Not your drive, not your data.
From their terms of service, they deleted YOUR data. Thus the rights you'd have when anyone destroys your stuff apply. Hmmm, might even be criminal... I'm not a lawyer though, so I don't know shit.
But saying that "because they can, they can" is silly. I "can" (as in able to) break into your house and steal your shit. By that logic, if I can do it, it wasn't trespassing or theft.
They can because user's agreed to their terms of service --- and by so doing so, relinquished some of their ownership rights.
The total liability of Google, and its suppliers and distributors, for any
claims under these terms, including for any implied warranties, is limited to
the amount you paid us to use the services (or, if the subject of the claim
is the free service, to supplying you the services again).
Like I said, I'm not a lawyer, but just because there is a limit on liability, does not mean there is a limit on damages and tort.
This is exactly what Google intends it to mean. Good luck convincing a judge otherwise.
In some places, the fact there is no signed contract and no exchange took place (free tier) means there is no liability --- the user received everything they paid for.
This same thing applies here. Intellectual property has value. Google agreed to hold that value and not delete it. They stopped holding the property and smashed it. Their liability clause no longer works because they broke the contract. It doesn’t matter if money changed hands or not. Damage is damage.
I’m not a lawyer, I don’t know shit.
Scenario A: I take a photo. There is no backup. Is this my data?
Scenario B: I have multiple independent backups of a document. Google deletes the main copy off my computer against my will. Is that "not my data" because Google deleted it? Does the deletion not count because I have a backup? Third option?
They probably meant trusting a cloud provider can have consequences.
They sure can. Years ago I had a shitty landlord clear an apartment I'd moved 95% of my belongings from but before the term of my lease had ended. Now you may have some legal recourse, but the cost/time associated with litigating a matter like that tends to outweigh the remedy.
If someone can take or destroy your stuff *without* legal recourse, then you don't really "own" it'
You have even less recourse against the average burglar than the average landlord.
???
Where I live, you can literally kill the average burglar for breaking into your home. That is pretty much the ultimate recourse.
If you're not home and the police can find your burglar, you can legally press charges against him/her.
I'm talking about legal recourse after the fact. You can win both cases, at your own expense, but the burglar is much more likely to be judgement-proof.
You can't get blood out of a rock but you can incarcerate it.
But I don't want free revenge, I want my stuff/money back. An actual remedy.
As the Rolling Stones pointed out years ago (maybe before you were born), "You can't always get what you want" --- yadda, yadda, etc., etc..
It is not just about giving you what you want. The fact that *legal* retribution of some sort applies if someone takes or destroys your stuff is a defining characteristic of "ownership".
Anyway I'm still not sure what point you were originally trying to make, because defeating a landlord in court and getting paid back is at least as good of a proof of "ownership".
Both situations have big flaws in the legal recourse, but you definitely have it in both situations.
Though I prefer the one where I get compensation.
The existence of legal standing is what defines the property rights. If you're going to move the goalposts to "you don't own it unless you have legal standing and the means to pursue legal recourse", then you might as well say that only the extremely wealthy have any property rights at all.
The article didn't say anything about the free or paid GDrive accounts. If it is a free account, then that is up for debate. If it impacts the paid consumers, they paid for the service and it is their data.
What rights do the contracts that a paid customer signs with Google say they have over the data?
From what I see in the free terms of service: "You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours." which is neat.
You have the rights to your data, but there doesn't seem to be any stated obligation for Google to keep that data or make it accessible to you.
On a paid account, clearly that's part of the contracted service being provided. There is absolutely an obligation to provide the service you took payment for.
But no, in general in our society, gratis products aren't required to carry warranties, for obvious reasons (no one would provide them if so).
yeah, unless there is a statement sort of like "We reserve the right to terminate accounts in the case of violation of terms of service as determined by our automated systems"
in which case you would need to go to court and get a determination that clearly that is wrong and they can't do that, in general in American society that's how things work.