Does Google Own Your Content?

mjasay writes "ZDNet is reporting that Google has a potentially worrisome clause in its User Agreement for Google Apps. Namely, that any content put into the system and 'intended to be available to the members of the public' is free game for Google, reserving the right for Google 'to syndicate Content submitted, posted or displayed by you on or through Google services and use that Content in connection with any service offered by Google.' Google may not be evil, but giving it these (and other) rights to one's data should be ringing alarm bells in the Google Apps user base."

Comments

Much Ado About Nothing

[gbulmash]

First off, the first key phrase is "By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through Google services which are intended to be available to the members of the public..."

That means that they're not applying this to private content, just stuff you intended to be publicly available.

The second key phrase is "you grant Google a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license..." Note the words "non-exclusive". That means that Google does not own your content. You own it. They just have the right to use it anywhere in the world for free. The remaining legalese covers their butts for the current methods that might be used to display or distribute the content, and any future methods they might use.

I used to manage the photo submissions at IMDb and we used similar phrasing in our TOS. That way when we created IMDbPro, it could use the photos, we could put them not only in photo galleries related directly to the actor or film, but in themed photo galleries, in news summaries related to the actor, etc. If Amazon sold IMDb, or we merged with another film site, or we started another spin-off site, we'd retain the rights to display and use the photos.

Technology changes quickly and you'll find most large companies that display user-submitted content have the same kind of release. It doesn't deprive the content's owner of ownership, but makes sure that a lot of potential headaches that could come up in relation to the use and display of that content over the years don't come up.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[bariswheel]

I'm just not too fond of the suggestive title of this post.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[peterprior]

Indeed:

From http://www.google.com/google-d-s/intl/en/terms.htm l:

Google claims no ownership or control over any Content submitted, posted or displayed by you on or through Google services. You or a third party licensor, as appropriate, retain all patent, trademark and copyright to any Content you submit, post or display on or through Google services and you are responsible for protecting those rights, as appropriate.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

SO I am pretty sure that googles is nowhere near as bad since theirs is freeeee

Sure, but is it freeeee as in beeeeer or freeeee as in speeeeech?

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[Bert64]

Well then you also do not own a microsoft windows product, but you do still own your several hundred dollars. Congratulations.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

There seem to be a lot of annoying articles such as these lately on Slashdot (More so than usual). I'm here for the real news, not the real FUD.

I think I'll start my own geek news site! With hookers and blackjack! In fact, forget the news site!

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[Robotech_Master]

Right, it's basically just a CYA stating, "If you post something intended to be viewed by the public, then we reserve the non-exclusive right to show that something to the public."

It's just a big tempest in a teapot stirred up by people who having nothing better to do with their time than look for something else "evil" that Google has done, and will naturally put that spin on anything they find. A bit pathetic, really. Google does more than enough bad stuff already that there's no need to manufacture more, and crying wolf too often detracts from the seriousness of the real bad stuff when it is pointed out.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[Dekortage]

Similar language appears in most grant contracts from USAID and other international development agencies. Basically, they pay for the services/work/etc., so they insist on getting a non-exclusive but permanent right to use the materials, but the contractee retains full copyright ownership and can permit/deny use by other organizations. They also have other contracts that are work-for-hire -- e.g. they own your work, copyright and all -- but you know that before you bid on the RFP.

I don't see how Google's clause (particularly with the stipulation of "intended for the public") presents any danger. Maybe it's a problem if you said something stupid in a public newsgroup and wish you could take it back, but that is your fault, not Google's.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[Tofystedeth]

You know what? Forget the blackjack too!

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[whoever57]

First off, the first key phrase is "By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through Google services which are intended to be available to the members of the public..."

The only possible problem with this is that "available to members of the public" might not mean the same as "publicly available". For example if I put up a spreadsheet for my work colleages, those colleagues could be described as "members of the public", yet it is not my intent for the document to be available to all members of the public -- in other words, what is usually understood by "publicly available".

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[arminw]

.......You do know that if you read the MS EULA you do not OWN the Microsoft Windows product you purchased with HUNDREDS of hard earned Dollars.........

If I buy a product in a store, it doesn't matter what, I OWN it. Ford doesn't make me enter into a so called agreement, nor have they the right, to tell me I can only drive the vehicle they SOLD me on certain roads or only use it to transport certain items or people. I can resell that vehicle or whatever else I bought to anybody at anytime.

What body of law gives MS or other software companies the right to put out EULA crap like this, that supposedly applies to their products, unlike every other product under the sun? Are there special laws that have been created that only apply to their products and no others? Did our paid for legislators create special laws that allows software companies only, unlike every other business, to restrict how their customers may use their stuff?

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

That means that they're not applying this to private content, just stuff you intended to be publicly available.

There is a problem associated with the wording of their TOS namely I would have no recourse against Google profiting off something I intend to release under the Creative Commons Non-commercial License. The protections built into the TOS prevent me from enforcing that license against Google.

Think of it this way, if I made an image under CCL and Google bundled it with some service they are selling, I have no recourse to get them to stop it.

That is the problem I have with this wording.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[Achromatic1978]

First off, the first key phrase is "By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through Google services which are intended to be available to the members of the public..."

That means that they're not applying this to private content, just stuff you intended to be publicly available.

No, it means your reading comprehension is not up to par: it's not "Content which are intended to be available", it's "Google services which are intended to be available", which is Google Apps.

I'm glad you're not my lawyer.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[timeOday]

"you grant Google a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license..."

That is not "nothing." Far from it. Just because I use some photo website to host my pictures doesn't mean I want my image used in some company's ads!

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[annachie]

This isn't really "much ado about nothing." Just because I might use a google tool to display my content to the public, doesn't mean that Google should have the right to use my content any way that they wish.

I'm a photographer and if I post samples of my work in a Google app, I might not want Google to use my photos for their advertising. It's silly for people to assume that just because I put my photographs on public display that I should be OK with Google using my photos without paying for the right to use them.

For those people who will say, "well then, don't use the service"...

I won't.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[tholomyes]

You own it. They just have the right to use it anywhere in the world for free.

Correct, and as I recall from reading Yahoo!'s updated hosting terms from last week, they say almost exactly the same thing.

"Yahoo! does not claim ownership of the Content You place on Your Service. By submitting Content to Yahoo! for inclusion on Your Service, You grant Yahoo! and its successors and assignees, the worldwide, royalty-free, and nonexclusive license under Your copyrights and other intellectual property rights, if any, in all material and content displayed in Your web site to use, distribute, display, reproduce, and create derivative works from such material in any and all media and display in any manner and on any Yahoo! property the results of search queries and comparisons conducted on Yahoo!, including, without limitation, searches conducted on Yahoo! Shopping and the Service."

Section 9.4, terms here.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[RobertM1968]

The parent poster is 100% correct... and in addition, it is added shielding to prevent someone who posts something publicly available from later suing Google because people got their content from said publicly available service.

It's also a far cry from MS's (paraphrased) "However you post it, wherever you post it, on any of our services (public or private) we have the right to use it, sell it, license it to our partners" clauses.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[notnAP]

Dead on... This is just paranoia.

Complaining about this is like trying to stop people from talking about the words I painted on the outside of my house. I'd argue against the opposite, in fact. What right do I have to stop Google, you, the press, or anyone else from reiterating what I've already made free* to the public?
* free as in speech

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[Dausha]

"The second key phrase is 'you grant Google a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license...' Note the words 'non-exclusive'. That means that Google does not own your content. You own it. They just have the right to use it anywhere in the world for free. The remaining legalese covers their butts for the current methods that might be used to display or distribute the content, and any future methods they might use."

That clause creates an express non-exclusive transfer of copyright. Essentially, this is a clone of the original author's copyright. That is, you the author can do whatever you want with your work product, and the transferee can likewise do whatever he wants to do with your work product (publish, distribute, license to third-party, derive, etc.). Neither of you can prevent the other person from licensing, deriving, etc. of the same work product. They don't even have to cite the original author (there was a nice case were architect B received plans for a shopping mall via this transfer, removed the name of architect A from the plans, published the plans as its own, and prevailed in court).

This is an interesting area of copyright law that I wrote a paper on in law school. It is sort of like what happens when a contractor works for an individual but there is no express transfer of copyright. It is not a work-for-hire, but because of the compensation the contractor cannot withhold rights from the individual. In those cases, it is generally managed by quasi-contract principles. It also falls under state law because Congress managed to exclude it from the Copyright law (sec. 104, IIRC).

Here, however, we have an express creation of a non-exclusive copyright transfer. This also occurs in Hasbro's open gaming license. The problem is that the transfer allows economies of scale to triumph (i.e., the little guy loses because Goliath can out-produce him). I'm sure Google put this in place to avoid future copyright litigation, but it also interferes with you writing the Great American Novel using Google's public space then complaining when Google publishes the novel with its own name.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[hedwards]

Exactly, basically all that clause does is indemnify them from being sued for distributing the already public content.

What is curious to me though is the part about giving them the right to modify the content. I don't know for sure, but that sounds like if they were to add those annoying keyword links to your documents.


Your Rights

Google claims no ownership or control over any Content submitted, posted or displayed by you on or through Google services. You or a third party licensor, as appropriate, retain all patent, trademark and copyright to any Content you submit, post or display on or through Google services and you are responsible for protecting those rights, as appropriate.

This was from the agreement, and I can't think of any way that would be clearer that Google doesn't own any of the postings. Would have been nice if this clause had been mentioned in FA. Especially since this is in the same paragraph as the FUD inducing sentence fragment.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[Random832]

Right - the issue is that people don't _expect_ it to be treated as "user submitted content", they expect it to act as a web hosting service. Meaning, NOT taking your stuff and showing it anywhere but your homepage, not making it so you can't take stuff down, etc.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[ronadams]

Simple. When you buy MS products, and many other commercial software products, they simply state you are buying a LICENSE to use the software, not the software itself. BS? Sure. Legal? Of course. Welcome to the world of software licensing.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[Spleen]

When you go into a store and purchase a copy of Windows, it's more like going to the video store to rent a video. While you may play it in your home, it's not legal for you to reproduce it (FBI warning), or broadcast it publicly. Example - A movie theater can't rent a video from the video store and then charge you admission to view it. When Star Wars Episode I came out there were several warnings telling people not to show the Original Star Wars in the parking lots. Usage restrictions are not new, and didn't start with software.

I don't like being restricted anymore then you. You have 4 options: accept the agreement, violate the agreement (take the risk), get it declared legally invalid (expensive), or simply do not purchase/use the product.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[I'm Don Giovanni]

There's a big difference between not "owning" a software product (i.e. you're licensing it under the conditions of the EULA) and not "owning" your own data. According to the summary (I've not bothered to read the article, as I don't really care, I just came here to see people's reactions to the summary), Google is claiming ownership of your data itself. If that's true, it's way worse than your run-of-the-mill software EULA.

BTW, why the hell did you bring up Microsoft in the first place? This is a Google story. Seems that Google defenders always want to change the subject to Microsoft.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[arminw]

...... Legal? Of course. Welcome to the world of software licensing.......

So then unlike cars, pants and every other commodity I can buy in a store, software has a legal exception in that it ALONE can be LICENSED? Does that mean a manufacturer of pants or toilets could also LEGALLY demand a license to use them in a specific manner? Do software and content makers get any special legal privileges, (other than copyright law) so they can make people enter into a dubious, legally enforceable "agreement" they must abide by in order to use their commodity unlike any other? If there isn't a specific LAW that gives these guys special privileges above that of the makers and sellers of all other goods, why does all this baloney about "licensing" these things hold up in court? Does copyright law really address any issues other than copying and distributing (including public performance) that these businesses use to foist these "licenses" on consumers?

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[arminw]

....it's more like going to the video store to rent a video......

Last time I looked, when I rent the movie, I was obligated to return it to the store. I specifically agreed to the low rental price, which is much cheaper than buying said movie. This is not the case with MS or other software or movies I BUY in the store. There is no rental, express or implied. The store SELLS me a box with a CD or DVD inside. Under copyright law, I am allowed to play that ONE copy back, wherever I want, whenever I want. It is even legal to make fair use copies, such as rip the content onto an iPod. If I no longer want the thing, I can sell, give away, destroy or otherwise get rid of that ONE same original copy, as well as any other copies I may have of it. If the software and movie makers REALLY were like a rental, then they should market it as rentals and not pretend to sell their stuff. In a rental, if the rented item sucks or is broken, I have the right to return the item and get my rental money back. Try THAT with software or movies you have BOUGHT.

Also, in the case of many rentals, they are prorated. If I return a rented tool sooner or later the rental fee is adjusted accordingly.

That is my understanding of the law. Am I wrong in this?

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Ford doesn't make me enter into a so called agreement, ... I can resell that vehicle or whatever else I bought to anybody at anytime.

This is just an annoying falasehood. You do not have the right to build an exact clone of that car and sell it to anyone. You can copy certain parts (aftermarket body panel's, etc), but some of them are patented. You are confusing your lack of an abilty to build an exact duplicate of the Ford F-150 with your right to do so. So think simpler. Why haven't we seen a company make a physical clone of the iPod? certainly the tech exists for a large comapny to clone the market leading gadget, and they could easily install Linux on the thing to get around the software limit. By you arguement, if Samsung bought one they would have th eright to manufacture and sell millions of exact clones.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[heinousjay]

Well then don't use the service.

Jeez, you people really like stirring up shit in clean water.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[patiodragon]

"So then unlike cars, pants and every other commodity I can buy in a store, software has a legal exception in that it ALONE can be LICENSED?..."

The person answered your question and you're just on a rant. You can buy a car, you can buy a toaster, you can buy a license. They said in their response that you didn't buy the software. Your rant after this statement totally ignores that. You don't need a special law to make a contract between two parties. They said, "Here it is, buy it or don't buy it." It's true Virginia, there really are alternatives to Microsoft...

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[mdwh2]

While you may play it in your home, it's not legal for you to reproduce it (FBI warning), or broadcast it publicly. Example - A movie theater can't rent a video from the video store and then charge you admission to view it. When Star Wars Episode I came out there were several warnings telling people not to show the Original Star Wars in the parking lots. Usage restrictions are not new, and didn't start with software.

But those examples are part of copyright law, and not placed there by some "licence". It's nothing to do with an agreement - the law exists whether you agree or not, but the company can't make up new rules. There are laws that cover the sale of physical products too, but that doesn't mean you are licencing them, or have to agree to anything.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[ChatHuant]

It's also a far cry from MS's (paraphrased) "However you post it, wherever you post it, on any of our services (public or private) we have the right to use it, sell it, license it to our partners" clauses.

FUD, pure and simple; here's the relevant part of the Live license, from MS's web site here.


8. Your Materials.

You may be able to submit materials for use in connection with the service. Except for material that we license to you, we do not claim ownership of the materials you post or otherwise provide to us related to the service (called a "submission"). However, by posting or otherwise providing your submission, you are granting to the public free permission to:

use, copy, distribute, display, publish and modify your submission, each in connection with the service;
publish your name in connection with your submission; and grant these permissions to other persons.
This section only applies to legally permissible content and only to the extent that use and publishing of the legally permissible content does not breach the law. We will not pay you for your submission. We may refuse to publish, and may remove your submission from the service at any time. For every submission you make, you must have all rights necessary for you to grant the permissions in this section.

Please point out where exactly it says MS has the right to sell your content.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[mdwh2]

Yes, he can't copy a car, just like he can't copy software (that's covered by IP laws, not a "licence").

But he can sell his car - just like he ought to be able to sell his Windows CD, no matter what the EUL"A" says (and thankfully in most places, this is legally the case AFAIK).

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[phulegart]

You could purchase the Franchise rights to open your own McDonalds restaurant. You could purchase the Franchise rights to open your own Subway Restaurant. You own those restaurants. You get the money. You DO however, have to operate them according to the rules set down in the contract you sign when purchasing those rights.

So there is another example where you spend your money for something, and you are told how you must use what you have purchased.

You can spend your hard earned dollars for a CD. You cannot do whatever you wish with that CD however. You cannot legally distribute it in any way you see fit. You can purchase an XBox 360. You cannot then turn around and put it in a public place and charge people money to play it.

There are two more examples of where you can spend your money and you are being told how you may use what you spent your money on.

Your employer has bought your time from you. He does not then get to tell you to do things that you did not agree to do when you signed on with that company. If you are hired as a PHP coder, your boss does not have the right to tell you to wash his car, do his laundry, and clean out his septic system. He does not have the right to *expect* you to do those things. But would you disagree then, that since he has spent his hard earned money on your time, he should be able to do with it whatever he wants?

There is another example of where money is spent, under a limited use agreement.

It is not just he fact that you are spending money. It is WHAT you are spending money on. Sure, you by a car. You are spending money on that car, and the freedom to do with it what you choose. What about leasing a car? You are still spending money on it. If you lease a car, and spend money on that lease, does that mean you can turn around and sell that car? It does not. If you purchase a car with financing, then sell it before you pay it off, does that mean that since you don't have the car, you don't have to finish paying off what you owe? No it doesn't. So there, are two examples involving money and cars, that dictate what you can and can't do.

It boils down to this. Before you complete an exchange, make sure you know and agree to everything involved with that exchange. Caveat Emptor. Buyer beware.

If you don't like what Google might do with your work, don't submit it. If you want to profit from using Google, by getting your work out to a broader audience, then you have to "pay" them the right to use it if THEY choose to. That's according to the agreement they ask you to read and agree to BEFORE you ever submit a thing. Seems to me that the person who submitted the article to /. in the first place was only looking to stir up controversy where there wasn't any.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[fuliginous]

I'm more inclined to believe that they are just too stupid to get to the full picture for themselves. Or didn't take the time too. I'll admit I have jumped to conclusions in the past, it's less common now. Something about gaining wisdom (or at least a slower pace meaning you get the time to think before you publish) with age springs to mind.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[Oktober Sunset]

forget the Hookers, I just want the 'and' the juicy juicy 'and'.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[gbulmash]

But he can sell his car - just like he ought to be able to sell his Windows CD, no matter what the EUL"A" says (and thankfully in most places, this is legally the case AFAIK).

Technically, he can sell the CD. The question is whether he can sell/transfer his license to use the software on it or access its content. So if he wants to scratch up Windows CDs and sell them as coasters, he's probably not going to get any pushback from Microsoft. If he wants to sell working Vista Premium installation CDs, then there might be more pushback.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[Assassin bug]

Technically you own your car's Title. If someone has your car's title then it's not legally your car even if you bought the car.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[General Wesc]

Yahoo! did this when they purchased Geocities--non-exclusive rights to all our content--and we all got quite upset about it. I did, anyway, and I know I wasn't alone Google has Google Pages, which I believe is essentially the same as Geocities, just, you know, a googol times better.

I hated it when Yahoo! did this, and I hate it when Google does it.

There may be important differences, of course. It's been a long time.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[Zibblsnrt]

One thing I'm wondering about that would be enforcement.

Say I write a story - and, by extension, own it - and I publish it someplace where Google's non-exclusive transfer (or the non-exclusive transfer of anyone else with similar clauses) applies. Time passes, and some third party files my name off what I right and starts doing something actionable copyright-wise with it.

Who would get to go after that legally? Would it be me, Google (or whoever), both, whoever managed to shoot for it first...?

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[Dausha]

"Who would get to go after that legally? Would it be me, Google (or whoever), both, whoever managed to shoot for it first...?"

Interesting question. Both would likely have a cause of action as both have the right, but once one engages, joinder could prevent the other (after a while).

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[RobertM1968]

You are sort of correct... their TOU have changed since the last time I checked (which was a couple months ago - and I copied and pasted it as it was at the time someplace here on slashdot... but I can only pull up my last 24 posts - brings me to my user account when I search for my own)...

But, even with the changes, the following term could still be construed in a similar fashion:

use, copy, distribute, display, publish and modify your submission, each in connection with the service; publish your name in connection with your submission; and grant these permissions to other persons.

Use, distribute or publish are the three "vague" ones. Use can cover many aspects of... well, use.

Publish holds the less vague, and possibly more applicable (because it allows them to do so - ie: sell your stuff) definition:

To prepare and issue (printed material) for public distribution or sale.

Emphasis mine.

Distribution (from either the definition of publish - or from MS's TOU) is defined as:

The process of marketing and supplying goods, especially to retailers.

That means both terms seem to imply sale of the stuff you post through their services - at least as an option they or others can exercise.

They used to (and may still) have partnerships with various companies through which you could purchase images posted by others through their services (just as Yahoo does). The fact that their new TOU is very ambiguous about it I think means that section took a lot of flack and thus they re-wrote it to say the same exact thing, but in more ambiguous terms.

See, the thing is, their TOU still, by the definition of the words they have chosen, allow them to sell your (whatever) that you uploaded through their service(s). Will they? I dont know... Did they at one time? Yes - and they have left themselves open to be able to again - even with the changes and more vague wording.

-Robert

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[rtb61]

What is also interesting, is while goggle feels it is entitled to use and change any work you make accessible to the public via their services, you however are expressly forbidden from doing the same "Except as expressly authorized by Google or other proper third party rights holders, you agree not to modify, rent, lease, loan, sell, distribute or create derivative works based on Content, Google services or Software, in whole or in part except as specifically authorized in a separate written agreement.", fair use to the nth degree for google and none for you with out first begging for permission.

So if they use and modify your work you are not allowed to use and modify that derivative work.

So is Gmail public or private, the googlites are always preaching that there is nor privacy in email, so are you double done for, if you create a work via a google application and then transmit it via GMail.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[WWWWolf]

Yeah, do we need to go through this ritual every time a service gets popular? My memory may be hazy, but I remember that in Ye Ancient days of Yore (when Taco posted about "Linux may have been spotted somewhere" and Katz posted about "I'm writing way too long ramblings about geeks"), there was a scare about Yahoo / GeoCities terms that had this sort of clause. Not long ago, there was a similar scare about LiveJournal TOS.

All sites do this. They're putting this sort of clauses in TOS so that they can mess with your content just as much is needed to display it to the users (i.e. thumbnail your images, apply site templates, add that stupid ad box, etc), not because they want to own the content. If they don't reserve those rights, they can't modify your stuff at all...

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

The question that should be debated is WHO decides whether you intended for the content to be publicly available. Will Google offer a check box that makes clear that your information is going to show up on their search engine. After submitting comments on private message boards that required registration to enter, I was later surprised to find those comments appear in Google search results. Users of Google apps need to understand that Google's business is based on taking content from others and making it publicly available. When you submit anything to Google you should expect everyone in the world to suddenly have access to it. If that's a problem for you, use Open Office.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[Mjec]

Time passes, and some third party files my name off what I right and starts doing something actionable copyright-wise with it.

Who would get to go after that legally? Would it be me, Google (or whoever), both, whoever managed to shoot for it first...?

That would be you. The copyright owner. They have a right to distribution but this does not give them any other rights. All moral rights remain vested in you and this third party has breached your moral rights.

This truly is much ado about nothing. This clause in the agreement is designed to pre-empt Google News cases a la Belgium for things like blogger search. Simple as that. Really, really not an issue. I guarantee it*.

* I actually don't make any guarantee, because doing so would be stupid, but that doesn't stop me being right.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[arminw]

..... What about leasing a car?......

Yes, but when I go to the dealer to lease a car, they don't pretend it's a sale. When you go into Best By or Fry's, pick a box with Windows VISTA off the shelf along with a shopping cart full of other gadgets, there is NO differentiation made between any of those item and that software. They ring it up, you pay and walk out of the store. The only "agreement" I have with a store is that I pay them a specified amount for the right to walk out the door with specific merchandise. The difference comes in when you try to take some of the stuff back because it was wrong or did not meet your need. The will take any of it back for a refund, EXCEPT the software. Software is merchandised under false pretenses if they don't tell the customer right up front in plain English that you can never own the software, but only get permission to use it under often severely proscribed circumstances. On all software shelves there should be a prominent sign:

You cannot BUY this material. It is only for rent or lease.

Of course when I rent or lease, I SIGN a REAL agreement, not just click a mouse, or rip some plastic, which any kid can do. Send your 10 year old to lease a rug doctor carpet cleaner or rent a movie sometime. When I rent a cement mixer, floor sander or whatever, they'll repair or replace it if it doesn't work for mixing cement or sanding my floor. Software makers specifically exempt themselves from any warranty that their program will work properly. Society lets them get away with it. Has anyone even ATTEMPTED to take MS to task for their insecure, bug infested software?

(...You cannot legally distribute it in any way you see fit.....)

That is correct, and falls under copyright LAW. Does copyright law also give them the right to "license" software? If not, what law is there that permits MS to tell me, (via a so called "license") for example, if I buy MS VISA home, I cannot run that in a particular way, such as under a virtual machine on my Mac. What right do they have to attach any conditions to their merchandise that others may not? What right do they have to pretend that when I open their package and install their crap, I am giving up any rights under the LAW that I normally have?

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[arminw]

....If someone has your car's title then it's not legally your car even if you bought the car.......

If someone other than you holds the title, that means YOU did not pay for it, they did. You only own merchandise you pay for. If the bank gives you the money to buy a car, they own the car until you pay it off. What has this to do with mouse click "agreements"?

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[Assassin bug]

What has this to do with mouse click "agreements"?

Read the parent that I was replying too.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[phulegart]

"When you go into Best By or Fry's, pick a box with Windows VISTA off the shelf along with a shopping cart full of other gadgets, there is NO differentiation made between any of those item and that software."

This is true. Now, add a CD and a DVD to that shopping cart. Let's say that you were shopping at Walmart, where you picked up a Halloween pack of individually wrapped Snickers bars too. What happens after you get home with your purchases? Ok, you can do whatever you want with that Optical Mouse. You can do whatever you want with the PS2 to USB adapter. You cannot, however, resell the candy bars in your office, as they are all marked "Not for Individual Sale". You cannot legally copy the CD and DVD then return them to the store. You cannot copy the CD and DVD and then put them up on the internet for people to download. However, just about every piece of software I've ever purchased, has a little sticker or paragraph on the packaging, that I cannot return it to my point of purchase once I have broken the seal/opened that last bit of packaging. The software comes with a reminder that I can indeed get my money back, if I do not cross the line of being able to copy it and keep the copy and still be able to return it for a refund.

There is no sign on the shelf telling me not to copy and redistribute the audio CD or the movie. There is no sign on the shelf telling me not to resell the individual candy bars. There is no sign on the shelf regarding the software. There ARE signs on each product indicating these things. If you choose not to read those signs, that is your problem. It is not the problem of the retail outlet.

If you are an advanced and experienced enough user who is purchasing MS Vista to run it under a virtual machine on your MAC, then you already In The Know... you already know enough to research BEFORE to find out if it is legal according to the nonsense that MS "sells" their stuff under. Of Course, MS is getting absolutely dictatorial in regards to their Operating System releases. And you Damn well know why. Probably a quarter of the people reading my reply to you are doing so on a pirated version of their Operating System. That figure might be more, or it is more probably less. However, MS has to do whatever it has to do to ensure that the BUSINESS model of making a product and getting paid for it continues to work for it, or it has to get an entirely new business model. Maybe going the way of Linux is what MS should do. However, too many other people already work and earn a living working for MS for that company to just decide "Ok, do whatever you want with it. Hell, it's Free now." You damn well know that too.

If you lease a movie at the corner video store, what happens if you don't return it? You get charged the full retail cost of that movie. Did you sign a contract? You bet your ass. You signed it when you signed up for the membership card and the right to rent movies. You have to sign a contract renting a rug doctor because you are getting the use of a machine that costs thousands of dollars, and that you could potentially turn around and rent out yourself for thousands of dollars... and to keep you from just keeping that machine, you have to sign a legally binding contract.

Maybe you are right. Maybe the business model has to be changed so that every time you want to purchase a piece of software you should be required to produce Identification, a valid credit card, and sign a contract like you are renting a car at the Airport, to ensure that you are agreeing upfront NOT to abuse the right you are exercising. Maybe all this will and should be necessary to make sure that you do not turn around and start copying the software and selling it yourself at a profit, or passing it around for free. Of course, any 10 year old can start copying a piece of software and passing it around for free. A 10 year old can't copy and distribute a Rug Doctor though. Sure, the POTENTIAL for making thousands of dollars exists for selling pirated copies of mu

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[arminw]

.....then you already In The Know... you already know enough to research BEFORE to find out if it is legal .......

You missed the whole point. I know that software, DVD, CD etc are protected by copyright laws. AFAIK, copyright law doesn't give them that right. What OTHER laws are there that give MS the right to enforce a sticker, label, dire warning etc. that I am not allowed to do this or that with their stuff? I agree that copying and distributing such material is illegal. I am taking about an honest user who PAID for a copy being kept from using it according to law. When I install VISTA on a virtual machine on my Mac, what law am I breaking? I KNOW I am breaking their stupid little sticker, but what law gives them the right to enforce such a sticker in the first place? If push come to shove, do they actually have a law based upon which they can "punish" anyone for violating their rules?

(.....You cannot, however, resell the candy bars in your office, as they are all marked "Not for Individual Sale".......)

Does that have to do with the fact that the individual candies are not labeled, as required by law, with their ingredient list?

I can and will do whatever the law allows me to do. I do not violate copyright law. I may or may not abide by whatever restrictions a piece of paper or mouse click tries to place upon me. When I rent a piece of equipment, such as a Rug Doctor, I agree in WRITING that it is a rental, and promise to return the thing undamaged after the agreed upon rental period is over.

(.....All of the rules regarding the software are spelled out in manuals, EULAs and other documentation.....)

Where is there a law, duly passed by a legislative body, such as copyright law, which mandates that a manual, EULA or any other piece of paper or electronic image thereof has a binding effect on anybody?

(......every time you want to purchase a piece of software you should be required to produce Identification, a valid credit card, and sign a contract like you are renting a car at the Airport.......)

I suspect that the only way that could be done is for MS and similar big companies to purchase a LAW to that effect from the Government, just like they did with the DMCA. Otherwise the majority of customers would buy from vendors that don't require such BS.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[phulegart]

Can I spell out terms in a contract that I place before you? Is it legal for me to spell out terms in a contract? If you purchase an Aerosol can, there are terms spelled out on the back that proscribe its usege, as well as indicating how it cannot be used. If you intend to use that Aerosol can in a way otherwise directed and you purchase it, you are violating the terms of that sale.

Unfortunately, you are making assumptions based on evidence that is not present. It is not just a matter of "I give you money, you give me product." If I sell you a car, and I sell you that car under the terms that you never drive it past my house, it does not matter why I make that provision. All that matters is that you never drive it past my house, else you violate the terms that were spelled out BEFORE the point of sale. I am perfectly within my rights to make that provision, regardless of how silly it may seem. You are agreeing to those terms when you purchase the car from me, as long as you have been made aware of those terms before you bought it from me. It does not matter if there is a specific law on the books regarding driving past someone's house. All that matters is this...

Here are the terms. If you wish to purchase this, you need to abide by these terms. If you do not wish to abide by these terms, you cannot purchase and use this.

You do not get to dictate new terms. You do not get to decide that huffing paint from a spray can is good and legal, just because you spent money on it. Nor do you get to decide to use it as an explosive to try to remove that old tree stump. Nor do you get to try to use it as a propellant for your new "rocket bicycle" design. You might be used to dictating new terms, because it is something that is rarely enforced. People are used to driving 5 to 10 miles over the posted speed limit. That doesn't mean they aren't doing something wrong, and can't be given a ticket for it.

Where is there a law, duly passed by a legislative body, such as copyright law, which mandates that a manual, EULA or any other piece of paper or electronic image thereof has a binding effect on anybody?

Well, "A contract is a legally binding exchange of promises or agreement between parties that the law will enforce." A contract does not need to have signatures. You are entering into a contract when you buy a t-shirt at a store. Wikipedia even makes mention of simply buying coffee at a coffee shop is an example of an oral contract. Just because there are not a dozen orally spelled out caveats and addendums at the register doesn't make it any less of a contract. However, those caveats are spelled out in the EULAs and manuals you that comes with the software you purchase. You are entering into a contract when you purchase it. Just because you don't like the contract, doesn't make it any less of a contract.

Face it. You have to accept the fact that buying that software comes with terms you don't like but are legally held to by the fact that you entered into a contractual agreement at the point of purchase. Your only choice is to not buy that software, and instead find software with contractual obligations that you can live with.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[arminw]

....You are entering into a contract when you purchase it......

BS. ANY contract is between persons of LEGAL age for one thing. If merely buying something were a LEGAL contract, then kids could not legally buy so much as a stick of gum. Any contract has to not only spell out the terms thereof, but also has to identify of exactly WHO the parties to a contract are. When I send my kid or go by myself to buy stuff at Fry's or Walmart, NONE of these conditions are met, regardless of what I buy. Neither I nor my kid is identified nor identifiable in any way as to having even been in that store where supposedly some item was bought. How can there be a contract, if it cannot be determined who the alleged participants of such an agreement are? Clicking on some screen doesn't change that in the slightest. I don't have to abide by any terms. I don't have to abide by any agreement I have NEVER agreed to.

(.....Well, "A contract is a legally binding exchange of promises or agreement between parties that the law will enforce......)

The only promise I or anyone makes at most stores, such as Walmart is that they will pay for the stuff before they walk out of the place. LAWS come into play if I don't. It has nothing to do with agreements or contracts. When I buy coffee I make no agreement other than agreeing to pay for it and use it within the law. Since they don't even know who I am, how can they agree to enter into an agreement. There are laws as to what I may or may not do in their shop. It has nothing to do with any agreement or contract. One of those laws says that they can throw me out if they don't like me for whatever reason. Even so I STILL have not entered into any sort of contract with anybody. Determining digital identities is particularly vexing these days. When I buy a t-shirt, all I do is promise to give them money. They don't even have the right to ask me for my name, at least not if I offer the correct amount of cash.

It has been that way for centuries. When did this change? The crux of this whole discussion is: When is a so called agreement truly an enforceable contract? What are the minimum things that have to be in place for all parties? One thing for sure. Nobody can hold someone accountable for anything if they don't even know who that someone is. That's why the **AA is having an increasingly difficult time making their frivolous lawsuits stick.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[Spleen]

You were sold exactly what you paid for a box and a CD or DVD. The contents of that CD/DVD are governed by a license. If you agree to the terms, and those terms are not violating some law, then you are bound to those terms. If the license you've agreed to expired in a year, the software company isn't going to ask for the Box and DVD/CD back.

The fact that some rentals are prorated doesn't matter. In the case of software the license agreement is your rental agreement. Are they fair? Maybe not, but your choice comes in whether or not you choose to use that product.

As far as playing back "whereever you want", I don't believe copyright law gives you the right install software on as many devices as you want. That would make pretty much all license agreements void.

Maybe a video store wasn't the best comparison, but my point was that just because you have paid money for something doesn't mean you own it. You have to know what rights you are purchasing when your hand them your cash.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[arminw]

....If the license you've agreed to.....

So if a ten year old kid clicks a mouse in order to install and play some dumb game on his computer he enters into an agreement with somebody? That is BS, since minors are not permitted to enter into any LEGAL contracts. How does a mouse click differentiate whether a mouse was clicked by someone over 18 or not? Nobody is bound by something they never agreed to.

Frosty Piss

[Anonymous Coward]

All your database are belong to us.
-Google

Re:Frosty Piss

[Anonymous Coward]

All your soul are belong to us - Microsoft

Re:Frosty Piss

[Anonymous Coward]

All information you store with us using _any_ of our "free" services are belong to our data mining operations. Also, we really do stay up as one of the top multi-billion companies in the world by offering free services to the public and not doing any evil at all - the cash comes solely from the ads. Really.

- Google

Google's clause in plain English...

[It doesn't come easy]

If you make your content available to the public via Google Services then Google can use your content anyway they see fit to promote their business.

Interesting. Does this include promoting Google's partners? (sounds like it does) What if you are in direct competition with a Google partner? What if your business is Internet search or online advertising? What if your content criticizes Google? What if Google expands their business to new areas after you publish your content (e.g. you publish content and then they change their business and you WOULD NOT HAVE published your content had they been in that business at the time of publication)? Sounds like we're seriously entering the golden age of lawyering...

Don't they ALL do this?

[Anonymous Coward]

IMHO if you have "content" that is worth something, you should never use a web 2.0 type social site to host it. If your content is worth money, start your own site, or sell it to a site you want to be associated with.

Re:Don't they ALL do this?

[goldspider]

"If your content is worth money"

Don't be silly. Content wants to be FREE!!

Re:Don't they ALL do this?

[mdwh2]

If your content is worth money

Well there's more to copyright than being worth money (e.g., people not wanting their personal holiday snaps being used in an advertising campaign).

Re:Don't they ALL do this?

[gbulmash]

Don't be silly. Content wants to be FREE!!

As my father-in-law would say... "And people in Hell want ice-water."

Content wanting to be free conflicts with the desires of content creators to be able to eat, live indoors, and enjoy other benefits of making a living.

This month I licensed a drawing of an alien dressed like John Travolta in "Saturday Night Fever" for more than I paid the artist who drew it. The guy I licensed it to is going to use it on lighters and hats that he'll sell. OTOH, I also let people use the drawing for free if its for personal, non-commercial use.

So the content is free... for personal use. For commercial use, you have to give me a taste of the benefit you'll derive from it. And through that little arrangement, I make money, the artist gets regular work from me, and everyone is happy except for people who don't understand that content is an inanimate object. Content wants to be free as much as a shovel wants to be popular.

-- Greg

Nothing to see here?

[niceone]

Here's the whole paragraph that that blogger selectively quotes from:

Google claims no ownership or control over any Content submitted, posted or displayed by you on or through Google services. You or a third party licensor, as appropriate, retain all patent, trademark and copyright to any Content you submit, post or display on or through Google services and you are responsible for protecting those rights, as appropriate. By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through Google services which are intended to be available to the members of the public, you grant Google a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce, adapt, modify, publish and distribute such Content on Google services for the purpose of displaying, distributing and promoting Google services. Google reserves the right to syndicate Content submitted, posted or displayed by you on or through Google services and use that Content in connection with any service offered by Google. Google furthermore reserves the right to refuse to accept, post, display or transmit any Content in its sole discretion.

I think it is meant to mean that if you submit content to Google which you intend to be displayed to the public, you um, give them the right to display it to the public however they choose, which is pretty standard stuff. But I'm not sure it actually does say that.

Re:Nothing to see here?

[kimvette]

The scope of their use is pretty limited, too. For example: they can't syndicate it or resell it to other services, but they can use it as a featured video on google video or youtube, or an article or op-ed written by you as a feature on their google news page, or if you wrote a short story, feature it in their online book indices. They're not giving themselves all-you-can-eat buffet access to your content, and unlike some other companies, they acknowledge that work submitted by you is by default copyrighted to you and as such you have exclusive right to control your content outside of the limited scope of uses you are granting them in exchange for using their free services.

Re:Nothing to see here?

[robotmansa]

I'm pretty sure all ISPs also have this exact same spiel when you sign up for their service, too...

Re:Nothing to see here?

[Eponymous Bastard]

There is one point people haven't pointed out. You agree to grant Google a non-exclusive license to use your stuff, but can that license be revoked? If I put up an embarrassing video on Google video/Youtube and then take it down, does Google have the right to still use it for promotional purposes or whatever? Do I have any recourse to have them take it down?

Imagine some silly video becoming a meme and you want it to stop. You can ask third party copies to be taken down with the DMCA. But suddenly Google can use it in advertisements for their products because you agreed to it. I wonder if the star wars kid would approve.

Granted, currently they will do no evil and probably would respond favorably if I kindly ask them to stop distributing my video, but what about 5 years down the line?

Re:Nothing to see here?

[RobBebop]

unlike some other companies, they acknowledge that work submitted by you is by default copyrighted to you

Like Publishing Companies that pay you quarterly royalties? In this respect Google is actually pretty great in that they handle the roll of digital distribution for free... and still offer you the ability to make money by selling digitally or redirecting users to a sales page for your wares.

Re:Nothing to see here?

[Anonymous Coward]

When you read the article and the EULA, replace the word "Google" with that of a company you hate, and see if you feel the same way about it. Seems to be a lot of Google apologists running around here.

MOD PARENT UP

[Ubitsa_teh_1337]

He speaks the truth, this is a total BS story.

Re:Which content?

[syrion]

RTFArticle Summary. It applies only to public information, not to private communication. Man, it used to be that people didn't RTFA--now they don't even read past the title. :(

Re:Which content?

[pembo13]

I think the summary was fairly clear.

Re:Which content?

[TubeSteak]

But does this apply to gmail?! Is your gmail contents "intended to be available to the members of the public"?

I thought not.

Re:Which content?

[eln]

The summary says any content that is intended to be available to the public, which email pretty much never is.

Even so, I try to avoid using Google or any other online service to host anything of a particularly personal (or business critical) nature. I just don't trust some entity I have no control over to host these sorts of things. Sure, if they screw with my data I may have legal recourse, but whatever they did to my data is already done and likely irreversible, so being able to sue them about it is not much of a consolation.

"might NOT be evil"?

[Anonymous Coward]

What the heck? They might NOT be evil? Why? Because they say so in their slogan? Wake up and take a look at what exactly they are doing with the internet bit by bit, and what they are doing with people's personal information for the "humble" price of delivering "free" services.

GeoCities Tried This....

[mlauzon]

Remember about 10yrs ago, GeoCities tried this same thing...I believe this was just before or just after Yahoo! bought them. The users will just cry foul again, or sue...either way, my content on their system belongs to me!

Hm

[goldaryn]

> put into the system and 'intended to be available to the members of the public' is free game for Google

Oh noes! Your public domain material will be in the public domain!

cf. "Your Rights Online" - if this really bothers you - just don't use it (tm).

Re:Hm

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Oh noes! Your public domain material will be in the public domain!

Apart from the fact that the material in question does not have to be in the public domain, and that Google's wording doesn't imply that it will become so, the rest of your comment is absolutely right.

Re:Hm

[mdwh2]

Oh noes! Your public domain material will be in the public domain!

Yeah, just like if it's on a webpage, it's public domain so it must be okay for me to copy it!

(Try doing that with Google's content...)

Does Google Own My Content?

[JamesRose]

Does slashdot grossly sensationalise stories?

Re:Does Google Own My Content?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only in the UK. Here it grossly sensationalizes them.

Re:Does Google Own My Content?

[schwartzg]

For the most part ..... yes. Though realistically only for the most sensational.

Re:Does Google Own My Content?

[goldaryn]

> > Does Google Own My Content? > Does slashdot grossly sensationalise stories? (Score:3, Insightful) Another comedy genius misunderstood in his own time. :-(

Re:Does Google Own My Content?

[saddino]

No, but ZDNet does.

Re:Does Google Own My Content?

[chad_r]

That's rhetorical, right? Then I shall answer you in kind: Are you new here?

Re:Does Google Own My Content?

[gowen]

Only in the UK. Here it grossly sensationalizes them.

In Soviet Russ . OWWW OWWW STOP THAT ... OWWW, THAT HURTS ... QUIT IT #^47NO CARRIER

Re:Does Google Own My Content?

[Cro Magnon]

Does slashdot grossly sensationalise stories?

Is a bear Catholic? Does the Pope s**t in the woods?

Re:Does Google Own My Content?

[gangien]

yes, anything legal/political and they definitely do. And use misleading headlines and summaries.

Re:Does Google Own My Content?

[zenkonami]

Does slashdot grossly sensationalise stories?
Obligatory "you must be new here."

Gmail Paper

[Anonymous Coward]

Any word yet on whether this will affect Gmail Paper?

Evil is slowly creeping into Google. Or rapidly?

[Futurepower(R)]

"... reproduce, adapt, modify, publish and distribute..."

"Modify" means that, if you say you love your wife, Google can change that and say you hate your wife.

That's how it looks to me.

Nothing To See Here...Move along FUD train.....

[Anonymous Coward]

The full paragraph which clearly states that Google does not own your content. Please stop spreading lies.

Your Rights

Google claims no ownership or control over any Content submitted, posted or displayed by you on or through Google services. You or a third party licensor, as appropriate, retain all patent, trademark and copyright to any Content you submit, post or display on or through Google services and you are responsible for protecting those rights, as appropriate. By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through Google services which are intended to be available to the members of the public, you grant Google a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce, adapt, modify, publish and distribute such Content on Google services for the purpose of displaying, distributing and promoting Google services. Google reserves the right to syndicate Content submitted, posted or displayed by you on or through Google services and use that Content in connection with any service offered by Google. Google furthermore reserves the right to refuse to accept, post, display or transmit any Content in its sole discretion.

Re:Which content?

[cromar]

That's my email address, you insensitive clod!

So, pretty typical.

[cromar]

Seems to be the gist of every other EULA I've ever read...

Do music hosting sites own your music?

[MichaelCrawford]

I read recently that some music hosting sites, including for a time MySpace, have terms of service that give them rights over a musician's music that no sensible musician would agree to, for example the right to create derivative works and to use the music commercially.

What that means is that starving musicians could upload their work to a music hosting service, only to find that the site ends up selling CDs of their music, or licensing it for advertising jingles.

MySpace's TOS were this way until someone there organized a big protest. Let me find a link... ah, here we go - videos at YouTube too. And I quote:

"...by submitting the User Submissions 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 User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube's (and its successor's) business... in any media formats and through any media channels."

Among other things, this means they could strip the audio portion of any track and sell it on a CD. Or, they could sell your video to an ad firm looking to get "edgy"; suddenly your indie reggae tune could be the soundtrack to a new ad for SUVs. The sky's still the limit, when it comes to the rights you surrender to YouTube when you upload your video. Perhaps even scarier is the idea that anyone who might eventually buy YouTube would automatically obtain these same rights. Since YouTube is so popular, with 100 million videos shown each day, it's an attractive acquisition target for any number of companies.

Now, knowing the sort of folks that post their creations on sites like MySpace and YouTube, how many of them are likely to have even read the terms of service, let alone thought through their consequences?

Re:Do music hosting sites own your music?

[Todd Knarr]

Yes, but think about this: you uploaded your video to YouTube specifically so it could be shown to others. But showing it to others constitutes a performance of that video by YouTube. Now, if they don't include in the terms something saying you give them the right to perform your video, how are they going to show it to others? They've no right to performance, you didn't give them one, so they can't do the very thing you want them to do with your video. Similarly, if you don't give them the right to present it in a different form, they can't include it on their front page or provide people the ability to embed the video (see any number of blog pages where, instead of a link to YouTube, the blogger embeds the actual video in a playable form). And if you don't give YouTube the right to make copies of your video, they can't make the multiple copies onto their cache and delivery servers at various points on the network close to the destination networks (think how Akamai works).

One can argue the exact wording (I prefer terms that make it explicit that the grant is for the sole purpose of providing content within the Web site and related operations and that uses outside the context of the Web site aren't part of the grant), but copyright law means that YouTube and the like have to ask you for certain rights simply to be able to legally do what you want them to do.

Re:Do music hosting sites own your music?

[LMacG]

Billy Bragg read the MySpace terms of service, thought through the consequences, and did something about it.

Re:Do music hosting sites own your music?

[SharpFang]

Now, if they don't include in the terms something saying you give them the right to perform your video, how are they going to show it to others?
On all media in all formats? Sublicenseable?

If there was a dog shit on Youtube's lawn, they wouldn't take a shovel and dump it in the trashcan. They would take a nuke and detonate it, thus making sure the dog shit is completely and entirely gone.

Re:Do music hosting sites own your music?

[LordSnooty]

Hmm, I think the notion behind that protest VASTLY overrates the quality of material on YouTube or indeed many UGC sites.

Re:Do music hosting sites own your music?

[Todd Knarr]

On all media? Maybe. Is a downloadable file a different media from a real-time stream? If it is and YouTube wants to support browsers that don't have streaming plug-ins but do have viewers, they'll need that right.

In all formats? Definitely. WMA is a different format than QuickTime is a different format than RealMedia, and if they want to offer translation of the content into a format the user can view without requiring the uploader to supply all possible formats they're going to need that right.

Sublicenseable? If YouTube France is a different business unit from YouTube USA and you want content uploaded to the US site to be viewable on the French site (a reasonable assumption, they're both YouTube after all), then they'll need to be able to grant the French business unit the neccesary rights that you've granted the US unit.

The problem is that YouTube does need all those rights, but it doesn't need them for unlimited purposes. It's just really really hard to phrase the limitations in a way that both makes sense and allows enough leeway for everyone involved to do what the uploader wants done. Normally this is all handled by being a bit fuzzy about it: you both agree that this whole deal's supposed to be for a particular purpose and everything's supposed to be read to be implicitly limited to being for that purpose. The result is language that's entirely reasonable, but that looks really really scary when taken out of the context that provides the limitation. My only concern would be to make sure that the agreement did in fact state the purpose and intent, so I have something in writing later in case I need it.

Re:Do music hosting sites own your music?

[The One and Only]

On the other hand, you can see why YouTube would need this--otherwise they couldn't even use their own website to promote itself, to say nothing of showing the skateboarding dog on iPhone commercials.

Re:Do music hosting sites own your music?

[SharpFang]

Then enumerate all media you want to use, and put a clause about possibility of extending the list with prior notice.
Enumerate the formats as well.
Enumerate sublicensees. YouTube France is okay. MTV or record labels is not.
Youtube needs only a tiny subset of the rights it grants itself. It is very easy to write a list of entries instead of 'all'. You may be a bit fuzzy in places (say, "all international units of YouTube") but if you blow the word "all" you're not being "a bit" fuzzy, you're just doing the "all your base are belong to us" routine. The language is not nearly reasonable: say, I'm selling you a car and the contract says you're obligated to pay me any arbitrary sum I mention at a later time, and keep paying it whenever I ask you. This is not reasonable and doesn't imply we've mutually agreed that it will be $5000, paid once. The result looks scary and is scary, because the context that provides limitation is very limited in scope, quite opposite to what the piece grabbing rights is. The lack of purpose and intent entry is omitted purposedly, so they could use and abuse your works as only they see fit.

Do what I did

[Eggplant62]

Some time ago, when Google first announced this Apps product, I signed up for an account to take a look at what they had offered. Seeing as how I host my own vanity domain, I didn't see much use for it, and I decided to just ignore it until I needed it in case a machine here took a dump.

I ended up logging on and dropping the account. I also made the decision that until that term in their license changes, I probably will not consider Google Apps for anything else.

Now, I wonder how many other accounts will close?

Re:Which content?

[jours]

> The summary says any content that is intended to be available to the public,
> which email pretty much never is...I just don't trust some entity I have no
> control over to host these sorts of things.

No, but you trust other entities you have no control over to transmit them right? The only time I ever have complete control over the entire channel, end to end, of a message transmission is here in the office...and even that's only if the recipient is in the office with me. Obviously if you're using Google Mail for something then you've already resigned yourself to this.

Placing information that's "particularly personal" or "business critical" on the Internet is dicey to say the least, and the terms of service of my mail host are way down the list of my concerns.

Re:Which content?

[ajs]

But does this apply to gmail?! Is your gmail contents "intended to be available to the members of the public"?

I thought not. I think the concern is that the wording is ambiguous. As usual, the Slashdot headline takes the most sensationalist way of approaching the issue, but at its core it's a question of whose intent you're talking about. Is it, "services which are intended to be available to the members of the public," or, "content which is intended to be available to the members of the public?"

My sense is that Google means the latter (as most of us would expect), but the wording is ambiguous, and it might well serve them better to revise the agreement to eliminate that ambiguity.

I still don't see much in the way of problems

[paladinwannabe2]

If you're putting stuff up for the public through Google, about the worst Google can do to you is not show it. If you're worried about what the public (which includes Google and its partners) will do with your content, you shouldn't have put it up in the first place. (Google doesn't actually own your content, just the rights to distribute it however they wish).

Admittedly, Google not showing people your stuff could be a problem- but I think all hosting companies should reserve the right not to show anything they don't like (after refunding your money), because that's a lot easier than listing a bunch of things they won't show (like child porn and copyright infringement) so when they find things later they don't want to show (like ads for illegal services, phishing sites, snuff films, etc.) they can get rid of it without changing the contract.

Re:I still don't see much in the way of problems

[It doesn't come easy]

[...]about the worst Google can do to you is not show it.

I would say maybe not. If Google can do anything they want with the content to promote their business then they could use your content to drive their sales (for example). So, if you publicize all of your whiz bang stuff and people search for it using Google and Google redirects those search results to your competitors (Google's partners) then you can be seriously harmed. Seems like that could be a problem (just for one example).

Re:I still don't see much in the way of problems

[paladinwannabe2]

Nothing is stopping Google from doing that right now, with any search term you give them. They don't because:
1. It would look evil, and Google doesn't like that.
2. If Google doesn't return the results people are looking for, they'll stop using Google.
3. If content providers see Google screwing people over, they'll stop using Google.
I'm still not seeing any problems here. I fail to see how Google can use content you provide to harm you, unless:
1. Google commits fraud (and you can still sue them over that!)
2. Google makes harmful, infringing derived works (but satire and parody are already fair use, and #3 above makes this unlikely)
3. You were stupid enough to post something harmful to yourself on publicly accessible webpages (you can sue Google for that, but we'd all make fun of you and you'd be thrown out of court).

I'm still not seeing any way Google could hurt its users without hurting itself much worse. It's like saying that Firefox could intentionally cripple their browser with an update, I could show up tomorrow with a squirt gun and soak my co-workers, Bush could give the finger to the press corps tomorrow, Microsoft could start charging $2000 to upgrade to Vista. All of these things could happen, and are all even legal. We don't expect any of these things to happen, though, because it's inconsistent with past behavior, and doesn't help the individuals/companies mentioned achieve any of their goals. Likewise, fretting about Google screwing over the people helping it get revenue doesn't make sense.

Re:I still don't see much in the way of problems

[It doesn't come easy]

Hmmm. Actually, there are active or just recently finished court cases which have sued for damages as well as sued to force Google, Yahoo, et al to stop such practices for exactly this (adwords, trademarks, etc. being sold to competitors, then capturing and redirecting searches to a competitor's web site). So for a business to use Google's Services, it sounds like they have to give up the ability to stop the search hijacking. Yet Google's Services (especially the Word and Excel replacements) are, despite Google's statements, an attempt to replace Microsoft Office and make money for Google (e.g. promote their business through increased traffic to Google's search database and therefore more advertising money). Sounds like a one sided affair to me. Small businesses interested in using Google to lower their IT cost yet they can't complain if Google hijacks their published content to the advantage of Google's parters? Maybe Google is also looking to tie small business (and large business?) into a Google advantaged partner arrangement? No matter how you spin it, the requirement to let Google do what they want with your content just because you use their services is an unknown risk to business. It may prove to be an unacceptably high risk. We'll just have to wait and see how this develops.

Re:I still don't see much in the way of problems

[paladinwannabe2]

That sort of things is always interesting- and to the best of my knowledge the courts have sided with Yahoo/Google in most of those cases. From the consumer's perspective, if they are looking for a widget, and Acme Widgets have them for $100, and Widgets 'R' Us has them for $120, the consumer benefits from seeing a link to Acme's website when looking for Widgets 'R' Us in a search engine. (Now if it's false representation, that is fraud, and another topic entirely. ) It's as if you're in a grocery store and get to see multiple brands of cheese on a shelf- the cheese companies aren't going to sue the supermarket for putting their cheese next to a cheaper variety. Another analogy would be buying a billboard near Widgets 'R' Us, and then advertising Acme Widgets on it. Sure, Widgets 'R' Us may complain, but there's nothing illegal about telling customers about other offers, and there should never be such a law.

Re:I still don't see much in the way of problems

[It doesn't come easy]

At least in one case, it was rather a split decision. In GEICO vs. Google, the judge ruled that Google could legally sell the trademark as an adword to a competitor but "may be guilty of trademark infringement" when using it in the resulting sponsored links. Google's requirement giving them carte blanch to use your published content would probably eliminate the possibility of being guilty of trademark infringement (no doubt one of Google's CTA goals). I can't imagine any company would ever normally agree to that kind of thing, especially with a non-partner.

Free(er) country

[Vlijmen Fileer]

Let me put it this way; if a service like Google Apps becomes available in my country, I will switch to that provider. It is not necessarily Google I mistrust, even with such a clause.
Rather is is the completely corrupt and Corporate-owned American democracy I'm afraid of.

Re:Free(er) country

[lingoman]

>> Rather is is the completely corrupt and Corporate-owned American democracy I'm afraid of. I don't want to make my karma worse than it is, but is this the skinhead perspective, or the jihad persepctive? Perhaps it is the democracy part you object to? But I'm really curious if you believe that Google is *not* an American corporation.

Re:Free(er) country

[edraven]

If I may paraphrase Mahatma Ghandi, I think American democracy would be a good idea.

What a waste of time

[jessecurry]

I like how the author of TFA forgot to embolden "By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through Google services which are intended to be available to the members of the public"
I think that he is really reaching with this article.

Re:Which content?

[mweather]

Being able to sue a multi-billion dollar corporation isn't consolation? Those must be some high-dollar projects you're working on.

Re:Which content?

[jessecurry]

the wording isn't ambiguous... even in the /. text it states "that any content put into the system and 'intended to be available to the members of the public' is free game for Google".
I don't see how they could be less ambiguous. The title doesn't even make any type of assertion, just poses a question, which it then answers "No"

Lawyers run amok and clueless, illiterate users

[taustin]

Why does this keep coming up, again and again, on nearly every site that lest you upload anything? It's not all that complicated to figure out:

Lawyer with little computer expertise learns that uploaded (and copyrighted) stuff is being reproduced and set out, as the user intended, and thinks (and not entirely without cause) "There are copyright implications to that, because we are, technically, making copies of copyrighted material." He writes a FUD memo to management, who read the subject line with glazed eyes (because it's from a lawyer, and therefore, too complicated for them to understand," and they respond with "What do we need to do?" Lawyer, who has no experience whatsoever at dealing with the general public on the internet, writes a TOS that covers this concerns. Management, who have almost as little experience at dealing with the public (rather than shareholders), rubber stamps is.

These things are intended to cover the Google's (or whoever's) ass for doing what they say they're going to do, and what their users tell them to do: store this stuff and offer it up to the web surfing world under the conditions you said you would.

And a quick perusal of Title 17 shows that copyrights cannot be transferred accidentally anyway. If Google (or whoever) tried to use a clause like that to claim they now owned someone else's work for any purpose other than what was intended by the copyright holder, they'd get their faces blown off by any competent lawyer. Such a clause would be found to be unconscionable, and would not meet the requirements for a copyright transfer even if it weren't.

This is nothing new, and no different than any other "OMFG! THIS TOS IS EVIL" story in the last ten years.

Re:Evil is slowly creeping into Google. Or rapidly

[Chyeld]

They can also draw mustaches and horns ALL OVER YOUR PICTURES! OMG!

Honestly, there are tin foil hat thoughts and there are just coming up with something to find a flaw, any flaw no matter how ridculous, thoughts.

Stop being so paranoid

[Safiire Arrowny]

How do you expect a corporation to display your material online if you don't give them permission to do so?

Google doesn't own something just because you give them permission to display it publicly, oh my goodness, what a stupid article.

Google potential evil

[Anonymous Coward]

The potential evil plus Google's unwillingness to promise treat my data as mine is one of the reasons I don't use gmail or similar Google services.

Re:Which content?

[glwtta]

Man, it used to be that people didn't RTFA--now they don't even read past the title.

I didn't even finish reading the title, my response was "Hell yeah, Google 0wnz!"

Run your own mail server? No? Protect yourself.

[MacDork]

Even if you do run your own server... well, better safe than sorry.

Learn how to secure your email
(Mac OS X 10.3+) http://www.joar.com/certificates/
(Windows) http://www.marknoble.com/tutorial/smime/smime.aspx

Microsoft/hotmail lisence is worse

[Tmack]

iirc: It proclaims ANYTHING sent through the hotmail service can be used by Microsoft for any purpose, including business/trade secrets, patents, ideas, IP, etc. Think there was a /. on it a year or two ago... too lazy to go find it though.

tm

Re:Which content?

[eln]

For business content, yah, suing them might help. For personal stuff, though, not so much. Aside from the obvious identity theft targets like your SSN, it's hard to put a monetary value on information about your personal life.

Google is not trying to steal your content

[HangingChad]

You have to trust someone...at least to a point. Google is not trying to steal your content. If you attach a document to email because you're afraid Google will steal it, how many relays does it go through? That's how many other organizations would have the opportunity to steal the content. Trojans, spyware and key loggers can make your own computer vulnerable to snooping. If you keep it on your network storage, you're trusting your sysads and anyone else with access to the file.

And if you're still that worried then encrypt it. For simple text try http://www.fourmilab.ch/javascrypt/ and either use the site or download the javascript and make your own page, put it on SSL and even add a random virtual keyboard if you really want to go all out. Pick a pass phrase you can remember. Simple encryption will prevent casual reading, unless you think Google and the NSA are working together to spy on you...in which case you have bigger problems than /. can help with.

If anyone could ever prove Google snooped or stole content their business would evaporate overnight. They're likely very aware of that concern and probably more sensitive to it than you might imagine. Besides, with the volume of material they store, who has time to sit around and read your stuff?

Re:Which content?

[gowen]

My sense is that Google means the latter (as most of us would expect), but the wording is ambiguous, and it might well serve them better to revise the agreement to eliminate that ambiguity.

There is a legal principal that in the case of ambiguously worded contracts, the interpretation used is that of the party who did not draw up the contract (as long as thats one of the ambiguous readings). So if you think somethings worded ambiguously, it means whatever favours you the most: in this case, the google is granted a licence for content intended for public distribution. (Which, let's be honest is 99.99% likely to be Google's intention, I don't buy the "don't be evil" hype, but to attempt a landgrab like that would be ridiculously bad PR.)

Do those right continue even after deleting files?

[wturky]

What if I upload a file for public consumption and then decide that really wasn't such a great idea and go back and delete the file?
Does Google still retain the right to do anything they want with a copy of the file?
Is there a way to rescind or retract the license grant you effectively make by posting the file when you subsequently delete the file?

If you can do that, I don't think it's such a huge problem. But I don't like the idea that I could mistakenly post the wrong file and have no way to make it go away later....

Publishing Content

[yintercept]

There is some ado here. Basically, if you have information that you really care about that you want to publish online, it is probably better to just go with one of the numerous discount hosts, rather than using a free publishing service. I might use blogspot for mindfarts. For ideas I want to develop further in more detail, I just pay out $50 bucks a year it costs for a web host.

The point of a free publishing service is that you provide free content that they will display in ways that make money to pay the hosting costs. Such companies will always be adding features and changing formats. A format change might increase or reduce the numbers of ads displayed along with your content. There legal language has to include terms to allow such changes, or the site is pretty much guaranteed to perish.

BTW, every publishing mechanism has some sort of compromise.

Compare that to some others...

[joh]

ICQ:
"You agree that by posting any material or information anywhere on the ICQ Services and Information you surrender your copyright and any other proprietary right in the posted material or information. You further agree that ICQ Inc. is entitled to use at its own discretion any of the posted material or information in any manner it deems fit, including, but not limited to, publishing the material or distributing it." (ICQ Policy)

AIM:
"However, by submitting or posting Content to public areas of AIM Products (for example, posting a message on a message board or submitting your picture for the "Rate-A-Buddy" feature), you grant AOL, its parent, affiliates, subsidiaries, assigns, agents and licensees the irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide right to reproduce, display, perform, distribute, adapt and promote this Content in any medium. Once you submit or post Content to any public area on an AIM Product, AOL does not need to give you any further right to inspect or approve uses of such Content or to compensate you for any such uses. AOL owns all right, title and interest in any compilation, collective work or other derivative work created by AOL using or incorporating Content posted to public areas of AIM Products." (AIM Terms of Service)

MSN:
"For materials you post or otherwise provide to Microsoft related to the MSN Web Sites (a "Submission"), you grant Microsoft permission to (1) use, copy, distribute, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, reproduce, edit, modify, translate and reformat your Submission, each in connection with the MSN Web Sites, and (2) sublicense these rights, to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law. Microsoft will not pay you for your Submission. Microsoft may remove your Submission at any time. For each Submission, you represent that you have all rights necessary for you to make the grants in this section. To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, Microsoft may monitor your e-mail, or other electronic communications and may disclose such information in the event it has a good faith reason to believe it is necessary for purposes of ensuring your compliance with this Agreement, and protecting the rights, property, and interests of the Microsoft Parties or any customer of a Microsoft Party." (Microsofts Terms of Use)

Stop the presses!

[TechnicolourSquirrel]

If you choose the option to publish your information publically via Google's services, then Google is >gaspright to publish your information publically via Google's services! How dare they demand this?!?!

Re:Stop the presses!

[TechnicolourSquirrel]

Fucked it up. Never mind.

Re:Stop the presses!

[Anonymous Coward]

I've often wondered why I've never seen many squirrel comedians. Thanks for helping:)

The contract is overly broad, in my opinion.

[Futurepower(R)]

If it is so unlikely that they would ever make use of the ability to re-write and re-use something you wrote, then why did they write the contract that way?

Re:The contract is overly broad, in my opinion.

[DragonWriter]

If it is so unlikely that they would ever make use of the ability to re-write and re-use something you wrote, then why did they write the contract that way?

"Modify" doesn't have to mean "rewrite".

It can mean "apply an XSLT stylesheet to the XHTML content to render it into XSL:FO and then convert the resulting document to PDF".

It can mean "display your Google Docs document as a static HTML document".

Yes, "modify" could be used to do nefarious things. But even if Google has no nefarious intent, its a lot easier (and more future-proof for them) to use "modify" in their TOS rather than trying to list out all the non-nefarious ways they might choose to modify content now or in the future.

Re:The contract is overly broad, in my opinion.

[LoverOfJoy]

In my opinion, the most likely and most common "edits" are really resizing images/videos.

Hello from Google

[schillace]

Hi,
I'm the engineering director for Google Docs (and one of the founders of Writely which became the Word Processor part). The comments here are pretty good for the most part - as has been discussed, this is just about re-posting content users have marked as public. Here's what I wrote on the original story, so you don't have to dig it out.

As we state in our terms of service, we don't claim ownership or control over your content in Google Docs & Spreadsheets, whether you're using it as an individual or through Google Apps. Read in its entirety, the sentence from our terms of service excerpted in the blog ensures that, for documents you expressly choose to share with others, we have the proper license to display those documents to the selected users and format documents properly for different displays. To be clear, Google will not use your documents beyond the scope that you and you alone control. Your fantasy football spreadsheets are not going to end up shared with the world unless you want them to be.

Re:Which content?

[Random832]

It's intended to be available to _a_ member of the public, but the plural doesn't work for that - so does this mean google only owns emails I send to two or more people?

Actually - it's intended to be available to both myself and the person I send it to. That's two "members of the public" right there.

Yes

[geekoid]

possession is 9/10th.

Re:Do those right continue even after deleting fil

[moderatorrater]

While I agree with you, I think that it's just common sense at this point to realize that anything posted to the internet, especially publicly, has the potential to get copied and never be forgotten ever again. It's the risk you run with the internet as it stands today.

The Author's Company is a Competitor

[Anonymous Coward]

What Matt Assay doesn't disclose is that his company, Alfresco, produces products that compete with Google Apps. Unlike Matt, I am a not a lawyer, but even I can tell that what Google's doing is called "standard"(the clause in question is standard legal language for "If you use our service, we can show your work as an example of our service in use."), and what he's doing is called "fear-mongering". I also know what a truck is, which apparently is such a new concept to Matt that he has to put quotes around it.

Modify can mean mis-represent.

[Futurepower(R)]

Think about what you are saying, carefully.

Suppose someone posts a comment criticizing a Google top executive? Google could modify that.

Suppose a whistle-blower catches a Google employee doing something illegal? Google is leaving itself open to criticism of possibly suppressing testimony.

Re:Modify can mean mis-represent.

[DragonWriter]

Think about what you are saying, carefully.

I have.

Suppose someone posts a comment criticizing a Google top executive? Google could modify that.

Yes, they could. There's really no practical way to right the TOS so that it would be reasonably clear, reasonably flexible, and rule out those kinds of modifications. Of course, Google could also simply refuse to carry the critical content, with or without the "modify" term. So what?

Suppose a whistle-blower catches a Google employee doing something illegal? Google is leaving itself open to criticism of possibly suppressing testimony.

Uh, no, its not. First, because the TOS doesn't obligate them to do anything nefarious; second, because the fact that something is allowed by the TOS (and thus users don't have any cause of action), doesn't mean it is allowed by Google internal policy, so that the user doesn't have an enforceable right to no changes or rejection of content by Google doesn't mean that Google actually is going to open itself up by "suppressing testimony", and last, but not at all least, because "testimony" isn't something that is done through Google's public services in the first place.

Not just Google

[edwardpickman]

I'm not a fan of contests, I don't have the time to waste anyway, but an eye opener is most CG animation contest require "all" entrants to surrender rights to their work. You can still use the videos yourself but they are free to use they as they want including distributing them on for sale DVDs. It's one thing to make that condition on the winners but it's startling giving them the rights to your work just by entering. Definitely read the fine print because some don't make this condition but the majority of them, especially smaller ones, do require that you grant them rights to your work when you enter. Some design contests are worse yet. I remember the Puegeot car design contest requires the finalist to sign off all rights to their desin whether they win or not.

Here we go again ...

[jc42]

It's an old story. People in power find a way to prevent you and me from profiting from our own creations, by controlling the distribution channels.

The music recording industry is the poster child for this. Until recently, selling recordings required expensive production and distribution facilities. The owners of these facilities could say "You want people to hear and buy your music? Sign this contract and we'll make it happen." You might as well sign the contract, because it's the same for all the other distributors. And in the fine print, it says that you assign the copyright to the recording company. The result is that musicians can make a million-selling album and make no money from it at all. This is because the recording companies can say "If you want your stuff distributed, you must give it to us."

Almost all work "for hire" to corporations are of this nature. If you want to be paid, you have to assign ownership to your employer. If you're a university researcher, and you want to be paid, you usually must assign copyright and patents to the university. Unless, that is, you got funding on your own, in which case you must assign copyright and patents to the funder. And if you want your results published, almost all academic publishers have historically required that you assign the copyright to them. "If you want your stuff distributed, you must give it to us."

Now we have a new means of distribution, the Internet. That promised to give us a cheap distribution mechanism that wasn't controlled by the distributors. But For most of us, to use the Internet requires going through something called an "ISP". Those organizations, usually private companies, have a chokehold on your path to the Internet. Early on in the commercialization of the Internet, the ISPs started to realize what they had. Thus, a few years ago, we read the stories of msn.com (owned by Microsoft) using things from customers' web sites commercially. They mostly extracted images and used them in advertising. When customers discovered images of their children being used in ads, they understandably got upset. And msn.com pointed to the clause in the contract saying that any customer files stored on msn.com machines became the property of msn.com. After a bit of adverse publicity, the "gave in", in the sense that they publicly announced that they wouldn't do this again. But this was like any corporate promise: It was PR to mollify the current crowd of upset customers. After a while, people started noticing that that clause was still in the TOS. And it can be summarized as "If you want your stuff distributed, you must give it to us. You can't go to the competition, because their contracts say the same thing."

So this story is nothing new. ISPs are more and more realizing that they have a chokehold on customers' channel to the rest of the world. Most people have only one ISP, which is a legal monopoly. Even when there are two, they can easily make sure that their contracts are identical. Like various monopolists/oligopolists of the comm channels before them, they can say "If you want your stuff distributed, you must give it to us. You can't go to the competition, because their contracts say the same thing."

It now seems like google, the "Do no evil" company, has realized the same thing. They can provide customers useful tools that inprove people's access to the Internet. And they can hide "If you want your stuff distributed, you must give it to us" in their contract. You can't go to the competition, because their contracts say the same thing.

The only way around this is regulation that denies the controllers of the Internet any ownership of things that pass through their machines. But this sort of regulation has never been effective for any past distribution system. There's no reason to expect that it will be effective for the Internet.

So much for your rights to your own creations. Get used to it; it's the future. Just like the past.

and?

[Anonymous Coward]

People should be paid for the content they make, that big companies make money on. The fact that people give away their created content free however is not google's fault; it's the user. People make all these videos for say youtube; and how rich have they gotten? How rich did youtube get and then well to google for? What is the real problem? Companies making money off of you and you not making anything; or you giving away your content so other people can make money.

You could use some perspective.

[mr_matticus]

I'd suggest a more careful exploration of what exactly you own when you buy something, then. It's not as simple as you make it seem. It's just been such a long time that all of the caveats and clashes have been resolved. Go back five or six centuries, and you'd see the same indignance about purchasing something in this newfangled thing called a "market."

It's no longer controversial, so unless you've been to law school, odds are you've never really looked at it. Something isn't necessarily simple just because you take it for granted to be.

There are lots of things you don't own when you buy them. Even something as simple as a pencil has more than one owner. This doesn't usually matter, though, because the owners generally steer clear of each other's rights. When the parties are forced by practicality to snuggle up closer is where you have problems. 200 years from now, most of what's controversial today will have been settled and something else will be outrageous to the future Slashdot.

Compuserve and Prodigy

[n6kuy]

.. used to do the same thing way back a long time ago before Al Gore invented The Internet.

G00gle says

[jagdish]

ALL UR BASE ARE BELONG TO US.

Yes, but in my opinion there is still an issue.

[Futurepower(R)]

Agreed. But we are talking about the creeping loss of rights and privacy we have as corporations give themselves rights we formerly had.

I knew it

[F4_W_weasel]

if I use much of these google tools I would endup owned...

damm

Unconscionable...

[enharmonix]

Well, with recent court rulings in favor of consumers concerning binding arbitration in cell phone contracts (I think The Consumerist covered this, but I don't have a link to the article), I'm not so worried as I once was. Basically, the play goes as follows:

1. I post content.
2. Google steals said content.
3. I sue Google for infringement.
4. Google moves for summary judgment because I agreed to that behavior in the user agreement.
5. Move that that part of the agreement is unconscionable, and, if possible, try to get class status.
6. Court rules in my favor, Google pays me.

It is my opinion that Google put the clause there to allow them to do what they do: host, index and cache content, and, in some cases, display ads associated with that content for which they receive all revenue. That is a very reasonable use of my still-protected and uninfringed copyrighted work. Should Google ever become evil, it seems like the courts are finally waking up to the fact that recent laws and contracts are stacked deeply in favor of corporations and are starting to pay more attention to consumers' and the general public's rights. Just my 2 cents. Cheers.

Re:Nothing to see here? Not quite!

[jvkjvk]

Did you read the paragraph in the GP?

By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through Google services which are intended to be available to the members of the public, you grant Google a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce, adapt, modify, publish and distribute such Content on Google services for the purpose of displaying, distributing and promoting Google services. Google reserves the right to syndicate Content submitted, posted or displayed by you on or through Google services and use that Content in connection with any service offered by Google. Google furthermore reserves the right to refuse to accept, post, display or transmit any Content in its sole discretion. So, yes they can syndicate it. They can resell it to others very easily as well. All they have to do is offer it as a service. Don't think that this includes selling it? Well, if you are selling a service, what promotes that service better than, hmm, content?

I really don't care that someone at Google said they wouldn't do so, and that this is just a CYA to be able to provide a channel for others to obtain access to your work. That's BS, otherwise this would be written rather differently.

What I see is that while you technically own the copyrights, google can use any content that is submitted and "publicly available" in any manner they wish, period.

Update: Ambiguity is the problem, says author

[athloi]

"I've been criticized for not understanding what Google really means by its content privacy policies. OK. The problem with such common sensical thinking is that it may not carry much weight in the courtroom."

http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9769437-7.html?pa rt=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20

(Ripped from Firehose in case it's not worth a front page article.)