Dont loose your files - Dropbox.com

[Gary Compton]

Download this software and what it does is put a file on your computer called Dropbox.

Save all your important files to this file - the software automatically updates the backup held on the server every time you edit it.

It's FREE

You'll never lose another file...

 

[HoopyFrood]

Yeah, been using Dropbox for a while, most useful.

What I like most about it is if you use more than one computer/laptop etc, and it has dropbox on it, your files sync on all machines.

 

[Dave]

Unless their server crashes or they go bust! Remember Megaupload? And there is the fear that security may not be tight - what if someone steals your novel Gary?

I think the good thing about dropbox is the sharing aspect. If you are collaborating with others on something then the changes made by one person are automatically synchronised to the others. That is why it is so useful, but you should be backing up files in a number of different places if you don't want to lose them.

 

[Gary Compton]

What if someone steals your novel Gary?

No one is that stupid, Dave

 

[nightdreamer]

I've used Dropbox, but ultimately, their security is limited by what their employees want to snoop into. There was a big stink about them a few months ago, but I forget the details. I store backups on my web servers, and only then if they're encrypted. Also on SD cards in various locations. The "cloud" is not secure no matter the promises. But I'll agree that the sharing feature is useful. I'm a little more trusting of Ubuntu One, although I can't give a technical reason why.

 

[Glitch]

I agree it's always a good idea to back up data. I've not used dropbox, so can't comment on the company; but would reiterate the point about megaupload.

If you are concerned about security. There are a number of paid for options. One example from a quick online search £ 19.95 a year for 5 GB http://www.f-secure.com/en/web/home_gb/online-backup

 

[Paradox 99]

I've been using Google drive for a few months now.
That seems pretty good (especially since I had to recover a lot of my writing from a broken flash drive recently).

 

[Glitch]

Since Google are likely to index all your documents for advertising. I think uploading an sff novel could prove interesting !

 

[nightdreamer]

Ditto on Google. They're basically in the business of selling information about you, so I stay clear of Google Docs and such. I have an Android phone, and actually sometimes worry about that. I've also wondered why they felt they had to come out with Chrome, since there were already good browsers on the market; a lot of commercial development effort for a free product out of the goodness of their hearts, don't you think? I know, I might just be paranoid. I use their search engine, of course, but I also have a Firefox plugin that sends them random searches all day long

 

[Glisterspeck]

Dropbox for the desktop client works by synchronizing local folders across devices, so you wouldn't lose your data just because the servers went down. The file would still be on each local drive, just as they are now if you are unable to connect to their servers.

I use Dropbox quite a bit to sync between my trio of macs at home, my work machine, iPad and phone. The mobile devices are more strictly cloud-like, but even they can save down a local copy if you star the file.

EDIT: My writing workflow is Scrivener on Mac, Dropbox, and Index Card App on iPad. Allows me to write anywhere, anytime.

 

[Gumboot]

The problem with any sort of cloud-based computing is that in order for it to work you have to grant them a publishing license to your work, so they can "publish" it to a website so you can access it.

Most agreements (for example the Google Docs one) have a pretty broad sweeping license which is universal and perpetual. The problem here is that most publishing houses will want all rights to your work, and if you've already granted a non-exclusive right to Google Docs technically you can't legally grant the publisher exclusive rights to your work.

 

[Lenny]

Ownership of everything stays solely with you, and the rights you grant are tied only to the services and letting them do their jobs.

Dropbox: "You give us the permissions we need to do those things solely to provide the Services."
Google Drive: "The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones."

Skydrive: "you hereby grant Microsoft the right, to use, modify, adapt, reproduce, distribute, and display content posted on the service solely to the extent necessary to provide the service."

The reason you have to give the rights for making copies, etc., is so that the companies can move files around on servers and back things up for you. Rights for public display are if you wish to share with other people, or if you want to make a file public (an image, for example).

Every cloud-storage service uses more or less the same language to offer the same services. There's nothing nefarious about it at all.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/25/2973849/google-drive-terms-privacy-data-skydrive-dropbox-icloud

Interestingly, no-one seems to mention Apple's cloud-storage service, and how their terms and conditions give them permission to delete any file they find "objectionable" at any time they wish. Note that "objectionable" is not clearly defined.

If you're really that bothered about security, you can encrypt your files before uploading them, or use a free service that encrypts everything before it's stored, such as Tresorit.

---

I've used Dropbox in the past, with versioning software, for programming projects, and I've just started using it for my WIP. I've also got cloud space with Google Drive, Box.net, and Skydrive.

 

[Glisterspeck]

Ownership of everything stays solely with you, and the rights you grant are tied only to the services and letting them do their jobs.

Dropbox: "You give us the permissions we need to do those things solely to provide the Services."
Google Drive: "The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones."

Skydrive: "you hereby grant Microsoft the right, to use, modify, adapt, reproduce, distribute, and display content posted on the service solely to the extent necessary to provide the service."

The reason you have to give the rights for making copies, etc., is so that the companies can move files around on servers and back things up for you. Rights for public display are if you wish to share with other people, or if you want to make a file public (an image, for example).

Every cloud-storage service uses more or less the same language to offer the same services. There's nothing nefarious about it at all.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/25/2973849/google-drive-terms-privacy-data-skydrive-dropbox-icloud

Interestingly, no-one seems to mention Apple's cloud-storage service, and how their terms and conditions give them permission to delete any file they find "objectionable" at any time they wish. Note that "objectionable" is not clearly defined.

If you're really that bothered about security, you can encrypt your files before uploading them, or use a free service that encrypts everything before it's stored, such as Tresorit.

---

I've used Dropbox in the past, with versioning software, for programming projects, and I've just started using it for my WIP. I've also got cloud space with Google Drive, Box.net, and Skydrive.

What versioning software did you use in conjunction with Dropbox? Or I suppose I mean, why? What benefits did you get over just having a repository? (We're currently migrating from SVN to git, thus the questions. )

 

[Gumboot]

Ownership of everything stays solely with you, and the rights you grant are tied only to the services and letting them do their jobs.

Dropbox: "You give us the permissions we need to do those things solely to provide the Services."
Google Drive: "The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones."

Skydrive: "you hereby grant Microsoft the right, to use, modify, adapt, reproduce, distribute, and display content posted on the service solely to the extent necessary to provide the service."

The reason you have to give the rights for making copies, etc., is so that the companies can move files around on servers and back things up for you. Rights for public display are if you wish to share with other people, or if you want to make a file public (an image, for example).

Every cloud-storage service uses more or less the same language to offer the same services. There's nothing nefarious about it at all.

I didn't say there's anything nefarious about it. You're still granting a publishing license, which means you can't then enter a publishing contract that grants all licensing rights to your publisher.

 

[Dave]

Ownership of everything stays solely with you, and the rights you grant are tied only to the services and letting them do their jobs.

I was reading something about this recently but cannot find it to quote or link to. That business of "ownership" is a little more hazy that you would think (and possibly even an outdated concept.) In order to conserve space, if cloud-based storage providers find the same file they will simply link you to that existing file (rather than copy thousands of versions the same pop music file.) Who then "owns" that file?

 

[Jo Zebedee]

But surely, if I get a contract I delete it from Dropbox and then it doesn't exist there anymore? I use it and find it handy, btw, but readng this i might only use it for work stuff and remove the writing stuff and go back to the old pain in the neck emailing it to myself - which i do with the current one every couple of days anyway.

 

[Lenny]

You've still got your original copy on the machine you uploaded it from. So there's that. If that means anything.

As for the file on the server... I'm not sure at all. Ignoring any potential copyright issues that might arise when you store a file in your Dropbox that other people also have (it'll be music, or a film - a consumer file), would it be more true to say that you have bought a license to that file, rather than the file itself? In which case, ownership would not be: "that is mine, hands off", but instead: "I have permission to use/play/watch that".

Of course, it's probably worth noting that the file you upload has to be identical to what's already on the server - if I upload a music file with certain properties (for example, the song title spelt a particular way), then I'd be suspicious if the file I got back out sounded the same but didn't have the same properties.

Regarding ownership of files I've created... well, I sure hope that I'm the only one who has written my WIP and uploaded it on Dropbox.

---

I simply cannot believe that a publisher would view storing my file in Dropbox as giving them rights to publish, without evidence. The rights you give Dropbox are specific to the service, and how Dropbox (or any other cloud-storage service) serves your data to you. "Publishing" is surely just displaying your file to you on the web app, or letting you download it on a different machine.

 

[Abernovo]

I didn't say there's anything nefarious about it. You're still granting a publishing license, which means you can't then enter a publishing contract that grants all licensing rights to your publisher.

And yet, John Scalzi seemed to manage it. He wrote The Human Division on Google Docs, and Tor apparently had no problems publishing it, first in episodes and now as a complete book.

I'll admit a bias, in that I do use Google Drive and, in general, am a fan of Google's services. You get to choose what is seen by others. I'm presently considering using Drive for beta purposes.

 

[Glitch]

If you encrypt the files first, then you're only giving them the rights to publish the encrypted format (assuming they can't decrypt it).