--- layout: post status: publish published: true title: ! 'Dropbox: you''ve missed the real problem' wordpress_id: 1277 wordpress_url: https://www.martineve.com/?p=1277 date: !binary |- MjAxMS0wNy0wNSAxMDo1ODowMSArMDIwMA== date_gmt: !binary |- MjAxMS0wNy0wNSAxMDo1ODowMSArMDIwMA== categories: - Technology tags: - dropbox - Copyright comments: - id: 6497 author: Sarah Robins-Hobden author_email: '' author_url: http://twitter.com/SarahR_H date: !binary |- MjAxMS0wNy0wNSAxNDowNzowMCArMDIwMA== date_gmt: !binary |- MjAxMS0wNy0wNSAxNDowNzowMCArMDIwMA== content: ! "This whole kerfuffle has me worried too.  The new TOS to mean I can't use Dropbox to store documents unless I am the copyright holder.  Which means it's useless to me for storing work and research documents, which is what I was using it for.  \n\nFrom the dropbox email:\n\"Please note that by\ncontinuing to use Dropbox, you agree to our new TOS which\nwill be effective on\nJuly 15th, 2011.\"\n\nSo let me get this straight: unless I remove those documents from my dropbox by 15th July, I will be breaking copyright law, AND the TOS?  USB memory sticks never looked so attractive.\nS" - id: 6498 author: Martin Paul Eve author_email: martin@martineve.com author_url: https://www.martineve.com date: !binary |- MjAxMS0wNy0wNSAxNDoxMzowMCArMDIwMA== date_gmt: !binary |- MjAxMS0wNy0wNSAxNDoxMzowMCArMDIwMA== content: ! "Quite; it's pretty grim. They really haven't thought it through.\r\n\r\nIn actuality, it's extremely unlikely that you'd ever come to court with \r\nthis. Copyright violation is a tort, not a criminal offence (unless \r\nundertaken for profit), so it would be reliant on the copyright holder \r\nsomehow knowing and then suing you. However, given that Dropbox's \r\ndefence of the matter rests upon a \"oh, it's just to make sure we are \r\n100% technically legal\" (paraphrased), it isn't great that their terms \r\nmake it very difficult for users to technically comply.\r\n\r\nSo, to answer the q: yes on both fronts, but you're unlikely to get \r\ncaught or for it to be a problem. That said, I'd rather be in strict \r\ncompliance and so have closed my account.\r\n\r\nThere are alternatives, like @SpiderOak (haven't tried), but I'm just \r\nbacking up to my own personal storage space now and, if I want to share \r\ndocuments, I will do so via my own channels." - id: 6499 author: Catherine Pope author_email: me@catherinepope.co.uk author_url: '' date: !binary |- MjAxMS0wNy0wNSAxNDo0NjowMCArMDIwMA== date_gmt: !binary |- MjAxMS0wNy0wNSAxNDo0NjowMCArMDIwMA== content: SpiderOak is very good, although I haven't scrutinised the T&Cs. Being a fellow bozo, I probably wouldn't understand them. - id: 6500 author: Peter author_email: peter@quanglewangle.com author_url: '' date: !binary |- MjAxMS0wNy0wNSAxNTowMzowMCArMDIwMA== date_gmt: !binary |- MjAxMS0wNy0wNSAxNTowMzowMCArMDIwMA== content: ! "I *hope* they mean that they will exercise only that portion of the cosmic rights you grant them to operate the service, *and no more*.  So if you you want only to store James' article then then the \"extent reasonably necessary\" extends only so far as you granting to them the right to store it, which I guess you must be competent to grant...,\n\nIf you invite someone else (or the public) to view James' article from Dropbox then \"extent reasonably necessary\" extends further to granting Dropbox the right to publish to that person (or the public(\n\nI don't know if their \"friendly\" wording means that or not, but I think that is what they mean it to mean.  It would need a court to rule on the real meaning.\n\n\n " - id: 6501 author: Martin Paul Eve author_email: martin@martineve.com author_url: https://www.martineve.com date: !binary |- MjAxMS0wNy0wNSAxNToxMDowMCArMDIwMA== date_gmt: !binary |- MjAxMS0wNy0wNSAxNToxMDowMCArMDIwMA== content: ! "I think you've hit the nail on the head: do the rights granted scale as \r\nrequired?; and have they written a competent legal document?\r\n\r\nThe answer to the latter question seems, clearly, to be \"no\". The \r\nfriendly wording makes it difficult to judge how the terms will be \r\nenacted and we have resorted to \"this is what they meant to say\". Sadly, \r\nit doesn't seem to say that.\r\n\r\nIn regards to the former, it looks as though they don't. They require, \r\nupfront, the rights to be granted. Furthermore, it is strange that they \r\ncouch it in terms of them storing it. Why not pass the burden onto the \r\nuser with some form of \"you are doing the storing, not us\" clause?\r\n\r\nIf they wanted to fix this, they could attach a certain level of \r\n\"license needed\" to each action (storage, sharing, etc.) and then this \r\nwhole fiasco could have been avoided." - id: 6574 author: Marc Duckett author_email: marcbrianduckett@gmail.com author_url: '' date: !binary |- MjAxMS0xMi0wOCAwOToyODowMCArMDEwMA== date_gmt: !binary |- MjAxMS0xMi0wOCAwOToyODowMCArMDEwMA== content: ! 'If you want to give SpiderOak a try (far better security and more free space than dropbox) use this referral code:  https://spideroak.com/download/referral/317a29ed47a76995ce1dc5c5441b214a It will give both of us an extra gigabyte of space for free.' ---

So, here's a short post on the Dropbox problem. I'm sure others have picked up on this aspect, but it merits further coverage. Yesterday, I tweeted at Dropbox stating my belief that the terms and conditions they are trying to enforce are, in fact, untenable.

Their response was to send me back a link to this article, which calls those questioning the copyright license terms as "bozos". Thanks, Dropbox, but I think it's probably not a good idea to call your users bozos. Secondly, you've still absolutely and utterly missed the point.

Copyright

This is best demonstrated through an example and unpicking the terms. Dropbox's new terms and conditions require you to give, to Dropbox, on any items you store, the:

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

Ok, so there was much FUD circulated about this; the qualifying clause "to the extent reasonably necessary for the Service" probably means they wouldn't get away with appropriating your material.

There is a far more worrying clause, though: "You must ensure you have the rights you need to grant us that permission." Yep, you read that right. If you don't hold the rights needed to grant permission, you can't store the file on Dropbox.

Now the example.

James publishes an article in a journal. This article is copyrighted. Through my institutional journal subscription, I am given a license to store copies of this file for my own use. The copyright is still held by the originator or the publisher, but I am given a license. The same would also be true of any legal music downloads.

Clearly, I do not have the valid legal authority to store a copy of this file on Dropbox. I do not "hold the rights needed" to grant a license to Dropbox in the terms they are demanding.

Furthermore, this is utterly ridiculous. The link they provided me (yes, I am *such* a bozo!) claims the clause is to make "sure that some litigious jackass doesn’t sue the vendor over doing what’s necessary for a web app to exist". Well, I'm sorry to tell you but, in this case, that's not going to help you Dropbox! If I told my hypothetical friend, Liz, that she could take James' article and distribute it at will, I would, of course, be in trouble for copyright violation. However, Liz would also be in violation for any copies she made because she didn't have permission to do so anyway, regardless of the fact that I said she did. Dropbox is, for all purposes, my friend Liz here.

In short: I am not a lawyer, but it seems that the same should be said about the people responsible for Dropbox's terms and conditions. The company is also rude and ill-informed. I'm going elsewhere with my storage and, by elsewhere, I mean on a private server where I can control the security, privacy and terms on which I use it.

Featured image by Stephen Downes under a CC-BY-NC license.