Search:  

 
 
   All ForumsHot TopicsGallery






how-to block ads


 
Forums » Google Changes Controversial Chrome TOS » Wouldn't stand anyway...
Search Topic:
Uniqs:
26
Share Topic:
RSS topic:
toggle:
flat / full
normal / watch
Post a:
Post a:
... »
« Get a grip, people  
AuthorAll Replies


GlobalMind
Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy
Premium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL

Wouldn't stand anyway...

The original TOS would have only stood up as long as it took to have someone challenge it.

There was a comment on another site that the copyright to GOOG would apply even if you didn't own the copyright yourself. That's just not possible. I can't transfer copyright to GOOG on content I don't own the copyright to.
--
TheGlobalMind.com | Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go? | Trust the instinct to the end, though you can render no reason. Ralph Waldo Emerson


Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA

said by GlobalMind See Profile :

The original TOS would have only stood up as long as it took to have someone challenge it.

There was a comment on another site that the copyright to GOOG would apply even if you didn't own the copyright yourself. That's just not possible. I can't transfer copyright to GOOG on content I don't own the copyright to.
Rats. There went my idea to use Google Chrome to submit music files, thus assigning the copyrights to Google and turning Google into a music powerhouse big enough to take on the RIAA.


RARPSL

join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY

reply to GlobalMind
said by GlobalMind See Profile :

There was a comment on another site that the copyright to GOOG would apply even if you didn't own the copyright yourself. That's just not possible. I can't transfer copyright to GOOG on content I don't own the copyright to.
If you reread the original terms, you are not transferring your copyright to Google but only giving them the right to do with it what they want (ie: A use license). This still, as you point out, does not cover those cases where you so not own the original copyright (although in that case, the original copyright owner has probably given you a license and thus probably includes the passing of the license terms to a 3rd party (but no more than you have been granted - ie: If it is a limited use license, so is what you pass on to Google).
-
Forums » Google Changes Controversial Chrome TOS... »
« Get a grip, people  


Friday, 27-Nov 01:51:12 Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo | feedback | contact
over 10 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com.
page compression OFF
Most commented news this week
· [112] Time Warner Cable Fires Broadside At Broadcasters
· [109] New AT&T Ad Campaign Hits Back At Verizon
· [95] Apple Joins AT&T Verizon Snark Fest
· [87] New Bill Takes Aim At Higher Verizon ETFs
· [70] TiVo Sees Record Customer Losses
· [62] In-Flight Internet Headed For Bumpy Landing?
· [56] Thanksgiving Open Thread
· [38] ICANN Slams DNS Redirection
· [36] Senators Want ACTA Made Public
· [35] EFF Wages War On Fine Print
Most people now reading
· Newegg Black Friday Sale started [Users Find Hot Deals]
· 3.x Feral Druid - Bear Tanking Guide [World of Warcraft]
· Bell Response to PIPEDA Request [TekSavvy]
· Whats the big deal about being "Old School"....? [World of Warcraft]
· HOW-TO: QoS and Tomato (fixes "choppy voice") [MagicJack]
· Nvidia Forceware for Windows XP\2000\03 195.62 [Software]
· ToC 4th boss - Preliminary Strategy for Twin Valkyr [World of Warcraft]
· 1333mW AP?! Everything we know says it shouldnt exist.... [Wireless Service Providers]
· [ PVP] 3.2 DK PvP D/W Spec... [World of Warcraft]
· Not strictly "Home" related - but WOW anyways... [Home Repair & Improvement]