Syn
Avid Member
I just posted in another thread about someone who uses Chrome.
I'm not sure if they changed the cTOS or not, but here goes.
http://tapthehive.com/this_post_not_made_in_chrome_google_s_eula_is_now_fixed.tth
Although the cTOS has been changed around from time to time, I still wouldn't use it.
I'm not sure if they changed the cTOS or not, but here goes.
http://tapthehive.com/this_post_not_made_in_chrome_google_s_eula_is_now_fixed.tth
Since Chrome is a Google product/software, then it is part of the "Services". The content you post to any site is thus subject to Section 11 licensing because the content you post is something "which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services".
In other words, by posting anything (via Chrome) to your blog(s), any forum, video site, myspace, itunes, or any other site that might happen to be supporting you, Google can use your work without paying you a dime. This doesn't just apply to blogger, youtube, gmail etc, and if you think it does, re-read section 1.1 and 11. It applies to everything you pass through Chrome. Google can take your submitted content and edit and reuse it all they want, as long as they do so in connection with Chrome. Even further, you're claiming that you have the power to grant these rights. So the people who work for Conde Nast (Wired, Arstechnica), TechCrunch, Gawker, any of the other big web publishers, or a university research labs probably can't agree to the Chrome ToS because these people most likely don't have the right to give a license to the intellectual property (IP) they produce.
Although the cTOS has been changed around from time to time, I still wouldn't use it.