![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Tarnished Chrome...
Sep. 3rd, 2008 10:23 amIt looks like there's some tarnish on Google's Chrome browser. According to a post on Gizmodo, Google's EULA provides for the following:
There is, of course, the argument that Google is simply protecting itself against claims arising from the reproduction, adaptation, etc. of content in connection with its delivery to other users, but if that's the case, then why not say it that way?
Indeed, the way the EULA is formulated, I suspect this may be the proverbial camel's nose, and may eventually become the standard way for media giants to address the sticky problem of collecting royalties from people who use stuff not actually owned by said giants (as was the case recently when the AP established payment guidelines for bloggers to use copyrighted text from AP articles that, in some cases, include quotes taken with no remuneration from copyrighted blogs).
This raises an interesting point: You don't have to use Google Chrome to surf the web, but what if your connection to the Internet depended on your agreeing to transfer all rights to your content to, say, your ISP?
Cheers...
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.It's likely not quite as bad as the Giz post makes it out to be; you're not actually transfering ownership of your stuff to Google (as in: you don't need permission to use it yourself), but it's pretty much the next best thing (for Google).
There is, of course, the argument that Google is simply protecting itself against claims arising from the reproduction, adaptation, etc. of content in connection with its delivery to other users, but if that's the case, then why not say it that way?
Indeed, the way the EULA is formulated, I suspect this may be the proverbial camel's nose, and may eventually become the standard way for media giants to address the sticky problem of collecting royalties from people who use stuff not actually owned by said giants (as was the case recently when the AP established payment guidelines for bloggers to use copyrighted text from AP articles that, in some cases, include quotes taken with no remuneration from copyrighted blogs).
This raises an interesting point: You don't have to use Google Chrome to surf the web, but what if your connection to the Internet depended on your agreeing to transfer all rights to your content to, say, your ISP?
Cheers...
