To keep this site running, please visit our sponsors below
Follow us on Facebook and Twitter for more!

Friday, April 27, 2012

Suspicions over Google Drive?


Google is facing suspicion and confusion as it tries to persuade people to entrust personal documents, photos and other content to the company's new online storage service.

That became apparent shortly after Tuesday's unveiling of the Google Drive service. Before the day was over, technology blogs and Twitter users were seizing on a legal clause in the "terms of service" that could be interpreted to mean that any content stored in Google Drive automatically becomes Google Inc.'s intellectual property.

The confusion centered on a passage advising that anyone uploading or submitting content to Google Drive will grant Google "a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content."

As those words circulated on the Internet, fears about Google Drive undermining intellectual property rights mounted. Some interpreted the legalese to mean that if an author stores a novel on the service, Google suddenly owns the work and can do whatever it likes with it.

The new service's policy was troubling enough for The New York Times, the third-largest U.S. newspaper, to send out a note discouraging the roughly 1,000 newsroom employees from storing files on Google Drive until there's a better understanding of the intellectual property issues and how the service works.

As it turns out, the worries are probably unfounded.

Google says the language is actually standard legalese that gives the company the licensing rights it needs to deliver on services that users' request.

The way Google keeps documents in its data centers requires the company to obtain a license to "host, store (and) reproduce" the files. If, say, a screenwriter in China uses Google's services to collaborate on a movie script written in Mandarin with a script editor in Hollywood who only reads English, Google needs the rights for "translations, adaptations or other changes" to allow the two writers to work on the document in different languages and make revisions.

Even everyday occurrences such as someone watching a video or pulling up a text file at an Internet cafe requires Google to retain permission to "publicly perform" or "publicly display" such content.

That doesn't mean Google will take a screenwriter's work-in-progress and produce a movie from it, the company says.

"Our terms of service enable us to give you the services you want - so if you decide to share a document with someone, or open it on a different device, you can," Google said in a statement on Wednesday.

As the owner of the Internet's dominant search engine, Google has faced increasing scrutiny over the trove of data it gathers about Web surfers and the ways it uses the information to serve up ads based on people's personal tastes and hobbies.

Even discerning readers of the legal disclosures can still be flummoxed by some of the turbid language.

The uproar over Google's storage service might have died down if more attention had been paid to a straightforward statement leading up to the paragraph that set off the alarms.

"Some of our services allow you to submit content," Google says in its disclosure. "You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours."

Another fine point was largely glossed over in the fuss over Google Drive: The same terms have applied to dozens of other Google services, including Gmail, since March 1. Documents and photo are frequently sent as email attachments and stored on Gmail, yet there hadn't been any major concerns raised about that material becoming Google's intellectual property.

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Apple fights Greenpeace


Apple has responded to environmental campaign group Greenpeace’s claims that it is the 'dirtiest' of the technology giants for the second year in a row because of the way it powers its cloud-based services.

Greenpeace, in its annual report on Internet firms, said that Apple relied on coal power for services such as iCloud and the voice-controlled 'personal assistant', Siri, more than its rivals like Facebook and Google.

“Apple right now is falling behind companies like Google and Facebook, who are taking a leadership role on this issue,” The Telegraph quoted Greenpeace spokesman Dave Pomerantz, as saying.

“It’s a shame that a company that built its reputation on thinking differently is now behind the curve,” Pomerantz added.

Apple, however, responded before the report was published on Tuesday, highlighting the green credentials of its enormous billion-dollar data centre in Maiden, North Carolina, and a second it plans to build in Oregon.

Greenpeace claimed that the North Carolina facility, which opened last year to support the launch of iCloud, Apple’s suite of online backup services, would need up to 100MW in power and that renewable energy would meet for only ten per cent of demand.

Apple, however, responded that the data centre would in fact consume a peak of only 20MW, of which 60 per cent would come from renewable sources such as a 171-acre solar array it is building nearby.

Greenpeace’s report, which praised Google and Facebook for their heavy investments in renewable energy, accused Apple of being highly reluctant to disclose anything about their data centre operations.