3 ms·

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 a

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
  "... to the extent required ..." would leave them open to liability related to the methods they use to implement the system; if it can be established that the service could have been implemented in any way that did not require them to expose, transform, etc., the information in question the way they did at a particular stage, they are suddenly in violation of copyright license.
  - sunchild 15y ago
    Indeed. That's the point I want to make!
    - stan_rogers 15y ago
      No, it isn't -- trust me. An approach that seems to be the only way to do things at point A, an approach that was arrived at that was the product of somebody's best thinking, but later turns out to have only seemed so at the time it was implemented (everybody has blind spots), is still a good-faith effort. The word required means that good faith (in the legal sense) and the limits of technological knowledge at any given period in time are insufficient defense for for actions brought on the basis of knowledge that did not exist at the time of the alleged infringement. That is an unreasonable and onerous burden; the service (or any similar service) could not be provided under those terms.

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
"... to the extent required ..." would leave them open to liability related to the methods they use to implement the system; if it can be established that the service could have been implemented in any way that did not require them to expose, transform, etc., the information in question the way they did at a particular stage, they are suddenly in violation of copyright license.
- sunchild 15y ago
  Indeed. That's the point I want to make!
  - stan_rogers 15y ago
    No, it isn't -- trust me. An approach that seems to be the only way to do things at point A, an approach that was arrived at that was the product of somebody's best thinking, but later turns out to have only seemed so at the time it was implemented (everybody has blind spots), is still a good-faith effort. The word required means that good faith (in the legal sense) and the limits of technological knowledge at any given period in time are insufficient defense for for actions brought on the basis of knowledge that did not exist at the time of the alleged infringement. That is an unreasonable and onerous burden; the service (or any similar service) could not be provided under those terms.