Via the Register:
Section 11.1 of the new Google Browser Chrome's EULA:
11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights that you already hold in Content that 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 that 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.
Not sure any of us want to grant 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 that we "submit, post or display on or through" their new browser.
I'm sure Mr. Fraser can critique more eloquently, so I'll just quote Jon Stewart, "whaaaaaaaaaa?"
Respond: make a comment | read the 8 comments
Share:
Email
|
Save as PDF | Print
|
Bookmark & Share
|
|
More: in Substantive Law or Technology: Internet | from Steven Matthews
|
the count:
8231 posts | 11418 comments
recent comments  
Max Amsterdam once said: “Business is the art of extracting money from another man’s pocket without resorting to violence.” The purpose of having a written agreement between all … »»Practice There is good leagal content that doesn’t necessarily come in the neat packages that we usually look in. Though our commercial legal database subscriptions have linked, vetted, edited, and easily. […] »»Research When you need to collaborate on a document displayed on your screen, it’s great to have a colleague from down the hall come into your office and look over your … »»Technology
-
Available online today are four new chapters of the publication Women in Canada: A Gender-based Statistical Report, which explores the socio-demographic and economic circumstances of Canadian women in general.
-
The bill amends the Constitution Act, 1867 by readjusting the number of members and the representation of the provinces in the House of Commons.
-
-
Blueseed plans to buy a ship and turn it into a floating incubator anchored in international waters off the coast of California.
-
Under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the flow of information out of Ottawa has slowed to a trickle.
-
-
"…the IPC has exclusive jurisdiction to decide whether a record is in the custody or control of a university in the context of an access request…"
-
-
John J.L. Hunter, Q.C. of Vancouver has been elected President for 2011-2012
-
Detailed results from 321 members.
These summaries of selected recent cases are provided each week to Slaw by Maritime Law Book.
More information.
-
Banks and Banking - Liability of banks to third parties - Negligence - General
The plaintiffs were the former shareholders of a company that failed. They sued the defendant bank alleging that it breached its contract with the company and the plaintiffs and breached a duty ...
-
Actions - Cause of action - General principles - New or extended cause of action - Opening of floodgates
The plaintiff and defendant worked at different branches of the same bank. The defendant’s common-law husband was the plaintiff’s ex-husband. Over a four year period, the defendant ...
-
Aliens - Definitions and general principles - Immigration consultants
The Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC) had been designated as the sole regulatory body of immigration consultants in Canada from 2004 until June 2011. On June 30, 2011, Bill C-35 came into force, which significantly amended ...
-
Criminal Law - Sexual offences, public morals and disorderly conduct - Public morals - Obscenity - Possession of child pornography
The accused was convicted of making child pornography available and two counts of possession of child pornography (see [2010] Sask.R. Uned. 197). Subsequently, he was sentenced ...
-
Criminal Law - Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions regarding pleas or evidence of witnesses, co-accused and accomplices
Rowe was convicted by a jury of five offences. He appealed.
The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed ...
-
Narcotic Control - Offences - Possession - General
The accused wished to access marijuana for medicinal purposes but did not have an authorization to possess marijuana issued under the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations. He was notified that a package of marihuana addressed to him had been ...
-
Narcotic Control - General - Legislation - Exemptions - Medicinal marijuana
McCrady, who had an application pending under the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR) to possess and grow marijuana, was convicted of possession of marijuana (Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA), s. 4(1)). Hearn pleaded guilty ...
-
Criminal Law - Sentence - Trafficking in hashish or marijuana (incl. possession for purposes of trafficking)
The accused pleaded guilty to one count of possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking. He was sentenced to 30 days’ imprisonment to be served intermittently and 11 months’ ...
-
Municipal Law - Powers of municipalities - Particular powers - Imposition and collection of taxes or fees
Catalyst Paper Corp. operated a paper mill in the District of North Cowichan. Catalyst objected to the tax rate that it paid compared to residential ratepayers. In 2009, the ...
This is a listing of a few upcoming events in Canada of interest to lawyers, law students, legal librarians, and others involved in the practice of law.
Clicking on any event in the list below will give you access to more information and to links allowing you to see the full entry and to add the event to your own calendar.
Click this link for a fuller version of the TalkLaw/ParLoi calendar of events and for instructions as to how to add events and calendars to your own calendar.
|
Too bizarre to be real… Which is right, as it turns out. Google sez:
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."
See Ars Technica
That does seem over the top. Not sure why it would be drafted that way, or purport to give Google those rights. After all, this is a browser. The inputs are people entering URL's they want to go to for which that doesn't seem necessary. Other inputs could be people using the browser to do searches or post content – such as this comment – but then as I see it, the browser is just a conduit for that – not unlike your ISP. Its Slaw that I am putting this on, so if anyone has to deal with any rights to publish or use this comment, its Slaw, not Google.
whaaaaaaaaaa? does seem to sum this up nicely.
Why are people so willing to believe such an absurd story?
The EULA made no sense because you weren't using Chrome to publish anything.
Now, on the other hand – if you are using blogger, you might want to rethink.
Good news Simon. :) Readwriteweb mentioned that the terms are very close to that of Google Docs, which of course browsers & web services are very different.
I have to wonder if a Google lawyer got caught with an unvetted cut & paste. The Sarah Palin of EULAs perhaps? ;)
Matt Cutts has a post on this — essentially Google's lawyers are re-writing the EULA, with retroactive effect.
Does an EULA mean anything for open-source software? The source code is provided under a BSD-style license, allowing anyone to modify the browser to meet their needs. It would be very easy to modify the source to ensure that the browser never provides any information to Google (except legitimate web searches). This modified browser can then be released and freely distributed, free of any of the conditions in the EULA, since the EULA refers to the compiled, binary download and not to modifications to the source.
Can anyone with an IP background explain how the EULA interacts with Google's BSD license? http://code.google.com/chromium/terms.html
Word from the official Google blog:
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.
Sounds good to me.
Commentators describe it as the PR backlash against EULA.