Calm Down Internet: Google Drive's Terms Are The Standard For Countless Websites, Including Gmail

from the oh-good,-this-again... dept

Wed, Apr 25th 2012 7:58am — Leigh Beadon

Remember when everyone freaked out about parts of Pinterest's terms of service? And how, slowly but surely, word got out that the same terms can be found on virtually every website and are mostly harmless? And then everyone learned a lesson and calmed down, and would approach future terms of service with new knowledge and understanding?

Wait, scratch that last part. TNW reports that the terms of Google's much-anticipated Drive service, which launched this week, have been treated to the same warm welcome from the Twitterverse. Someone spotted yet another variant of the "worldwide license" clause that all websites include, and before long the freakout flag was flying.

The clause in question, though admittedly scary-sounding, is routine:

When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content.

I hate to break it to the panicking masses, but Google is not planning on turning your spreadsheets into a touring art exhibit. A broad license like this is necessary to allow Google to operate such a service, permitting them to move the data around freely on their many servers all over the world, and display it to you (or the people you share it with) through a variety of devices and interfaces. The nightmare-labyrinth of international copyright law means that the most Google could do without such a clause is accept your data then immediately delete it—and even then someone would probably try to claim they made five unauthorized copies en route to the trash bin.

Perhaps most amusing is the fact that this piece of legal lingo doesn't come from the Google Drive terms of service, but from Google's overall terms for all their services. Meaning it already applies to everything from Gmail to Google Mars—so this might just be getting started. At this point, I suspect every social network and user content website online is waiting for the hammer to fall, since any one of them could be singled out at any time for yet another round. Oh well, I guess nothing beats a good freakout.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: google drive, license, terms of service
Companies: google, pinterest

73 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 8:04am

Google Supports CISPA, end of story.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 8:12am

Re:
[citation needed]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 8:14am

Typo
"accept your data them immediately delete it"

This should, I believe, be "then".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Leigh Beadon (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 8:18am

Re: Typo
fixed, thanks!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Xander Crews, 25 Apr 2012 @ 8:22am

Re:
No they don't. They haven't taken a stance either way on CISPA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lowestofthekeys (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 8:23am

Re: Re:
Don't you know, AC Trolls never need proof...just raged-filled petulence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Benjo (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 8:27am

Re:
No lavish accusation of the writer being a supporter of Big Search!?!? I am dissapoint.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 8:28am

Re: Re:
So they don't take a stance on CISPA. Why is that? Goggle lobbying is set to overtake oil and finance lobbying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
fairusefriendly (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 8:37am

really then why doesn't competing cloud drive services don't have the exact same wording.

drop box
"Your Stuff & Your Privacy: By using our Services you provide us with information, files, and folders that you submit to Dropbox (together, "your stuff"). You retain full ownership to your stuff. We don't claim any ownership to any of it. These Terms do not grant us any rights to your stuff or intellectual property except for the limited rights that are needed to run the Services, as explained below."

SkyDrive:

Your Content: Except for material that we license to you, we don't claim ownership of the content you provide on the service. Your content remains your content. We also don't control, verify, or endorse the content that you and others make available on the service."

contextual wrapping the "licence" within the scope of providing the service advertised would also allow them do what they need to do to provide the service, without taking more rights than they actually need.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 8:37am

Re: Re: Re:
Citations are for wimps and untermenschen. Some of us just know what's correct, without needing to do any of this feeble 'research' or 'fact-checking'.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
sciwizam, 25 Apr 2012 @ 8:37am

Re: Re: Re:
Out of the $5 million Google spent on lobbying, $4million was for opposing SOPA and PIPA.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2012/04/google-on-track-to-outspend-banks-big-tobacco-i n-lobbying.ars?src=ggl

"Google's spending may look excessive on the surface, but it's important to note the company also spent some $4 million lobbying against SOPA and PIPA,"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 8:40am

"We think this is an important issue and we're watching the process closely but we haven't taken a formal position on any specific legislation," the spokeswoman said. - From The Hill.

I don't know, if a corporation lobbies congress about CISPA but doesn't tell you their stance. That's kind of deceitful no? Why would they not tell you what position they are lobbying congress for?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
el_segfaulto (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 8:41am

Re: Re:
Must...resist...opening an Xtacles account...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Xander Crews, 25 Apr 2012 @ 8:42am

Re: Re: Re:
I have no idea. But that doesn't change the fact you were lying about Google supporting CISPA. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't...but right now, we do not know.

Do not speak on things of which you know NOTHING about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 8:42am

Re:
This may be the new post-Grokster CYA terms of service format. It could be worse. Some cyberlocker services like LimeLinx, Hulshare, and ShareBeast have similar terms but they use the words "irrevocable" and "perpetual". At least with Google I think you can cancel the license.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 8:43am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
The vote is days away how do they not know their stance on it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Leigh Beadon (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 8:44am

Re:
If you look at the Dropbox terms, the next paragraph says this:

We may need your permission to do things you ask us to do with your stuff, for example, hosting your files, or sharing them at your direction. This includes product features visible to you, for example, image thumbnails or document previews. It also includes design choices we make to technically administer our Services, for example, how we redundantly backup data to keep it safe. You give us the permissions we need to do those things solely to provide the Services. This permission also extends to trusted third parties we work with to provide the Services, for example Amazon, which provides our storage space (again, only to provide the Services).

Meaning somewhere along the line, you are granting them all the same rights that Google asks for - they are just breaking it up into various things you "agree" to at other points, and explaining it all here. But that paragraph about what permissions they need explains exactly what I just explained about why companies require these licenses.

Conversely, right before the "controversial" paragraph in Google's terms, there is this line:

Some of our Services allow you to submit content. You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours.

Which, just like the lines you praise from DropBox and SkyDrive, makes it clear that Google is not taking ownership of anything.

The terms you praise are less scary on the surface, but are in fact just obscuring the exact same thing that Google makes clear, front and centre, in their unified terms.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 8:45am

Marcus, you need to have a sit down with Glyn and Mike, because clearly you aren't getting the memos:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120424/12342918635/acta-may-interfere-with-fundamental- freedoms-eu-data-protection-supervisor.shtml

It's a story about "could" or "might" or "may". Mike points to these things all the time. Heck, the whole argument against SOPA was based on what it MAY do.

Basically, what Google is asking for is an extreme license that allows them all rights to your content, including publishing your spreadsheets at will. It also means that any art work that your produce and put there is immediately and fully cross licensed to them - in all manners.

It's a very, very wide ranging and unneeded grab for rights. I guess because it's god Google doing it, it's all good. Why give them such a large benefit of the doubt?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lowestofthekeys (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 8:48am

Re:
Ha...ahhh naive optimism
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Xander Crews, 25 Apr 2012 @ 8:49am

Re:
Like I said, I have no idea. Neither do you. You're just jumping to conclusions. So you may want to retract your presumed-as-fact statement above. Shall I call you Chicken Little?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Leigh Beadon (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 8:50am

Re:
Google has entirely separate privacy policies that outline how it will treat your data. And it's been dinged by privacy regulators in the past when it has stepped outside them. It's up to users to read those policies and decide if they want to give their data to Google. That has nothing to do with this copyright license which is entirely separate from their privacy policy, and is necessary to operate the service. Next question.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 8:50am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thing is, they do have a stance they just won't share it publicly. When you are keeping things like that private it is for a reason. But you know don't believe me. You'll see!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Colin, 25 Apr 2012 @ 8:53am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He didn't say THEY don't know their stance, he said WE don't. Y'know, including you, the one making statements to the contrary.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zakida Paul (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 8:54am

I'm laughing at the fact that people still think there is any semblance of privacy on the Internet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 8:58am

To trust Google is just delusional. To think they honestly care about your privacy is a joke.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 9:00am

Microsoft did a really good job spreading their usual FUD this time.

If there's one thing you can count on Microsoft to do right, it's exactly this: spreading FUD about their competitors.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zakida Paul (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 9:00am

Re:
Same for Facebook.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zakida Paul (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 9:01am

Re: Re:
And M$ and CrApple
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TtfnJohn (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 9:01am

Re: Re: Re:
Don't you know, AC Trolls never need proof...just raged-filled petulence.

Or rage filled flatulence. They're hard to tell apart.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 9:10am

Re: Re:
I think the plain English society would say that Dropbox worded it better - although I agree that the actual terms are very similar.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeremy2020 (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 9:14am

Re:
You realize that Google needs these terms to run the services because what "MAY" happen due to copyright laws being interpreted far beyond their intent?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 9:18am

Re:
To assume Google is JUST evil is delusional. If Google's looking out for it's interest and they happen to coincide with mine (as far as my rights go), then I don't care. As long as they aren't trying to walk all over me or my rights (ahem, unlike the RIAA/MPAA and other idiots) then I have no problem with that.

To assume though that everything is some vast conspiracy orchestrated by Google... well, if you need psychiatric help then just ask for it. There's no judging here. Unless you're being blatantly obtuse/ignorant. In which case you deserve what you have coming.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 9:19am

Re: Re:
Not really. A hosting company does not require to be granted copyright over my material to be able to store it. Google doesn't require it either.

What Google is trying to allow for is the ability for them to take your data, and in a YouTube style way, present it in different formats, to translate it, to display it, publish it, or otherwise use it in any way they see fit without your express permission.

That isn't hosting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
crade (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 9:22am

So the "standard terms" are terrible and should be fought tooth and nail at every term.. Why people should calm down? How are you going to get companies to realize people object to these sort of terms if we don't tell them?

"not planning to" is bullshit. It's just as much bullshit as saying "don't worry about sopa, because the mafiaa isn't planning to take down your website". People putting up with this stuff because they trust someone is "not planning" on using it is one of the reasons we end up with horrible agreements accepted as standards, then of course someone does end up using the terms and probably doesn't even have to disclose that they are doing so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 9:27am

Re: Re:
Google looks out for their interests of course. Did I say google was evil no. Their services are great. But when it comes to privacy they love to hack it. Trusting that Google will do the right thing is silly. And for them to not have a stance on CISPA is absurd.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 9:31am

If you want something to stay private, _keep_it_off_of_the_internet_! It's baffling that anyone can think that a system (the internet) that is simply _designed_ for sharing information could ever be truly private and absolutely secure. If you want secure, don't let it out of your site. If you have anything that needs to be _that_ secure.. you're lifing wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 9:31am

Re:
*sight. : P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Leigh Beadon (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 9:46am

Re: Re: Re:
A hosting company does not require to be granted copyright over my material to be able to store it.

Actually many, many hosting companies include the exact same worldwide license clause in their terms of service. And all hosting companies include total liability exemption for damages resulting from any and all uses of the service.

So um - you're completely wrong about that I'm afraid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
doughless (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 9:46am

Re: Re: Re:
But the Marcus-hater above was being intentionally misleading by making it sound like Dropbox and Skydrive are both not granting themselves those same broad rights, while conveniently leaving out that Google's terms also make it clear that users retain their own copyrights.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 9:53am

Telling the Internet to "Calm Down" is like telling the Earth to stop spinning, time from moving forward in a linear fashion, or for the RIAA/MPAA to get a grip on reality.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 10:10am

google should
just buy the state they live in and form its own nation....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrWilson, 25 Apr 2012 @ 10:24am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Conspiracy theory implication score: 3/10

You need more shape-shifting lizard people and a tie-in with the JFK assassination to make your theory sound plausible.

Otherwise you just sound like a little kid in need of a logic class.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 10:24am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which brings us back to his original point, "I have no idea. But that doesn't change the fact you were lying about Google supporting CISPA. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't...but right now, we do not know.

Do not speak on things of which you know NOTHING about."

Emphasis on "maybe" and "but right now, we do not know".

YOU were making a declarative statement on something you have no proof of. As such, he was correct. YOU don't know, neither does he. But his comment was to point out that you specifically were stating a false, declarative statement about their support for CISPA.

Unless you have definitive proof/evidence, DO NOT state such things as fact. You can put "Well I believe..." but don't put it the way you did. Unless you want to get called out on it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 10:35am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Alright then. But if you think it's totally acceptable to give money to congress on an issue you won't speak about publicly or say you have not stance on is not fair to the people who use their services. Google knows what their stance is internally to think otherwise is naive.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
gorehound (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 10:51am

Re:
I have no intention of using any kind of these services.Especially one that is a USA Company.
I am going to change my habits this year and make myself and my activities a lot more Anonymous.
The external Drives and their External Backups will be quite good for me and they are never ONLINE in any way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 11:18am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I didn't say it's acceptable or unacceptable to do that. Don't put words in my mouth. We were discussing you and your false statement.

However, in my opinion, I honestly don't care one way or another. At the end of the day, a company is going to do what a company is going to do. I have very little say in the matter.

Honestly, no offense, rewrite your sentence. I'm having difficulty understanding some of it. "you won't speak about publicly or say you have not stance on is not fair to the people who use their services". That's English obviously, it just seems unclear. So I can't properly respond.

I assume you're saying something about Google and the people who use it's services, but what exactly is unclear to me?

Nor did I say Google doesn't know their own stance on a given issue. To think a person or company wouldn't know their/it's own stance on something is indeed naive, which is a good thing I didn't say or think that. Again, we were discussing YOU. And your false statement about Google, for which you've presented no proof/evidence to support your original claim.

Now, let's make it simple. Do you have evidence (of a verifiable nature) that "Google Supports CISPA, end of story."?

If you do, present it please.

If you don't, care to retract your statement? Or amend it to something like... "I believe Google supports CISPA, but I have no proof of such support. As such it is purely speculation on my part."

The latter gets respect from me and others here because you're stating your beliefs and acknowledging you have nothing to support them. The former will get you called out on, as it clearly did, and which you're now trying to detract away from by changing the conversation and/or by putting words in my mouth, when clearly the focus was on you and your statement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 11:22am

Google's lack of a position says it all. They'd be delighted to see this pass but know it's bad PR to overtly support it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 11:51am

Re:
I guess because it's god Google doing it, it's all good.

That's quite a leap of logic. I don't like Google's TOS, so I don't use Google services as far as possible.

But that's the key point: with a company imposing terms on their own services, I can choose not to use their services.

With matters of law, I have no such choice.

It's a rather large difference.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 11:53am

Re: Re: Re:
I don't get your fixation on Google's stance on CISPA. Why is their support or lack of support for it important to you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 11:55am

Re:
I think this is likely true. But so what?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 11:55am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow you are kind of an asshole, insulting me and whatnot. You can't edit comments and I am at work so, I am sorry if my lack of proofreading stunted your assessment of my comment.

Surely it is obvious that when a company refuses to tell you their stance on a topic that their position on that topic is not acceptable to the majority. That is how politics works.

I'm not going to argue about what words I put in your mouth because I truly don't care and I did nothing of the sort. I believe your first reply what that I said Google was evil, you assumed that. The words I supposedly put in your mouth were questions I was asking those who disagree. Completely different.

I don't know who you are, you are an anonymous coward if you were a member here that needs to be respected maybe you should have a username.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 12:04pm

Re: Re:
Google is increasingly becoming a very important player in lobbying Congress. I want to know what they are feeding the politicians so I as a consumer can make a choice I feel comfortable with.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 12:26pm

Re: Re: Re:
Most politicians are fed a healthy diet full of greens...

Unless you are in Canada, then they get fed Browns... =P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
crade (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 12:37pm

Re: Re: Re:
If recent history is any measure, they are probably lobbying for "please stop kicking us in the nuts with your new laws". I don't know why they bother, if I was them I'd just leave.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 12:44pm

Re: Re:
The "so what" in my mind is that there is this white hat aura around Google that is unsupported by facts. Google is perhaps the most insidious privacy-invader since the Stasi and the worst monopoly position abuser since Standard Oil. Google spent 4-5 million the first quarter of 2012 on lobbying. While Google may not have a public position on this legislation, if you don't think much of its Hill activity isn't spent on CISPA you are kidding yourself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 1:04pm

Re: Re: Re:
The "so what" in my mind is that there is this white hat aura around Google that is unsupported by facts.

Google lost its "white hat" aura a long, long time ago. Although I think you are comically hyperbolic when you say they are "the most insidious privacy-invader since the Stasi and the worst monopoly position abuser since Standard Oil", google is a megacorp and being one of the less-unpleasant megacorps doesn't alter that.

But your fixation on google and their lack of public stance on CISPA is very, very odd to me, particularly in comment on a post that doesn't have anything to do with that.

It's almost like you have some sort of ulterior motive, some mindless anti-google agenda so strong that you are trying to whip up anti-google sentiment by making stuff up. I know that can't be true, because that would just make you a troll.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
fairusefriendly (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 1:11pm

Re: Re:
and that why i said

"contextual wrapping the "licence" within the scope of providing the service advertised would also allow them do what they need to do to provide the service, without taking more rights than they actually need."

Google over stepped the bounds with their blanket auto licencing

drop box didn't

You argued they "need" to have that "blanket" licence

which is of course patently false

they only need to have a licence for the scope of the service ("again, only to provide the Services")

they put a clause that give them much much more.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 1:17pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are no trolls in this comment section. I'm tired of people calling others trolls simply because they disagree.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 1:26pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have never called anyone a troll just because I disagree with them, and I've only rarely seen others do it in these comments.

I do get tired of trolls claiming that the reason people are calling them trolls is because they disagree, when the real reason is because they are acting like trolls.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 1:31pm

I made a comment. Other commenters jumped on it. So really, how is the troll? Why couldn't you just ignore my silly comment? Instead you blew it up and started insulting me! c'mon.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 2:46pm

Re:
It was trolling because you made many comments intended to derail the conversation from the topic of the post onto something that advances your own personal agenda. If you had just made your one comment and let it go at that, or even if your subsequent comments did more than just repeated your original point, then it wouldn't have been trolling, just off-topic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 4:07pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah. I can see you're kinda an asshole, too, aren't you? You know if someone refuses to tell you something it means it's none of your goddamned business. Doesn't mean that it's unpopular, or evil, just that you don't need to know. Period, end statement. Anything else you read into it is completely on you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 5:39pm

Re:
Zing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JEDIDIAH, 25 Apr 2012 @ 5:58pm

The great Xerox
It's not that they want to use it "any way that they see fit" but they want to be able to provide their service. That may require them to copy or transform whatever you upload. The nature of copyright means that any of their transformations can run afoul of copyright law.

On a fundemental level, copyright law is somewhat at odds with just computing in general. That TOS can be considered a manifestation of this basic fundemental tension.

Computers and networks are CONSTANTLY copying things. Even when you aren't "making a copy", it's copying things. It's just the nature of the beast.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 7:22pm

Re:
>Why couldn't you just ignore my silly comment?

Real life outside of the Internet is equally unforgiving towards acts of idiocy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 26 Apr 2012 @ 4:38am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
How to blow a global warming troll's head. Tell him his verbal farts are warming the world excessively...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2012 @ 6:35am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Read the article again. Four of the five million Google spent in the first quarter of 2012 was NOT spent on SOPA. SOPA was dead by January 17.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2012 @ 6:39am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Google is a member of Silicon Valley Leadership, a group that supports CISPA and has lobbied and written letters in support. That certainly indicates its support absent any statement to the contrary.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2012 @ 6:43am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Google is a member of Silicon Valley Leadership, a group that supports CISPA and has lobbied and written letters in support. That certainly indicates its support absent any statement to the contrary.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Blimfark Smith, 26 Apr 2012 @ 10:55am

You say "freak out" - I say "due dilligence"
Color me unimpressed with the author's reasoning (and tone). I know it's fun to mock (what seem like) ridiculuous concerns and the assertions that "everyone is doing it" and "no harm will come from it" may be sufficient to dismiss personal concerns... but businesses storing any sort of [customer] IP or otherwise sensitive data on Google Drive would due well to look their own Client Agreements and Terms of Service.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2012 @ 12:28pm

Double Standards?
Interesting discussion and it may underscore the reality of bias (in both directions) on the issues of tech interests vs copyright. An intelligent point made above is that, sure, the TOS may go overboard, but that no one is being FORCED to use Google's services or agree to TOS to begin with. Couldn't the same be said of pirated content from entertainment companies -- sure copyright law is ridiculous but no one says you have to copy or use content that you know is unlicensed and then fall under its jurisdiction. (thought that was what the creative commons movement was all about, creating a separate ecosystem) The MAFIAA is vilified for their opaque lobbying and legislative influence to advance their business interests, but here I see commenters giving Google a pass using a hear-no-evil/see-no-evil approach. So Google is given the benefit of the doubt while the RIAA/MPAA are assumed to always be acting illegitimately? Seems a little opportunistic at best, naive at worst. We may be wary of our legal right to privacy being eroded, but that is parallel to the concerns of artists whose rights have been ignored. Slippery slope argument was used against SOPA for the abuses it might potentially allow -- can't we say the same now for Google's privacy/use policies? Why assume the absolute worst of one company and not another? I don't think either side is 100% right or wrong, just seems like the role of bias is pretty obvious. I see a lot of cherry-picking of arguments. If lobbying is suspicious, shouldn't it be a suspicious engagement for all companies? If protecting our legal rights is important, shouldn't that principle be consistently applied? And yeah, no one likes nasty comments, but isn't the "troll" thing similarly used to dismiss opinions you happen to disagree with on either side of the issue, to preserve the views you came to the table with? Sorry if rambling, anyway just some thoughts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gabriel, 26 Apr 2012 @ 1:26pm

Google Drive TOS
I think all of the worry could be mitigated by stating that Google guarantees not to do anything to prevent, willfully hurt or damage anybody or any works with said global ownership nor would it ever use it against someone who is, or is planning to, make profit for private works uploaded to Google for storage.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
fairusefriendly (profile), 29 Apr 2012 @ 11:53am

Re: Double Standards?
the answer is no

fair use allows you to use copyright material WITHOUT the permission of the copyright holder. It the trade off every copyright holder agrees to when they were granted the monopoly rights to CONTROL how their content is distributed in every OTHER case.

Your own argument about not using copyright material EXPLICITLY take away that right away from the public.
[ link to this | view in thread ]