4 ms·

I'm not exactly OK when they say they can "reproduce, modify, create derivative works (...), publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such con

I'm not exactly OK when they say they can "reproduce, modify, create derivative works (...), publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content." Ignore the hysterical reactions by those with an agenda. That section of the ToU explicitly applies to information that you explicitly make public (such as posting on Google+).

cooldeal 15y ago
Maybe you can point to the part where it makes clear that the clause applies to only things made explicitly public instead of some handwaving about people with an agenda? These are matters of law and when it comes to a court, what is clearly written down matters more than what your assumptions are. Lets take a (very unlikely) hypothetical case of you uploading a movie script to Google Drive, and as you're shopping it around to studios, Google makes a new service called Google Studios and uses the script for free. You sue them and they point to that clause. Which part of the agreement can you point to, to prove to the judge that Google violated your rights?
- huggyface 15y ago
  >instead of some handwaving about people with an agenda I'm sorry but when people are intentionally cherry picking incendiary parts of one ToS while intentionally ignoring those in another, that speaks to an agenda. The reporting has not been more clear. >Lets take a (very unlikely) hypothetical case of you uploading a movie script to Google Drive, and as you're shopping it around to studios, Google makes a new service called Google Studios and uses the script for free. You sue them and they point to that clause. "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." This could not be clearer. The principals of intellectual property and copyright are well enshrined and are not abstract ideas. That overarching statement invalidates the ludicrous notion that Google is going to sell your script, or do anything else to monetize private content beyond the most obvious of building a profile (which is no different from Microsoft, your beloved, or Apple).
- Cushman 15y ago
  > These are matters of law and when it comes to a court, what is clearly written down matters more than what your assumptions are. Worth pointing out that this is almost exactly false. Courts can and routinely do modify or reject clauses or whole contracts in accordance with what the parties believed they agreed to, or simply what the court believes is fair. The idea that anything written down and signed is legally binding is pure Hollywood. Were Google to take your intellectual property without compensation, that clause (even assuming it applied) would not offer them protection.

cooldeal 15y ago

Maybe you can point to the part where it makes clear that the clause applies to only things made explicitly public instead of some handwaving about people with an agenda? These are matters of law and when it comes to a court, what is clearly written down matters more than what your assumptions are. Lets take a (very unlikely) hypothetical case of you uploading a movie script to Google Drive, and as you're shopping it around to studios, Google makes a new service called Google Studios and uses the script for free. You sue them and they point to that clause. Which part of the agreement can you point to, to prove to the judge that Google violated your rights?

huggyface 15y ago
>instead of some handwaving about people with an agenda I'm sorry but when people are intentionally cherry picking incendiary parts of one ToS while intentionally ignoring those in another, that speaks to an agenda. The reporting has not been more clear. >Lets take a (very unlikely) hypothetical case of you uploading a movie script to Google Drive, and as you're shopping it around to studios, Google makes a new service called Google Studios and uses the script for free. You sue them and they point to that clause. "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." This could not be clearer. The principals of intellectual property and copyright are well enshrined and are not abstract ideas. That overarching statement invalidates the ludicrous notion that Google is going to sell your script, or do anything else to monetize private content beyond the most obvious of building a profile (which is no different from Microsoft, your beloved, or Apple).
Cushman 15y ago
> These are matters of law and when it comes to a court, what is clearly written down matters more than what your assumptions are. Worth pointing out that this is almost exactly false. Courts can and routinely do modify or reject clauses or whole contracts in accordance with what the parties believed they agreed to, or simply what the court believes is fair. The idea that anything written down and signed is legally binding is pure Hollywood. Were Google to take your intellectual property without compensation, that clause (even assuming it applied) would not offer them protection.