Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Facebook Microsoft Network Networking Open Source Operating Systems Security The Internet Wireless Networking XBox (Games) Hardware News Your Rights Online Build Entertainment Technology

There Are Some Super Shady Things In Oculus Rift's Terms of Service (gizmodo.com) 186

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Gizmodo: While the [Oculus Rift] is cool, like any interesting gadget, it's worth looking through the Terms of Service, because there are some worrisome things included. Quite a few of the items in the document are pretty typical in any sort of Terms of Service agreement. These include details like waiving your right to a juried trial and agreeing to go into arbitration instead. Oculus can also terminate your service for myriad reasons, and third parties can collect information on you. However, there are some even more devilish details in the Rift's full Terms of Service. If you create something with the Rift, the Terms of Service say that you surrender all rights to that work and that Oculus can use it whenever it wants, for whatever purposes. Basically, if you create something using the device, Oculus can't own it, but the company can use it -- and they don't have to pay you for for using it. Oculus can use it even if you don't agree with its use. Oculus can collect data from you while you're using the device. Furthermore, the information that they collect can be used to directly market products to you. As UploadVR noted, the Oculus Rift is a device that is always on (much like Microsoft's Xbox One Kinect feature) which leads to further concerns about when the information will be collected.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

There Are Some Super Shady Things In Oculus Rift's Terms of Service

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 04, 2016 @02:24AM (#51836351)

    By submitting User Content through the Services, you grant Oculus a worldwide, irrevocable, perpetual (i.e. lasting forever), non-exclusive, transferable, royalty-free and fully sublicensable (i.e. we can grant this right to others) right to use, copy, display, store, adapt, publicly perform and distribute such User Content in connection with the Services.

    (emphasis mine)

    It's a pretty boilerplate clause. Basically, they need that clause to transmit your user-generated content without it leading to copyright infringement.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 04, 2016 @02:37AM (#51836389)
      This x1000. The article is making mountains out of mole hills it appears. Only content the end-user chooses to submit to the oculus services is treated in that way, as you have pointed out.

      The summary really makes this whole thing seem worse than it is by insinuating that all user-generated content will be owned by oculus. Have the slashdot "editors" (and I use that term loosely) even taken the time to READ the actual Terms of Service? If you didn't then you are lazy and inept and shouldn't be in the job you are in. If you did then you are deliberately misrepresenting the facts to suite your own narrative.

      So BeauHD, which are you? Incompetent or Malicious?
      • by SharpFang ( 651121 ) on Monday April 04, 2016 @07:20AM (#51837095) Homepage Journal

        Actually, any reasonable firm qualifies the above with a limitation of application: "for the purposes of providing the service, marketing and promotion of the service" - so they can e.g. include clips/screenshots of your work in their promo materials.

        Any license which omits this specific limitation is dodgy, because while they *explain* it's for "transmitting the content", in fact they reserve the rights in extreme excess of what is necessary for operation.

        It's like firefighters reserved the right to enter your house at any time, at will, for whatever purpose, how often and how long they desire, and with ability to sublicense this right to any third party. And explained they need it to save you if your house is on fire.

        • It might be standard but I thought in most countries to be enforceable the agreement had to be made before purchase of the item. You can't sell the item to someone and then try to add a whole load of terms and conditions which were not readily visible on the outside of the box after you already agreed to the sale.
          • It might be standard but I thought in most countries to be enforceable the agreement had to be made before purchase of the item. You can't sell the item to someone and then try to add a whole load of terms and conditions which were not readily visible on the outside of the box after you already agreed to the sale.

            Which is why every one of these huge (or up and coming) technology companies provides you with free and easy access to their complete TOS documents on their web sites. You're free to examine them for as many hours or weeks as you like before doing any business with them whatsoever.

            • by HiThere ( 15173 )

              But I do wonder about the ones that make the terms say that they can change the terms simply by changing the text on their web site, and it's your responsibility to keep current with what the term are, even though they could change every minute.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        making mountains out of mole hills it appears.

        Because no human has exploited any legal loophole ever.

    • by Mashiki ( 184564 ) <mashiki@NoSPam.gmail.com> on Monday April 04, 2016 @02:51AM (#51836411) Homepage

      Some stuff that people(including the law itself) will likely have problems with: The irrevocable, perpetual, and non-exclusive and transferable stuff. Depending on where you live, this would be all contract clause statements. And stuff that can not be used in a EULA because it's considered "a waive of rights, protected by law."

      • by mwvdlee ( 775178 )

        Same for the arbitration clause.
        In many countries this clause would boil down to "try arbitration first, then if arbitration isn't to your liking, go to court anyway".

    • by Mitreya ( 579078 ) <mitreya@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Monday April 04, 2016 @02:54AM (#51836417)

      they need that clause to transmit your user-generated content without it leading to copyright infringement.

      I am not a lawyer, but why do they need this part?: fully sublicensable (i.e. we can grant this right to others).

      Also, is "waive-your-right-to-trial" now considered to be boilerplate?

      • Yes. Sony might have really launched that initiative but I believe it was after the PSN hack, they offered everyone a pathetic little "we're sorry" gift, and acceptance of that meant you waived your right, forever, to take them to trial. It's now in their ELUA.
        • by ( 4475953 )
          This trick only works in the US, though, which apparently has a contract law that is biased very strongly in favour of corporations. In other parts of the world, frivolous clauses like this will cause the contract as a whole to become void.
          • This trick only works in the US, though, which apparently has a contract law that is biased very strongly in favour of corporations.

            No, those laws favor anybody, including you personally if you wish, who are creating things and offering services. You could be a one-man landscaping company, and include similar language in your contract if you wish, as it relates to your business need to show images of your creative work, even when your client has added things to it. And your prospective customers can agree to your terms, or just hire somebody else. Your OMG CORPORATEY INCORPORATED CORPORATIONS!!! scare word has nothing to do with it. It

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by ( 4475953 )
              US contract laws favours companies over individual customers. That is what I said and none of what you are ranting about even speaks against this. To make this clearer to you, the difference to other laws is that in the US a frivolous clause such as a general rights waiver or 'do not sue' clause may be invalidated later in court, but is prima facie assumed to be valid when both parties agree. Also, even if it is invalid other clauses will remain intact. In other countries like Germany, for instance, a contr
      • Also, is "waive-your-right-to-trial" now considered to be boilerplate?

        Yes. See AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, etc.

        This is why Supreme Court justice appointments are important.

        • by Holi ( 250190 )
          And now that every company includes that condition we have lost our right to court access in regards to civil matters.
      • Also, is "waive-your-right-to-trial" now considered to be boilerplate?

        Well, yes. What did you think the "state/government is evil" meme was all about? Trials and rule of law are manifestations of state power; without it, you have the Law of the Jungle - and even a tiny corporation is the 500-pound gorilla compared to you. Which is why they and their servants keep pushing for it.

        Surely only a statist would complain about having the liberty to give up all their rights if they wish to participate in the econo

    • by Calydor ( 739835 ) on Monday April 04, 2016 @03:10AM (#51836449)

      By sending or transmitting to us Content, or by posting such Content to any area of the Sites, you grant us and our designees a worldwide, non-exclusive, sub-licensable (through multiple tiers), assignable, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right to link to, reproduce, distribute (through multiple tiers), adapt, create derivative works of, publicly perform, publicly display, digitally perform or otherwise use such Content in any media now known or hereafter developed.

      From http://slashdotmedia.com/terms... [slashdotmedia.com]

      • Modern marketing: because claiming "fair use" doesn't cut it.

        • by Calydor ( 739835 )

          Actually modern law: Because claiming "fair use" can see the case tied up in court for years.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      YouTube transmits user generated content without requiring a "worldwide, irrevocable, perpetual (i.e. lasting forever), non-exclusive, transferable, royalty-free and fully sublicensable (i.e. we can grant this right to others) right to use, copy, display, store, adapt, publicly perform and distribute".

      • YouTube transmits user generated content without requiring a "worldwide, irrevocable, perpetual (i.e. lasting forever), non-exclusive, transferable, royalty-free and fully sublicensable (i.e. we can grant this right to others) right to use, copy, display, store, adapt, publicly perform and distribute".

        I'd like to add this is also what email providers do.

        The Oculus requirement to transfer all rights to them is nonsense.

      • by Desler ( 1608317 ) on Monday April 04, 2016 @08:18AM (#51837323)

        Why was this modded up?

        From clause 6(c) of the Youtube ToS:

        However, by submitting Content to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Content in connection with the Service and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. You also hereby grant each user of the Service a non-exclusive license to access your Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such Content as permitted through the functionality of the Service and under these Terms of Service. The above licenses granted by you in video Content you submit to the Service terminate within a commercially reasonable time after you remove or delete your videos from the Service. You understand and agree, however, that YouTube may retain, but not display, distribute, or perform, server copies of your videos that have been removed or deleted. The above licenses granted by you in user comments you submit are perpetual and irrevocable.

        https://www.youtube.com/static... [youtube.com]

        That took all of 10 seconds to find.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Monday April 04, 2016 @12:06PM (#51838967) Homepage Journal

          I realize it's legalese but the difference is very important. YouTube gets a licence to use and distribute the content, but it remains the sole intellectual property of the creator. Most importantly it states clearly that if you withdraw from the service you can withdraw that right and YouTube will case to use your content.

          Now carefully read the Occulus TOS, specifically this part:

          a worldwide, irrevocable, perpetual (i.e. lasting forever), non-exclusive, transferable, royalty-free and fully sublicensable (i.e. we can grant this right to others) right to use, copy, display, store, adapt, publicly perform and distribute such User Content in connection with the Services. You irrevocably consent to any and all acts or omissions by us or persons authorized by us that may infringe any moral right (or analogous right) in your User Content.

          So they are saying that once they have your work you can never, ever take it back or withdraw from the licence they have to use it. The latter part about moral rights I believe means that you give up all rights granted by copyright for them and anyone they authorize.

          It's modded up because some people understand this very important difference.

    • No (Score:5, Informative)

      by sonamchauhan ( 587356 ) <sonamcNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday April 04, 2016 @03:47AM (#51836507) Journal

      Quoting a few sentences before ...

      Oculus VR, LLC (“Oculus," "we," "us" or "our”) is pleased to provide you access to, and use of physical goods, platform services, software, websites, applications, and content (collectively, the "Services”). These Terms of Service ("Terms") apply to your purchase, access to, and use of, any Services.
      [...]
      Oculus reserves the right to change or modify these Terms [...] we will provide notice of such changes as appropriate, such as by [..] updating the "Last Updated" date at the top of these Terms.

      Our Services may include interactive features and areas where you may submit, post, upload, publish, email , send or otherwise transmit content ...

      So,
        (a) Oculus (re)defined "physical goods" (i.e. the headset) as "Services".
        (b) Its up to them to alter the deal
        (c) Content you email the wife through their service can be 'performed' and 'sub-licensed'.

      • (a) Oculus (re)defined "physical goods" (i.e. the headset) as "Services". No, they clearly state that the physical goods, software, applications, platform and content are collectively know as "services". They are providing you a service, a VR experience. This service is made up of hardware and software. You can, and should, argue apple is doing the same thing with iPhones and iPads, they are selling you an Apple service. That service requires some hardware and software components to work
        • Re:No (Score:5, Informative)

          by sonamchauhan ( 587356 ) <sonamcNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday April 04, 2016 @06:38AM (#51836887) Journal

          Sure - they are collectively claimed to be services (plural) by Oculus. In the singular, their claim makes the headset hardware either a 'service', or a 'service component'. That means the conditions in the EULA apply to it also. Especially these ones:

          IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THESE TERMS OF SERVICE, DO NOT ACCESS OR USE OUR SERVICES.
          We reserve the right, in our sole discretion and where technically feasible, to disable your access to or ability to use Services that we believe present a health and safety risk or violate our community standards, agreements, laws, regulations or policies.

          I personally think a change in the EULA will be shortly forthcoming. If not, consider the EULA below and consider how things have changed for the worse:

          [DK2 EULA]
          https://www.reddit.com/r/oculu... [reddit.com]

          OWNERSHIP. As between you and Oculus, Oculus shall own all right, title, and interest in and to the Firmware and any and all modifications or copies thereof or improvements thereto. You will have only the limited license to use the Firmware in accordance with these Terms & Conditions. As between you and Oculus, you shall own all right, title, and interest in any content that you create using the Product.

          (Emphasis Palmer Luckey's)

          And no - Apple does not sell you an 'iPhone service'. It sells you a tangible product (the iPhone), and licenses you software to use with it. Some aspects of phone functionality use online services (Apple iCloud, App Marketplace). But you don't lose the right to call mom if Apple 'in its sole discretion, and where technically feasible, disabled your access to or ability to use the iPhone service'.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Is it too much to ask to just buy some damn hardware? I expect there to be a driver, but that's it. I don't need some stupid always-on crap for the GPU, or a network connection, or online services. I'll buy my own games and apps thanks, just make the damn thing work and take your "value added" crap home.

        • Re:No (Score:4, Informative)

          by allaunjsilverfox2 ( 882195 ) on Monday April 04, 2016 @08:06AM (#51837265) Homepage Journal

          Is it too much to ask to just buy some damn hardware? I expect there to be a driver, but that's it. I don't need some stupid always-on crap for the GPU, or a network connection, or online services. I'll buy my own games and apps thanks, just make the damn thing work and take your "value added" crap home.

          You could possibly looking to purchasing a Razer OSVR [razerzone.com], I have not looked into their terms of service. But it seems more likely to serve your needs.

    • by Sique ( 173459 )
      If it was boilerplate, why do the need a "irrevocal, perpetual" license? Once Oculus has transmitted the User Content, they don't need the license anymore. And the license on anything including the caches should expire anyway the moment I stop using my Oculus Rift gear or sell it to someone else.
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by bloodhawk ( 813939 )
        I don't think much of OR but these clauses are bog standard. They are irrevocable and perpetual as anything else would be insane and require additional work on their part to implement. They are their so that if as you say you do sell your device or stop using or anything else or suddenly decide you didn't like publishing XYZ they don't have to worry about running around ensuring your content is deleted from everywhere. You will find just about every forum or site where you post content too has pretty much e
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Uh, yeah, here's the problem-

      The service agreement doesn't specify this in solely in connection with transmission, but a rather a vague we-can-do-whatever-the-hell-we want as long as it is "in connection with services," which sounds sufficiently vague to be litigated, but you already signed away that right. Ooops.

      Discogs recently updated their privacy policy with no other choice offered but "I agree", which perked up my paranoia sensor, and after reading through the policy, came across this choice chestnut:

    • It's a pretty boilerplate clause. Basically, they need that clause to transmit your user-generated content without it leading to copyright infringement. /quote)

      Well, isn't that the problem, really? All these services are surrounded by a dense under-forest of legal clauses that no-body cares to try to understand, because it all seems to be written in a deliberately obscure language. In many cases there are no ill intentions, but:

      - there may be un-intended implications, that later turn out to put the user at a severe disadvantage. And even if the current owners of a service provider are well-meaning and highly respectful of the privacy and rights of their customers, these things can and do change. So - even if you could trust the people you signed up with, you may not be wise to trust whoever takes over down the line.

      - because there are so many obscure clauses that most don't bother to read, it is all too easy to make small, innocent looking changes that changes the relationship in a fundamental way. We know it happens, from the reports from time to time - one wonders how often it happens without being reported.

      I think, if these things are "pretty boilerplate", then they should be a compulsory standard to be followed by all service providers. No doubt we would hear cries of "stifling innovation" etc, but that is nonsense; real innovation is not about how to confuse or trap your customers.

    • by msauve ( 701917 ) on Monday April 04, 2016 @07:28AM (#51837133)
      "Basically, they need that clause to transmit your user-generated content without it leading to copyright infringement."

      No, they need a clause similar to that to allow their service to work as users expect. As is, it takes much more than needed. For instance, if a user decides to remove their content, Oculus doesn't need to honor that, because they've received perpetual, irrevocable rights. There's absolutely no need for that, or for them to be able to sublicense perpetual, irrevocable rights.
  • by tacarat ( 696339 ) on Monday April 04, 2016 @02:24AM (#51836355) Journal
    ... Started as a EULA.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    I don't think anyone is surprised.

  • by choke ( 6831 ) on Monday April 04, 2016 @02:27AM (#51836363) Homepage

    Said no one ever.

    This should come as no surprise. The concept of grasping, overreaching and completely unnecessary IP assumption and invasion and elimination of privacy to the point of attack on the person is beyond absurd.

    At least this narrows the field to either the steam VR, or nothing for me.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Yeah, no shit, Facebook is an ad and marketing company masquerading as a social media site.

      They have one product: the collection and sale of your personal information.

      That's how they make their money. The need that to make money. They exist to make money.

      So, as usual, fuck you, Facebook. Not interested in your crap, not going to let the bullshit embedded tracking in web pages I didn't consent to to happen, and sure as hell not every going to use any of your products with an EULA which says "all your bas

      • That's how they make their money. The need that to make money. They exist to make money.

        So, as usual, fuck you, Facebook

        So you're proposing that they provide untold billions of dollars worth of infrastructure to billions of people who use their services all day long, but make the money necessary to run all of that by ... what? Selling decorative accent carpets, car washes, and whole grain muffins? Please be specific.

        • by flink ( 18449 )

          So you're proposing that they provide untold billions of dollars worth of infrastructure to billions of people who use their services all day long, but make the money necessary to run all of that by ... what? Selling decorative accent carpets, car washes, and whole grain muffins? Please be specific.

          Well in this case, they are selling us a $600 piece of hardware as well as running the storefront where we purchase software for said hardware. I imagine there must be some way to make money by taking dollars from people. The data harvesting clauses in this case are egregious and probably wouldn't be there if Oculus weren't owned by Facebook.

          • As has been pointed out, they will likely never even break even if everyone who's likely to buy a Rift or any similar device does buy it from them at $600. And that's assuming that the incredibly well funded Magic Leap and Microsoft, who are working on very viable competing products, don't take their expected shares of that market. And that companies like Sony, Samsung and the rest don't even get meaningfully involved. They'll have to charge way, way more for the Rift if only the actual hardware sales are
  • They have no idea of what people are likely to get up to with their Oculus Rift product, and if somebody does something that puts the company into any sort of jam, down come the safety nets. That's what I'm seeing in that legal boilerplate.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Granting themselves a perpetual licence seems to make them more open to legal trouble, not less. We have seen in the past where services have tried to claim ownership of user generated content they end up owning illegal material and unable to claim "common carrier" or other types of immunity since it now belongs to them.

      • by AC-x ( 735297 )

        Granting themselves a perpetual licence seems to make them more open to legal trouble, not less.

        Want to guess who else has similar clauses in their TOS [slashdotmedia.com]?

        the submitting user grants SlashDot Media a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, all subject to the terms of any applicable license.

    • by Maritz ( 1829006 )
      Owning the content that people might create does not help with that. It helps you own shit other people make. It does not 'safety net' anything.
    • Do you have any business cards? I'd like to hand them out to my enemies...

  • This again? (Score:5, Informative)

    by LoneBoco ( 701026 ) on Monday April 04, 2016 @03:21AM (#51836469)

    How many times is this article going to make the rounds? Wanna know something fun? The Slashdot terms of use say the same thing! [slashdotmedia.com] It is standard legalese that allows companies to share what you post or upload with other users. Gizmodo has the same terms. Reddit has the same terms. You will find these terms everywhere.

    • by Maritz ( 1829006 )
      Yes. Slashdot and Reddit are also helmets with virtual worlds in them. It's exactly the same. Everything is exactly the same as everything else. Thank you.
      • by AC-x ( 735297 )

        The Oculus TOS is referring to using the Oculus' online services, not using the Oculus on its own. How does "posting user content on an online service viewed through VR goggles" differ legally from "posting user content on an online service viewed on a 2D monitor"?

    • Re:This again? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ortholattice ( 175065 ) on Monday April 04, 2016 @06:28AM (#51836855)

      The Slashdot terms of use say the same thing!

      It doesn't bother me that much because whatever I post I intend to make public anyway. If reading and posting to Slashdot required an app that snooped on everything I do, I'd be outta here.

    • by Holi ( 250190 )
      The question is, why does an output device need such rights? How much "user created content" does a couple of lcd's positioned in front of the eyes create? The only thing that should get sent to the internet is some voice data to communicate with others.
    • Re:This again? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Monday April 04, 2016 @09:54AM (#51837933) Homepage Journal

      Slashdot is a service that publishes user comments. The Rift is a hardware peripheral that should run stand-alone, with a driver at most. What are all these services and why do I want them? What happens if I decline the EULA, does my hardware stop working?

    • by Toad-san ( 64810 )

      And you will find case after case of these "Terms of Service" being thrown out when it actually goes to court. It's just like the "boilerplate" crap I used to run into all the time back in The Day, esp. when I was doing custom software and programming for people. Their lawyers would send this crap; I'd redline through the ridiculous crap and send it back; "But but but .. we NEED this!"; "No, you don't.". We'd finally work it out.

      Enough people refuse to buy, or print out the Terms of Service, line out wha

  • by Anonymous Coward

    You'll never believe this amazing stuff we've uncovered

    more after the break...

  • by GrandCow ( 229565 ) on Monday April 04, 2016 @04:14AM (#51836561)

    How many of you people upset that the Rift is "always on" installed Steam and let it sit in your system tray every second that your computer is on?

    • Not me, I don't have Steam installed at all. So there you go.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • by Jahoda ( 2715225 ) on Monday April 04, 2016 @07:45AM (#51837205)
      I'll go ahead and field this one: Steam is a games-distribution platform owned by Valve, a privately-held company that has continually demonstrated a commitment to providing an excellent product and service that exceeds any of their peers, while at he same time showing remarkable transparency of operations and who have a history of responding to their users.

      Facebook is a data collection and advertising firm masquerading as a social media company. The purpose of their existence is to harvest yor data, sell it to whomever, and advertise to you in the process.

      Does this help explain the "hypocrisy" you see from us up on your high horse?
      • by flink ( 18449 )

        I'll go ahead and field this one: Steam is a games-distribution platform owned by Valve, a privately-held company that has continually demonstrated a commitment to providing an excellent product and service that exceeds any of their peers, while at he same time showing remarkable transparency of operations and who have a history of responding to their users.

        You're kidding, right? Steam is a great service, and Valve seems like it is doing a good job of safeguarding its customers' data. However, Valve is famously a secretive black box of a company that closely guards all of its internal processes. And Steam support is likewise notorious for being capricious, unresponsive, or sometimes nonexistent.

    • How many of you people upset that the Rift is "always on" installed Steam and let it sit in your system tray every second that your computer is on?

      I'm upset there is no driver only installation package and no Oculus provided means of turning off unnecessary chatter. I have not nor will I ever install steam or any service like it.

      From what I understand about steam you can shut it off when your done playing and it is no longer running at all without taking any extraordinary measures. Oculus runs in background from windows SCM with no option provided by Oculus to make it ever stop. It isn't even the same thing although Oculus store and Steam have quit

    • by Duds ( 100634 )

      "You let your wife share a bed with you so why are you upset about the armed man trying to climb in through the window?"

  • by cheetah_spottycat ( 106624 ) on Monday April 04, 2016 @04:35AM (#51836593)
    The terms of service are almost identical to those of, for example, Steam. Which is also "always on" by default. And nobody seems to have a problem with it. So could we please be rational, and stop pretending that Oculus is doing anything special here? And a lot of clauses highlighted in the article are pure boilerplate, and actually required for the service being allowed to publish, for example, your reviews or your screenshots. Yes, you can raise privacy concerns, but you would have to do so against any software storefront that lives in your system tray. This is worth discussing, but it is definitely nothing "Super Shady". And if you want to put on your HMD, and instantly see your home screen (or hit the xbox button on your controller), there needs to be some background service watching. The same goes for notifications / multiplayer invites / chat requests. You don't want that? Go to System Settings/Administrative Tools/Services, select "Oculus VR Runtime" and hit "stop". There, it's gone.
  • Wanna make sure your data doesn't get collected? Unplug from the network while using it, and do a factory reset each time you want to connect to the WWW. Want to develop something on it? Do exactly the same sans the factory reset - they will never have access to source code. How exactly are they supposed to use some app that wasn't uploaded to their servers? I see nowhere you're forced to provide source or even binaries. They might be able to use it legally, but how they acquire it is a whole 'nother story,
  • Preferably ones who understand things like the law and how it relates to tech. Of course you have to give a license to Oculus to use something which you created and THEN SEND TO THEM, otherwise they couldn't transmit that thing to other users without violating your copyright. Storm in a teacup. Outrage industry marches on. News at eleven.
  • Notch was right to not want to target the Oculus Rift after the sale. Fecebook has the reverse Midas touch. It turns gold to shit.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Shocked that Facebook, known trusted leader of privacy and caring about what the consumer wants would do such a thing.

  • Maybe I'm over simplifying things a bit, but isn't VR, boiled down to it's most basic concept just a monitor? OK, a monitor with some input, which make it closer in design to a touchscreen, or a Wacom Cintiq than the average PC display. When was the last time that you bough a display that required you to sight up for a service that needs a persistent connection to market to you? Show of hands which would you buy if you hand the choice, a 'smart' TV or a 'dumb' TV. I'm not saying the TOS is all brand new stu
    • I've been considering building my own HMD given the ridiculous retail prices for the Rift and Vive. What's silly to me is that the hardware looks like it wouldn't cost more than a couple hundred dollars. It really makes you wonder what they are doing that they believe warrants such a huge markup. A number of the DIY projects I've looked at already use a simple HDMI cable, and some free software. If these were Apple products the markup would be totally expected, and this EULA thing really pushes it over the

      • by JustNiz ( 692889 )

        I applaud your thought but the reason you pay $600-$800 is far from just the value of the parts.
        Think of all the research that got the Rift and the Vive this far, that you would have to duplicate yourself.
        If months of all your time and failed hardware prototypes is worth less than say $500 your (probably highly optimistic) estimate you would save, then go for it.
        Also don't forget you have to make it work seamlessly with one or other company's VR APIs (i.e. significantly more time investment) otherwise you w

  • by __aaclcg7560 ( 824291 ) on Monday April 04, 2016 @09:22AM (#51837743)

    If you create something with the Rift, the Terms of Service say that you surrender all rights to that work and that Oculus can use it whenever it wants, for whatever purposes.

    When I worked at Accolade/Infogrames/Atari (same company, different owners, multiple personality disorder), lawyers inserted similar boilerplate language into the NDA for employees to sign. If they left it at that, everyone would have signed. But, no. They included a requirement to previously list all past copyrights and trademarks held as individuals, which in theory could become company property. No one signed. Some people had attorneys, several promised to produce reams and reams of copyright citations, and everyone threatened to resign. HR stepped in, revised the language to something less harmful, and everyone signed.

  • that a company bought by Facebook would have shady as fuck ToS designed to harvest data and fuck you every imaginable way.

    SHOCKED.

  • Don,t buy it.
    • by JustNiz ( 692889 )

      Facebook has a long history of blatant user abuse, so I'm not really surprised by this.
      I keep finding out more and more things about the Rift that makes me very happy I pre ordered the Vive instead.
      I doubt very much that Valve/HTC would dare or even want to try anything even close to this level of shit, but If my Vive turns up with a bunch of restrictive EULAs like the Rift has, it will be going straight back for a full refund.

The computer is to the information industry roughly what the central power station is to the electrical industry. -- Peter Drucker

Working...