I saw people discussing this earlier on Twitter and I agree that the Dropbox TOS sounds better than the Google one.
My problem is that Dropbox does everything that is highlighted in this post as a reason not to use Google Drive. If anything, the Dropbox TOS reduces clarity by "hiding" that they do these things.
> use, host, store, reproduce
Well yeah, that's what the service is designed to do. Dropbox does all of those things.
> modify, create derivative works
Something as simple as creating a thumbnail of a JPEG is modifying/deriving your files. Dropbox most certainly does that.
> communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute
Again, this allows them to show you your data in multiple ways that exist now or may exist in the future. Again, Dropbox does all of these things too.
I honestly think that Google should have added "We will never sell, give away or allow partners to access your files without permission" to the top of their new TOS. It would clear all of this nonsense up.
Like I said, I'm no lawyer—so I'm sure that the Dropbox TOS is probably quite similar from a legal point of view, however it's the apparent intent that they go to the trouble of attempting to convey that makes the difference to me.
You like that they're hiding that they're claiming the exact same rights over your data?
It sounds like you're just finding an intellectual justification to support a predetermination that Google must be doing bad things with your data -- even though they're doing the same thing.
You're right, I did zero in on a few lines there, but I also don't like the idea of anybody using my content to promote their services or to develop new services based on what I upload. Operating their services? No problem there.
Just to clarify: I'm sure that from a legal point of view the terms of both applications are similar. As a legal layman though, it's the apparent intent that makes me feel better about using Dropbox.
I will not stick to dropbox just because of some general and broad legal mumbo-jumbo. The truth is, both services are identical in terms of their intention to hosting your files. However, I cancelled my account today with dropbox for three reasons:
1) 5gb over 3gb I had at dropbox
2) Integration with gmail - you have to admit, this is awesome
3) Integration with google docs. I don't use excel or word anymore. I use google spreadsheets and docs. Now that ALL my stuff is in google drive, I no longer have to separate office-styled documents from pictures, videos and other files. All of them in one place is just amazing.
There's no doubt dropbox was innovative, but since I'm every day on google/gmail/docs - there's no reason for me to use/login to another service.
I think this will be why Google Drive ends up taking over this space. The ease of integration is what made dropbox so great in the first place. Now Google is taking integration a step further.
So frustrating to see people are not learning from the past that these legalese phrases are NEVER as bad as they sound.
It seems this never gets old, does it? How often has this phrasing caused issues - and then when it's clarified it turns out it's just paranoid legalese giving them the right to show you your content to yourself on a public internet terminal etc.
I can recall these "Oh no! Read the terms!" articles for at least Dropbox, Twitter, Facebook, and Pinterest, maybe for others. Each time it turns out to be harmless.
Seriously - do you REALLY think Google a) wants the rights to publicly perform your MP3s or display your pictures and b) even if they did, that they're stupid enough to think this wouldn't cause an outrage.
Also there is UbuntuOne. Also 5GB. I love it and have been using it for a while. Granted I only use it between Ubuntu machines and then access stuff online via the Web interface. Also integrated pretty well with the file browser.
Not very conclusive but Nilay highlighted the fact that while Dropbox's terms seem friendlier, in legalese, it's perhaps has more leeway.Also, he mentions that Google's unified policy means that they have to be extra verbose/careful about this. For example, if I can attach large documents from my Google drive while e-mailing from my Gmail account (basically not have to upload it from the local system), I'll consider that to be an interesting value addition; but that'll require me to give Google the right to move files between their servers, maybe compress it etc. This is a hypothetical example.
I trust Google as much as I trust Dropbox (which is to say that I'm cautious) and I expect Google to refine their offering as well as their policy over time.
16 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 45.3 ms ] threadMy problem is that Dropbox does everything that is highlighted in this post as a reason not to use Google Drive. If anything, the Dropbox TOS reduces clarity by "hiding" that they do these things.
> use, host, store, reproduce
Well yeah, that's what the service is designed to do. Dropbox does all of those things.
> modify, create derivative works
Something as simple as creating a thumbnail of a JPEG is modifying/deriving your files. Dropbox most certainly does that.
> communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute
Again, this allows them to show you your data in multiple ways that exist now or may exist in the future. Again, Dropbox does all of these things too.
I honestly think that Google should have added "We will never sell, give away or allow partners to access your files without permission" to the top of their new TOS. It would clear all of this nonsense up.
It sounds like you're just finding an intellectual justification to support a predetermination that Google must be doing bad things with your data -- even though they're doing the same thing.
I seriously doubt this is anything more than a stupid omission on their part. They'll fix it and won't be doing anything notorious with your data.
Though Google.. I'd appreciate if you didn't "publicly perform" my google docs. kthx
the db terms were the same, they rephrased it when the exact same panic rant about terms was raised all over the internet.
The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones.
Furthermore: You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours.
The Verge compared privacy policies and concluded that they are not actually much different: http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/25/2973849/google-drive-terms...
First they competed for feature parity and there was bloodshed.
Then they went tried to woo us with their usability and we were in awe.
In the end price was all that was left and they scorched everything in their path.
1) 5gb over 3gb I had at dropbox 2) Integration with gmail - you have to admit, this is awesome 3) Integration with google docs. I don't use excel or word anymore. I use google spreadsheets and docs. Now that ALL my stuff is in google drive, I no longer have to separate office-styled documents from pictures, videos and other files. All of them in one place is just amazing.
There's no doubt dropbox was innovative, but since I'm every day on google/gmail/docs - there's no reason for me to use/login to another service.
It seems this never gets old, does it? How often has this phrasing caused issues - and then when it's clarified it turns out it's just paranoid legalese giving them the right to show you your content to yourself on a public internet terminal etc.
I can recall these "Oh no! Read the terms!" articles for at least Dropbox, Twitter, Facebook, and Pinterest, maybe for others. Each time it turns out to be harmless.
Seriously - do you REALLY think Google a) wants the rights to publicly perform your MP3s or display your pictures and b) even if they did, that they're stupid enough to think this wouldn't cause an outrage.
Not very conclusive but Nilay highlighted the fact that while Dropbox's terms seem friendlier, in legalese, it's perhaps has more leeway.Also, he mentions that Google's unified policy means that they have to be extra verbose/careful about this. For example, if I can attach large documents from my Google drive while e-mailing from my Gmail account (basically not have to upload it from the local system), I'll consider that to be an interesting value addition; but that'll require me to give Google the right to move files between their servers, maybe compress it etc. This is a hypothetical example.
I trust Google as much as I trust Dropbox (which is to say that I'm cautious) and I expect Google to refine their offering as well as their policy over time.