thing. You own the stuff you put up, and they get the sublicences. I received the email notifying everyone to check out the new terms of service. The thing that has struck me, that I really haven't seen mentioned anywhere yet, is that their wording seemed to smack of "this is really where we've really stood all along, we're now just trying to make it clearer for you." [...] to go through this all again. For those interested in my extended thoughts on the matter, read this post on the Dropbox mess, this post on how the economics of free online services actually work, and this [...] Isn't it just possible that 1) They only want this licensing right in order to make money from the totality of users and it has nothing to do with "needing" it to operate? 2) I had a cyber law class back in about 2007, and I seem to remember that servers were never held liable for the content on their websites in terms of abuse or infringement, so what do the companies really have to worry about, might they just be using that as an excuse to gain rights? It is really offensive that they could, for example, make a recording of your music and sell it, with no royalities, when there are royalties built in to the copyright law. 3) By what standard do they decide what they "think is necessary?" No limits! 1) I think this is entirely probable -- the