New Google Chrome Browser

[acidzebra]

I'm going to try one more time.

1. you publish content on the WWW, a publicly-accessible place
2. search engines index content, because indexing is what makes keyword search possible.
3. people use search engines to find content, possibly yours ('profit' or at least attention for you, something which most content publishers see as desirable)
4. keeping the search indexes up to date, storing the data, using bandwidth for user searches, all this costs money
5. ads are used to offset these cost (and possible profit for them)

While you see it as a parasitic arrangement (Google is stealing my stuff!), I see it as a mutually beneficial one - Google does send people your way, or doesn't it? You do want your content to be viewed, don't you?

I'm still trying to wrap my head around your worldview here. Then again, the "Screwed over by Tor" thread was pretty surreal to me too.

[kesey]

Taylor, this caching matter is obviously of great interest and worry to you. While tearing strips off interested parties who comment in this thread may relieve or vent some of your spleen, it will do bugger all to sort out your grievances with Google. I recommend two asprin as an intermediate solution, and a long walk +/- a law suit against Google and possibly A.N.Other for the longer term. As the wonderful Flann O'Brien once said: "Your argument is fallacious being based on licenced premises."

[Shaggy]

He already has a very simple solution that will stop the behaviour he is complaining about. He just wants to complain, rather than actually do anything about it.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Taylor514ce

Copyright exists the moment I author the work. No other action on my part is necessary. "Finders, Keepers" may work on the playground, but it's not yet been written into law.

Search engine caches are not a copyright infringement. That has already been well defined in the courts (multiple times). All of this stuff has been settled, a long time ago.

[kesey]

Shaggy, I understand that kind of behaviour can make a guy go blind.

[Patricia]

This thread seems to have developed in an interesting way. We've had some interesting reviews of Chrome, plus a discussion of whether Google's caching is breaching copyright.

Please could we keep the latter discussion courteous? It is fine to disagree with a person's point of view. Giving reasons for the disagreement is helpful. But let's express the disagreement politely and not make assumptions about the person's motivation. That is not helpful at all, and only serves to distract from the issue being debated.

Taylor, I'm genuinely curious about your opinion of The Internet Archive; particularly the Wayback feature.

[Taylor514ce]

Patricia,

Sorry, but when a dispassionate discussion of a very interesting topic is characterized as "tearing strips off of interested parties", "venting... spleen" and me "just wanting to complain", I don't see any further point in discussing it. I appreciate your intervention, and while I'm generally happy to discuss topics, I won't continue to do so just to be an object of sarcasm and poorly expressed ridicule.

[kesey]

Taylor, can you explain to me what the problem is with e.g. Google caching your website for rapid display on the web? My view on the web is that if someone puts a site up, then it is there for all to see. (If one puts a site up on an intranet, then that is a private matter). So the site is up and a search engine comes across it, (maybe caches it) and when someone does a search the engine shows a list of sites meeting the criteria searched for. The search engine displays advertising alongside the query answers. Why is this a problem, and why should it offend web users? To me, the search engine has performed a valuable service. The point in being on the web is to shine your light, not to hide it under a bushel - or so it seems to me.

If I put a site up on the web, it is like putting up a sign on open ground (commonage in some jurisdictions). It is there for all to see. I can hardly complain if someone makes a directory so that enquirers better know what I am displaying or advertising. In fact, I should be happy that someone is disseminating the information I put up for dissemination. You apparently feel otherwise, please explain why.

I appreciate if I put something up protected by the much maligned DRM or a derivation thereof, then I am saying "hands off - this is mine, pay me before you use it".

[Alexander Turcic]

Originally Posted by Enola

Point #1, I don't really like it when I don't get to control the whether&when for updating my software... kinda like automatic bill payments - I have the money, but I still want to be able to say yes before you take it. I'm going to download the software's updates (not being technically savvy enough to second guess the developers), but I'd like to keep the right to say "know what? I don't want that on my PC".

There is actually a way around it. When you run the Google Chrome installer, it downloads a file called chrome.7z (assuming you are using Windows). With some tricks, you can remove the Google Updater, and still run Google Chrome. See here for more (the post from September 03, 2008 02:59AM):

http://kmeleon.sourceforge.net/forum...?1,82936,82957

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by Enola

I'm debating on whether to install Chrome and try it out... but when I went to Cnet.com, I saw this article - Be sure to read Chrome's fine print - which is making me hesitate.

Point #1, I don't really like it when I don't get to control the whether&when for updating my software... kinda like automatic bill payments - I have the money, but I still want to be able to say yes before you take it. I'm going to download the software's updates (not being technically savvy enough to second guess the developers), but I'd like to keep the right to say "know what? I don't want that on my PC".

Also, not sure of the implications of #2 that the writer points out, but it makes me uncomfortable. While I put my stuff (pictures, writings, blog entries, etc) out in the public domain I don't like the idea of anyone having the right to use my stuff to make money, just because I used their browser instead of Firefox or IE. Am I misunderstanding point #2?

Originally Posted by dadioflex

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10030522-2.html

Just saw this on Slashdot. Concerns about the fine print in Chrome's End User agreement.

Since Chrome is open source isn't it just going to get forked anyway.

Since two posters have now referenced the same article on CNet, I thought I would chime in on it yet again.

First, Enola ... don't get having public access to something confused with "public domain." They are not the same thing. Public Domain is something that happens as a matter of law after a copyright has expired. Putting something that you created on the net does not mean that you lose you copyright in that work. Even if you license it under the creative commons ... you do not lose your copyright ... it just means that you have granted a royalty-free right to others to use your work.

And, as to point number 2 ... yes, you and the author are both misunderstanding it. I'm sure he's a great guy ... but he apparently doesn't review a lot of terms of service.

Then ... Dadioflex and Enola .... here's where the author is just plain, well, wrong.

As mentioned in my prior post, Google uses the same terms of service for all of it's products. Same thing, right down to the commas and the periods. That means that the some of the terms of service are not going to make much sense with some of the products.

If you read that portion of the terms of service carefully, you will see that they are referring to content that is "submitted" by an individual to Google. Just by having material on the internet, you are not submitting that information to anyone ... you are allowing them to view it. Big difference.

So ... what user created content is submitted to Google?? Well, fire up Google Earth ... see all those cameras sprinkled around the map? Those are images taken by users and submitted to Google for posting on Google Earth. When someone submits a photo to be placed on Google Earth, under the terms of service, they grant Google a royalty-free right to display that photo, and even use that photo in marketing Google Earth (as in "see the pretty pictures on Google Earth ... these are examples, and your ad could go right here").

If you use iGoogle, which I do as my new homepage and rss feed reader, you will see that there are tons of user created themes and gadgets that you can add to your iGoogle page. Google has a royalty-free license to use all of these themes and gadgets that, again, were submitted to Google specifically for use on iGoogle.

There are other Google products which use substantial amounts of user generated content. My guess with regard to the browser is that eventually users will start submitting skins and themes for that as well ... so even though it doesn't make all that much sense at the moment with respect to that product, it will eventually.

However, what it emphatically does NOT mean is that anything viewed on the browser is automatically licensed to Google. There is no way in flaming hell that such a provision would be legal ... not in any country under any copyright laws.

As to item number 1 ... I rather doubt that they are going to be all that sneaky about updates. Microsoft pretty much has cornered the market on sneaky ... and they've gotten their hand slapped by the courts more than once. But ... simple solution ... keep an eye on your version number, if it ever changes without your approval, then write Google a nasty gram and tell them that you are not using their browser anymore because you don't like what they did ... and then uninstall the thing. Or, better yet ... use the fix that I just noticed Alexander posted below.

But, don't not use a perfectly good browser because some guy at CNet who can't make sense out of the terms of service causes you to think you'll be giving Google rights to everything you ever created and posted to the net.

As to the caching issue, my only question would be to the person who posted that "the courts" have decided the issue. My question is simply whose courts?? Even the so called "World Court" does not have jurisdiction everywhere on the planet ... and the US Courts certainly don't. So, who exactly are you talking about? That's not stated at all snidely or sarcastically. I am honestly curious.

[jamesdmanley]

im with taylor. i dont trust someone thats in the business of collecting data to be responsible with my personal info

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by jamesdmanley

im with taylor. i dont trust someone thats in the business of collecting data to be responsible with my personal info

Well, that's nearly every company in modern day commerce ... so get ready to start not trusting a whole lot of people. Not saying you aren't right ... just that that's how it is. If you are really protective of your private information:

1. Don't register at any site anywhere. Not even a place like MR;
2. Don't make purchases anywhere online;
3. Don't apply for credit cards;
4. Don't purchase real property;
5. Don't use either a credit or debit card at the grocery store.

Yep ... even your local grocery store is collecting data on what you purchase and when ... unless you use cash.

So ... I understand your wish to keep your data private, I just wonder if you have any idea exactly how many companies are mining it for their use??

[Over]

Installed it. Blocked (crashed) in 9 of 12 websites visited. Uninstalled.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by Over

Installed it. Blocked (crashed) in 9 of 12 websites visited. Uninstalled.

Wow. Well, it hasn't crashed once for me in two days of using it ... so I'm amazed that you had that much trouble.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

As to the caching issue, my only question would be to the person who posted that "the courts" have decided the issue. My question is simply whose courts?? Even the so called "World Court" does not have jurisdiction everywhere on the planet ... and the US Courts certainly don't. So, who exactly are you talking about? That's not stated at all snidely or sarcastically. I am honestly curious.

US Courts. You're absolutely right, I should have been more specific.