|
You're right, of course, Greg.
The fact is that while the language in the EULA is troubling, if Chrome even gets 5% of the browser market, the volume of content being produced will be such that it makes endangering your control over your IP (whatever the hell that means) practically moot. It assumes, first of all, that you're producing such stunningly brilliant content that Google would want to use it.
Folks who produce content for a living should have enough of a following that anything Google took from them would have to be properly attributed (at least) to avoid a firestorm. Anyone not making cash off their content isn't likely to complain one way or the other (attributed or not) because of the whuffie value of having Google use their stuff in the first place. It isn't, after all, like Google is claiming to own your copyright.
A more interesting avenue for me, though, is wondering about code (which is probably on your mind too, Greg). If you write a piece of brilliant code and post a link to it via Chrome, does Google assume the rights to that code? Of course, if you're plaintexting or linking to code, chances are you're giving it away anyway, so does Google's use of it really matter?
So I guess this is where I'm at: the language in the EULA is troubling as an artifact in and of itself (i.e., troubling for its claims). But is it necessarily troublesome in any sort of practical way? Or is my thinking-box just too small because I Creative Commons everything?
|