I have glimpsed into the "Terms & Conditions" (you know, the click-to-accept legalities that no one actually reads, but should) that Microsoft applies to the "Home Edition" of Windows 10, and there's some disturbing stuff. In short, parts of your private files can end up on Microsoft servers. This is generally the case with a lot of current software and OSes, and of course there's privacy concerns. But the disturbing part in Microsoft's "Terms & Conditions" is that they read as if you loose your rights of the files in question when this happens. I'm not sure if those terms are actually legally binding, and it may depend on where you live if these terms are binding or not. But for anyone who wants to sell or make a living from what you write or work on your computer, this could be troublesome. It seems that to be on the legal safe side, you need to get the Enterprise edition of Windows (which, as I understand, lets you turn off the privacy data collection features, and should have different Terms & Conditions). The problem is: If you go in a normal store and buy a new computer, you'll almost always only get a "Home Edition" of Windows pre-installed. This goes for Office as well. You need to buy a "Business" license of Office 365 if you want to be able to sell and retain rights on your writing you do with it. The webpage doesn't make this clear.
Don't get me wrong, and please know, I'm not a fan of Windows. I made the switch to Mac long ago, but that last bit sounds a little far-fetched. I know that intellectual property language can sound intimidating when read through, but I have a hard time believing that Microsoft (which, again, I don't like and have no reason to defend) would make a move that basically robs you of the rights to things you write in MS Word (which is an ap of which I am also an un-fan, but still....)
MS doesn't take your rights. People have said this about Google, Facebook, and other services as well. It's not the case. It is a good idea, however, to go into your privacy settings and make sure they're set the way you want them.
@Wreybies Windows 10 has taken some criticism over their default privacy settings, which is legitimate. Apple, Ubuntu (Canonical), Google, Facebook, &c, all collect this kind of information. I feel it should be opt-in rather than opt-out, and with some services use of the service is an opt-in (the old saying is that if the service is free, it's because you're the product). If you look at Apple's iCloud Terms and Conditions I suspect you'll see that you're giving them a worldwide, royalty-free license to your content on the iCloud service, and that license is limited to Apple's performance under the agreement. If you back your novel up there, Apple can't publish it and sell it for themselves. MS can't do that just because you've written it in Windows and are using their integrated OneCloud service. Some people argue that you don't need these provisions, strictly speaking, because use of the services grants an implied license, but I don't know many lawyers who would be comfortable resting on the idea of an implied license. Better off being explicit and letting the consumer know what you're doing. Privacy when using these services is always something to be aware of, but you see a lot of overblown statements online.
Well, you know what I do for a living , so my work-work is never something I would put in the hands of any cloud, regardless of who's offering it. I do not use iCloud. The local DA's office recently switched to an internal server service (USAfx) that people like me are given clearance for access and I download the work and upload the product directly to and from there. Keeps things out of the email circuit. But, again, I'm actually pretty aware of IPR language and the fact that it can read in a rather ominous tone. Back when I was working with an over-the-phone interpreter service, there came a point where they offered their FCICE interpreters (like me) computer equipment in order to take translation work at home. Many of them refused the offer (and the corresponding money) because the IPR language made them feel like they were giving up right to home privacy, their first born, their immortal soul, etc. But I've been in a secure job (as in, working with a clearance) of one kind or another pretty much my whole adult life. I know the deal.
Also, this bit right here, so true. Every time I see people griping about some change in F/B and "how could they do this to their customers?!?!", I'm like, "Because you're not the customer; you're the product."
Am I right in seeing this as them saying, "Well, technically we're COPYing, and therefore we need to clarify copyright before we're allowed to store your stuff for you?" Which leads me to suddenly think that there's a lot of messiness that suggests to me that maybe the law needs a redefinition of 'copy'. The fact that software is 'copied' just to use it is part of why your right to resell a software package is cloudy while your right to resell a book isn't, right? That is, why the first-sale doctrine doesn't neatly and cleanly apply to software? That's part of why we're looking at the nightmare of fair use possibly going away when too many books are only available in electronic form? A storage unit wouldn't need you to sign a copyright agreement to store your paper books or papers for you. The fact that a cloud provider does need you to do so (effectively) strikes me as a bug in the law that calls for fixing. I realize that fixing it might reduce the profit opportunity for entities that have the ability to influence lawmaking. But I'm just considering it as whether it would be good in cleaning up the law and restoring concepts (like "storage" versus "use" versus "copying") that are being twisted away from their natural meaning.
@ChickenFreak yes, it is basically so they can do what they need to with your content for purposes of providing the service (e.g. copying your files). The first sale doctrine doesn't generally apply to software because you're licensing the software. There was a 9th Circuit case on this a few years ago that made the point that the first-sale doctrine applied to the "owner" of a copy a work (for example, the owner of a given copy of a book), but that in the case of a software license the user never becomes the "owner" of their copy of the software, they are just a licensee. There are some policy considerations that should come into play here and will probably affect how the law evolves but it gets tricky. A storage unit isn't copying your books when you store them there. A cloud provider is necessarily making digital copies. This brings up an interesting issue in terms of ebooks, because I believe ebooks are technically licensed to you (I haven't looked at their terms and conditions in quite some time), and we seem to be moving to a place where fewer and fewer people own the copies of works that they engage with. Content owners, of course, tend to prefer a licensing model because it gives them more control. Whether the law on first sale will evolve to reflect digital realities - we will see. When you couple licensing restrictions with technology like DRM and laws like the DMCA, content gets locked down fairly tight. There is some area around Fair Use regarding making your own backup copies of works, and that area of law could stand to be fleshed out a bit further. When it comes to the types of terms and conditions we're talking about here, MS and others are concerned with license to use your own works. You can't give them license to make copies of other people's protected works, so the terms and conditions aren't effective for that. Most of the terms and conditions will likely have prohibitions against uploading or disseminating copyrighted material. At least, I always put that stuff in terms and conditions.
But that's related to my point. My understanding has been that you're licensing the software because you're copying it--because copying is part of the event, the owners have more control over you than they otherwise would. That the copying is part of the reason that you don't become the owner. Publishers COULD lease you books rather than selling them. But people mostly wouldn't put up with that. I see the "using means copying" nature of software as a large part of the way that software copyright owners have acquired/seized more rights than book copyright owners. Right. I feel as if I must have been unclear. I'm saying, "Let's change the legal definition of copying to not include these things." And you seem to be saying, "That won't work because the legal definition of copying includes these things."
I see what you mean @ChickenFreak. I think the concept you're going for is a good one. I don't know that I'd change the definition of copying - I don't like legal/statutory definitions to be changed too far from their ordinary meaning. Instead, I'd suggest simply having an exception written in the law that certain acts do not constitute infringement, and these exceptions would cover what you might call de minimis use of the works, such as copies made into RAM or on physical media when using software, or copies made for backup purposes etc. In other words, you wouldn't change the definition of copying, but effectively change the definition of infringement to exclude certain types of copying. Hair splitting to a degree, but that's the approach I'd take.
Ah, but whose ordinary meaning? I think that this would change the definition back to the man-on-the-street's ordinary meaning. But, yeah, I guess if lawyers have to be the ones to make it work, we may need to use their ordinary meaning. That would work, too, yep.
Good point. I'm probably looking at it from a legalistic perspective, as well as an overly technical one. From the standpoint of the computer technology, it seems to me a "copy" is being made. It brings up an interesting hypothetical in terms of definitions - how to construct a definition of "copy" that doesn't include a reproduction of a document on a backup server, short of just listing a bunch of specific things that aren't to be considered copies.
It is horribly messy. However, I see the core of it as multiplying the number of simultaneous usable instances--when you've added another simultaneously-usable instance, you've copied. So if I buy software and install it on one computer and use it, I don't feel that I've "copied" it in a layman sense. I bought a thing and I'm using it. If I then install it on a second computer and use it, I do feel that I've copied it. When I buy a Kindle book and download it to my Kindle, I don't feel that I'm copying it. If I then download it to another Kindle, and my laptop, and my phone, I do feel that I'm copying it. However, that's fuzzier, because I might think of "my Kindle books" as something up there in the cloud that I'm just seeing through the lens of all those devices. That's part of the horribly messy. If the Kindle interface were such that I couldn't simultaneously access my Kindle stuff from more than one device, then I'd see it the "lens" way. But because I can read a book on my Kindle and then hand my phone to someone else to read the same thing, I see each device's copy as a separate copy. If I upload my half-written novel to the cloud, then I, myself, have copied it. To my perception, there's one usable instance up there. If the owner of the cloud stores it on a thousand different drives, I don't care--it's usable by me when I connect to the cloud, so I still see one usable instance, and I don't feel that the owner of the cloud has copied. If the owner of the cloud makes it visible to ten other people's cloud accounts, so that those ten people can then "use" it--read it or download it--then the owner of the cloud has copied.
Which is one of the reasons Richard Stallman has been going on about software freedom for the last 30-odd years. If all software were free, none of that would be an issue. And as far as MS and other corporations blurring the legal stance on copying our data, I think there are a couple of reasons: it's not actually legal for them to copy our data—meaning that all cloud-based services are technically breaking the law without specific, written permission to store other people's data—but they figure 99% of us won't pursue legal action if it's unclear that we can it maintains the illusion that they're in control Of course, if this is the case (and please correct me if I'm wrong), it overlooks the very real (and universally legal) precedent that any ambiguous language in a contract favours the party who did not create it.
That's called contra proferentum. It is often a last resort in resolving ambiguous terms (in other words the courts will attempt to resolve the ambiguity in other ways first, and if they can't they will apply that doctrine). In some agreements I have a clause stating that the parties agree they've both taken part in the drafting and that neither will be considered the "drafter" for purposes of that doctrine. Courts are more likely to apply it to a take it or leave it situation (like a software license, for example) than other contracts. I disagree about the cloud-based service, at least to the extent you include services you sign up for (like Dropbox, for example). If you signed up with them and they had no agreement whatsoever, you'd never likely win a copyright suit against them for storing your data, because you'd be deemed to have granted an implied license (among other reasons). If your computer is just collecting data via the operating system, then the company needs you permission via the license (and it's best to have the license in all situations).
