If you read any of the fine print, how would you answer the question: Who owns the computer that I am using? And did I really buy the software? And what rights to the content on that computer have I given up? IANAL.
Scott Bourne is clearly a retard. Let's look at this clause in its entirety, not just cherry picking the sentences we don't like.
"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."
Why are people crying about this? As my highlighted bit shows, there is nothing untoward here. Google+ is not taking ownership of your photos, in the slightest.
Notice how he's closed off the comments on his "article". I might guess at this being due to many people like me, with the power to actually read, pointing out how much of a retard he is, and he doesn't like it. I might guess at that.
Let's not forget here - what is Google's actual product? What is it they sell?
It's you. They sell you, to their advertisers. Now, does it make sense for a company to do things to piss of its product, and prevent them from selling it? No. No it doesn't.
Their number one priority is "not pissing you off", not "what can we steal from you".
@eyebrows Lol, common sense doesnt exsist in this world anymore dont you know?? Google+ is amazing and I welcome it whole heartedly as ive always hated facebooks layouts and poor interfaces
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
"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."
Why are people crying about this? As my highlighted bit shows, there is nothing untoward here. Google+ is not taking ownership of your photos, in the slightest.
It's you. They sell you, to their advertisers. Now, does it make sense for a company to do things to piss of its product, and prevent them from selling it? No. No it doesn't.
Their number one priority is "not pissing you off", not "what can we steal from you".
*waves back* :P