6 ms·

Dropbox TOS Includes Broad Copyright License

132 points by Indyan 15y ago

Indyan 15y ago
I am no lawyer, and most legalese is absolute greek to me, but that clause genuinely freaks me out. However, commonsense also tells me that Dropbox will never do something like sharing/profiting out of other's files. That will drive them to the ground. I am not really sure what to make out of this. Is this some clause that Dropbox had to put in to save their butt, or is there a sinister motive behind this?
- skarayan 15y ago
  Even if there is nothing sinister now, this is how power is abused. This worries me.
  - Jach 15y ago
    Can you provide me with some historical details of a case where some people thought sinister action could take place because of one small little detail, and it didn't for a long time, then suddenly things got really bad really fast specifically because of that little thing? Genuinely curious.
    - skarayan 15y ago
      Is it a small detail? I look at it as the fine print. They most likely consulted with an attorney and decided that it should be worded like that to cover whatever they have in mind. Attorneys are very deliberate. They don't have to plan something "sinister", but boundaries are pushed slowly. This sounds to me like a first step, and disregard for privacy.
    - mh_ 15y ago
      Google: skype share options
- nikcub 15y ago
  I thought the same until twitpic started selling user photos to agencies. Never assume what is commonsense for you is commonsense for anybody else, particularly a company
  - ams6110 15y ago
    If there is money to be made, and if it's not illegal, someone will do it. Actually only the first condition is important for some folks.
- henrikschroder 15y ago
  Given how copyright law works, you need to grant Dropbox (and any similar services) those rights, otherwise they can't provide their service with your files. worldwide = For the whole internet non-exclusive = You can still license your stuff to others royalty-free = Dropbox doesn't have to pay you for this license sublicenseable = The license you grant Dropbox can be transferred to other companies, in the event of a company merger or similar rights to use = Doesn't mean anything copy = So they can copy your files between their internal servers distribute = So that they can distribute your public files to other users prepare derivative works of = So they can create thumbnails, extracts, previews etc perform = Doesn't mean anything or publicly display = List your public files to others
  - pbreit 15y ago
    I'm curious what could happen if they did not include this clause? Who would sue who and for what?
    - xsmasher 15y ago
      Drop box is making a copy of your files every time they back up one of their servers. That might be a copyright violation without your explicit permission. This license fixes that problem.
  - Dylan16807 15y ago
    = List your public files to others But it doesn't say public files. They ask for that privilege for all files and then leave it to vaguely worded clarification in the privacy policy.
sek 15y ago
Account deleted, problem solved. Can't believe i recommended this service to my friends.
- iamichi 15y ago
  yeah, they've become really bad. i loved the service but moved to spideroak last week when i read that anyone could access my files with any password, while they fixed a bug. that along with the privacy/encryption stuff convinced me to move. wuala seems to be the most secure service i've seen though.
  - sek 15y ago
    Absolutely, client side encryption is the only way to go in my opinion.
- vesto 15y ago
  This certainly isn't a reason to suddenly delete your Dropbox account. Based on the previous actions of Dropbox regarding their TOS, I'm sure they will come out and clearly explain to users exactly why this change was instated and what it means for users, and I honestly doubt it's anything too serious for us to worry about.
  - sek 15y ago
    They accumulated enough, this was just the one that got me to do it. For these purposes i did use Dropbox i need a service i can trust.
  - GiraffeNecktie 15y ago
    What matters is what it says, not how Dropbox spins it. It says pretty clearly that I'm granting them unrestricted rights to do just about anything they want with my content INCLUDING performing it and making derivative works.
russell_h 15y ago
It specifically states that you the rights you grant them are limited "to the extent we think it necessary for the Service." The "we think" might be a little ambiguous, but given that Dropbox is a tool for sharing files (with yourself or others), it seems reasonable that you grant them rights to do so.
- sixtofour 15y ago
  "given that Dropbox is a tool for sharing files" For now.
  - leon_ 15y ago
    Then I misunderstood DP when I signed up. I thought it was a nice way to keep some files in sync on multiple computers. Didn't expect it to become the facebook of text documents ...
    - sixtofour 15y ago
      The point is that any business can pivot at any time, for their own reasons or because they were acquired/merged. Myspace is firing a good portion of their employees; maybe all that data won't be used for Myspace-like purposes, but instead sold to advertisers. Not what any Myspace user expected when they signed up. Shit changes.
- sunchild 15y ago
  IMO, the right way to express this would have been "to the extent required for us to provide the Services that you use". Dropbox definitely does not understand the confidentiality requirements that (some of) their customers have. By reserving themselves so much leeway, Dropbox is driving away business users who need assurances of confidentiality. IAAL, and I can't use Dropbox today because I can't trust them with my clients' data. (This post is informational only, not intended as legal advice or to create an attorney-client relationship.)
  - stan_rogers 15y ago
jcfiala 15y ago
"We sometimes need your permission to do what you ask us to do with your stuff"... " or publicly display that stuff to the extent we think it necessary for the Service." So, they need to cover themselves legally if you put something in your public folder, or share it with someone else. Besides, if you encrypt everything then it's not like they can do anything with it. It's just a cya clause.
bergie 15y ago
Another reminder on not to use "the cloud" for anything critical or confidential, at least without encryption. Dropbox I used for synchronizing meeting notes, which may or may not be something I'm comfortable sharing. For example GitHub is completely different, as all my code is anyway open. So, Dropbox account now removed. Won't be going back.
code_duck 15y ago
This is exactly like the broadly misunderstood TOS for Facebook, Etsy and other services. They need a license to your work in order to distribute it, and display it to others or perhaps even you. These clauses have been in TOSs for years and years, and only now people have taken notice. The average person doesn't know much about IP though, and probably couldn't tell you the difference between a copyright and a patent. Companies sometimes do overreach in this step though, conveniently claiming rights to use your images royalty-free in advertisements for the service and around their site without you being involved. It's important for people to know what they're signing over, and perhaps it is more than necessary or intended in some cases. However, the mere notice that you are extending a copyright license to a company to whom you are uploading media is not in itself suspicious, unusual or an attempt to take rights from you.
- cma 15y ago
  Just because it is standard doesn't mean it is acceptable.
  - JonnieCache 15y ago
    It is standard because there is no other choice if you want to provide services of this nature. Blame the law, not the service providers.
    - matwood 15y ago
      Could it be worded in such a way that makes the rights granted to Dropbox only usable for making Dropbox functional?
      - branden 15y ago
        "...to the extent we think it necessary for the Service."
      - JonnieCache 15y ago
        Possibly. Due to the fact that we are dealing with spoken language, even if it is legalese, there will always be some degree of ambiguity and room for interpretation. Here, that ambiguity lies in the phrase "we think is necessary." Therefore there will always be a tiny chance left for one party to get bitten in the ass down the line. The company has to decide if its them or you that is exposed to that slight risk. Good luck finding a company that picks them rather than you. Rereading, I realise that I haven't been entirely clear. I hope you get the idea. IANAL.
timmyd 15y ago
Let me clarify .... TL;DR - it's hyperbole. answer the negative. if they didn't get this permission from you - you could sue them for copyright infringement. every service does it. don't freak. Long Version: The key to the text is "non-exclusive" - generally this grants the nonexclusive rights to display the material on a Web site. It also allows the licensee (ala DropBox) let their company use, manage, display [etc] your files. It's a fairly standard contractual term now days - for example see http://www.youtube.com/t/terms http://www.youtube.com/t/terms at 6 C OR even your Gmail Terms ... [http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS?hl=en http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS?hl=en at 11.] Youtube - "For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your Content. 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, publish, adapt, make available online or electronically transmit, and perform the Content in connection with the Service ...." Gmail - "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." Generally, the language uses "non-exclusive" in its context which is OK. It basically allows internet services to be internet services i.e. if they didn't have a non-exclusive licence, how could they use your files - which contain copyright content you own - in their services ? - they couldn't :) By asking for a non-exclusive licence, it means you are permitting DropBox to use it for the purposes of "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 we think it necessary for the Service." If you're uncomfortable with this term, then unfortunately you'll be uncomfortable using any service on the Internet as it's generally required to provide a service :) The terms agreement incorporates their Privacy Agreement - thus meaning they still owe you the obligations outlined in their privacy clause. They cannot distribute your content without your permission. "But, but, but .... they should have to identify copyright not me" Again, you are giving them to non-exclusive right. If you have MP3 music [legally obtained for example] - you have ownership for that file. You are provided with the right to store that file for personal use just as you have the right to share that file with your friends. The rights associated with this file are governed by the terms of service when you purchased that file [i.e. iTunes]. Go and read your rights regarding MP3 Music purchased from iTunes. You are providing DropBox with a non-exclusive right - not an "exclusive right" which would be just that "exclusive" and therefore you have licensed it only to DropBox per see - to be able to storage, transform ... etc that file. The Privacy policy is incorporated within the Terms agreement - thereby inferring they cannot "distribute your content without your consent". Dropbox do NOT "know" where you purchased the file or the terms surrounding every single file they store on your behalf [how could they?] - it's your responsibility - not theirs - hence the point of the term. "You must ensure you have the rights you need to grant us that permission." Dropbox is fine. Use it. Or stop using Gmail and most other services ....
Nemisis7654 15y ago
I use Dropbox for everything as I use several different computers (the computer lab at university, work, Windows 7 on my laptop, Ubuntu on my laptop). I cannot see myself without this service...but this is ridiculous. I am seriously considering deleting my account.
rkalla 15y ago
When the new TOS were announced I think a lot of balked at reading those statements. The examples given in the TOS (e.g. "to convert your files") all seem reasonable, but as Indyan pointed out, it sure leaves the door open to some fuzzy interpretations. Quick question, if AT&T suddenly bought Dropbox, would you all feel as passive about the new TOS or be quick to get your files out of there? What about Facebook? Microsoft? or Silver Lake Partners? I understand it's easier for Dropbox to be vague in their TOS so they don't have to spell out the service or future features that might require expanded agreements.... but given the nature of the service and the previous fiascos Dropbox has had already this year, it sure seems like they are cutting themselves some undeserved slack with regards to specificity. I appreciate that they rewrote the terms to be more human readable, but why not spell out "You agree to let us duplicate, read and write your files in the case where you share, copy, publish or convert your files via the web or client software interface" -- or something following that. I don't have a company with 200 million users though, so maybe the logistics of being that specific are an impossibility. I'd also be a lot more forgiving of this broad language if Dropbox has never had any hickups, so my personal nervousness is mixed in there.
- eli 15y ago
  You are missing the point. Those companies do have similar terms in their agreements! Any service that accepts user content should. It's in everyone's benefit to make it clear that you own your content, but you're giving the service a license to copy it, display it, etc. AT&T: "while you retain any and all of your lawfully owned rights in such Content, you grant AT&T a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive and fully sublicensable right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display..." Facebook: "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"
  - sunchild 15y ago
    Actually, I think you're missing the point. 1. People seem to want to use Dropbox to store sensitive, private data. Most sensible people don't trust AT&T, Facebook, Microsoft, etc. for this purpose anymore because of their past gaffes. 2. Dropbox makes numerous "marketing" statements all over their site purporting to be safe for confidential, private information. 3. The licenses that companies need in their TOS can be scoped appropriately to what's strictly necessary for them to provide you the service you signed up for. Companies that reserve rights in their users' stuff beyond what's necessary do so for a reason – and it's not likely to be in the user's interest.
eli 15y ago
Well, of course you're granting them a license to your files. Otherwise you could sue them for copying your files to their server.
- pbreit 15y ago
  Could you? Would you win? Has anyone ever sued? Successfully?
  - eli 15y ago
    Certainly you could sue. I don't think you would win. IANAL.
dolinsky 15y ago
TL;DR - this is no different from almost every other site that many of us already participate in that includes an aspect of uploading/sharing content and in no way does this imply ownwership.
shareme 15y ago
What Dropbox TOS could have been 1. We, Dropbox, copy your files in order to enable sharing and retrieving said files. Those copies of files we use still carry the sharing permissions you enable and your copyrights fully intact.
molecule 15y ago
disappointing bit of CYA, after they failed to notify ALL of their customers that authentication had been temporarily, accidentally disabled for a few hours.
wavesound 15y ago
If my assumption of dropbox's intent is correct, I prefer facebook's approach to this problem. Instead of wording terms exclusively in their favor they could have extended an olive branch... "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." (from https://www.facebook.com/terms.php https://www.facebook.com/terms.php) facebook's license to share the picture of your cat terminates after you delete it from your profile. Had dropbox used similar strategy while drafting their terms, this would not be news... (Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and do not pretend to be one on TV.)
- sunchild 15y ago
  There are two factors that matter: 1. When the license ends. 2. What uses are permitted while the license is in effect. This is the part that is currently way too broad. It should be limited to what's necessary to carry out the user's instructions. In other words, Dropbox should only be able to use your content in your own interest, not in theirs or any third party's. (This post is informational only, not intended to be legal advice or to create an attorney-client relationship.)
tzs 15y ago
Flagged for the FUD title chosen by the submitter.
Prometheu5 15y ago
If you are technologically savvy (as one may assume, since you are here after all) and you feel uncomfortable with this change (as I do), I would suggest looking in to some of the other projects around that offer somewhat similar (albeit not as feature complete) self-hosted solutions: https://github.com/philcryer/lipsync https://github.com/philcryer/lipsync http://sparkleshare.org/ http://sparkleshare.org/
blumentopf 15y ago
This reminds me of Jason Scott's classic: "Fuck the cloud" http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/1717 http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/1717
katovatzschyn 15y ago
Please advise as to simple alternatives.
skmurphy 15y ago
I only use dropbox for backup of my computer and do not want Dropbox to share or otherwise access my files for any reason other than to preserve them for my use. I do not want Dropbox to make them available to anyone else without my explicit authorization. The revised TOS seems to stress the file sharing aspect which makes me very uncomfortable continuing to use Dropbox. Here is what I wrote back to tos-feedback@dropbox.com (interesting that the default reply-to was no-reply@dropboxmail.com which doesn't make it seem like they are really interested in feedback) Please consider splitting the service into file sharing and backup and having a different agreement for each. I cannot and do not accept these new terms for your backup service and will have to look for an alternate supplier if you cannot amend your new approach: these are not the terms I agreed to when I signed up for the service. In addition, two weeks notice strikes me as a very short window for such a significant change: please consider extending the notice period.
arashf 15y ago
hi all, we've been reading all the feedback carefully and made a change to licensing section to clarify what we meant. the change is highlighted on our blog: http://blog.dropbox.com/?p=846 http://blog.dropbox.com/?p=846
- sixtofour 15y ago
  Thanks for that.
lemming 15y ago
As soon as I get time to investigate it properly, I'm going to be replacing Dropbox with Fuse + S3FS + EncFS. I recommended Dropbox to a lot of people and invited a lot of people to it, but assuming the above combination works I'll certainly be recommending it to techy friends in the future, and if I continue to mention Dropbox to non-tech folks (my parents etc) it'll be with a lot more qualifiers than previously. I'd like to be sure that if all my data is exposed to someone it's as a result of my own cock-ups, not anyone else's. I don't think Dropbox are evil but I'm not feeling too confident about keeping sensitive data there any more. Their recent errors have probably only highlighted things I should have thought of previously - lesson learned there.
grinich 15y ago
It's often good to look at how other companies do things to see if it's out of the ordinary. Turns out this line is extremely common. Google, for example: 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. http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS Also, Drew and Arash just posted an update to the blog with clarified language: http://blog.dropbox.com/?p=846 http://blog.dropbox.com/?p=846
ldar15 15y ago
"to the extent we think it necessary for the Service." Does this include if they think its necessary for them to turn off paswords for several hours? I am curious that about the timing: * Fuck up security[0] * Get hit with class action suit[1] * Change TOS [0]http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2678576 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2678576 [1]http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2011/06/cloud-site-dropbox-drops-the-ball.html http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2011/06/cloud-site-dro...
snitko 15y ago
I'm curious as to how long would it take some open-source enthusiast to come up with an open-source version of Dropbox-like software that you can install on your VPS and sync files through your own server. I mean, that would be awesome, but not too profitable.

132 points by Indyan 15y ago

I am no lawyer, and most legalese is absolute greek to me, but that clause genuinely freaks me out. However, commonsense also tells me that Dropbox will never do something like sharing/profiting out of other's files. That will drive them to the ground. I am not really sure what to make out of this. Is this some clause that Dropbox had to put in to save their butt, or is there a sinister motive behind this?

skarayan 15y ago
Even if there is nothing sinister now, this is how power is abused. This worries me.
- Jach 15y ago
  Can you provide me with some historical details of a case where some people thought sinister action could take place because of one small little detail, and it didn't for a long time, then suddenly things got really bad really fast specifically because of that little thing? Genuinely curious.
  - skarayan 15y ago
    Is it a small detail? I look at it as the fine print. They most likely consulted with an attorney and decided that it should be worded like that to cover whatever they have in mind. Attorneys are very deliberate. They don't have to plan something "sinister", but boundaries are pushed slowly. This sounds to me like a first step, and disregard for privacy.
  - mh_ 15y ago
    Google: skype share options
nikcub 15y ago
I thought the same until twitpic started selling user photos to agencies. Never assume what is commonsense for you is commonsense for anybody else, particularly a company
- ams6110 15y ago
  If there is money to be made, and if it's not illegal, someone will do it. Actually only the first condition is important for some folks.
henrikschroder 15y ago
Given how copyright law works, you need to grant Dropbox (and any similar services) those rights, otherwise they can't provide their service with your files. worldwide = For the whole internet non-exclusive = You can still license your stuff to others royalty-free = Dropbox doesn't have to pay you for this license sublicenseable = The license you grant Dropbox can be transferred to other companies, in the event of a company merger or similar rights to use = Doesn't mean anything copy = So they can copy your files between their internal servers distribute = So that they can distribute your public files to other users prepare derivative works of = So they can create thumbnails, extracts, previews etc perform = Doesn't mean anything or publicly display = List your public files to others
- pbreit 15y ago
  I'm curious what could happen if they did not include this clause? Who would sue who and for what?
  - xsmasher 15y ago
    Drop box is making a copy of your files every time they back up one of their servers. That might be a copyright violation without your explicit permission. This license fixes that problem.
- Dylan16807 15y ago
  = List your public files to others But it doesn't say public files. They ask for that privilege for all files and then leave it to vaguely worded clarification in the privacy policy.

sek 15y ago

Account deleted, problem solved. Can't believe i recommended this service to my friends.

iamichi 15y ago
yeah, they've become really bad. i loved the service but moved to spideroak last week when i read that anyone could access my files with any password, while they fixed a bug. that along with the privacy/encryption stuff convinced me to move. wuala seems to be the most secure service i've seen though.
- sek 15y ago
  Absolutely, client side encryption is the only way to go in my opinion.
vesto 15y ago
This certainly isn't a reason to suddenly delete your Dropbox account. Based on the previous actions of Dropbox regarding their TOS, I'm sure they will come out and clearly explain to users exactly why this change was instated and what it means for users, and I honestly doubt it's anything too serious for us to worry about.
- sek 15y ago
  They accumulated enough, this was just the one that got me to do it. For these purposes i did use Dropbox i need a service i can trust.
- GiraffeNecktie 15y ago
  What matters is what it says, not how Dropbox spins it. It says pretty clearly that I'm granting them unrestricted rights to do just about anything they want with my content INCLUDING performing it and making derivative works.

russell_h 15y ago

It specifically states that you the rights you grant them are limited "to the extent we think it necessary for the Service." The "we think" might be a little ambiguous, but given that Dropbox is a tool for sharing files (with yourself or others), it seems reasonable that you grant them rights to do so.

sixtofour 15y ago
"given that Dropbox is a tool for sharing files" For now.
- leon_ 15y ago
  Then I misunderstood DP when I signed up. I thought it was a nice way to keep some files in sync on multiple computers. Didn't expect it to become the facebook of text documents ...
  - sixtofour 15y ago
    The point is that any business can pivot at any time, for their own reasons or because they were acquired/merged. Myspace is firing a good portion of their employees; maybe all that data won't be used for Myspace-like purposes, but instead sold to advertisers. Not what any Myspace user expected when they signed up. Shit changes.
sunchild 15y ago
IMO, the right way to express this would have been "to the extent required for us to provide the Services that you use". Dropbox definitely does not understand the confidentiality requirements that (some of) their customers have. By reserving themselves so much leeway, Dropbox is driving away business users who need assurances of confidentiality. IAAL, and I can't use Dropbox today because I can't trust them with my clients' data. (This post is informational only, not intended as legal advice or to create an attorney-client relationship.)
- stan_rogers 15y ago

jcfiala 15y ago

"We sometimes need your permission to do what you ask us to do with your stuff"... " or publicly display that stuff to the extent we think it necessary for the Service." So, they need to cover themselves legally if you put something in your public folder, or share it with someone else. Besides, if you encrypt everything then it's not like they can do anything with it. It's just a cya clause.

bergie 15y ago

Another reminder on not to use "the cloud" for anything critical or confidential, at least without encryption. Dropbox I used for synchronizing meeting notes, which may or may not be something I'm comfortable sharing. For example GitHub is completely different, as all my code is anyway open. So, Dropbox account now removed. Won't be going back.

code_duck 15y ago

This is exactly like the broadly misunderstood TOS for Facebook, Etsy and other services. They need a license to your work in order to distribute it, and display it to others or perhaps even you. These clauses have been in TOSs for years and years, and only now people have taken notice. The average person doesn't know much about IP though, and probably couldn't tell you the difference between a copyright and a patent. Companies sometimes do overreach in this step though, conveniently claiming rights to use your images royalty-free in advertisements for the service and around their site without you being involved. It's important for people to know what they're signing over, and perhaps it is more than necessary or intended in some cases. However, the mere notice that you are extending a copyright license to a company to whom you are uploading media is not in itself suspicious, unusual or an attempt to take rights from you.

cma 15y ago
Just because it is standard doesn't mean it is acceptable.
- JonnieCache 15y ago
  It is standard because there is no other choice if you want to provide services of this nature. Blame the law, not the service providers.
  - matwood 15y ago
    Could it be worded in such a way that makes the rights granted to Dropbox only usable for making Dropbox functional?
    - branden 15y ago
      "...to the extent we think it necessary for the Service."
    - JonnieCache 15y ago
      Possibly. Due to the fact that we are dealing with spoken language, even if it is legalese, there will always be some degree of ambiguity and room for interpretation. Here, that ambiguity lies in the phrase "we think is necessary." Therefore there will always be a tiny chance left for one party to get bitten in the ass down the line. The company has to decide if its them or you that is exposed to that slight risk. Good luck finding a company that picks them rather than you. Rereading, I realise that I haven't been entirely clear. I hope you get the idea. IANAL.

timmyd 15y ago

Let me clarify .... TL;DR - it's hyperbole. answer the negative. if they didn't get this permission from you - you could sue them for copyright infringement. every service does it. don't freak. Long Version: The key to the text is "non-exclusive" - generally this grants the nonexclusive rights to display the material on a Web site. It also allows the licensee (ala DropBox) let their company use, manage, display [etc] your files. It's a fairly standard contractual term now days - for example see http://www.youtube.com/t/terms http://www.youtube.com/t/terms at 6 C OR even your Gmail Terms ... [http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS?hl=en http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS?hl=en at 11.] Youtube - "For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your Content. 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, publish, adapt, make available online or electronically transmit, and perform the Content in connection with the Service ...." Gmail - "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." Generally, the language uses "non-exclusive" in its context which is OK. It basically allows internet services to be internet services i.e. if they didn't have a non-exclusive licence, how could they use your files - which contain copyright content you own - in their services ? - they couldn't :) By asking for a non-exclusive licence, it means you are permitting DropBox to use it for the purposes of "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 we think it necessary for the Service." If you're uncomfortable with this term, then unfortunately you'll be uncomfortable using any service on the Internet as it's generally required to provide a service :) The terms agreement incorporates their Privacy Agreement - thus meaning they still owe you the obligations outlined in their privacy clause. They cannot distribute your content without your permission. "But, but, but .... they should have to identify copyright not me" Again, you are giving them to non-exclusive right. If you have MP3 music [legally obtained for example] - you have ownership for that file. You are provided with the right to store that file for personal use just as you have the right to share that file with your friends. The rights associated with this file are governed by the terms of service when you purchased that file [i.e. iTunes]. Go and read your rights regarding MP3 Music purchased from iTunes. You are providing DropBox with a non-exclusive right - not an "exclusive right" which would be just that "exclusive" and therefore you have licensed it only to DropBox per see - to be able to storage, transform ... etc that file. The Privacy policy is incorporated within the Terms agreement - thereby inferring they cannot "distribute your content without your consent". Dropbox do NOT "know" where you purchased the file or the terms surrounding every single file they store on your behalf [how could they?] - it's your responsibility - not theirs - hence the point of the term. "You must ensure you have the rights you need to grant us that permission." Dropbox is fine. Use it. Or stop using Gmail and most other services ....

Nemisis7654 15y ago

I use Dropbox for everything as I use several different computers (the computer lab at university, work, Windows 7 on my laptop, Ubuntu on my laptop). I cannot see myself without this service...but this is ridiculous. I am seriously considering deleting my account.

rkalla 15y ago

When the new TOS were announced I think a lot of balked at reading those statements. The examples given in the TOS (e.g. "to convert your files") all seem reasonable, but as Indyan pointed out, it sure leaves the door open to some fuzzy interpretations. Quick question, if AT&T suddenly bought Dropbox, would you all feel as passive about the new TOS or be quick to get your files out of there? What about Facebook? Microsoft? or Silver Lake Partners? I understand it's easier for Dropbox to be vague in their TOS so they don't have to spell out the service or future features that might require expanded agreements.... but given the nature of the service and the previous fiascos Dropbox has had already this year, it sure seems like they are cutting themselves some undeserved slack with regards to specificity. I appreciate that they rewrote the terms to be more human readable, but why not spell out "You agree to let us duplicate, read and write your files in the case where you share, copy, publish or convert your files via the web or client software interface" -- or something following that. I don't have a company with 200 million users though, so maybe the logistics of being that specific are an impossibility. I'd also be a lot more forgiving of this broad language if Dropbox has never had any hickups, so my personal nervousness is mixed in there.

eli 15y ago
You are missing the point. Those companies do have similar terms in their agreements! Any service that accepts user content should. It's in everyone's benefit to make it clear that you own your content, but you're giving the service a license to copy it, display it, etc. AT&T: "while you retain any and all of your lawfully owned rights in such Content, you grant AT&T a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive and fully sublicensable right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display..." Facebook: "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"
- sunchild 15y ago
  Actually, I think you're missing the point. 1. People seem to want to use Dropbox to store sensitive, private data. Most sensible people don't trust AT&T, Facebook, Microsoft, etc. for this purpose anymore because of their past gaffes. 2. Dropbox makes numerous "marketing" statements all over their site purporting to be safe for confidential, private information. 3. The licenses that companies need in their TOS can be scoped appropriately to what's strictly necessary for them to provide you the service you signed up for. Companies that reserve rights in their users' stuff beyond what's necessary do so for a reason – and it's not likely to be in the user's interest.

eli 15y ago

Well, of course you're granting them a license to your files. Otherwise you could sue them for copying your files to their server.

pbreit 15y ago
Could you? Would you win? Has anyone ever sued? Successfully?
- eli 15y ago
  Certainly you could sue. I don't think you would win. IANAL.

dolinsky 15y ago

TL;DR - this is no different from almost every other site that many of us already participate in that includes an aspect of uploading/sharing content and in no way does this imply ownwership.

shareme 15y ago

What Dropbox TOS could have been 1. We, Dropbox, copy your files in order to enable sharing and retrieving said files. Those copies of files we use still carry the sharing permissions you enable and your copyrights fully intact.

molecule 15y ago

disappointing bit of CYA, after they failed to notify ALL of their customers that authentication had been temporarily, accidentally disabled for a few hours.

wavesound 15y ago

If my assumption of dropbox's intent is correct, I prefer facebook's approach to this problem. Instead of wording terms exclusively in their favor they could have extended an olive branch... "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." (from https://www.facebook.com/terms.php https://www.facebook.com/terms.php) facebook's license to share the picture of your cat terminates after you delete it from your profile. Had dropbox used similar strategy while drafting their terms, this would not be news... (Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and do not pretend to be one on TV.)

sunchild 15y ago
There are two factors that matter: 1. When the license ends. 2. What uses are permitted while the license is in effect. This is the part that is currently way too broad. It should be limited to what's necessary to carry out the user's instructions. In other words, Dropbox should only be able to use your content in your own interest, not in theirs or any third party's. (This post is informational only, not intended to be legal advice or to create an attorney-client relationship.)

tzs 15y ago

Flagged for the FUD title chosen by the submitter.

Prometheu5 15y ago

If you are technologically savvy (as one may assume, since you are here after all) and you feel uncomfortable with this change (as I do), I would suggest looking in to some of the other projects around that offer somewhat similar (albeit not as feature complete) self-hosted solutions: https://github.com/philcryer/lipsync https://github.com/philcryer/lipsync http://sparkleshare.org/ http://sparkleshare.org/

blumentopf 15y ago

This reminds me of Jason Scott's classic: "Fuck the cloud" http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/1717 http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/1717

katovatzschyn 15y ago

Please advise as to simple alternatives.

skmurphy 15y ago

I only use dropbox for backup of my computer and do not want Dropbox to share or otherwise access my files for any reason other than to preserve them for my use. I do not want Dropbox to make them available to anyone else without my explicit authorization. The revised TOS seems to stress the file sharing aspect which makes me very uncomfortable continuing to use Dropbox. Here is what I wrote back to tos-feedback@dropbox.com (interesting that the default reply-to was no-reply@dropboxmail.com which doesn't make it seem like they are really interested in feedback) Please consider splitting the service into file sharing and backup and having a different agreement for each. I cannot and do not accept these new terms for your backup service and will have to look for an alternate supplier if you cannot amend your new approach: these are not the terms I agreed to when I signed up for the service. In addition, two weeks notice strikes me as a very short window for such a significant change: please consider extending the notice period.

arashf 15y ago

hi all, we've been reading all the feedback carefully and made a change to licensing section to clarify what we meant. the change is highlighted on our blog: http://blog.dropbox.com/?p=846 http://blog.dropbox.com/?p=846

sixtofour 15y ago
Thanks for that.

lemming 15y ago

As soon as I get time to investigate it properly, I'm going to be replacing Dropbox with Fuse + S3FS + EncFS. I recommended Dropbox to a lot of people and invited a lot of people to it, but assuming the above combination works I'll certainly be recommending it to techy friends in the future, and if I continue to mention Dropbox to non-tech folks (my parents etc) it'll be with a lot more qualifiers than previously. I'd like to be sure that if all my data is exposed to someone it's as a result of my own cock-ups, not anyone else's. I don't think Dropbox are evil but I'm not feeling too confident about keeping sensitive data there any more. Their recent errors have probably only highlighted things I should have thought of previously - lesson learned there.

grinich 15y ago

It's often good to look at how other companies do things to see if it's out of the ordinary. Turns out this line is extremely common. Google, for example: 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. http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS Also, Drew and Arash just posted an update to the blog with clarified language: http://blog.dropbox.com/?p=846 http://blog.dropbox.com/?p=846

ldar15 15y ago

"to the extent we think it necessary for the Service." Does this include if they think its necessary for them to turn off paswords for several hours? I am curious that about the timing: * Fuck up security[0] * Get hit with class action suit[1] * Change TOS [0]http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2678576 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2678576 [1]http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2011/06/cloud-site-dropbox-drops-the-ball.html http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2011/06/cloud-site-dro...

snitko 15y ago

I'm curious as to how long would it take some open-source enthusiast to come up with an open-source version of Dropbox-like software that you can install on your VPS and sync files through your own server. I mean, that would be awesome, but not too profitable.