, on Amazon.com’s MP3 store. No DRM, just plain, high quality MP3 files.
In a BS post about Google’s TOS for Google Docs, the founder of Writely, the company acquired by Google for web-based office applications responded in the comments. Part of his response:
To be clear, Google will not use your documents beyond the scope that you and you alone control. Your fantasy football spreadsheets are not going to end up shared with the world unless you want them to be.
Maybe he was reading FatMixx?
And, on the subject of the silly post by Joshua Greenbaum, it sure seems like he’s just making a random controversy up to get traffic. Seriously, Greenbaum omits the key phrase “intended to be available to the members of the public” to fabricate a TOS controversy that Google is trying to own your documents. You know you’ve hit on a serious topic when the longest arguments in the comments thread talks about the proper way to parse the statement according to proper rules of grammar. What is the meaning of “is” anyway?
August 31st, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Too funny defines your inability to parse complex English sentences or understand complex arguments involving grammar. I didn’t omit any key phrase, I just took the time to read the whole document and understand the full context. You didn’t, and therefore missed the point. But you got to diss a serious argument and in the process hopefully got drove a little extra traffic your way too. Fair enough.
August 31st, 2007 at 2:14 pm
For a guy that writes for a major news site, you’re very sensitive to criticism.
For the record, I did read the terms of service, read all the comments in the talkback at the time, and came to my own conclusion. It differs from yours. I’m sorry you find that offensive.
August 31st, 2007 at 2:22 pm
For someone who doesn’t mind using terms like silly and funny, you seem a little touchy when you get called on the silliness of your own comments. Bear in mind that you accused me of “fabricating” an issue, and then omitted any form of intelligent analysis of why you disagree. Instead you went for the ad hominem attack. So, for the record, I am not offended by the differing opinion, just the fact that you failed to back up your insult with any reasonable countervailing analysis of your own.
August 31st, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Yeesh, get a sense of humor. I thought the little smiley would be a hint.
OK, serious, debating mode on. [furrows brow]
A) my post was written in a humorous tone, and the “too funny” was aimed at the mention of fantasy football and my previous post on that subject. The use of “silly post” was a continuation of the tone. As I said, learn to laugh. It’s healthy. (< --- that was aimed as levity, not derision, too, in case you missed it)
B) You assume your post is worthy of “countervailing analysis” more thorough than, “He left out the public clause.” Which is seriously where your entire point falls apart. No more analysis is necessary.
Why? Because you’re hinging your opinion, and implying bad behavior on the part of Google, I might add, based on whether the clauses are intentionally out of order or not. I’m not sure how you divine the intent, but your reading isn’t the plain language reading I get. In other words, if the clause “on or through Google services” was removed or moved to be after the word public, your entire point dissolves.
Your grammatical point (They used “are”, see, they’re EVIL!) seems like a reach, as well, considering that the clause order and tense error is a common grammatical choice/mistake, thus my plain reading was different than yours.
We could end this debate, of course, by getting comment from Google. And, you would rescue your point by simply calling for Google to reorder the clauses so the intent is clearer. After all, you work for an online news magazine. The name ZDNet must mean something to their PR folks.
Here’s the entire section you are taking issue with in its entirety without your selective quotation:
Personally, I’d be more worried about the second half of that paragraph, but I’m not a lawyer. Which is something else (asking a lawyer) you could’ve done, as some of your commenters did. Instead, you assert that 1 smart lawyer > 100 people or something, which I guess in your world is substantive analaysis. Or whether they meant is instead of are.
Come on…
(PS. Would the IP lawyers in the house like to comment?)
(update: minor edit to clarify the last paragraph)
August 31st, 2007 at 3:48 pm
PS. Looks like someone at CNET, who is claims to be a lawyer commented: http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9768298-7.html
His debate hinges on what the definition of public is, which he clarifies in the comments of the link below. So, let’s call for clarification instead of calling Google evil…
I’m hardly alone in my analysis: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/google_adapts_and_modifies_content.php
August 31st, 2007 at 4:39 pm
That was so much more interesting, thanks for dignifying the exchange with a well-thought out argument.
I have trouble thinking that the roomful of lawyers that Google employs would let sloppy grammar get by, but assuming they did, then we have to worry about what other parts of the business are so poorly run: ie if you’re a corporate security officer, maybe this is signal that in other parts of the business, Google hasn’t paid attention to the details. Either way, I’m not sure this is where I want my corporate data stored.
As for a sense of humor, it’s there, just a little hard to reach for in the absence of anything funny.
Finally: I don’t work for a major news service, I’m a blogger like you, with as much clout at Google as you. So you go first
August 31st, 2007 at 6:06 pm
Wow, that’s a sweeping conclusion on the back on one example and an assumption about their legal department.
As for you being just a blogger, does that mean you have no professional relationship with ZDNet?
September 4th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
That sweeping conclusion is based on 20+ as a business consultant/analyst: companies, organizations, and individuals tend to be creatures of habit, and those kinds of “mistakes” are more often than not indicative of other mistakes. And, this is no small matter: even leaving open the question of who has rights to the content is a huge mistake for a company with pretensions to being a supplier of enterprise-class software.
With respect to Google, check out my fellow ZDNet blogger Dennis Howlett’s blog on other Google problems. http://blogs.zdnet.com/Howlett/?p=141. They’re a pretty sloppy organization overall.
Finally, of course I have a “professional relationship” with ZDNet. Just don’t think that a lowly blogger such as myself has any ability to get ZDNet to pull strings against a company like Google on my behalf.