Google Chrome assumes ownership of your soul
Every time Google drops a new product, the internets go wild with excitement, speculation, and general madness. All of this hoopla is generally for good reason, as the boys down in Mountain View have a history of rolling out revolutionary services that quickly gain ubiquitous presence in our everyday lives. The recent introduction of the Chrome browser was no exception to this rule, though if the EULA is any indication of Google’s plans, we might want to hold off on wide-scale adoption. According to several clauses in the user license, Google assumes ownership of anything you post, publish, and/or create while using their new browser. Sound fishy? Check this out: “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.” We can’t think of any reason why this would be a necessary step for Google to take, and its inclusion raises a serious red flag about the company’s intentions, especially considering their well known “Don’t be evil” motto. Peep the sections after the jump courtesy of the fine folks over at Gizmodo, and sound off here in the comments.
UPDATE: Google has responded to this one in record time. Noting the general level of scrutiny and dis-satisfaction around the web in regards to their invasive privacy policy, the company states that they ”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.” Kudos, Google!
Thanks, Jose!
11. Content license 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 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.
11.2 You agree that this license includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services.
11.3 You understand that Google, in performing the required technical steps to provide the Services to our users, may (a) transmit or distribute your Content over various public networks and in various media; and (b) make such changes to your Content as are necessary to conform and adapt that Content to the technical requirements of connecting networks, devices, services or media. You agree that this license shall permit Google to take these actions.
11.4 You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the above license.
Tags: censorship, chrome, google
Looks like chrome just got the boot from my pc. Darth Vader must be the new CEO of google.
Permalink | Reply
Yep, this is why I held off downloading.
Plus, I’m very happy with Firefox.
Permalink | Reply
FYI: Very similar terms exist in the EULA for GMail accounts as well.
Permalink | Reply
For me personal it’s much scaryer that everything you do (vistited URLs, downloads, login information, pin, puk and so on) will be sent to Google.
It’s the same problem like with Google Desktop and Gmail…
Permalink | Reply
They’re going to fix it…
Permalink | Reply
Yeah, as soon as I saw the Gizmodo blog, I uninstalled Chrome.
It’s not like Chrome was going to become my main browser anyway. Firefox 3 + Ubiquity FTW.
Permalink | Reply
“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.”
Sounds like Google mostly just wants to cover themselves from getting sued if they put up a screenshot of Chrome in use for an advertisement that happens to contain a graphic published by someone else… e.g. if they said, “Hey, this guy’s web page looks pretty snazzy on Chrome, it’d be great if we could use a picture of it running in Chrome in one of our Youtube promotional videos.” Still, might be a bit excessive.
Permalink | Reply
Umm I dont see this as spying on you. I see it more as anything you post will be searchable through google.com, mobile google and on other international google websites. Its just saying good can take your info and make searchable through all of its tools.
Permalink | Reply
A lot of media type companies are doing this now, including a few of my local radio stations that have this exact same clause displayed across the entrance of their building. Basically, it’s saying that we have the right to use anything you submit while in their building (or in this case, anything you do while using Google’s browser) and not give you a dime for it. So, say you come up with a cool mod for the browser. They can use it, sell it and not give you a penny. Post a funny video on Youtube while using their browser? Yup, they can use that video however they want, including selling the idea so another company can use it and not give you a penny. Youtube has a similar clause. Anyone that’s seen that Taco Bell or Del Taco whoever the hell it is is commercial with the kids in the car rapping to the intercom has all ready seen how your ideas can be sold, as that video idea came from a joke that was played on a McDonalds where two kids rapped in the intercom.
Permalink | Reply
At least Apple would never do anything like this
Permalink | Reply
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10031703-56.html
Seems that Google is backpedaling.
Permalink | Reply
Not surprising. Selling demographic data is a big money cow for Google. Getting more of it makes the cow bigger.
For that reason, I separate web from general software. Google for searching, Yahoo for email, MSN Messenger for messaging and so on.
I found Chrome to be overly simplistic, to the point it will be too inconvenient to use for regular browsing. I’ll stick with FF3 despite Chrome’s noticeably better performance (at what cost, though? No features ordinary users need at all).
Permalink | Reply
How is this exactly “Big Brother” talk?
It’s a highly advanced open source browser. I imagine a lot of time and money was poured into this project. Do you expect them to let a Microsoft programmer add on it, improve it, then release it as his own? No sir.
Permalink | Reply
It’s one thing to lay claim to all your thoughts, intensions, verbal expressions, etc … But, where it matters most is how enforceable their claims are in a court of law. Far too many times, internet postings back down simply due to a $200 C&D letter from a hired-gun attorney, regardless of the merits. Unfortunately, most blogs and similar sites don’t have the change (or stomach) for serious legal counsel.
Free speech is only worth what you are prepared to defend. Fuck Google.
Permalink | Reply
Firefox is no where as fast or versatile as Chrome. But FF3 is still my default browser. It’s going to stay this way till Chrome matures enough with plugins and updates… but so far I’m LOVING IT as my secondary browser.
Permalink | Reply
So…..If you blog while using chrome, google reserves the right to get money from it. And you relinquish your rights to your own original work, thoughts and ideas while using google’s browser. I think googles new logo should be darth vader with a pimp hat on. And the slogan for chrome should be: Bitch betta have my money. Damn I wonder will there be similar terms and conditions for the use of the android os.
Permalink | Reply
I think you’re misreading the clause. It says they get a non-exclusive license. It says nothing about taking ownership or having the right to SELL your precious creation. They’re just covering their behinds when they display your contribution, for all the world to see.
Yes, they should clarify that they are not trying to claim ownership with a right to sell whatever you posted. That’s not their intent from how I read it.
Permalink | Reply
I like google chrome, its very fast, but i will keep my firefox
Permalink | Reply
^ Your selective comprehension is duly noted, Matty. Now, grab your buddy’s hand before you cross the street.
Permalink | Reply
The way I read this was, “You make stuff, we use it to promote what we already have or to improve upon what we already have.” While I don’t get the feeling that they’re selling what we’re doing (well, except for looking at what we browse and then selling it to a company so the company can advertise to us more effectively), but I also don’t think they can legally do this even though laws get turned over all the time.
Regardless, I am going to stay away from Chrome for a while (with a bit of resentment). I really liked their platform, I really did. Oh well, I guess I’ll hope IE 8.0 will be able to outdo Chrome.
Permalink | Reply
Yes, yes…an how quickly they turn. If that were the case there would be no reason to put the clause there in the first place. I didn’t see it in Firefox fine print. I’m sticking with FF3 until otherwise noted.
I don’t need another big brother. One is bad enough. Shame on Google…and did anyone mention how ugly that Dream phone looks…:)
Permalink | Reply
I dare google to track the recording industry an the movie industry> RIAA and MPAA vs. Google that would be hella interesting
Permalink | Reply
^ Your ass _still_ smarting after not having the legal right to use other people’s creations for your own benefit, Galvatron? Ya poor little Google-wannabe!
Permalink | Reply
Before their “UPDATE” I was beginning to wonder what standard language was in a User License for a Browser. I wonder if MS or Mozilla had similar (even minutely similar) statements in their language.
I have to say though that even though I LOVE Google, I’m very cautious of their intentions with a browser. That statement in the user license reaffirms what I had a bad gut feeling about. However, even by removing the language, are we as users still “tracked”? After all, look at Facebook! They’re still tracking like crazy. Google still reads your Gmail to post “appropriate” ads.
From a marketing perspective, having a marketing background, I think this sort of “tracking” is brilliant. From a marketing perspective, I see no harm in trying to learn about your buyers/customers to better serve THEIR needs and thus your business partners.
Do we think it’s “tracking” for a retailer to place a clip strip of spot remover sticks right next to the laundry detergent? I think this type of marketing is similar to what Google tries to accomplish. Google sees you have an interest in Hawaii when you SEARCH “Hawaii” and thus shows you appropriate ads.
I guess there’s a pretty strong argument to be made that a retailer doesn’t take your shoes off to check for a stain on your sock before showing you the clip strip of spot remover. Yeah, that would be a bit more invasive. That’s more like what Google does while reading your email over your shoulder and showing you ads about the content of your email.
Creepy.
Permalink | Reply
So does that mean if you download a movie through their browser that the MPAA doesnt agree with they will sue Google Chrome?
I mean if they want to take what you make they should pay for what you do
Permalink | Reply