Google launches internet browser [Merged]

[Deleted User]

Marty_J wrote: »

Terms like that have become increasingly common since the advent of "Web 2.0", though they tend to disappear when enough users complain about them. I think Bebo and Myspace used to have similar terms. Facebook still does, as does Yahoo (so by posting a photo on Flickr, you grant Yahoo the right to use it forever). I've never seen it in a browser though.

I don't imagine there's much chance such a thing would be legally binding or enforceable. Still, pretty sneaky trying it on like that.

I don't think many could stand in the way of such a large corporation and their gigantic legal department if it ever came to it.

It's quite unsettling though.

Marty_J

anewhope wrote: »

I don't think many could stand in the way of such a large corporation and their gigantic legal department if it ever came to it.

It's quite unsettling though.

It's not really a question of standing in their way, so much as the legality of such a contract.

Just as an example, I'm a musician, and if I uploaded a song or video using Google Chrome, their T&C would allow them a perpetual non-exclusive worldwide licence to use my material. However, if I were to sign a record contract, there would be problems as record contracts as almost always exclusive. So, I would be unable to sign such a contract if I had already given Google a non-exclusive licence to use it. This would be seen as an unreasonable restriction of trade, and Google's T&Cs wouldn't hold up in court.

If it were challenged in court, there would also be issue as to how binding such an agreement would be in the first place. To return to our example above, a record company wouldn't even let me sign a contract unless I had it examined and explained to me by an independent lawyer. It's too easy to get out of it by challenging it in court and saying I didn't know what I was agreeing to.

So, such practices are certainly unsettling in principle (and as I noted above, Google are not alone in implementing them), but they're not quite so worrying in practice.

It'll be interesting to see how long that particular term lasts for. Billy Bragg forced Myspace to revise their T&Cs, and now that this is in the blogosphere, hopefully it'll go the same way.

isofa

Marty_J wrote: »

It's not really a question of standing in their way, so much as the legality of such a contract.

Just as an example, I'm a musician, and if I uploaded a song or video using Google Chrome, their T&C would allow them a perpetual non-exclusive worldwide licence to use my material. However, if I were to sign a record contract, there would be problems as record contracts as almost always exclusive. So, I would be unable to sign such a contract if I had already given Google a non-exclusive licence to use it. This would be seen as an unreasonable restriction of trade, and Google's T&Cs wouldn't hold up in court.

If it were challenged in court, there would also be issue as to how binding such an agreement would be in the first place. To return to our example above, a record company wouldn't even let me sign a contract unless I had it examined and explained to me by an independent lawyer. It's too easy to get out of it by challenging it in court and saying I didn't know what I was agreeing to.

So, such practices are certainly unsettling in principle (and as I noted above, Google are not alone in implementing them), but they're not quite so worrying in practice.

It'll be interesting to see how long that particular term lasts for. Billy Bragg forced Myspace to revise their T&Cs, and now that this is in the blogosphere, hopefully it'll go the same way.

I quite agree with Marty J, it is very little to do with the "clout" of such an organisation, more to do with the true enforceable legality - and common sense of such a premise. All sorts of EULAs, licences and T+Cs would fail if challenged in a court of law. Suggesting that anything posted via the Chrome browser, becomes in effect property of Google to do anything with is totally ludicrous: art, photography, music - all would challenge this - and I doubt Google would win.

I'd currently watch the Apple vs Pystar wrangle, they are a small company taking on a giant, effectively challenging the licence of OS X, which prevents it being installed and sold with non-Apple hardware.

Marty_J

isofa wrote: »

I'd currently watch the Apple vs Pystar wrangle, they are a small company taking on a giant, effectively challenging the licence of OS X, which prevents it being installed and sold with non-Apple hardware.

You have to remember though, that Apple aren't suing for violating the EULA. They're suing them for copyright violation; Psystar modified and distributed the OS X 10.5.4 software update.

devizes18193

http://lifehacker.com/5044668/beta-browser-speed-tests-which-is-fastest

free4440273

devizes18193 wrote: »

http://lifehacker.com/5044668/beta-browser-speed-tests-which-is-fastest

nice article. FireFox:beer:

S0litaire

You guys can remove the "tinfoil hats"

Since this is a BETA, the EULA Chrome is using is their Generic "Worldwide" EULA (which is their basic "Catch-all" 'n' "Cover-my-!!!" Agreement). Once it's out of BETA it will have it's own specific EULA.

http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-chrome-license-agreement/

I've used Chrome in XP and it was fast. Got it working on Ubuntu (Linux) but it's slow as an ice age!!

Wating for a Linux one real soon!!!

esbo

anewhope wrote: »

This is using much more memory than Firefox 3.01

With 5 tabs open, Firefox is using 130MB Physical, 60MB Virtual where Chrome is using 202MB Virtual and 124MB Virtual.

My investigation shows it uses a little more memory overall, about 10%
Thats a price worth paying for being able to manage processes separately.

I like the spel check, but I left one in can u spot it?

esbo

sra wrote: »

Right-click on the blue tab bar beside the tabs. One of the options is 'Task Manager'

This tells you how much memory each tab is taking up individually

Took me ages to figure out you were talking about the windows task bar at
the bottom not the google browser tab bar, incidently, mine is green not blue. 3/10.

esbo

BexTech wrote: »

Click the Spanner and select always show bookmarks.

I don't really like that, it's a pain to have to move the mouse and then click and select, should be one button.