Complete FUD. Best article I've read on this is from The Verge. Google would be unable to create backups or thumbnails for example without these rights.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/25/2973849/google-drive-terms...
http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/25/2973849/google-drive-terms...
Jaw drop
I store at the pleasure of the King.
That's very different from what you are describing.
Edit: Read stuartmemo's The Verge article if you're interested, it's pretty insightful.
You're thinking in terms of what reasonable uses the terms apply to. The problem is what UNreasonable uses are allowed by those who consent to those terms. Publish the entire private works (at least those docs stored on Google Drive) of yesbabyyes in a collectable volume? you agreed to it...
This would be corporate suicide and Google won't do this unless they fall to the current status of the like of AOL. At which point we will all have moved on to the next shiny object.
The only way I'd believe they won't do it is if they VERY publicly state that they won't in completely unequivocal terms such that they'll be held liable if they do.
Even without that, though -- what do you think would happen if they did what you're suggesting? I think the public punishment would be worse than any legal repercussions.
And that's what it comes down to, IMO. I regret that we have to have these far reaching policies and agreements filled with legalese, but there is also the social contract.
Of course, what you say about data mining for ads is true. If you don't want to expose yourself to that, don't expose your data to Google.
It doesn't say that anywhere. The Privacy Policy covers "What information we collect and why we collect it.". In other words, the PP is about information they collect about you using the service, not stuff you upload to Drive. Think IP addresses, cookies, log-on times etc.
> Even without that, though -- what do you think would happen if they did what you're suggesting? I think the public punishment would be worse than any legal repercussions.
So your saying that TOS don't matter and we shouldn't read or analyse them because we trust Google wont do anything untoward? So we are we even having this discussion in the first place then?
I'm not so sure about that:
We collect information in two ways:
- Information you give us. [...]
- Information we get from your use of our services. [...]
[...]
We will ask for your consent before using information for a
purpose other than those that are set out in this Privacy Policy.
Of course we should. And when we've read them, we should realize that if we want to use such services, we need to assign the provider certain rights to the content. Otherwise, the services couldn't exist. I'm just saying that I think the social contract is actually stronger, so the fallout from bad behavior would be worse punishment than the slaps on the wrist the US government would give. Of course, you don't have to agree with that, it's my belief.
> So we are we even having this discussion in the first place then?
Why indeed. Perhaps because more people have read lazy analyses such as the one linked, than honest analyses such as the one by The Verge (or even, gasp, read the whole actual TOS and made their on analysis), which several people has linked to in the comments. I suggest you read it.
Edit: Formatting, more nuanced language.
Most users will only consume part of the service, why should they have to agree to 100%?
They actually don't. Google specifically enumerates the rights that you're granting them. Dropbox actually does not state specifically what rights Dropbox needs to provide the services, and as such, could claim that you're granting all of the rights that Google has granted and more. This does not include full ownership, which they explicitly deny.
They sure do. It just turns out one of these rights is that they can use your content for promotional purposes (advertising?).
Dropbox may not have such a detailed TOS, but they are clear on one thing: whatever rights you do grant them are solely for the provision of the service to you.
Realistically, Dropbox won't ever do that. But the key thing here is that Dropbox's TOS does not explicitly state exactly what rights they believe they need to operate with.
Look, I get it: the chances of Google acting on these rights are small and the PR backlash for abuse would be brutal. But this is a great example of a legal department _far_ overreaching in their corporate protection efforts.
I really want to use GDrive, but even if the odds of abuse are unimaginable, I really hate that they make me sign a contract that makes me out to be a functional idiot. "Sign away all your legal rights--it's okay because you can trust us."
Youtube.
An advertiser once, against the FB terms of service, used a user's profile picture in their advertising. The advertiser was banned from the platform. Here's a news story that might jog your memory on this: http://mashable.com/2009/07/17/facebook-dating-ads-2/
I mean "publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content", how on earth can you formulate that so broadly for a service intended to store private files??? And how after reading that can you qualify it as "Complete FUD"?
In depth analysis are interesting and everybody here understand that google is not going to be THAT evil in the short term, but the fact this _is_ formulated like that is very interesting and not fud at all.
Dropbox, on the other hand, could, theoretically decide that they want to sell your information as a part of the service, and their TOS allows it.
Also keep in mind that this is Google's unified TOS for ALL Google services and products. So it includes Youtube and Google Music, both of which require those rights in order to function.
TOSes are generally overly broad, yes. Virtually every one you've ever agreed to had language that could be interpreted in an absurdly negative manner.
Well then they shouldn't have a problem amending the TOS, right? If they know what's okay and what's going too far, they must have some idea where the line is.
"TOSes are generally overly broad, yes. Virtually every one you've ever agreed to had language that could be interpreted in an absurdly negative manner."
Dropbox's TOS seems pretty clear on the matter.
Being extremely specific in TOSes tends to lead to lots and lots of revisions as you discover unexpected cases. As a user, I'd prefer a TOS that's a little more broad instead of having to monitor it every five minutes for tweaks.
> Dropbox's TOS seems pretty clear on the matter.
Dropbox's TOS for years was similar to Drive's. I'd expect Google to eventually make the same clarifications in the TOS Dropbox did in 2011.
That said, while we're being paranoid about TOSes, Dropbox's says they can change the terms at any point, and not notify you beyond updating them on their site. They could change the terms to "we will publicly share everything you've ever put on Dropbox with your worst enemies" tomorrow, and the next time you sync you're theoretically subject to the new terms.
If Google really means it, and wants it to be clear, they could put it right into the TOS: "Google may do X, when it does so in order to provide feature Y".
"The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones."
"Store your spreadsheets! Just like Joe Blow's 2012 sales forecast! (link to preview)"
eg. Rounding up non-gingers to be put in cages above pools of lava would be allowed
As a programmer that uses Dropbox to backup all my code, I find this a little bit scary.
The way I see it, they could go through your code and use your secret sauce, in secret. Now, with these TOS, let's say they are in the clear, legally. Now weigh the punishment Dropbox would receive for breaching your copyright, vs the punishment they would receive for using their users'/customers' data immorally, for their own gain.
The bottom line is that you, as a user, have to grant such a license to Google, Flickr, etc in order for them to be able to provide the services that you want. Its a copyright issue, and I haven't seen any other good way around it in anyone else's TOS yet and I've read quite a few.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/25/2973849/google-drive-terms...
> The Verge: "Is Google Drive worse for privacy than iCloud, Skydrive, and Dropbox?"
Short answer: no.
GDrive: (GRANT ALL)..."the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones."
Services vs. Service, Promoting vs providing
will showing book drafts being created by me on Google Books is promoting/improving there service, yep. Google may not do so ever, but you have to trust them instead of being on TOS.
Care to provide backup to this claim? Privacy issues and property rights on Google services seem very real to me.