This has the look of being a boo-boo...

I'd say it's a copy and paste job of the terms and conditions from an online service (hence "using this service" and they didn't proofread properly...

So the T&C are in Beta too! ;-)

This must be a clause that slipped in from some other Google licence. The use of the word Service (which gmail for example is but which Chrome is not), suggests that someone has been over-enthusiatic with their cutting and pasting from another EULA.

If the clause is intentionally there, then it still makes no sense, because as already mentioned Chrome is not a service. It's a piece of software.

You should still worry about stuff you send via gmail or upload to Facebook, but I suspect that it will transpire that this clause is either a mistake, or it is unenforcable because it is meaningless.

Whats that, 24 hours?

Quicker than i expected for it to crash and burn, and leave it to the lawyers to kill it stone dead too.

but very very naughty! Ah well, at least that simplifies my decision on whether to use Chrome or not....

NOT!

mine's the coat with the half written novel in the pock....hang on, Google nicked it!!!

...I seemed to know this was the case even before reading the article ;-)

Haven trusted google for years, but their search engine is good! Only recently, on a Reg readers advice, have I started using scroogle. Cheers to that person!

How does Google work out just what that content is except where such things have been directly posted to Google owned machines? A cynic might suggest that Chrome keeps a record and reports it back to Google....

That one has happened a *lot*.

What probably happens is:

* They need (genuinely) a licence to use the information to make the system work. For instance a blog site has to have a licence to display what the users have typed into their blogs.

* Someone gets their pet lawyers to draft the licence terms as widely as possible to make certain they are covered in every possible situation.

* But nobody checks to see whether they have drafted it too widely, so it claims far too many rights, often to a ludicrous extent.

* Although they boast of their experience in the business, none of them know that this has happened many times before with exactly the same problems and consequences.

* They publish the licence terms and are genuinely surprised that there are screams of outrage.

* They deny that there is any problem.

* After making sure by their intransigence that it is a public relations disaster they eventually back down, as little as possible, and without ever acknowledging that they cocked up.

And in this case they seem to have added:

* They copy the standard licence terms to an application where those terms make even less sense than they did in the first place.

I'm not sure a browser can be considered a "service", maybe it means Google services you access via Chrome?

Well here's one IT admin who will be banning Chrome entirely from his network, and downplaying it over-zealously to anyone who dares mention it.

Aside from that MASSIVE downside, it's not a bad browser.

The Cosmological Constant of Large Lumps of Shit will coalesce in one place, the Frisco "Bay Area", where the over-bearing obnoxious arrogant jerks like those at Google and Apple, Intel, Adobe truly believe that you're rights are theirs to step all over .... and you pay them a premium while they're at it too.

When will the masses of Kool Aid Drinkers just learn to say no to these a-holes?

why am I not surprised?

Doesn't this violate the GPL?

I assume Google are creating Webkit derivatives under the GPL licence?

I was going to install Chrome to see what all the fuss was about but I think I'll abstain now.

If Google was expecting Chrome to challenge IE, that's not a very good start...

Due to this and the carpetbombing vulnerability that it has it's been banned from our work network already - but anyway you shouldn't test beta software in a work environment really anyway

Another piece of software stealing your rights away. Wait, isn't just using windows doing that anyway?

This is taken straight from the license for google's other services, where it actually makes a bit more sense. It is a standard T&C for any web based forum/service where users upload content for public viewing. For example, sourceforge includes the exact same T&C. I expect that google's lazy lawyer folk couldn't be arsed to read/update their standard boilerplate.

Clearly, google need to make it clear that it doesn't apply to private content uploaded/posted to 3rd parties using chrome.

I find myself distancing myself more and more from google. I just find they are too interested in too much information and its not so much that I don't trust them (why would i, they are basically just another faceless company) but I worry more about what would happen if the info changed hands, say under government pressure.

Add that to this whole content thing and yeah, to much power/information at one spot. So yeah, Chrome will be given a miss.

the browser is cool, fast, nice. all the eula stuff will not stop people from using it, and the devs to start testing on it, and recomend it... it will be a very hard time for fx i think...

btw a new icon is necessary here! you know, the bad, the good and the ugly... google guy!

I'll need my extra-long barge pole for that browser then.

Do no evil? You can f* right off Google.

Unless this puppy is phoning home about everything you're doing.

Alien because E.T. likes to phone home doesn't he

...is this a surprise? Why do people think Google is spending time and money to build a web browser? Google search works fine in existing browsers. What possible use could a Googlebrowser be if this was only about peddling data they already have their hands on?

Whilst it is deplorable to have such a clause in pretty much any kind of contract, I cannot help but think that they mean services such as google docs and gmail etc instead of everything done using chrome. I know that you have to be very specific when it comes to legal contracts and this is worded very poorly if I am correct, but this won't have been entirely on purpose for everything done using the browser..

...until that clause is gone and it stops sending data back to mummy.

Google is the new evil empire.

about:plugins

ActiveX Plug-in

File name: activex-shim

ActiveX Plug-in provides a shim to support ActiveX controls

up the orifice that the sun shineth not.

Chancing fucking bastards.

Methinks they have gone TOO far this time.

I WAS going to give this a try, but having read the EULA, they can get stuffed.

Gits.

Time to 'De-Google'.

Surprised that para 11.2 isn't included in the article:

"11.2 You agree that this licence includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organisations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services."

In short, they can take your data and pimp them to the highest bidder.

Yay for Google's fair and liberal EULA...

This clause is unlikely to survive a legal challenge - it's manifestly unreasonable.

More to the point, this seems like a generic licence Google use for all their online services. The clause is unlikely to survive the first common sense review within the Googleplex, now that the problem has been pointed out.

Where's the google-with-a-halo icon (or the one with horns)?

They manage to produce a really good browser that's just what's needed - and then reinforce all the worst fears about what their intentions are with this appalling copyright grab. It'll be banished from here forthwith, and not reinstalled until they get real. Thieving gits.

I don't like Google's 'fcuk you, we OWN you' attitude.

This is unacceptable.

And it's not going on any system I have anything to do with unless Google backs down and stops trying it on.

100%

What happens to those of us who have material on the net with a CC-BY-NC-SA license?

Someone actually likes my work (well it could happen) and downloads it from *my* website using Google's *browser* making it effectively Google's property. That doesn't even begin to make sense.

Is that the orgasmic cry of a thousand lawyers I hear?

But do I have a right to theirs. I didn't think so. Therefore Chrome has become a view only browser for me. And all my tasty copyright work goes up through firefox.

Its the long one with the hat. They are watching you know