The Google Chrome Copyright Conspiracy

Is Google's new Internet browser Chrome too good to be true? With its light yet powerful interface, security that rivals Firefox, and one of the Internet's largest names backing it up, many are concerned that an evil force lies behind this shiny package.

That evil force? More unwanted advertising. Google is, after all, one of the largest advertising companies on the Internet, so are we supposed to expect that their new web browser doesn't exist purely to collect user data from unsuspecting surfers?

When I opened Chrome for the first time, I expected to see ads somehow incorporated into the browser, but instead, I found a clean browser that blocked the first pop-up I ran into. That says a lot coming from a browser devised by a company who makes most of their money from advertising.

As it turns out, people should be less worried about intrusive ads, and more concerned with copyright protection.

When Chrome was first unveiled to the public on September 3^rd, thousand of eager users downloaded the software in order to be the first to test out what might be the best Internet browser to date. In doing so, they had to agree to Google's terms and services. I mean, how many people sit down to read all of that legal jargon anyway?

If they had, they would have seen a clause in their End User License Agreement, or EULA, that resembled something that could have been written by the Borg Collective.

By agreeing to Google Chrome's EULA users were granting Google, "...perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly, perform, publicly display and distribute..." anything that the user types, creates, posts, publishes or displays on or through Chrome's browser.

Um, Yikes?

Copyright lawyers began swarming around Google thanks to such an outrageous error of judgment on Google's part. I mean, Google will eventually take over the world and thumb their collective noses at Microsoft one the same day Taco Bell becomes Google Bell, but this moved seemed insane.

It's bad enough that people who make their livings online had to worry about a recent bill threatening our copyright privileges, but now Google wants to do the same thing? What were they thinking?

While Google claimed in a recent interview that they backed down due to public outcry, anyone with common sense knows they backed down to avoid an onslaught of lawsuits.

In their blog, Google sidestepped their gaffe by stating it was a necessary legal step in order to "display or transmit content," and that Gmail has a similar EULA, even though they will never use your private E-mails for their use other than using keywords within your E-mails to provide you with relevant ads.

Google remedied the situation by stating that only the first sentence in section 11 of the EULA ever really applied, and the rest was an oversight. It now reads:

"11. Content license from you
11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services."

I know that it's impossible for every end user to understand the legal reasons behind the implementation of terms of service, but you have to admit, the original EULA was pretty scary.

Call me an optimist, but I still have complete faith in Google and Chrome alike.
Google is like any other successful company who looks out for their best interests, but ever since their start in 1998, they have had their users in mind as well. Whether the original Chrome EULA was intentional or not, hopefully this experience will continue to keep them grounded. Google has a large fan following and the last thing they want to do is alienate their users and customers.