---
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.'
---
<p>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.</p>
<p>Their response was to send me back a link to <a href="http://www.tenreasonswhy.com/weblog/2008/04/royalty-free-perpetual-irrevocable-non-exclusive-transferable-licenses/">this article</a>, 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.</p>
<p><img src="https://www.martineve.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/copyright-e1309863351559.jpg" alt="Copyright" title="Copyright" style="width:750px;" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-1278" /></p>
<p>This is best demonstrated through an example and unpicking the terms. Dropbox's <a href="http://blog.dropbox.com/?p=846">new terms and conditions</a> require you to give, to Dropbox, on any items you store, the:</p>
<blockquote><p>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</p></blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Now the example.</p>
<p>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 <b>license</b>. The same would also be true of any legal music downloads.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p><i>Featured image by <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/stephen_downes/">Stephen Downes</a> under a CC-BY-NC license.</i></p>