backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 52 comment(s) - last by rosoft2001.. on Sep 8 at 10:20 PM
Company says it never intended to use customers' data

Google will change the EULA for its Chrome web browser just days after its release, due to a handful of users spotting a provision that gives the company a license to most anything its browser is used to create.

The text in question, contained in Section 11 of the Chrome Terms of Service, allows users to retain copyright of their work, but grants 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” created with Chrome.

Essentially, Section 11 gives Google free reign to do what it wants with most anything that passes from the user to the internet via its browser, including the contents of blog entries, forum posts, and photo uploads – all without paying a cent.

“With more and more apps being shifted into web browsers, this is almost like MS claiming that it gets a license to any document in MS Word, PowerPoint, or Excel,” says Florida attorney David Loschiavo. “What if MS got a license to patents, trademarks and copyrights of any software created with Visio or Visual Studio? … What if Adobe got a license to everything made in Photoshop?”

Google representative Rebecca Ward, head lawyer for Chrome, says the inclusion of Section 11 was a simple oversight, caused by the company’s proclivity for releasing multiple products under a single, “Universal” Terms of Service.

“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,” she said Tuesday. “We are working quickly to remove language from Section 11 of the current Google Chrome terms of service.”

Even better, Ward says the change will be applied “retroactively” to “all users who have downloaded Google Chrome.”

Ars Technica notes that users can get around Chrome’s EULA – regardless of what it says – by compiling the browser from its source code, which is freely available under the far more permissive BSD license.

Chrome, released Tuesday, is already making waves amongst internet users for speed, ease of use, and innovative take on reliability. Notably, the browser’s release included a 38-page comic book illustrated by cartoonist and webcomic promoter Scott McCloud.

While it’s considered unlikely that Chrome has the capability of making good on its Section 11 claims, some observers noted that the browser’s “Omnibox”, its multi-purpose address and search bar, stores a copy of anything typed inside of it – including backspaced or deleted text – for the purposes of its auto-complete function. Google says it plans on retaining about two percent of the data it receives through that feature – but notes that users can disable that functionality by turning off auto-complete.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
i seriously doubt its an oversight
By rerecros on 9/4/2008 8:17:31 AM , Rating: 2
i just dont buy their excuse




RE: i seriously doubt its an oversight
By SeanMI on 9/4/2008 8:23:21 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I don't either...and you guys think MS is the evil empire...


RE: i seriously doubt its an oversight
By 306maxi on 9/4/2008 8:33:32 AM , Rating: 2
Most people here like Google even less than they like Microsoft. I'm certainly one of them.


RE: i seriously doubt its an oversight
By Lugaidster on 9/4/2008 8:50:43 AM , Rating: 2
I think both companies try to be best at what they do, which is earning money. I use both Microsoft and Google products and both have great pieces of software. Due to their sizes they will obviously be the target of conspirational theories but most of them have no validity. Maybe I'm naive but I do believe they did made a mistake. I do believe that to many people Google is becoming some kind of "King Midas" where whatever it touches transform to "gold". I just hope it doesn't end like the story.

Cheers


RE: i seriously doubt its an oversight
By FITCamaro on 9/4/08, Rating: 0
RE: i seriously doubt its an oversight
By idconstruct on 9/4/2008 10:22:35 AM , Rating: 2
To quote a conversation I had with a friend:

"i just think its funny how a couple ppl at google are like "hey i think we could make a good browser" and then they make it and everyone cries foul or mal-intent"

... at least as opposed to microsoft, google offers efficient, well-rounded products at great prices (free) and then open sources it all to boot

On the note of the EULA... looking at how many products they have I highly doubt they're gonna have lawyers come up with fresh EULA's for each and every beta they come up with. (A quick check on their website shows about 50 listed products/services)


RE: i seriously doubt its an oversight
By JustTom on 9/4/2008 1:02:16 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
"i just think its funny how a couple ppl at google are like "hey i think we could make a good browser" and then they make it and everyone cries foul or mal-intent"


Did your buddy really say ppl?

I do not know if this is an oversight. However, I do wonder if your scenario is true exactly which Google software allows them to own any and all content created with that software. I cannot fathom a situation where this would be ok, regardless of the software in question.


RE: i seriously doubt its an oversight
By idconstruct on 9/4/2008 1:55:58 PM , Rating: 3
My only guess would be something like gNews or gEarth, where the content is more 'public' ... but yeah I agree that it probably shouldn't be in their "template" EULA


By paydirt on 9/4/2008 2:28:31 PM , Rating: 2
Not an oversight, this type of language would not be appropriate in ANY EULA to ANY business or consumer. The only place it would be appropriate for is Google employees, maybe that is why it's there.

I've had some experience with other business agreements and usually the side with the power tries to get away with the very most favorable language. One agreement wanted my business to accept all liability (even to the personal level, not just my business be liable, but personal assets too), even if it was the fault of the other party.


By Digimonkey on 9/4/2008 4:35:59 PM , Rating: 2
That's pretty much their umbrella agreement for all their online apps. Including Gmail.


By DeepBlue1975 on 9/5/2008 10:46:08 AM , Rating: 3
That's because:

"You don't find google, google finds you".


RE: i seriously doubt its an oversight
By SpaceRanger on 9/4/2008 9:28:41 AM , Rating: 3
Reading this article, I couldn't help but wonder why I heard the Imperial Theme from Star Wars..


By FITCamaro on 9/4/2008 9:30:31 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry my phone was ringing (that's my ringtone).


By AstroCreep on 9/4/2008 8:47:38 PM , Rating: 2
WHHHHAAAAAAAT???
This is Google, man! The "DON'T BE EVIL" guys! ;)


By Polynikes on 9/4/2008 8:46:31 AM , Rating: 2
"Do no evil" my a$$.


RE: i seriously doubt its an oversight
By uhgotnegum on 9/4/2008 9:41:17 AM , Rating: 3
Working in the legal field, I can easily see how this could be included from their form language. I also think they probably saw it their and recognized what it means.

However, I think a bigger problem, and one I would throw out for discussion is the lack of negotiation that occurs with software like this (I'm thinking especially in light of the whole "cloud computing" movement).

Basically, we are entering into a contract with whatever program (chrome, remember the milk, dashwire, etc.) we choose to install, but we (the consumer) never get to negotiate the terms of these agreements. At least, I've never tried to email the company and ask for Section 11 to be modified/removed. So, the consumer ends up with situations like this one, and it's not very likely that a clause like this would be thrown out if challenged in court.

I understand that "it's our choice to install it or not," and I do think that the creators of programs like this have *almost* free reign over how they provide it, but when it comes down to it, there aren't that many (any?) realistic alternatives that don't have standardized language like this. I worry that the concept of contracting is losing its meaning and purpose, because of this "throw everything and the kitchen sink" type language.

To clarify, I am NOT a big government kind of guy (Bob Barr anyone?...half seriously, half sarcastically), but I think this is a much bigger problem than people think and this is one of those times where legislation should help to even the discrepancy in negotiating power.

I haven't brilliantly articulated it (b/c I want it to get posted before it's lost in the mix of things), but that's basically it...any thoughts?


By Ryanman on 9/4/2008 11:20:32 AM , Rating: 2
I even think the language used in the EULA is ridiculous, sounds almost like a joke. I dont' even know what google would do with all that intellectual property if they wanted it.

Personally, I'd hope chris crocker was using chrome because he's so smart and witty. It'd be a huge asset for Google to "own" all the mindless blogs out there.

/sarc


RE: i seriously doubt its an oversight
By jimpaka on 9/4/08, Rating: 0
RE: i seriously doubt its an oversight
By uhgotnegum on 9/4/2008 12:28:25 PM , Rating: 2
True...it's what I get for, as I write in the post, trying to quickly get the point out before it got lost in the mix (turns out I am incorrect there--used it correctly this time--too).

I'm assuming you are being slightly sarcastic in your post, and to return the favor, I would (sarcastically) ask that you refrain from committing an argumentative fallacy by incorrectly concluding that, because I didn't use the term correctly in a sentence, I don't know the difference/meaning(s) of the word(s); it's a fallacy of argumentation by generalization, because you draw a broad conclusion from an unrepresentative sampling-one sentence--of my writing (technically, you also commit a fallacy of selective reading by concluding my "weak" grammar implies a weak understanding of this issue too). To be precise, I believe my post only presents the possibility that I don't know the difference between the words, and another, more plausible and accurate, reason is that I should have proofread more carefully. If I really don't know the difference, it would seem reasonably for me to misuse the words throughout my post, which isn't the case.

I hope you didn't really stop reading simply because I didn't proof my "thesis" well enough, because I could make some good arguments that doing so is also a mistake.

Mistakes happen, and I own this one as mine. Hopefully, I didn't make any mistakes this time. I am still interested in your opinion on the issue I present in my original post, by the way.