Google I/O 2011

[bloody000]

This week, Google launched Music Beta, wants to fixed the cluster fuck that is Android fragmentation, will start selling locked-down netbooks with Chrome OS next month and asks you to store your souls on their clouds so they can get Amazon'd and Sony'd.


Fire away, comrades.

[Meomix]

PEW PEW PEW PEW [ Your copy of Linkin Park has expired, renew your lease at the GoogleMB information center ] PEW PEW PEW PEW

[rostheferret]

I use google for a lot of things besides searching. I have a blogspot account, I use chrome, I even have google reader to keep track of the few places I want to know about if there's a new post. Hell, even that Music beta sounds interesting - assuming I'm getting the idea right, gonna look at it closer now - so on many levels I'm slowly turning into a google fanboy because even though I've never laid down a penny for their products, they've all had a habit of being well designed and thought out (except Google Wave, god that sucked ass. I wish I could have seen their face when someone told them about IRC...)

The thing is, if the guys at google think there's a snowballs chance in hell I'm buying ANY product that tells me what I can and can't do with it, they're morons.

[TMRNetShark]

Only use Google for searches and email. Much beyond that, I could care less. If they start licensing of music.. well I only listen to music on the radio so that doesn't effect me either.

[AceHigh]

From what I read, that music thing made music labels shit bricks.

http://paidcontent.org/article/419-report-google-to-bypass-record-companies-launching-cloud-music-service/

If music labels hate it so much, it can't be bad for the consumers. 

[vuzedome]

Now this is something good.

[bloody000]

When you upload "shared by my friends" copyrighted music on it, you are basically telling google what kind of music you like and elevating the chance for RIAA and pals to successfully sue you.

There are no free Google services. You are handing over your information and behavior model to Google.

[Tegh]

That's the beauty behind it though.  The legal structure is still having issues that deal with the online world.  Gather all the data on a user you want, not like that's hard to do anyway, but you can't legally do shit to sue them.  There are too many ways to wiggle out of it.  Plus, I doubt Google would attempt to set up it's users by just giving out that info.  Angry customers means less customers...and they have been damn good at keeping ppl happy!

[Sosseres]

That's the beauty behind it though.  The legal structure is still having issues that deal with the online world.  Gather all the data on a user you want, not like that's hard to do anyway, but you can't legally do shit to sue them.  There are too many ways to wiggle out of it.  Plus, I doubt Google would attempt to set up it's users by just giving out that info.  Angry customers means less customers...and they have been damn good at keeping ppl happy!

If you get a large centralised database that proves ~1.5 million people with names, addresses and so on has committed a crime they can easily sue all of them and make a profit. Take for example an account on this site, it says you most likely have committed an illegal action, but it doesn't prove it, nor does it provide enough information for easy identification without the inside information not available to end users. If the site logged name, exact location, IP and everything you downloaded and uploaded then they could just use that information and a script to print and send out notices of settlement offers to people and sue the ones that don't settle at a hefty profit.

The problem with google is that they have so much information over all their databases that it is close to being possible to prove illegal actions just from a database search. Same is almost possible for services like Facebook. Once it passes that threshold there is nothing stopping mass blackmail of users for a one time large profit, there are only downsides for the companies, nothing stopping it.