I'm not exactly OK when they say they can "reproduce, modify, create derivative works (...), publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content."
Also, I wouldn't call my resume a "critical file". The source of the work I create (e.g. software), is a "critical file" if they can just use it however they want.
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+).
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?
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).
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.
I am _not_ a software designer. Nor do I create any sort of content that people wish to pay me for. I work as a gas station attendant right now, and have no creative endeavors lined up.
I also said I would reconsider this agreement when I make more money. But the value I receive far exceeds what value Google makes on me.
Also, for someone who is looking for work, and is aggressively looking, a resume IS is critical file.
Although, I would like to see an investigation of free services of this nature indeed helps people on their feet. I'm not sure if poor people realize what can be done to alleviate problems. (note: not saying we poor are stupid, but instead just not aware of choices)