Comments on: Google Chrome assumes ownership of your soul

By: chillywilly

chillywilly — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:22:28 +0000

Dude the CEO of Google went to Bilderberg. Google IS evil

By: MACK

MACK — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 05:20:05 +0000

PS… I switched my broswer’s home location from google to http://WWW.ALTAVISTA.COM

JUST to show those guys they don’t own me.

By: MACK

MACK — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 04:34:36 +0000

The wording in Chrome is more than it appears to be. “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…”

Only a fool with nothing to lose would agree to something as pervasive as that… or happened to be ignorant of it.
Be careful, the updated language will probably include a “dumbed down” version, so it does not look so bad AND a clause allowing google to make changes whenever they want… and require you to go “check google’s licensing for the changes periodically.”

There is really 1 GIANT reason I have no plans to use GOOGLE as a web browser…

ADVERTISEMENTS… the only way a website can stop me from blocking all their stupid advertisements is by owning the browser and preventing such changes.

I have no intention of letting google do that, not will I allow them any license for web content. If they want it, they can pay for it like anyone else.

By: Goerge Toms

Goerge Toms — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 22:01:28 +0000

Google Chrome is really fast!
Now I can sort 200,000 records inside of Browser (Chrome) just in 1 sec. (Faster than Microsoft Excel):
http://www.ardentedge.com/ex_if.htm

By: uxp

uxp — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 20:32:14 +0000

even though its been reversed, the real action behind this is, you, as a typical web surfer, have become nothing more than an interactive googlebot.

By: backbeat

backbeat — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 04:22:29 +0000

^ Golly-Gee, where oh where did Cy get his legal credentials? Guatemala State? _rolling eyes_

By: jimmykicks

jimmykicks — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 01:13:42 +0000

Looks like they admitted to their mistake and got rid of the offending clause in the EULA.

Besides, the clause was a bit of a non-starter: Since Chrome was released under an open-source license, there was nothing stopping someone from taking it and re-releasing without the EULA attached.

By: redsoxh8r4life

redsoxh8r4life — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 00:52:59 +0000

I love my opera browser!

By: Cy

Cy — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 00:02:51 +0000

Matt S is right–it says in the clause that you retain ownership of your work’s copyright, so they can’t sell it to someone and “not give you a penny” as one poster said. What they are helping themselves to is a free-for-all license, which means they don’t own your work, but they can make as many copies of it as they want, translate it, distribute it, etc, however the heck they want to without paying you for it. Normally, you would have to pay a royalty if you wanted to use a piece of someone’s book/etc for a non-academic/non-educational purpose (that’s allowed under the “Fair Use” clause of Copyright Law). Obviously, Google’s gonna be using the stuff we submit for its own profits, not education, so that’s why they gave themselves this license, I guess. I don’t think they’ll steal the novel manuscript you e-mail yourself via Gmail, but it looks like they’re reserving the right to stick a chunk of it up on Google books or whatever if they feel like it and are saying they won’t pay you for it.

By: likeabite

likeabite — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 23:44:53 +0000

Yea I guess whenever Google does something it’s fine as long as it’s not Microsoft. I’m glad I did not bother even downloading it. The man rips me of enough in real life. I don’t need my thoughts and ideas abused as well.

By: mangenius

mangenius — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 23:39:26 +0000

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

By: Richard Wood

Richard Wood — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 23:34:33 +0000

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.

By: backbeat

backbeat — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 22:25:02 +0000

^ 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!

By: Galvatron

Galvatron — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 22:05:11 +0000

I dare google to track the recording industry an the movie industry> RIAA and MPAA vs. Google that would be hella interesting

By: archboy69

archboy69 — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 21:52:15 +0000

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…:)

By: Siam Luu

Siam Luu — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 21:45:43 +0000

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.

By: backbeat

backbeat — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 21:41:32 +0000

^ Your selective comprehension is duly noted, Matty. Now, grab your buddy’s hand before you cross the street.

By: Saint Germain

Saint Germain — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 21:35:21 +0000

I like google chrome, its very fast, but i will keep my firefox

By: Matt S

Matt S — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 21:28:03 +0000

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.

By: Vision77

Vision77 — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 21:11:34 +0000

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.

By: TareX

TareX — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 21:09:55 +0000

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.

By: backbeat

backbeat — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 21:09:46 +0000

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.

By: TareX

TareX — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 21:04:00 +0000

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.

By: Me

Me — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 21:01:56 +0000

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).

By: Brian

Brian — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 20:53:35 +0000

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10031703-56.html

Seems that Google is backpedaling.

By: Steve G

Steve G — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 20:48:31 +0000

At least Apple would never do anything like this

By: WickedRabbit

WickedRabbit — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 20:46:00 +0000

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.

By: Eric B.

Eric B. — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 20:45:47 +0000

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.

By: Brian

Brian — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 20:45:05 +0000

“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.

By: Chris B.

Chris B. — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 20:38:43 +0000

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.