The IPKat hasn't yet ventured from the homely comfort of his Microsoft Explorer in order to sample the untold pleasures of Chrome, the new Google-owned internet browser that has taken the world by surprise. Usually with anything to do with his computer, the Kat likes to wait till the software sorts itself out and the bugs are removed. In this case, however, it's not the software that has the bugs but the terms of the copyright licence under which users are permitted to use Chrome. According to the BBC today, Google has already rescinded one of the provisions of its user agreement. The initial agreement -- which presumably passed muster with the lawyers only two short days ago -- informed users that Google claimed rights over "any Content which you submit, post or display on or through" the browser. Yesterday Google reworded this text, kindly leaving those rights in the hands of Chrome's users. Apparently the rogue text was a bit of document that had been imperfectly recycled from another agreement; its inclusion was an "oversight".
The full text of the offending bit of the User Licence Agreement (EULA) originally demanded
"a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services."
The IPKat is soooo pleased that Google has changed its mind. If it had not, and the Kats had switched to Chrome, the entire content of this weblog would have been put at the mercy of Google for more purposes than they could twitch a whisker at. The amended version instead suggests that users "retain copyright and any other rights" that they already hold on the content they submit or display using the browser. Those with long memories, or with short ones that have not yet been wiped clean, will recall a similar controversy surrounding the EULA for Google Docs, its online word processing and spreadsheet programs. Google initially claimed similarly wide-ranging rights, but eventually reworded the agreement in response to users' concerns.
Merpel remains displeased. Presumably a lot of people agreed to the original term before Google tweaked it. If later Google should wish to cash in on its worldwide non-exclusive licence, what might happen ...?
How to download Chrome here
How to plate chrome here
How to clean chrome here
Find GoogleSucks using Google here
Who still uses Altavista?
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] Thou shalt not discriminate the Lego block over any other kind of product – GRUR speaks out on C-211/24](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWJYQUJNvYydrZcjwSHPuxd14xX3_48aBusHKBogY-Wg1BPSJSABbFFjmGiUV3aqG2npP9xYaIl1vtWK5AsqGOQPgRD2TWFLhyyc4xGm1fHDD-tt9kHcrSSgAyju2P9wSKz0VW6h7D5MD4Hxd9vREyxKYzlMRNXxxtxc3DiNsXppfVaxgSxAMV/s72-c/21742619125_7c9e53cd39_o.png)
![[Guest post] Comparison of wine and gin: the EUIPO’s unquestionable Similarity Tool](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNfTEBXiPVS0XjZi4mNE1OtXLxXiEp1PUgcUK7MMMXlfyTkO5SMXv-VCMXXNdS_F1XdMMxYca1VbBTGvvDeTVpo5x-5YwR7atQJmK3x32T8LACpf4308kht3nEtaxPwEPcGGrB0s5xjGktmQPOiVwPVLRO5JbW19qupc7xUtiVutvaWHow0OpBkA/s72-c/Picture%201.jpg)
![[Guest post] Muddying the waters of copyright – a rapid reaction to today’s IPEC decision which sees the sinking of the WaterRower’s claims for copyright protection](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7chFANC7ppmZl4_nlR6_hZEcg6cOhVEJNVXqki4p82BoVlcLFotuOXzHWYD5lKLiiK_kRoWeXmJjjaV2DpoKsAWq8U3LFioO5W_841a9gcfDIFjvZWcGqfnr0jWJNtyXptIYR_8bxCssaDkJ9KMokuSqy1g65Il7p2hPwo4MfRCEGoUPQJesvbg/s72-w400-c-h189/Screenshot%202024-11-11%20at%2018.20.45.png)
Posts
What about Firefox (possibly distantly related to the IP Kat?)?
ReplyDeleteI think - and I’m at least semi serious - that the best solution may be to never, never, under any circumstances, read an EULA. When they aren't boring, they are usually obnoxious or even worse, as in this case.
ReplyDeleteThey are likely written by recent grads who believe that their task is to be as excessive and unilateral as possible. If these things are never read, maybe the Courts will never enforce them.
I didn't bother to read the EULA when installing Chrome, and I'm not the least bit worried about Google laying any claim to the IPKat postings I have done using it. Go figure, as I think an American might put it. By the way, I think Chrome is excellent.
ReplyDelete