4 ms·

What does everyone make of perpetual license to content agreement? Is this just so they can operate the service, or are they able to sell and use your content w

What does everyone make of perpetual license to content agreement? Is this just so they can operate the service, or are they able to sell and use your content without cutting you in? > Specifically, you grant Magic Leap a worldwide, irrevocable (except as set forth below), perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, royalty-free and fully sublicensable right and license to use, copy, display, store, adapt, publicly perform and distribute Your Content so that Magic Leap can operate, deliver, and improve our Services.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
fairpx 9y ago
When lawyers set these things up, they tend to keep things as broad as possible. In practice this means that they can show how cool their technology is in a commercial, while showcasing your app without necessarily your approval. Obviously it would be absurd to make money of your content and not cut you in, since those types of actions ripple very quickly in dev communities.
- drcode 9y ago
  You can't excuse a bad agreement by just arguing "it's so ridiculously in Magic Leap's favor that it's against their interest to actually enforce it."
- taneq 9y ago
  In practice it also means they can bundle your killer game with their headset and not pay you for it. Would they? Probably not. Could they, according to this? Yes. (Not a lawyer blah blah.)
tmuir 9y ago
Call it hyperbole, but in light of the last few days Facebook revelations, these terms of service contracts are suddenly quite interesting. On one hand, this one at least, is written in marketing speech and legalese, switching narrative voices frequently, salesperson telling us how thrilled they are about entering a legally binding agreement with us, smoothly segueing to lawyer explaining to us, without a glimmer of salesperson's self-awareness, the lopsided agreement that has both salesperson and lawyer so frickin thrilled. I hope we are rapidly approaching the day of reckoning where these types of agreements are actively struck down as categorically irrelevant. Claiming up front, complete lack of obligation or blame for anything negative that may ensue from the use of, and the claim to exclusive rights to anything positive that may ensue from the use of, your software, is bogus, at least in the manner these terms of service do it. If you really claim all of these things, and want anyone to believe your marketing spiel about enthusiasm for legal arrangements, print it on a T-shirt, and go tell the world about it. Don't bombard me with marketing, and then take me off in a corner and get me to sign away any rights just as I've decided to use your product. I don't advocate for companies being defenseless, but it seems to me that this imbalance of culpability, and ownership rights, if they truly exist as the terms of service claims, might inspire the type of hubris that leads to what we see being revealed today. If the United States judicial system is so terrible that you aren't willing to subject yourself to it in matters concerning your behavior, fix the judicial system. Don't run to some parallel system you've captured simply by sophistication lent by your resources.
- testvox 9y ago
  What do you think about FOSS then? Doesn't the license holder of FOSS software deny any liability for using the software, while claiming ownership of any improvements you make and distribute?
  - tmuir 9y ago
    My point is not the veracity of any of the underlying legal principles. My point is the underhandedness of how we are entered into these agreements. FOSS has in fact, printed their stance it on a T shirt, and subsequently told the world about it. It's actually one of their flagship contributions to the world. What is different with the standard flow of the presentation of Terms of Service is more like being presented with the documentation and destination fees, and any other fees on the tail end of a car purchase, after you've talked at great length about THE price. For you see, the sales person conveniently considers those as completely different, and very odd to bundle together with the actual cost of the car. It comes back to my original point. FOSS isn't switching narrative voices throughout their legal document. They actually want you to truly understand what you are agreeing too, because assuming good intentions, the goals of the users of FOSS align with the goals of the creators of FOSS. Contrast that with Magic Leaps TOS. Why else would you layer in persuasive, folksy, nonthreatening ad copy with your legalese, except to shape any negative opinion I might arrive at through only reading the legalese. Thats because their goals are profit at the expense of their customers, which necessarily means adversarial relationships with those customers, on some level.
  - jhauris 9y ago
    My understanding as a non-lawyer is that unless there's an assignment of copyright by contributors they retain copyright to their contributions. I think in practice they also license that contribution under the project license, but some quick duck-duck-go research indicates that this is at least a complex topic. The most reliable source I was able to find in the time I care to spend on it is from the FSF[0]. Even in the case where copyright ownership is assigned to the project owner, it is a very different situation than the case where your created content is just hosted on a service that claims rights to it. 0: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#AssignCopyright https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#AssignCopyright
canada_dry 9y ago
I read the T&C's and decided against signing up. Way too broad and restrictive on just about every aspect from content ownership to legal recourse should they decide to screw you over.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

fairpx 9y ago

When lawyers set these things up, they tend to keep things as broad as possible. In practice this means that they can show how cool their technology is in a commercial, while showcasing your app without necessarily your approval. Obviously it would be absurd to make money of your content and not cut you in, since those types of actions ripple very quickly in dev communities.

drcode 9y ago
You can't excuse a bad agreement by just arguing "it's so ridiculously in Magic Leap's favor that it's against their interest to actually enforce it."
taneq 9y ago
In practice it also means they can bundle your killer game with their headset and not pay you for it. Would they? Probably not. Could they, according to this? Yes. (Not a lawyer blah blah.)

tmuir 9y ago

Call it hyperbole, but in light of the last few days Facebook revelations, these terms of service contracts are suddenly quite interesting. On one hand, this one at least, is written in marketing speech and legalese, switching narrative voices frequently, salesperson telling us how thrilled they are about entering a legally binding agreement with us, smoothly segueing to lawyer explaining to us, without a glimmer of salesperson's self-awareness, the lopsided agreement that has both salesperson and lawyer so frickin thrilled. I hope we are rapidly approaching the day of reckoning where these types of agreements are actively struck down as categorically irrelevant. Claiming up front, complete lack of obligation or blame for anything negative that may ensue from the use of, and the claim to exclusive rights to anything positive that may ensue from the use of, your software, is bogus, at least in the manner these terms of service do it. If you really claim all of these things, and want anyone to believe your marketing spiel about enthusiasm for legal arrangements, print it on a T-shirt, and go tell the world about it. Don't bombard me with marketing, and then take me off in a corner and get me to sign away any rights just as I've decided to use your product. I don't advocate for companies being defenseless, but it seems to me that this imbalance of culpability, and ownership rights, if they truly exist as the terms of service claims, might inspire the type of hubris that leads to what we see being revealed today. If the United States judicial system is so terrible that you aren't willing to subject yourself to it in matters concerning your behavior, fix the judicial system. Don't run to some parallel system you've captured simply by sophistication lent by your resources.

testvox 9y ago
What do you think about FOSS then? Doesn't the license holder of FOSS software deny any liability for using the software, while claiming ownership of any improvements you make and distribute?
- tmuir 9y ago
  My point is not the veracity of any of the underlying legal principles. My point is the underhandedness of how we are entered into these agreements. FOSS has in fact, printed their stance it on a T shirt, and subsequently told the world about it. It's actually one of their flagship contributions to the world. What is different with the standard flow of the presentation of Terms of Service is more like being presented with the documentation and destination fees, and any other fees on the tail end of a car purchase, after you've talked at great length about THE price. For you see, the sales person conveniently considers those as completely different, and very odd to bundle together with the actual cost of the car. It comes back to my original point. FOSS isn't switching narrative voices throughout their legal document. They actually want you to truly understand what you are agreeing too, because assuming good intentions, the goals of the users of FOSS align with the goals of the creators of FOSS. Contrast that with Magic Leaps TOS. Why else would you layer in persuasive, folksy, nonthreatening ad copy with your legalese, except to shape any negative opinion I might arrive at through only reading the legalese. Thats because their goals are profit at the expense of their customers, which necessarily means adversarial relationships with those customers, on some level.
- jhauris 9y ago
  My understanding as a non-lawyer is that unless there's an assignment of copyright by contributors they retain copyright to their contributions. I think in practice they also license that contribution under the project license, but some quick duck-duck-go research indicates that this is at least a complex topic. The most reliable source I was able to find in the time I care to spend on it is from the FSF[0]. Even in the case where copyright ownership is assigned to the project owner, it is a very different situation than the case where your created content is just hosted on a service that claims rights to it. 0: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#AssignCopyright https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#AssignCopyright

canada_dry 9y ago

I read the T&C's and decided against signing up. Way too broad and restrictive on just about every aspect from content ownership to legal recourse should they decide to screw you over.