I am with you Brian
The idea that by storing documents, videos, etc, with them i give them copyright and performance rights on the material and all derivative works including adaptions and translations is ridiculously onerous.
And my hackles always rise when people say they wouldn't use the legalities. The only response can be "well cross those terms and conditions out then."
In fact you have said enough for me to start using an alternative search engine to Google.
Which one would you recommend?
While I have found good replacements for most Google products, search is still the one I find I cannot stop using. Bing is the closest, but SO far behind. Please someone relieve us of the Google stranglehold...
Not too long ago, google was my hero. I admire their off the wall research projects like autonomous vehicles and such, but I became uncomfortable with them as soon as they started google+. A line has been crossed. That was an indication to me that they were drifting away from their roots (don't be evil) and taking the first steps to morphing into an evil empire. Now, for them to have the audacity to ask everyone to legally turn over all their data in exchange for some storage space is beyond insanity. That's like your neighbor offering to store your car for free in his garage if you give him the car! I don't think so. My data is not for sale, and I'm certainly not giving it away for free in exchange for some storage space that I don't even need. I've had experience with unacceptable terms before with credit cards. I closed the accounts so as not to continue to feed the beast. You can only ignore usage terms as long as they're reasonable and nobody tries to take advantage of them. That time has obviously now past.
If any google drive users find the terms unacceptable, may I suggest uploading a 5G file (the maximum limit) containing absolute random garbage to insure you're getting a fair exchange for conveying all your rights to google.
I always get put off by excessive hype, and excessively lemming-like behavior of consumers, resulting from that hype. It's really annoying to see people being so happy to behave like sheep.
Google has certainly benefitted from said hype. My regular search engine has been Webcrawler, for many years now.
Is it a rule of life? That most of people and therefore, institutions deviate from the original target or goal... is "don't do evil" lost?
It is perhaps the need to earn the force behind the deviation.
After all Google, as cool as it is/was, is still a company which has to profit. Of course, doesn't mean anyway they can is alright.
Mr Bailey is just too funny. He doesn't have a clue. I suggest he read the TOS from Amazon.com:
and finally the TOS from EE Times:
hint fo Brian: search for "derivative"
When I post something on EEtimes or in fact any other publication site, I do it knowing that it will be shared with other people. That is the point! Of course I will give them the right to reproduce, reuse or make derivatives from it. So long as they continue to credit me, then it is to my benefit. When I give information to Google, it is personal, private information that I have not chosen to share with anyone. They should have no rights to use it.
The key is "When I give information to Google..." Describing a service as "external storage" should not mean "giving it away". Perhaps a better analogy: a bank pays interest on your account (because they use the money while you're not using it) and charges you for a safe deposit box (because it's secured to you under their protection). They're describing this service as a safe deposit, but treating it as an account.
I do like the fact that Google seems to have attempted to put its terms and conditions into actual human readable language. But what they claim rights to is rather onerous. I can certainly imagine that their intentions are not to do anything that a user would be uncomfortable with. The problem comes in with the definition of "what a user would be comfortable with."
It can be pretty easy for a company to self-justify (either intentionally or unintentionally) a gradual slide from fair and ethical to exploitative use of personal data.
I think the T&Cs come out the way they are because of the vast array of services that Google has. Suppose you put some stuff on GDrive and give a few people access to it. Suppose some of them don't speak English. These T&Cs will allow Google to automatically offer translation for those users with no risk to Google. Of course such a translation creates a "derivative work", no? The T&Cs are needed because Google doesn't want claims that people's data was exposed to parts of Google's infrastructure that they didn't want. I see it as driven by Google's desire to make data useful for the user and protecting Google from lawsuits that might otherwise arise. Of course you can choose to see it differently, but in the CYA-land of lawyers, the words are simply going to be over-broad, especially if it is kept short enough for people to actually read. I don't see anything necessarily sinister here, but I can see where some would feel differently.
Some folks have a problem with the terms of service for Google Drive. Solution: Don't use Google Drive. To inhibit your search results by switching to an inferior search engine because you don't like the terms of service for Google Drive is silly.
I personally believe the purpose of those "derivative works" terms are to enable services like Translate and ad targeting. But since those terms do grant Google rights to use my IP, I will choose not to use Google Drive. Google, of course, will not change their direction based on my decision, nor do I view my decision as a protest. Anyway, DropBox works better!