tye raises an important issue. BUT no "++" because I believe some of the conclusions (and even some of the inferences) lack rigor or cogency (in the sense of "persuasive relevance.") To address a few of those:
(mostly, less)
It looks like you have mostly invalidated your first paragraph, and rightly so.
Hardly!
(update in response to tye's update above: even limiting the objection to the second sentence seems to me debatable because...)
Were Google to construe (note the use of the subjunctive here, too) the use as illegal and pursue its position through litigation, mounting a defense -- even if the claimant's case is baseless -- could be expensive to the defendant. Did I really need to be explicit about that?
So using "illegal" ("contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law", emphasis preserved not added) is a sloppy escalation
OP used the word "legal" in the question. I don't agree that using the variant "illegal" is an escalation. In fairness, however, tye did make the point in a message, that OP did not ask
"is it legal(?)"
so this is a point upon which disagreement is more reasonable than I thought upon first reading.
If not illegal At least you didn't say that it might be "stealing" or "a crime".
No, I certainly didn't, nor did I intend to suggest either of those. Rather, I hoped that my opinion (OP specifically asks for "opinion") and words would suggest some points to explore.
In fact, I'd be very reluctant to disagree with the suggestion that "e;...against Google's policy (or 'terms of service'..." might be a preferred usage in other (or even most) circumstances...
...but (largely because IANAL) I'm also reluctant to agree with the implicit distinction between "terms of service" and an enforceable assertion of ownership rights. In January 2008, SCOTUS blessed the EULA printed on seed packets in a decision read by some experts as granting maximal credence to "shrink wrap licensing." In other words, some believe the highest court in the US at least leaned to the proposition that a seller can hold that opening the shrink wrap represents contractual agreement to license terms even though those terms can't be read without opening the package.
Your view seems to be more-or-less in accord with that of techdirt, which comments: "The real problem here is yet another artifact of bizarre intellectual property laws. .... Intellectual property laws try to make digital goods more like tangible goods, but due to the nature of those goods, it actually provides even more control -- such as when it comes to limiting what a buyer can do after they've bought the product." (yes, I see this addresses "bought" but could be generalized, I think, to "used the product").
And -- I hope this is no surprise, despite what seems to be your interpretation of my comment -- I agree. However, I submit that your advice to research Google's TOS for information about the specific practice would be better addressed to the OP, than to the author of a few cautionary viewpoints.
In reply to Re^3: using google serach ("illegal")
by ww
in thread using google serach
by vit
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |