensation.
There is a delete account command. I used it.
Now I have to wonder if there’s some way to get them to flush my archives.
To people who say I over-reacted. How could you possibly know?
Might re-approach once the dust settles. Can’t afford to have my stuff be a test case.
Is it Time to Drop the Box? Dropbox Modifies TOS
http://www.ghacks.net/2011/07/03/time-to-drop-the-box-dropbox-modifies-tos
It seems that the popular file syncing and hosting service Dropbox cannot break the negative news pattern of the last weeks. The company announced a change to their policies on Friday which they received lots of flak for. The original news post on the Dropbox company blog has been updated twice to clarify the issue. The first version basically said that a Dropbox user grants Dropbox “worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable rights to use, copy, distribute, prepare derivative works (such as translations or format conversions) of, perform, or publicly display that stuff.
Many Dropbox users have expressed concern over the policy change on the Dropbox website and on other Internet sites. Neowin, never shy to put a finger into a wound, even claimed that Dropbox could legally sell all files of their users to third parties.
The policy was updated again yesterday, it now reads:
We sometimes need your permission to do what you ask us to do with your stuff (for example, hosting, making public, or sharing your files). By submitting your stuff to the Services, you grant us (and those we work with to provide the Services) worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable rights to use, copy, distribute, prepare derivative works (such as translations or format conversions) of, perform, or publicly display that stuff to the extent reasonably necessary for the Service. This license is solely to enable us to technically administer, display, and operate the Services. You must ensure you have the rights you need to grant us that permission.
The bold part as been added by Dropbox to clarify the policy
Another aspect that has not been mentioned by sites like Neowin is the fact that the wording is more or less an industry standard. When you look at Google’s terms of service you read under 11.1 for instance:
You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post, or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.
11.2 You agree that this license includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations, or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services.
Facebook’s Terms of Service state:
You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition:
For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (“IP content”), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (“IP License”). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.
I’m no lawyer and cannot really say if those rights are necessary or if they could be cut down and simplified further. Users who are openly against the terms of service can either encrypt their files before they are uploaded and synced, or leave the service.
What’s your take on the new terms of service?
