That Google would have a social network would be one thing, but having a very small idea about how Google works, I sort of figured there would be more privacy concerns for Google+ than Facebook.
Thanks to Joel, my suspicion goes justified
This part scared me the most:
11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google 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. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.
Not sure I’m with you on this one, Rod.
I’m not interested in Google+ in the first place. I don’t have a pony in this race. But I think the wrong words may be – may be — highlighted elsewhere in the post you link.
Disclaimer: I’m not a copyright specialist. This isn’t legal advice (God, help me).
My equal-amateur status in reading this language places emphasis thus:
11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google 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. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services .
First, there’s a likely redundancy in Google’s interests in publishing this copyright information. Redundancy only because of the simple feeling in the feel-good rush of getting into social media in the first place, that is, a pragmatic feeling that copyright issues will not – and cannot – be litigated against Google in any huge volume. It’s expensive for ordinary users to sue. Prohibitively expensive for Google to defend (okay, they have their fingers crossed). Yes, one good lawsuit can bite you. Over a byte. That’s one level.
Second, the copyright language (maybe learning from the Facebook lawsuit) is redundant (rights you retain, rights Google retains) again and the key phrase to me is – “sole purpose” – which courts tend to take seriously (or will as a serious limit on Google). In other words, this is a limit on Google. Google limiting Google. Google must have this kind of permission “enabling Google to display” the stuff that you put on Google – otherwise you could theoretically sue Google for the “display” of stuff that you put on Google. I’m not saying win – I’m saying sue. These kinds of permissions can be construed to be implied if not expressed when we publish or post anywhere. Yes, retain your rights. But Google needs some minimal permissions too. “Sole purpose” is really tuff stuff.
Is it the “royalty-free” language that’s bothering you, Rod?
I just don’t see any demons behind any bushes here.
The “sole purpose” language seems pretty stiff against Google.
You bloggers who’ve been at it longer than I probably have more street smarts, and so, what am I missing?
Cheers,
Jim
… Rod, failed to close the italics, sorry … Jim