Even this comment.

Excuse me:

Even this comment (© copyright 2008, Google, Inc.)

Hey Charles,

Do you know if this is the same Eula for Google docs? If so, that is f'd up. I have a small business setup on Google apps - and they're not getting my IP.

Looks like Big Brother has finally arrived, in the form of a search engine. (© copyright 2008, Google, Inc.)

I guess they've succeeded in out-MSFTing MSFT.

Google Chrome EULA Claims Ownership of Everything You Create on Chrome, From Blog Posts to Emails

And that's why I'll be sticking with Safari & Firefox. Screw you, google.

I don't use it so I'm safe. Right?

Checking google docs terms now ... in case anyone knows, please post, otherwise I'll update the thread.

Uh, that one won't survive a court challenge, IMHO. Not to mention the fact that it's insanely fascistic.

The hell you say!
So I type the Great American Novel on a Google app and it belongs to Google?

Yep, that'll fly.

Google is collecting all sorts of personal information via its toolbar, search engines, and Google Checkout. Now a browser.

Big Brother is here an it is real. His name is Google.

This is what happens if you don't ride herd on the lawyers.

Actually, they don't claim to "own" your work:

You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.

I don't know how this stacks up to comparable user agreements, but I can understand why they are doing it. They want to protect themselves from copyright suits from people whose work product is downloaded by their browser.

re: #2 zombie

Excuse me:

Even this comment (© copyright 2008, Google, Inc.)

Hence forth every comment must include (© copyright 2008, Google, Inc.)

Do no evil, unless evil happens to be China or any other dictatorship, so basically Fuck Bushitler

Wow, what crap:

For Google Docs -
Google Docs ToS

11. Content licence from you

11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This licence is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.

what! not cool!

Unless you want to spend the next six months in jail, append this code to the end of every comment:

<em>(© copyright 2008, Google, Inc.)</em>

...er, (© copyright 2008, Google, Inc.)

And it seems that Newsweek held a different view of Palin just over a year ago.

In Alaska, Palin is challenging the dominant, sometimes corrupting, role of oil companies in the state's political culture. "The public has put a lot of faith in us," says Palin during a meeting with lawmakers in her downtown Anchorage office, where—as if to drive the point home—the giant letters on the side of the ConocoPhillips skyscraper fill an entire wall of windows. "They're saying, 'Here's your shot, clean it up'." For Palin, that has meant tackling the cozy relationship between the state's political elite and the energy industry that provides 85 percent of Alaska's tax revenues—and distancing herself from fellow Republicans, including the state's senior U.S. senator, Ted Stevens, whose home was recently searched by FBI agents looking for evidence in an ongoing corruption investigation. (Stevens has denied any wrongdoing.) But even as she tackles Big Oil's power, Palin has transformed her own family's connections to the industry into a political advantage. Her husband, Todd, is a longtime employee of BP, but, as Palin points out, the "First Dude" is a blue-collar "sloper," a fieldworker on the North Slope, a cherished occupation in the state. "He's not in London making the decisions whether to build a gas line."

In an interview with NEWSWEEK, Palin said it's time for Alaska to "grow up" and end its reliance on pork-barrel spending. Shortly after taking office, Palin canceled funding for the "Bridge to Nowhere," a $330 million project that Stevens helped champion in Congress. The bridge, which would have linked the town of Ketchikan to an island airport, had come to symbolize Alaska's dependence on federal handouts. Rather than relying on such largesse, says Palin, she wants to prove Alaska can pay its own way, developing its huge energy wealth in ways that are "politically and environmentally clean."

WTH, I just posted about this in the LGF Google Chrome comment section. Damn, you guys are fast!

I'll stick with Firefox, thanks.

re: #9 joncelli

Uh, that one won't survive a court challenge, IMHO. Not to mention the fact that it's insanely fascistic.

But who could afford to sue? Google could delay, and delay, and you can be sure that no one would find any posts about the suit unless they used Yahoo or some other search engine.

uninstalling. :(

Is this...is this freaking serious?

Lawyers of LGF: would this ever possibly stand up in court?

I didn't read the comic book the other day- did it cover this?

So if I were to post an email on Google Chrome inciting the overthrow of the government, Google would now own the offensive comment and liable for treason?

re: #13 Occasional Reader

Actually, they don't claim to "own" your work:

I don't know how this stacks up to comparable user agreements, but I can understand why they are doing it. They want to protect themselves from copyright suits from people whose work product is downloaded by their browser.

Whatever they call it, if they have total rights to use your work however they want, they own it. (© copyright 2008, Google, Inc.)

OT -- I think NObama will be on the O'Reilly Factor tomorrow night. Should be interesting.

Someone should use Chrome to post some copyrighted mp3s and movies, and get the RIAA and MPAA to sue Google.

re: #26 loflyer

So if I were to post an email on Google Chrome inciting the overthrow of the government, Google would now own the offensive comment and liable for treason?

um they would probably find it appealing knowing the leftard traitors who run google.

Sheesh, when i heard about google's browser i thought, cool, competition for microsoft. Then the reflective thought was "yeah, you know because google is so much better than microsoft."

How do you know when a company has jumped the shark on thuggishness? when microsoft starts looking benign.

Google, you privacy-invading, dictator-enabling, no-patriotic-holiday-celebrating bunch of nitwits, I will never use your stupid browser.

BS, but this their way of justifying spying on you. Something Google seems overly interested in.

Ron Paul's on Cavuto.

Sounds like they can make money from my work - regardless of ownership.

re: #11 Austin Conservative

Google is collecting all sorts of personal information via its toolbar, search engines, and Google Checkout. Now a browser.

Big Brother is here an it is real. His name is Google.

I don't have any links, but I heard it on Coast to Coast AM one night (up late working). Guy claims the World Wide Web is the Anti-Christ. His claim the Greek 6 corresponds in same way to the Greek equivalent of W. Everything in the future will be done through the web, and if don't have the "mark" you can't buy or do anything.

WWW = 666.

Google is the Anti-Christ!
///

re: #26 loflyer

So if I were to post an email on Google Chrome inciting the overthrow of the government, Google would now own the offensive comment and liable for treason?

They'd applaud, unless you called for the overthrow of the Chinese government, in which case they'd turn you in.

Whoa! That really is a big, "I don't think I'm going to use your product" for me.

so who's keen now for googles new phone?

re: #29 Kosh's Shadow

Someone should use Chrome to post some copyrighted mp3s and movies, and get the RIAA and MPAA to sue Google.

I'd pay good money to see that.

I for one, welcome our new Google overlords.

My question is: How do they know what is created with Chrome, and what is not? (© copyright 2008, Google, Inc.)

HAHAHA! How am I not surprised. This is not the first time something like this has been tried. There's a reason I wanted no part of the Google browser. I guess I might just uninstall Picassa and Google Earth. Just in Case.

What's ironic here is that this is a tactic the left would call right-wing corporate fascism (and it kind of is fascist) but google is a bunch of flaming leftists.

re: #27 zombie

Whatever they call it, if they have total rights to use your work however they want, they own it.

"Ownership" and a "non-exclusive license" are two different things.

And they condition their own use, as I read it.

Google Chrome is BSD i think, how 'bout I fork it, add a handful of features and call it my own? Haven't read the terms but I think I can get away with it.

re: #43 galloping granny

HAHAHA! How am I not surprised. This is not the first time something like this has been tried. There's a reason I wanted no part of the Google browser. I guess I might just uninstall Picassa and Google Earth. Just in Case.

Google Earth? Google owns the earth?

re: #27 zombie

Whatever they call it, if they have total rights to use your work however they want, they own it. (© copyright 2008, Google, Inc.)

That is long since settled Zombie. Otherwise there would have been no internet long since.

Google knows better and folks have gone after them before for claiming copyrights where none exist.

re: #42 zombie

My question is: How do they know what is created with Chrome, and what is not? (© copyright 2008, Google, Inc.)

I haven't view the HTTP Request, but the header of what you send to a web server will contain the browser information. If you're logged into a google account for anything, they will track you.

Look, as I read this, what they're trying to avoid is the following scenario:

1) I download Chrome, and use it to post my Great American Novel to my blogspot.

2) Others download my novel from my blogspot.

3) I sue Google for copyright infringement.

re: #42 zombie

My question is: How do they know what is created with Chrome, and what is not? (© copyright 2008, Google, Inc.)

If they wrote the browser to submit everything you typed in a form to Google Big Brother, they could know.

re: #37 Kosh's Shadow

They'd applaud, unless you called for the overthrow of the Chinese government, in which case they'd turn you in.

Well here is official notice to Google! I am calling for the overthrow of the Chinese communist government! Damn! I am on Firefox......

re: #51 Occasional Reader

Look, as I read this, what they're trying to avoid is the following scenario:

1) I download Chrome, and use it to post my Great American Novel to my blogspot.

2) Others download my novel from my blogspot.

3) I sue Google for copyright infringement.

That makes sense.

How much do I owe you for the legal consultation?
/ ;-)

I repeat, from the key paragraph in their terms of use:

You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services...

They are not attempting to transfer ownership away from you.

In the 1980's, the contract for GEnie specified that anything and everything that you transmitted or received over their online communications services was theirs (and not yours).

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

re: #45 Occasional Reader

"Ownership" and a "non-exclusive license" are two different things.

And they condition their own use, as I read it.

Funny little distinction, sounds positively communist. No one owns your content, comrade, it is a non-exclusive license for the Vanguard to redistribute your content.

re: #28 Alaska Kim

OT -- I think NObama will be on the O'Reilly Factor tomorrow night. Should be interesting.

Yep. He was talking about it today on his radio show. Obama and his peeps have been avoiding him like the plague. Offered O'Bama (sounds nicer when he sounds Irish doesn't he) up for interview for tomorrow night only.

All about upstaging McCain (gee, that sounds Irish too). O'Reilly (holy cow, all the Irish have shown up) got him then or never.

Where's Irish Rose? Purrrrrr.

For a company claiming to have a "Don't be evil" policy, they seem to be subtly evil at every opportunity that presents itself.

/Yay for FireFox!

What ever happened to "Don't be Evil"?

re: #57 Celtic Templar

Funny little distinction, sounds positively communist.

Um... take it from this very capitalistic lawyer: No, it isn't.

This is why I generally avoid google services. They are abusive with EULA contracts and not at all clear about what data they collect and how (if at all) they anonymize it.

I do some web consulting and I strongly discourage the google for your domain/google for your business.

Even though you might need to pay for them consider an inexpensive third party provider (disclaimer: I myself run Zimbra servers). For a few dollars a month, don't you want the peach of mind of knowing that you are dealing with someone in a fair(ish) contract? The same for photos. Pay a little for SmugMug (I don't work for them), or similar, instead of giving your photos to google.

In the enterprise space, we talk about YOYDA (You Own Your Data, Always). This is why services like Amazon S3 can compete even though Google has "free" alternatives.

Finally, on the Chrome front, I really like FireFox and I think that google will have a hard time unseating the brain trust behind it. There really is nothing close, given ubiquity, firbug and the other advances they are working on.

/end nutjob anti-google rant

Unless you want to spend the next six months in jail, append this code to the end of every comment:

(© copyright 2008, Google, Inc.)

Hardly:

11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This licence is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.

This is standard CYA to protect Google from someone charging that they've violated, say, my copyright in this comment, or Charles' copyright in LGF as a whole.

© 2008 The Monster, licensed to Little Green Footballs. Any rebroadcast or retransmission without the express written permission of The Monster or LGF is prohibited. So There.

re: #58 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Yep.
He was talking about it today on his radio show. Obama and his peeps
have been avoiding him like the plague. Offered O'Bama (sounds nicer
when he sounds Irish doesn't he) up for interview for tomorrow night
only.

All about upstaging McCain (gee, that sounds Irish too).
O'Reilly (holy cow, all the Irish have shown up) got him then or never.

Where's Irish Rose? Purrrrrr.

I hope Palin goes on the Factor eventually. Now THAT would get some attention. I feel bad for her daughter. My son went to high school with her.

re: #61 Occasional Reader

Is this how Google gets away with Google news aggregation? Do you know what would stop them from aggregating Google docs content? Is there an expectation of privacy (or does that apply)? Or is this all a new gray area for law (new being

What does this have to do with Creationism?

/smirk

re: #42 zombie

Well,

That's one of the potential issues. I don't *think* that google would be quite dumb enough to put in a "phone home" mechanism. On the other hand, they have the infrastructure to support some kind of tracking mechanism if they want to.

re: #66 Mister Ghost

What does this have to do with Creationism?

/smirk

B/c the content we create online is not a result of speciation - we are the intelligent designers and Google is not our deity?

/trying to keep to the theme

Deal breaker. NEXT!

1, Do they collect identifying info from use of the search engine?

2. Can the safari search bar be reassigned?

3. What search engine do people reccommend? Cui really doesnt do it.

Google: Stealing your soul one post at a time.

re: #70 lifeofthemind

3. What search engine do people reccommend? Cui really doesnt do it.

If you use firefox, install the "Customize Google" add-on, it allows you to select to "prevent search tracking" and "anonymize the cookie" to help prevent tracking.

I don't see the evil here. If you are googling a subject, Google does their search and displays what was found. Signing the EUlA provides consent for Google to do this as it is the writers content (words, images, or audio) that has been placed on screen in response to the query.

It would seem Google was actually in copyright infringement every time they reproduced content in a response without the owners consent? Interesting thought, but I'm not a lawyer.

All your content are belong to us

Whenever I read EULAs, my inner monologue sounds like Charlie Brown's teacher...

re: #44 Sharmuta

What's ironic here is that this is a tactic the left would call right-wing corporate fascism (and it kind of is fascist) but google is a bunch of flaming leftists.

You broke the code!

re: #74 monkey den

All your content are belong to us

Dammit, just thought of that!re: #64 Alaska Kim

I feel bad for her daughter. My son went to high school with her.

Yeah, but, wait until the left brings up that she'll bring up a child born 'out of wedlock" but into "privilege". It'll happen. Meh.

re: #5 lawhawk

I guess they've succeeded in out-MSFTing MSFT.

Isn't that the God's honest truth!

BBL! Hooray for Sarah Palin tonight. Hope I get home in time to watch her. Gotta work!

re: #44 Sharmuta

What's ironic here is that this is a tactic the left would call right-wing corporate fascism (and it kind of is fascist) but google is a bunch of flaming leftists.

Exactly. This is a company that thinks nothing of driving vehicles festooned with 360 degree cameras up your private driveways to photograph your house and anything else they can spot. They have already lost lawsuits over this (in which they argued there is no such thing as "true" privacy anymore). If, say, the FBI did this there would be blood in the streets. But because Google somehow managed to market itself as an enlightened leftist hippie organization, they can get away with anything in the eyes of liberals. It is truly alarming.

Google sort of backed off from this:

Google's Rebecca Ward, Senior Product Counsel for Google Chrome, now tells Ars Technica that the company tries to reuse these licenses as much as possible, "in order to keep things simple for our users." Ward admits that sometimes "this means that the legal terms for a specific product may include terms that don't apply well to the use of that product" and says that Google is "working quickly to remove language from Section 11 of the current Google Chrome terms of service.

See the spinoff links for more.

Well, I really like Chrome and I'll continue to use it.

But, that being said, their EULA doesn't make whatever they say legal. They could write that you are their slave and that would still obviously not hold up in a court of law. An EULA can say whatever it wants...it doesn't make any of it legally binding in a legal dispute.

re: #77 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Yeah, but, wait until the left brings up that she'll bring up a
child born 'out of wedlock" but into "privilege". It'll happen. Meh.

I've already read somewhere where some loon said that Sarah will now be a grandmother to a child born from statutory rape.
Do people stay up all night thinking of this pinhead baloney?

Everytime I try something out from google I end up deinstalling within a day. The sole exception to that is Google earth. The bastiches want their prying eyes and fingers in everything.

re: #80 Diamond Bullet

Exactly. This is a company that thinks nothing of driving vehicles festooned with 360 degree cameras up your private driveways to photograph your house and anything else they can spot. They have already lost lawsuits over this (in which they argued there is no such thing as "true" privacy anymore). If, say, the FBI did this there would be blood in the streets. But because Google somehow managed to market itself as an enlightened leftist hippie organization, they can get away with anything in the eyes of liberals. It is truly alarming.

I did find their picture of my house has the car license plate blurred out.
I also haven't corrected them in that they put my house somewhat further up the street than it really is, so if you look up my house you get the wrong one.

I forwarded this to a law professor friend of mine who laughed and said it was patently unenforceable.

re: #55 Occasional Reader

I repeat, from the key paragraph in their terms of use:

They are not attempting to transfer ownership away from you.

I don't think you understand. They are getting a license to use your stuff forever.

By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license

Let's say I did write the Great American Novel on Google Docs. No publisher in the world would pay me a dime if they thought I had given someone else a license in perpetuity to reproduce said great novel.

When I sell something I still retain ownership and copyright; my contract essentially gives a publisher a limited license to use my material. Once that specific event ends it is mine to sell again if I wish. Not so with the wording by Google.

I'd bet they just translated the Chinese stuff to English.
This version probably just reports activity to KOS and the DNC.

Not even in the equation for me.

Can't acknowledge our Vets on Memorial Day, but you will do it for Earth Day?

I can't be bothered.

I checked my bank account this morning with Chrome and transferred money between accounts... Does this mean that Google gets my savings?

Strangely, the Left doesn't fear this powerful data mining corporation.

One of them (Brin) is an immigrant from the former USSR and so it may be a cultural thing....

/sarc
/ducks down and runs

"Google Owns Everything You Create with Their New Browser."

Um... yeah.

No, thanks. Ever.

re: #87 Quilly Mammoth

Let's say I did write the Great American Novel on Google Docs. No publisher in the world would pay me a dime if they thought I had given someone else a license in perpetuity to reproduce said great novel.

Sure, but the mere fact that you had posted your Great American Novel to the internet would produce that same result, whether or not you had "signed" terms of use like this.

And I can't see realistically how they could do a license that is other than "perpetual". So, every 10 years, they'd contact every Chrome user and seek explicit permission to keep "using" all their blog posts for the next 10 years?

Only one solution for Google.

NATIONALIZE IT.

Which is why I have not downloaded it. An now it's reported to have a big security issue:

[Link: digg.com...]

Here is what Google says about this (before you start going all bananas on people, it's polite to check what they have to say themselves):

[Link: www.mattcutts.com...]

"I knew that Google didn’t want to assert rights on what people did using Google Chrome, so I asked the Chrome team and Google lawyers for their reaction or to clarify (probably several other people pinged them too). Here’s what I heard back from Rebecca Ward, the Senior Product Counsel for Google Chrome:

“In order to keep things simple for our users, we try to use the same set of legal terms (our Universal Terms of Service) for many of our products. Sometimes, as in the case of Google Chrome, this means that the legal terms for a specific product may include terms that don’t apply well to the use of that product. We are working quickly to remove language from Section 11 of the current Google Chrome terms of service. This change will apply retroactively to all users who have downloaded Google Chrome.”

Google is guilty of using the same EULA for both their web products as well as for Chrome, but as it's being fixed it shouldn't dissuade anyone from trying it. I am posting with it now, and I kind of like the overall feel, although I will probably stay with Firefox until there is an addon system for Chrome.

I just uninstalled. And told them why in the feedback form.

re: #95 experiencedtraveller

Only one solution for Google.

NATIONALIZE IT.

BWAAAHAAA!

Dear Nancy Pelosi,

I demand National WebCare!
Google is too profitable! They need a tax on windfall advertising profits!
They need a redistribution of wealth!

In the name of Barak Obama,
Amen.

re: #94 Occasional Reader

Sure, but the mere fact that you had posted your Great American Novel to the internet would produce that same result, whether or not you had "signed" terms of use like this.

And I can't see realistically how they could do a license that is other than "perpetual". So, every 10 years, they'd contact every Chrome user and seek explicit permission to keep "using" all their blog posts for the next 10 years?

This means that if I use Chrome to transfer my writings to my private space on my HostingMatters Server, that they get a license. If I use Google Docs to write on my laptop....even if _no one else_ sees it...they own a license. If I email a manuscript ( any everyone submits electronic format now)through Chrome they own a licsense. Every contract I have ever seen makes you disclose if you have ever given anyone else a license to use your material or if you have ever publicly posted.

For many people this isn't problem. But what if you come up with a great idea and email it to your boss? They own a license.

That being said TANSTAFL. If anyone thinks a company like Google is going to spend millions of dollars and two years developing a browser for truly free....I have a bridge for sale.

Chrome will never be loaded on my computers and I'm thinking very strongly of putting in code to block anyone from accessing using Chrome.

Told 'ya this would happen.

They're not only claiming they can use what you post, but also what you display

re: #102 LieSeeker

They're not only claiming they can use what you post, but also what you display

Just post pro American items/pics and you won't have to worry about them using it. ;)

And the Award for biggest Internet Blunder of 2008 goes to ...

Google.

.

re: #95 experiencedtraveller

Only one solution for Google.

NATIONALIZE IT.

Congratulations, you found the one way it could be worse.

I always like finding the silver lining.

re: #67 WhIteSidE

Well,

That's one of the potential issues. I don't *think* that google would be quite dumb enough to put in a "phone home" mechanism. On the other hand, they have the infrastructure to support some kind of tracking mechanism if they want to.

A good packet sniffer would uncover that kind of shenanigans in a heartbeat.

Glad I found this out tho.. may download Chrome for testing purposes but won't be using it for my own browsing.

Gizmodo's update says Google is hastening to remove the language, but I wasn't inclined to install Chrome before, and I'm SURE AS HELL not going to install it now. (© copyright 2008, GoogleMyAss.YouIdiots)

Has anyone noted the same practice with SketchUp 6? I was wondering about all of this the other day. Is anyone getting a little freaked out about this? Obama, the MSM, Karl Marx.............

I knew there was an inner voice reason I wasn't downloading Chrome. Glad to see it surface.

A few years ago I was going to use Black's Photo services to upload photos from home and have them printed. I actually read the fine print and discovered that they would have the rights to any photos which I submitted to their company. No thanks.

"I know! Let's see if we can rack up a bazillion lawsuits a minute and spend every day for the rest of our lives in court!"

I'm assuming that we all know it was a mistake by google by now, right?

maybe an update on the front page would be in order?

Google = Skynet

There must be something that's being missed here. At any rate, Google will have some explaining to do.

re: #9 joncelli

Uh, that one won't survive a court challenge, IMHO. Not to mention the fact that it's insanely fascistic.

Right, they will have a huge precedent of ignoring 99.99999999999% of their "copyrighted" works, and none of them registered anyway.

I'm going to keep using Chrome. Google isn't stealing articles from every wire service. Get real.

re: #90 POIH

I checked my bank account this morning with Chrome and transferred money between accounts... Does this mean that Google gets my savings?

Oh, naturally.

re: #112 so.cal.swede

I'm assuming that we all know it was a mistake by google by now, right?

maybe an update on the front page would be in order?

Charles hasn't gotten wise to this yet? tsk tsk

Well, I don't feel so bad being excluded from using Chrome now because I used Windows2000 and Linux.  Opera's good enough for me.  Opera's got no designs on world domination ...

}:)     [Wait, what's this butto

I see that the linked-to site is admitting it was just an error. Though it's interesting that they've left the disinformation up. I trust this will be cleared up by tomorrow, until the next conspiracy panic.

Again....for what it's worth...

re: #13 Occasional Reader

you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services

They want to be free to use what you create in any way they choose.

(And the + on 15 was accidental.)

The Y2K bug! RUN!

They don't own everything yet.

Give them time.

re: #77 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

re: #74 monkey den

All your content are belong to us

Dammit,

You called sir?

I downloaded it, installed, ran, uninsulated it.
I don't use Google search, Ask and Dogpile work just fine for me. Google is getting too big for the britches they are wearing.

McCain/Palin 08

Same EULA, section 9.4

9.4 - Other than the limited license set forth in Section 11, Google acknowledges and agrees that it obtains no right, title or interest from you (or your licensors) under these Terms in or to any Content that you submit, post, transmit or display on, or through, the Services, including any intellectual property rights which subsist in that Content (whether those rights happen to be registered or not, and wherever in the world those rights may exist). Unless you have agreed otherwise in writing with Google, you agree that you are responsible for protecting and enforcing those rights and that Google has no obligation to do so on your behalf.

re: #125 Dammits Dad

PIMF uninsulated= uninstalled it

Sounds more like they're covering themselves in case someone's blog goes public and they want to sue google for copyright infringement.

I'm pretty sure this kind of contract is considered void...since google gets something for nothing essentially.

My problem:

Google's Rebecca Ward, Senior Product Counsel for Google Chrome, now tells Ars Technica that the company tries to reuse these licenses as much as possible, 'in order to keep things simple for our users.' Ward admits that sometimes 'this means that the legal terms for a specific product may include terms that don't apply well to the use of that product' and says that Google is 'working quickly to remove language from Section 11 of the current Google Chrome terms of service. This change will apply retroactively to all users who have downloaded Google Chrome.'

--Nate Anderson, "Google on Chrome EULA controversy: our bad, we'll change it", Ars Technica

How convincing is that?

Ars Technica takes Google's word for it and calls it "a tempest in a (chrome) teapot."

But then Anderson adds:

"Not that it's the only one; as Ina Fried of News.com points out, Chrome's 'Omnibar' can also access all keystrokes a user types, and Google will store some of this information along with IP addresses."

Maybe he thinks spyware is a tempest in a teapot.

I don't.

re: #16 Celtic Templar

Wow, what crap:

For Google Docs -
Google Docs ToS

11. Content licence from you

11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This licence is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.

And from Chrome:

You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.

"We'll tell them it was a mistake, take it out, when they're not looking, slip it back in again ... "

That's it, the "Google Toolbar For Internet Explorer" is going bye-bye ... just as soon as I figure out how to unload it.  I'm not kidding, I've tried unloading it a handful of times but it still shows up in the software that can be unloaded in "Add/Remove Programs" in the "Control Panel", even though it's not on that browser anymore ... good thing I switched from that browser to Opera, I'm thinking ...

}:)     [Mistake my ass.]

Personally I stopped using Google when they took a turn to the left, and I haven't missed them one bit. This simply reinforces my reasons to avoid them.

Yep, me too, google stinks- don't use it- BOYCOTT!

I avoid google like the plague. The only google product I have is the free version of Google Earth, and that I only use rarely.

I'm happy with Firefox, so there was absolutely no enticement for me to even experiment with Chrome. And I normally use Dogpile as my search engine, and even that, I don't have on the toolbar. I simply type in the url when I need to search.

Anybody got recommendations for a new antivirus program? My license for AVG is about to expire, and I understand the new version has become bloatware, and should be avoided.

Is this new browser even any good? Firefox has loved me a long time and I'd only put it out to pasture if there was something that was faster, safer and more stable.

re: #133 Alberta Oil Peon

Heh, the new AVG is slower and the new way it updates is cumbersome. Sign me up with the people looking for a safe, free is nice, anti-virus.

People who don't use Google Search: what do you use instead?

People who don't use Google News: what do you use instead?

Thank you in advance.

So google owns my plant-sex-porn site now?

uh- *belch*. 'Scuzeme.

© copyright 2008, Google, Inc.

re: #131 Gmac

Personally I stopped using Google when they took a turn to the left, and I haven't missed them one bit. This simply reinforces my reasons to avoid them.

I don't mind using Google, especially since their search engine is included in so many other things, but I balk a bit at them using ME.

© copyright 2008, Google, Inc.

re: #41 Sketti

I for one, welcome our new Google overlords.

That would make a great rotating title, if we were still using rotating titles... :D

Maybe google's heard of the constitution?

Well, at least Google should have some idea by now what they've gotten themselves into. They know they are going to be watched by tireless hordes of innertube paranoids, so that should keep them honest beyond what they were thought capable of being, already. So this panic may be a good thing for people who just want to have the best product possible.

Because Google knows if they really tried to pull something like what has been deluded to here, they would be made to pay dearly long into the future and squander their competitive edge. I give their intellect more credit than that.

This is yet another example that you should always read EULAs.

One software company did a little demonstration of how few people read their EULAs. They put a free app up for download, and buried in the EULA was a bit "The first user to e-mail to ... will receive $1,000"

It took 4 months, and several thousand downloads, before anyone claimed the prize.

I find that FireFox and Safari are all the browsers I need, I will not be using googles browser.

Has anyone gone to the site lately?
it was apparently a cut & paste mistake.
supposedly fixed now

Hfmstr

Yet another reason why I try to avoid any and all contact with Google. I refuse to use their search engine, I refuse to use their email service, and now I see I can refuse to use their new browser. I unequivocally will not allow Google to benefit in any way from my online activities.

Why are the L³s always screaming about Big Brother and censorship, and yet they practice it all the time?

The update at the linked site says Google is removing the language. That it was a cut and paste error and not meant to be in their browser terms of use.

Good Point.

I may give up on Chrome until this "always on top" bug gets cleared up. I don't know who else is having this problem. I keep my windows taskbar hidden but when I have chrome maximized I can't get it to pop up without hitting the "Windows" button or minimizing Chrome. If this is a bug, I consider it to be a rather obnoxious one. If I'm the only one having it, I still shouldn't have to put up with it.

Google? Who's Google and why should I use them? I stopped thinking about them when they gave in without any fight to anyone asking any question. China, US, anyone that asks has total access to anything.

Is the EULA on OpenOffice from SUN any better?