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.
Pretty standard boilerplate... (Score:5, Informative)
(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.
Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Agreement before Purchase (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
making mountains out of mole hills it appears.
Because no human has exploited any legal loophole ever.
Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... (Score:5, Interesting)
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."
Re: (Score:3)
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".
Re: Pretty standard boilerplate... (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not sure what countries you're talking about. Two parties who agree to arbitration of a dispute also agree to be bound by the arbiter's decision. Otherwise, it's not arbitration -- it's mediation.
In Canada for example, you can't be forced into arbitration via a non-contractual agreement. Rogers Telecom discovered this to their surprise a few years ago, further cases have built upon this the most recent being Ebay discovering that you can't force people into arbitration via EULA's, nor can you force them to come to your venue for any court case or force a person to travel to, or force arbitration in any other place then the complainants home venue.
Re: Pretty standard boilerplate... (Score:5, Informative)
Well, I live in the United States, where you can be prevented from suing a company for gross negligence of fraud simply by not opting out of some fake class action suit that you didn't even know about.
"Sorry, you can't sue us. You missed the window to opt-out of the class-action lawsuit that we secretly initiated ourselves. Here's your share of the judgement: a coupon for $5 off your next purchase from us."
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. See AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, etc.
This is why Supreme Court justice appointments are important.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... (Score:5, Insightful)
So, they need some of this language just to do what you're signing up for.
No they don't. They don't need permissions to use a device for its purpose. If I hire a recording studio (who employ third-party technicians & rent some of the equipment from 'the cloud'), then I don't need to give them any "rights" so they can store temporarily the music I make. good or bad - that music is MINE.
If I rent a phone answering machine for my company - I don't need to grant any permissions even if they're storing stuff 'in the cloud'. I may sing my copyrighted song into the answering machine - they still don't need any 'permission' to reproduce the performance for whoever I was calling.
Oh, and in the same vein: If I use a 'Rift' with a custom avatar and sing my song during a meeting, they need no 'boilerplate' permission for delivering that song to the other participants. No more than the phone company need permission when I sing over the phone. (The phone is digital and involves 'the cloud' too these days.) It is all lies – they only need these permissions to 'steal' stuff for using for their own purposes. Of course, it won't be stealing if you sign away your rights like a sheep . . .
Re: (Score:2)
purpose. If I hire a recording studio (who employ third-party technicians & rent some of the equipment from 'the cloud'), then I don't need to give them any "rights" so they can store temporarily the music I make. good or bad - that music is MINE.
The difference is your Recording Studio isn't being asked to share it publicly. The problem becomes that Oculus wants to show off a video with the Oculus store. They create a video. And then 6 months later you revoke the in perpetuity rights and you delete the content. But the content is still visible in the demo video they filmed. So now every 3 weeks Oculus has to review all material that they've ever shared of an employee's screen to ensure everything is still valid.
Content management is a pain in the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, that makes sense. The phone company makes you sign the same agreement, right? You could sing Happy Birthday to your mother on the phone, after all.
Re: (Score:3)
Because they need to sell at least 3 million units just to break even on their initial investment, and there's no fucking way in hell they're going to do that - especially not at $600/unit and with competition coming out soon.
That's because you're not a Silicon Valley entrepreneur pitching to venture capitalists. With a U.S. population of 300 million, Oculus will only need 3 million people (1%) to buy their product to break even. Once they get past that point, every sale becomes pure profit. This is a successful formula for most startups. As Guy Kawasaki likes to point out, that formula didn't work too well for an online dog food delivery service.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... (Score:5, Informative)
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]
Re: (Score:2)
Modern marketing: because claiming "fair use" doesn't cut it.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually modern law: Because claiming "fair use" can see the case tied up in court for years.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a bit of a difference. Slashdot is a publication medium. If Oculus were running a publishing site like Twitch or YouTube, they would absolutely need blanket permission to publish your content. Facebook itself needs it. But the Oculus is a VR headset. Why do they need publication rights?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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".
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No (Score:5, Informative)
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'.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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:
Re: (Score:2)
I can accept that he was giving you his legal opinion as to how that case would work out. He didn't mention how much time and money it would cost you did he? And any judge might disagree with him over how some part of the law might be interpreted, certainly any opposing lawyer would.
It's one thing to talk about how the case would work out if everything were open and level, but it rarely is. Often justice happens anyway, to some extent. But the cost can be formidable.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
How about this: If you disagree with the terms of a contract, or you don't understand it... Don't fucking agree to it?
Or.. No... Let's throw out 200 plus years of contract law because you're too stupid/lazy.
Aw, you couldn't find a proper argument, so you try insult? You have to do better than that, if you want to impress anybody. And don't tell me that you read each and every EULA, contract and online terms-and-conditions that you come across before signing with a greasy thumbprint.
But for those who actually bother to read before they start replying: Every time you shop online or in a brick-and-mortar shop, you effectively agree to a set of terms and conditions. In the traditional shops, these are well know an
Re:Pretty standard boilerplate... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It's just a device. By the same logic, my camera would need similar clauses.
Are you using massively networked online communication services provided by Nikon (or Canon or Pentax or whoever) to make your photographs functionally useful? No? I see.
Re: (Score:3)
Why would a display need "massively networked online communication services"? Is it so Facebook can sell me to advertisers? I think it's so Facebook can sell me to advertisers.
The Matrix... (Score:5, Funny)
What else would you expect from Facebook? (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think anyone is surprised.
Re:What else would you expect from Facebook? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I shelved any plans I had for getting an Oculus as soon as they were bought by Facebook. It's one of the companies that I don't trust.
"I'm so surprised that facebook would be invasive" (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Attempt to corral unforeseen consequences (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have any business cards? I'd like to hand them out to my enemies...
Re: (Score:3)
All media has helped lower crime dramatically.
What? Really?
Re: (Score:3)
And kids being imprisoned for building a school level in an FPS? That's ridiculous. Assuming you're from the US, I can imagine bully cops and idiot panicky teachers causing a student to be arrested for such a thing...
This again? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This again? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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
12 Super Shady Things In Oculus Rift's Terms of Se (Score:2, Insightful)
You'll never believe this amazing stuff we've uncovered
more after the break...
Show of hands for the hypocrites (Score:4, Funny)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Not me, I don't have Steam installed at all. So there you go.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Show of hands for the hypocrites (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Steam is DRM.
If Steam is DRM and not a game distribution platform, then how do games that implement Steam get distributed?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
"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?"
Nothing to see here, move along. (Score:4, Insightful)
Just unplug (Score:2)
Gizmodo Need Some New Journalists (Score:2)
Notch was right. (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I am shocked! (Score:2)
Shocked that Facebook, known trusted leader of privacy and caring about what the consumer wants would do such a thing.
VR is a Monitor (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
This old boilerplate language... (Score:3)
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.
I'm shocked (Score:2)
that a company bought by Facebook would have shady as fuck ToS designed to harvest data and fuck you every imaginable way.
SHOCKED.
Simple solution (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
In french we call it "Enculus Rift". From "enculer" which literally means "fuck in the ass".
Re: (Score:2)
Are we surprised? No.
But are we disappointed? Yes. Facebook went and screwed up what is a really cool device with this and their platform shenanigans.