RSSThe Google Chrome EULA debacle: Whose content is it, anyway?
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published September 4, 2008, 12:51 PM
Yesterday, Google made some quick changes to the terms of service for its new Chrome Web browser beta, to alleviate users' fears of misuse of their data. But how many other similar EULAs cast suspicion on the services they cover?
As of yesterday afternoon, Google struck a clause in the End-User License Agreement for the first beta of its Chrome browser, which quite explicitly said not only that Google had the right to reproduce any content users posted through its services, but that it had the right to pass that data onto third parties.
"You agree that this license includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services," read section 11.2 of the Google Chrome EULA, as it appeared yesterday morning.
New beta testers yesterday reported that version of section 11.2 had been struck from the document, and that 11.1 preceding it was truncated to read simply that the user is the copyright owner of all the content he or she posts. "You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services," reads the remaining first sentence of Section 11.1.
But as BetaNews discovered this morning, fresh installations of Chrome on systems where it had not been installed before, are not showing the EULA for users to agree or disagree upon prior to installation. Instead, just after the Windows System Registry is altered to plant Google's autostart routine in the system startup, the download of the latest build is automatically triggered. At least for now, some users won't be getting a chance to examine the EULA...and we're having a hard time locating how a Chrome user can pull up that EULA after the browser beta is installed.
The boilerplate language in question has gotten Google in trouble before. Last January, the precise language appeared in the EULA for some Google Apps, including Google Docs. That prompted some users to openly wonder whether the company had any intention of marketing that data, or perhaps an aggregate of that data -- maybe for advertising purposes -- to prospective customers.
But the very same language appears in the EULA for other online services, apparently by way of some boilerplate template that companies use for building contracts, maybe even without reading what those templates' language say first. This morning, BetaNews found identical language in the EULAs for the following:
- Autodesk's CAD sharing site 3DModelSpace
- Online economy car dealer AutoJunction
- Online chess game service ChessFlash
- Social search service Delver
- Online image editor service FotoFlexer
- Election information service GlassBooth
- GoEatOut
- Advertising service provider InfoSlate
- Global disaster services support provider Instedd
- Municipal government issues forum Kitchen Democracy
- Educational toolmakers' social network Learning Makers
- The National Writing Project
- Independent PlayStation Portable game distributor PSPube
- Crocheting and knitters' social network Ravelry
- Real estate search system RealPatrol
- Professional authors' forum Red Room
- Moderated argument forum site Smargue
- E-commerce service provider Smartpen
- Job recruitment services provider StaffASAP
- Mobile data and voice service provider StarPound
- The users' forum for electronic design firm Synopsys
- Gaming social network Ugame
- Virtual world service provider VastPark
- OpenID account provider Vidoop
- Amazon Web Services reseller Ylastic
FOR MORE:
- Google's Chrome is gaining users, especially in the wee hours by Jacqueline Emigh
- Review: The first Google Chrome beta by Tim Conneally
- Analysis: How is Chrome tied to Android? by Jacqueline Emigh
- Chrome's objective: to speed up the Web for Google by Scott Fulton
- Google Chrome takes more than just inspiration from Mozilla by Scott Fulton
the more important question would be how many idiots actually don't or can't read EULAs. How many people just blindly, like sheep, d.l prograns without paying attention to what they are d/ling.
Have a nice day:)
Score: 0
|Another crack at world dommination
Score: 0
|Of course, Google's (and anyone else's) EULA have to be legal in the duristriction where the user is. It doesn't matter what it says on a contract, if it is not backed by the "law of the land", it's just worthless characters, not an agreement.
In extremis, you can't legalise something by contract that is illegal by statute.
Score: 0
|After reading the eula I unistalled Chrome, the stated intent of Google is that of a Windows killer, they want to rule the world! Knowing that, any revised eula will need working through with a fine-toothed comb before I would even consider using Chrome again. One evil empire is enough, one authoritarian Big Brother is enough, Google needs to back off considerably.
Score: 0
|"You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services," reads the remaining first sentence of Section 11.1.
Jumping the gun a bit? Already changed. Yesterday, in fact.
FWIW, that quote makes it infringement for Google to publish that data in any way shape or form.
Score: 0
|For Google, the money is in collecting usage data. They get more data by integrating their search into as much of your activity as they can manage. For example, typing into the address bar dynamically executes a search.
The problem with their EULA (or at least the original) is that, even as their quick privacy overview states, you grant them permission to mine pretty much anything that you input within the browser.
Score: 0
|For example, typing into the address bar dynamically executes a search.
...if you checked the box to enable that option when you installed Chrome.
Love how people feel the need to whine about a non-issue.
Score: 0
|Right, but the average user probably wouldn't make the leap into examing the consequences of enabling the behavior.
Like many companies out there, they intend to profit off of the laziness and/or ignorance of users during the install process.
Score: 0
|Google already accomplished this mining feat by default in Firefox 3. Narry a checkbox to disable it there either. You've got to squirm through the about:config mess.
Google makes no qualms about wanting your data every step of the way, have to give them credit there, hardly a non-issue tho. If Toyota followed you around all day to learn how to better sell cars, who cares, right?
Score: 0
|So because the average user doesn't care enough to know what the feature they are explicitly enabling, it's Google's fault?
Ah yes, the victim mentality is still in full swing, I see. Can't take responsibility for one's own actions, so instead, we'll just blame industry, corporations, the government....anyone but the people who actually *enable* the functionality.
How cute...
Score: 0
|So what you are saying is that Chrome is better *because* it has the functionality disabled by default?
My point exactly.
Score: 0
|At least for now, some users won't be getting a chance to examine the EULA...and we're having a hard time locating how a Chrome user can pull up that EULA after the browser beta is installed.
Seems pretty simple to me:
No EULA = No EULA. You don't have to agree to anything to use the browser.
Score: 0
|