Paul Jacobson

Elliott Bledsoe has posted his thoughts about the Chrome terms of use debate (my thoughts are here) on his blog. He points out that the language in clause 11 is pretty standard practice for many services. He refers specifically to MySpace and to Facebook (which has a far more onerous license provision). I agree that this sort of this is standard practice but this is the first time I have seen terms like this in a browser terms of use. That is one of the aspects of this that is odd to me.

He also pointed out that the debate over the content license is now academic. Google announced a change in its Chrome terms of use yesterday. Google already includes a content license pretty much like the now “old” clause 11 in the Chrome terms of use in the universal Google Terms of Service (which makes more sense in that context and probably addresses my concerns about the “display” requirement). Mike Yang, Google’s Senior Product Counsel, posted the following:

So for Google Chrome, only the first sentence of Section 11 should have applied. We’re sorry we overlooked this, but we’ve fixed it now, and you can read the updated Google Chrome terms of service. If you’re into the fine print, here’s the revised text of Section 11:

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.

And that’s all. Period. End of section.

It will take a little time to propagate this change through the 40+ languages in which Google Chrome is available, and to remove the language in the download versions. But rest assured that we’re working quickly to fix this. The new terms will of course be retroactive, and will cover everyone who has downloaded Google Chrome since it was launched.

The new clause 11 is not really necessary to recognise the rights you may already hold in your content. Your rights under copyright law exist independently of the clause but it does serve to reassure anyone who may be concerned that Google is trying to usurp their rights through Chrome’s use. That being said, because Chrome interfaces with Google’s services (or is intended to) it is a good idea to take a look at Google’s other terms of use that govern those services (like the Terms of Service I linked to above and its Privacy Policy) if you use them, whether through Chrome or otherwise.

As an aside, as a lawyer I appreciate the trend on services like Google and Facebook towards making the legal stuff intelligible to non-legal people. The language of the terms on these services are still obviously legal documents but they are written in plain English. It is still something of a challenge to draft complex terms in plain English but the rewards are worth the effort. For one thing the more complex the terminology and jargon the less chance you have of actually being able to enforce the terms on a person who doesn’t have 5 years of legal training and a background in Latin. This is unfortunately a point that is lost on most South African lawyers who still can’t seem to get their heads around writing letters in plain English, let alone agreements and terms and conditions … /rant.

Technorati Tags:
chrome, content licensing, copyright, google, terms and conditions, terms of use, eula

Marshall Kirkpatrick over at ReadWriteWeb has pointed out some pretty odd terms in Google Chrome’s terms of use. The terms he refers to are the terms dealing with the content license granted to Google through using Chrome:

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. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.

11.2 You agree that this license includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations 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.

11.3 You understand that Google, in performing the required technical steps to provide the Services to our users, may (a) transmit or distribute your Content over various public networks and in various media; and (b) make such changes to your Content as are necessary to conform and adapt that Content to the technical requirements of connecting networks, devices, services or media. You agree that this license shall permit Google to take these actions.

11.4 You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the above license.

One of the key defined terms in this clause is the term “Content” which is defined as follows:

all information (such as data files, written text, computer software, music, audio files or other sounds, photographs, videos or other images) which you may have access to as part of, or through your use of, the Services

What I find odd about this clause at first glance is that this “perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license” applies to content that you display in addition to the content you submit or post. The reasons why I find this to be pretty odd are:

1. that you may be displaying content in Chrome that belongs to other people (so you don’t have the legal right to grant any sort of license in respect of that content in the first place); and
2. the content you may be viewing could be licensed under a specific license (for example a Creative Commons license that prohibits the creation of derivative works – this would conflict with the license granted to Google to “adapt” or even “modify” the content displayed in Chrome).

I can understand Google wanting to ensure that it isn’t sued (again!) for copyright infringement merely because a user uploads family photos to Picasa and takes offence that it displays in Chrome (I’m trying to think of an example of where someone might object to Chrome displaying content and regard that as copyright infringement). What I don’t understand is how Google can expect me, as a prospective user (well, when there is a version for my Mac), to license content published by someone else using the license Google specifies.

One way Google could resolve this issue is to limit the application of the license to content you own. That won’t change the fact that Chrome seems to be the only browser out of Chrome, Safari and Firefox that tries to determine how your content is licensed when using the browser. Safari’s license seems to apply to your use of Safari and the license of the software itself. I haven’t been able to locate Firefox’s license but I doubt there is something in there about licensing your content!

As I said in the the title to this post, Chrome’s terms of use are just weird.

Update: Take a look at this post on Webware too for a few extra legal gremlins.

Technorati Tags:
content licensing, google chrome, chrome, terms of use, google

NIN (aka Nine Inch Nails) has released yet another album for free download online. NIN has been doing this for sometime now. They released their album Year Zero for download using Garageband and Logic formats so fans could really get into the nuts and bolts of their tracks and remix them. They also released Ghosts I to IV in a range of options from free downloads to super duper packs with a variety of formats and options.

In May NIN did it yet again with their new album, The Slip, which was released for a free download on their site in a number of format options ranging from high quality mp3s to FLAC to WAV to M4A (Apple Lossless – the bit rate ranges between 415 kbps to 1063 kbps). There do seem to be a couple packages on the way for fans who want their NIN on CD or vinyl (or both). I downloaded the album in M4A just to see what the sound quality is like (it is excellent of course). Ordinarily I probably wouldn’t buy the album in a store if it was released in the normal way (record company … high cost … restrictive licenses … bah!). The free download makes it a no brainer for me and did I mention that the album and the PDF album art is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial ShareAlike US 3.0 license? This means you can make copies and share with friends. It also means you can remix their albums provided your remixes are licensed the same way (which means more sharing and remixing):

the slip is licensed under a creative commons attribution non-commercial share alike license.

we encourage you to
remix it
share it with your friends,
post it on your blog,
play it on your podcast,
give it to strangers,
etc.

I downloaded my copy of the album using BitTorrent (I have so few opportunities to download stuff using BitTorrent legitimately that I had to give it a go). I don’t know if it is good but my download rate was in the region of 200 kBps to 350 kbps or thereabouts (small tidbit of information) so even the 262 Mbps download went pretty quickly (under 30 minutes). I have spoken about the Ghosts release in a couple talks I have given about copyright and alternative content licensing options (I talk primarily about Creative Commons licenses) and when you consider the tremendous commercial success of the Ghosts release (over $1 619 000 in the first week of sales) which included free downloads both on the NIN website and just about everywhere else you could point a BitTorrent client, it is hard to miss the commercial potential for Creative Commons licensed releases in the music industry.

This initiative blows my hair back in a good way. It reveals the tremendous potential for success that is available to artists who are reluctant to sign their way into a very tight corner in a conventional record label. I can’t help but think that the record labels are missing a golden opportunity to try out a different distribution model and perhaps even make a bucketload of cash themselves while still giving fans what they want – freely downloadable, high quality music they can share and use to express themselves. I am a fan again, not necessarily of the music (still getting back into it after a decade or more of not listening to NIN), but of the band and what they are doing. NIN has also released a Google Earth KML file that overlays downloads on the map to represent the number of downloads:

Here is a closeup of Joburg and Durban with some data on some of the Gauteng downloads:

I am looking forward to seeing what happens when NIN releases The Slip in physical formats in July. It is really interesting that the physical downloads weren’t available at the same time as the download became available. I also noticed that with Ghosts, you could only really download 5 free tracks on the site (although the full albums were available elsewhere on the Web) and with The Slip, you can download the whole thing for free. There seems to be constant innovation and that can only be a fantastic thing for fans and the industry as a whole.

Technorati Tags:
creative commons, music, music downloads, nin, nine inch nails, the slip, ghosts

TechCrunch makes a good point in its story titled Here’s Our New Policy On A.P. stories: They’re Banned

The A.P. doesn’t get to make it’s own rule around how its content is used, if those rules are stricter than the law allows. So even thought they say they are making these new guidelines in the spirit of cooperation, it’s clear that, like the RIAA and MPAA, they are trying to claw their way to a set of legal property rights that don’t exist today. And like the RIAA and MPAA, this is done to protect a dying business model – paid content.

So here’s our new policy on A.P. stories: they don’t exist. We don’t see them, we don’t quote them, we don’t link to them. They’re banned until they abandon this new strategy, and I encourage others to do the same until they back down from these ridiculous attempts to stop the spread of information around the Internet.

(Via RSSmeme | Stories Published 24 Hours Ago With At Least 20 Shares.)

I agree with TechCrunch. This land-grabbing approach to content that is starting to become more popular with major content producers is both out of touch with the way people consume content on the Web and goes further than copyright does to protect the content to the point of being nasty about it.

Associated Press, who?

Technorati Tags:
copyright, associated press, ban, persona non grata, techcrunch

I have been using Mail.app for my email almost since I started using my Mac. The Holy Trinity (Mail, Address Book and iCal) have served me well for the most part. Lately though it seems like Mail.app has been doing some crazy voodoo shit when the moon is just right and a black cat crosses the road at a 37 degree angle.

I thought I would try Thunderbird out tonight and the inability to easily import my stuff from Mail.app and Address Book was an immediate turn-off even though the features in Thunderbird seem to put Mail.app to shame. Mail.app does a couple things really well. It integrates into the OS with other apps like Address Book and iPhoto and it puts all my inboxes (I have 3 active ones and 2 others I use occasionally) into one grand inbox for general use. I haven’t figured out how to collect all my Thunderbird mail from my 3 IMAP accounts into a single inbox. Of course using IMAP means I don’t need to worry too much about Thunderbird’s refusal to import anything from Mail.app – it is all on the server anyway even if I have to download the mail I want to work with again.

Granted I gave Thunderbird about 20 mins before closing it and deciding to stick with Mail.app (feel free to tell me I am being an impatient idiot who misses the point) and I am clear in my mind that if it wasn’t for the fact that I am using a Mac, I would be using Thunderbird for my mail and Firefox as my only browser (I have been using Firefox as my default and Safari as my backup for a week or so now) in Ubuntu. That being said, I am using a Mac and my Mac software works that much better in the scheme of things … even if Mail tends to work that voodoo shit from time to time.

Are you a Mac user? What do you use for your email? Am I being short-sighted about sticking with Mail.app?

Update: Ok, as usual I spoke too soon. Thunderbird can integrate with Address Book and this is expected to be a feature of Thunderbird 3.0 due out later this year (apparently).

Technorati Tags:
mac osx, macbook, mail.app, thunderbird, email, imap, voodoo

PayPal has announced that it will start blocking Safari and older versions of browsers like Firefox and Internet Explorer from accessing the site because these browsers don’t support Extended Validation certificates which require a more detailed verification of the certified site than normal SSL and which should therefore make the site more secure. PayPal requires that browsers accessing its site support EV certificates and unfortunately for Apple, Safari doesn’t quite cut the mustard:

PayPal’s mentioned that before: in February, Barrett said users should steer clear of Apple’s browser because it wasn’t up to snuff. ‘Apple, unfortunately, is lagging behind what they need to do to protect their customers,’ Barrett said then. ‘Safari has got nothing in terms of security support, only SSL, that’s it.’

I have updated Firefox on my MacBook to Firefox 3 beta and while it doesn’t support many of my add-ons which I used on Firefox 2, the latest version, beta 5, is pretty stable and works well. It also has a really handy indictor of when a site supports EV certificates:

Notice the green bar? That is the key indicator. Safari doesn’t support this feature yet and while I won’t pretend that I appreciate the significance of this (I thought SSL was good enough? Seems to be the case for our banks), I wonder if we will start to see more and more sites using these certificates. Certainly Standard Bank has built up a reputation locally as a pretty tech savvy and security conscious bank so I am curious whether this is an issue for Standard Bank at all?

Update: I just read in Mashable that Safari probably won’t be blocked, just older browser versions:

Au contraire. Ben Worthen of the Wall Street Journal has confirmed through a direct chat with PayPal that Safari folk need not worry about their ability to access the site.

Technorati Tags:
web, web browser, extended validation, firefox 3, paypal, security

Roy Blumenthal has just posted a series of videos to Qik covering the aftermath of a shootout between the police and a group of robbers.

The news broke on Twitter just a short time ago and there are already 4 videos on Qik just a few minutes after the events they covered. This series is shocking and really brings home how effective one person can be with a camera phone and a service like Qik in bringing these scenes to the Web.

Man, talk about dramatic footage … Good job Roy. I hope the cops do recover from their wounds.

Technorati Tags:
citizen journalism, roy blumenthal, shootout, gunshots, suburbia, qik, police