Internet-based telephony services like Skype and Google Voice are a lifesaver for travelers, who can make reliable and inexpensive voice and video calls from almost anywhere on the planet. But who actually owns the data from these calls?
You? The person you’re phoning? Or the company that’s hosting the call?
That’s a question raised by Cleo Paskal, a fellow travel writer, after Skype changed its End User License Agreement (EULA).
Here’s the clause that worries Paskal.
3.2.4 Licence: You hereby grant to Skype a non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, sublicensable and transferable licence to Use the Content in any media in connection with the Skype Services.
Content: means any and all content consisting of text, sounds, pictures, photos, video and/or any type of information or communications.
What does this actually mean? Could it be, to quote Paskal, a “major rights grab”?
If I am reading this right, this seems to mean that private, sensitive correspondence via Skype could be published by Skype.
Skype could set up a service that sells sensitive information for profit and it would be legal.
If I use Skype to do a phone interview and then Skype uses the content of that interview in connection with its services, I could be sued for breach of privacy by the interviewee.
I really hope I am wrong on this. I emailed Skype. No reply. Any thoughts?
I decided to contact Skype on Paskal’s behalf (but also, because I use Skype from time to time and don’t want to see my phone conversations show up on another service). A spokesman responded:
The purpose of the wording is to allow Skype to host and manage content posted by users on its Web site (e.g., commenting on blogs, etc.).
It does not refer to conversations taking place using Skype software.
Skype’s legal team plans to further clarify this in the next version of the End User License Agreement.
I asked Skype when it planned to update the EULA. The representative said he didn’t know.
That’s good news, but I think the intent here may be less relevant than the content of the EULA, which would authorize Skype to use our phone calls and interviews any way it wanted to — if it wanted to. I’m relieved that it doesn’t want to. But what if it changed its mind?
I think this is one area where privacy regulations may need to be tightened up by the government. We should own our phone conversations, don’t you think?
Update (1 p.m.):
Skype has updated its EULA (that was fast!) –
3.2.4 Licence: You hereby grant to Skype a non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, sublicensable and transferable licence to: (i) reproduce, modify and publish any Content that you Use on the publicly accessible areas of the Skype Website (e.g. Skype forum, blogs) for the purpose of displaying and distributing such Content on the Skype Website for such time as You continue to Use such Content on the Skype Website; and (ii) distribute and/or display through the Skype Software any Content that You provide or make available using the Skype Software for the sole purposes of making the Skype Software and the Products available to You.
“To clarify,” a spokesman told me, “clause (ii) basically allows Skype to transmit any user generated content (e.g., a photo in a mood message) while providing Skype to its users.”
(Photo: malthe/Flickr Creative Commons)
✓ Get the latest travel news, tips and commentary from Elliott’s E-Mail, the subversive newsletter from industry gadfly Christopher Elliott. You’ll travel like a pro. Sign up here. It’s free.
Sign up for my 
{ 1 trackback }
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
Hopefully they do tighten up the language to protect us from privacy issues, but as it stands in the EULA right now, we do technically own our media in Skype, because the language in the EULA isn’t expressly giving away our copyright to Skype–it’s only giving Skype a “no holds barred” license to use our content however it wants. Obviously since we have no say in our EULAs, the language defaults the broadest license possible. (Still scary, of course.)
Last I checked with some U.S. lawyers on this, whatever “stuff” you “put” or “give” to a service provider becomes “their” data. Or at least that’s something one ought to expect when using such, although obviously lots of people don’t like that line of thought.
OTOH, I’ve read of online forums’ legal agreements or Terms Of Use saying to the effect you give them a “a non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, sublicensable and transferable licence” to your posts also when in their forums. Or another way is you still own that “data”, but you’re giving the service provider “permission” to use them as they see fit.
I gather that’s still being debated, especially in court, although (again) some lawyers hold that view. It remains to be seen.
I think that unless one is having a private conversation between only two people in a sound proof, bug free, windowless location one must expect that some content or photo can make its way onto the internet. And this level of privacy is possible only if you also trust the person with whom you are speaking not to publish it.
In several European countries, you have a constitutional right to ‘the secrecy of correspondence’. Recently (last decade) it was updated to include electronic communication. This is a strong right. Employers do not have the right to read the e-mails from their employees.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secrecy_of_correspondence
The traditional telephone companies in the US operate under under “common carrier” status. That means they provide service to the general public without discrimination for the “public convenience and necessity”.
As I understand it, as common carriers, traditional phone companies also aren’t allowed to snoop on or otherwise use the contents of phone calls for their own purposes. (Wiretaps by the government under a search warrant aren’t for the phone company’s purposes.) In return, they are indemnified against liability for the contents of phone calls. For instance, if a couple of gangsters organize a murder over the telephone, the phone company won’t be held as an accessory.
I’m not a lawyer, but it sounds to me like Skype has just taken themselves out of “common carrier” status with that EULA change, and can now be held liable for the contents of Skype conversations. I doubt that was what they intended. It will be interesting if/when this is tested in court.
Sooooo….
Some underage highschooler Skypes herself in the nude to her boyfriend, Skype Management goes to jail for OWNING child pornography? If a lawyer can represent a man who claimed the child pornography on his PC was downloaded by his CAT, I guess we can see how this plays out on a future episode of “Law and Order”, the final say in judgement in any locale.
Here lies the ACLU lawyer
killed in the crowd at the scene
by the backup of
the ambulance he was chasing
RIP
Nobody was faster
What about Google Voice?