Eli, no where did I say those companies don't have similar TOS, I was trying (badly?) to make the point that while some of the commenters below (and folks on Sl

Eli, no where did I say those companies don't have similar TOS, I was trying (badly?) to make the point that while some of the commenters below (and folks on Slashdot) wave-away concern over the open-endedness of Dropbox's TOS because the company isn't seen as evil, if we suddenly put a different company in charge of their data, do those folks suddenly have problems with the TOS? If they did, then I was suggesting that the TOS could use improvement (tightening of terms) to better clarify what is happening to the data you are putting up there. For example, given a TOS that is sufficiently well specified with regard to what rights are owned in what scenarios, etc... I wouldn't care which company had my data if the TOS protected me enough (let's wave-away the discussion of enforcement here) where as with open-ended TOS's, my level of OK'ness with it is directly tied to the company holding my data and their behavior more than anything. To me, that suggests that TOSs could benefit from some user-favoring tweaks and clarifications, especially if the company doesn't need the wide birth they have written in for themselves for particular reason. To address the followup question of amending the TOSs every time a new feature ships, sure on the other extreme end of the spectrum this would be a problem; I'm suggesting something more strict than we have now, but not so strict it's ridiculous.