data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/47c78/47c789e4d204516e86922537035c7a73bc74d8a4" alt=""
and awaaaaaay we go!!
this is a compendium of links and other stuff that i usually send out to my friends by email. i may say something relatively interesting once in a while as well, but don't worry
I know April 20 is Hitler's birthday, along with the anniversary of the
shootings at Columbine High School and I'm sure it's a day of
remembrance
for many things. The 420 remark was in a quote. I didn't say it, the
sergeant did. Why don't you e-mail him?
Hey Zack --And then, my email back to him. as i say in the email, i feel like most of his arguements are pretty relative. but he is misreading something, and thats whats important. to me at least.
Thanks for your feedback. I certainly may be misreading the TOS -- I'm
not a lawyer by any stretch of the imagination -- but I do think I have
some legitimate concerns with the TOS. I've sent a
letter to Google
asking the questions I have directly (also posted at
http://jacobian.org/recipes/archives/2005/04/14/open-letter-to-
google/), and I think that clarifies most of my objections.
I don't really have any problems with the searching,
indexing, or in
any way using my content in aggregate, but their TOS
allow them to, for
example, splice their own commercials into your video.
Now, if I've
made a movie then has some really killer pacing, I'm
not going to be
very happy with a 30 second ad for mouthwash halfway
through the
pivotal scene.
Ads being shown *along side* the content are par for
the course these days, but the TOS is vague about
exactly what types of advertising will be used.
There's a similar amount of vagueness in the clauses
about revenue sharing and bandwidth. You're right that it's perfectly reasonable for
them to try to defray their costs, but there's no indication about what
constitutes "exceptional" bandwidth consumption, or how much they'd
charge. If I upload a video that gets slashdotted, for example, Google
is allowed to bill me -- but nowhere do they indicate what they're
allowed to charge. If my video is popular, I could end up with a bill
for *any amount* that I would be obligated to pay *just because I
agreed with the TOS!*
Do you really not see the problem with that?
As for the reverse engineering clause: first off, it's may be illegal
-- see, for example, "The Law & Economics of Reverse Engineering" at
http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~scotch/re.pdf. Secondly, I'm not
sure of your level of technical expertise, but as a programmer myself
let me assure you that the only way for someone outside of Google to
create a third-party version of the uploader will be to reverse
engineer the program or protocol. I'm one of those weirdoes who
doesn't have a Windows machine, so even if I figure out how to write my
own version of the uploader (hint: it's not a very difficult task), I
could get sued if I use said program, and probably would if I
distributed it.
As for "spamming wont be stopped by being pissy about what site does
what with the info" -- you're completely right, but I'm not going to
voluntarily give my information to a company that explicitly states it
won't protect my privacy. You're also right that Google's usually
pretty good about this sort of thing; the Google Video TOS is really
the first departure from very strict privacy policies. That's why it's
important.
Again, thanks for your feedback,
Jacob
that's astute??to which she answers...
>
> his criticism clearly is reflective of his mis-reading
> the ToS.
>
> "In other words, “we can do anything we want with your
> content.”"
> - well, no shit. these are things they need to be
> able to do in order for it to be searchable. for them
> to allow and uploads and not have it be available
> would be pretty useless.
>
> "In other words, “we can make money from advertising
> your content.”"
> - has this astute blogger ever used google before?
> when you search for content, ads are shown based on
> that content...and that content obviously belongs to
> someone somewhere. this is nothing new.
>
> "In other words, “If you create your own version of a
> video upload that runs on Linux or Mac, we’ll sue
> you.”"
> - the idea that a new piece of software for a
> specific pupose can only be created through
> reverse-engineering seems pretty rigid to me.maybe
> not.
>
> "In other words, “you get 70% of revenues, unless we
> decide it cost us too much, then you get less. By the
> way, we decide what ‘too much’, and ‘less’ means. Oh,
> and if your free video is popular, we’ll bill you for
> the bandwidth.”"
> - what's so shocking about this? they'll host your
> video, and pay you for it. if your video is so great
> and popular that it takes up extraordinary amounts of
> bandwidth, the money has to come from somewhere. they
> arent charging you, rather they reserve the right to
> charge a fee to VIEWERS of the video, in the even you
> havent set a fee on your own. seems pretty fair to me.
>
> as for selling your name to spammers...while i won't
> say that no spammer will ever get your info from
> google, this paragraph says pretty specifically what
> they mean to do. in order to approve the video, etc.
> truth is, spamming wont be stopped by being pissy
> about what site does what with the info. especially a
> company like google, who does tend to be good with
> privacy issues.
>
> anyway, this is my rant.
>
> and now i'm off to have coffee.
>
> thanks
>
> zack
Zack -so i sent it off to jacob.
I really like your rants. Seriously - I'd call you astute as well. :)
Did you send this to Jacob?
Either way, thanks - as always - for the feedback (and keeping me on my
toes!),
Gina