Michelin Guides forgets to renew domain name, becomes "Michel in Guides" - <AUTHOR> http://eater.com/archives/2013/02/07/website-of-the-day-michel-in-guides.php

<comment><USER2> I got my full name in .co.uk from a similar mishap (there's a large car dealership in the UK called Peter Cooper, curiously). Bizarrely they never came after me or even got in touch and bought a new domain instead, though it'd have been a harder case to fight given it's my actual name.

<comment><USER3> I always just assumed you split your time between writing and running a Volkswagen dealership in Southampton.

<http://www.petercoopergroup.co.uk/>

<comment><USER2> Are you aware that I also own an entire village in NYC? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuyvesant_Town%E2%80%94Peter_C...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuyvesant_Town%E2%80%94Peter_Cooper_Village)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> In the Archive WaybackMachine (<http://web.archive.org/web/*/michelinguides.com> ) most of the previous captures look like parked domains, except one (Feb 2012) that is in Chinese and the autotranslation say that it is some kind of "micro bloging site". (Whatever that means, I still don't understand it.)

So this domain probably was never an official site of Michelin as reported in the article.

(Official site: <http://www.michelintravel.com/> )

</comment><comment><USER5> I believe companies usually claim back 'stolen' domains with trademark claims. I wonder if the his claim that it's "Michel in Guides" will do anything to hold this claim at bay.

<comment><USER6> Not always, and not quickly. See <http://nissan.com/> for an example that's been dragging on for around 10 years or so. He's not squatting on nissan.com per se, but in my opinion is fairly close to it. It's a David vs. Goliath situation that's for sure, I'm amazed he's managed to keep the domain.

<comment><USER7> > He's not squatting on nissan.com per se, but in my opinion is fairly close > to it

That doesn't make sense.

Sounds like you, and several other people, think that anyone who is under- utilising a domain is automatically "squatting." That the biggest user of a property is entitled to it...

He runs a business, the business is called "Nissan Computer(s)." That to me is the furthest thing from squatting...

<comment><USER6> I disagree & believe it does.

Where is he advertising the business on that web site? I see it mentioned in the header but that's not even a link. Instead he's running adds for insurance on it.

In my mind it comes down to what visitors of the website expect to see. I believe that the only possible expectation for someone visiting nissan.com is to see Nissan Motors. (At least in North America, I'm aware that Nissan is a popular name etc)

I'm not saying that he's even a bad guy here. If I was in his shoes I'm sure I'd feel exactly the same, he had the name first, even before Nissan Motors existed. But, times change. Leaving aside the legal questions, I believe that there would be less confusion caused if nissan.com pointed to Nissan Motors, therefore it would be _in this case_ a social good thing to have it be so.

<comment><USER8> That's a personal opinion (and you're entitled to it) but the fact is he has a legitimate claim to the name and that's all he needs. If Nissan Motors wants it badly enough, they will convince him with money.

Until then, I (and the law) fully support his right to the domain.

<comment><USER6> I agree it's not a legal issue. The law is pretty firmly on his side, as it should be. I believe that things of this nature are too fuzzy to be encoded in law, it's more of a "I know it when I see it" type of thing that reasonable people can have differing opinions on.

However, a really stupid part of domain law is that Nissan Motor's can't convince him with money. If he had offered to sell to Nissan Motors or attempted to negotiate a price in response to an offer by them, that could be considered evidence of squatting and he could have lost the domain in court. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticybersquatting_Consumer_Pro...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticybersquatting_Consumer_Protection_Act)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> They made a stupid mistake, they should not be allowed to get it back.

<comment><USER10> That's maybe going too far. Clearly this is a prank. The current owner has the right (abstractly -- honestly I have no idea how this works in French law) to express their opinion as parody, and Michelin shouldn't be able to use the trademark as a cudgel to suppress that.

That said, the proper remedy here is for them to buy back the domain name at a fair market price (whatever that may be, again I have no idea). The owner shouldn't be able to "ransom" the name for an unfair price, either.

<comment><USER11> Why not? It was their mistake, they forgot to renew a domain (something even I keep on top of). The guy bought it legally and is now hosting his own website.

I don't see how the company would have any right to get that domain back if the guy doesn't want to sell it. Then again, IANAL.

<comment><USER12> That's not how trademark law works, and in this case, for good reason <http://www.chillingeffects.org/domain/faq.cgi#QID245>

Fucking with a guy who thought MikeRoweSoft was funny? Probably not cool. Losing out on MichelinGuides for a dude who set up a prank? Eh, I'm siding with Michelin in this case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Reminds me of <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_vs._MikeRoweSoft>

</comment><comment><USER14> A company I used to work for had many clients (over 6000) and many would forget to re-register their domains. About one or two out of these clients a year would have the misfortune of a squatter swooping in and trying to extort them.

One client even had the misfortune of their domain redirected to a porn site when cash demands weren't met.

</comment><comment><USER15> Genius.

Moral of the story: Auto renew FTW.

</comment><comment><USER16> How does that even happen? My domains get renewed automatically.

<comment><USER17> There was a story on here the other day which basically revolved around people removing their credit card details immediately after purchasing domains, to prevent auto-renewals - they managed to mishandle removing their details, and deleted the domain involved.

Some people are odd!

<comment><USER7> You're mis-remembering that story.

GoDaddy (their registrar) charges more for auto-renew than for manual renew. So people wishing to save money disable auto-renew for that registrar.

GoDaddy's interface is really bad, and somehow when you remove your CC information it also asks you if you want to remove the domains entirely too (default: yes).

People click through without paying attention (thinking "it is just my payment info, what can go wrong?!") and BOOM their domains are gone.

Naturally GoDaddy charges a fee to restore the domains...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Oops indeed!

</comment><comment><USER19> This reminds me of a guy in a game, his nickname was "Penisland". Pen Island.</comment>


Monster Buys HotJobs From Yahoo For $225 Million - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2010/02/03/yahoo-hotjobs-monster-225-million/

<comment><AUTHOR> Monster originally tried to buy HotJobs for $350 million, was outbid by Yahoo who wound up paying $436 million in 2002.</comment>


Ask HN: Anyone know of a map of dev events? - <AUTHOR>

Does anyone know of a map of dev events, or a list of them where I can search for events geographically? <comment><USER2> Definition of dev events - Formal conference or any meetup counts? I believe meetup.com has API.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm interested in knowing where I can go hack some code with or without other people (be it a conference, informal meetup, hackathon or codejam). Will checkout the Meetup API. THX! Also, do you have suggestions on where to start pulling information from?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Someone should build this if it doesn't already exist.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've been looking around and can't find anything that matches this description...yet. Google Dev used to have a map showing where events would be hosted, but they have since removed the map [https://developers.google.com/events/](https://developers.google.com/events/) which I think was a huge mistake from an interface design POV.

UPDATE: just found the map of Google Dev events [http://devfest.gdg.events/](http://devfest.gdg.events/)</comment></comment>


Show HN: GIFsonic – on-the-fly image processing for animated GIFs - <AUTHOR> https://www.gifsonic.com/?ref=hn1 <comment><AUTHOR> Hello everyone!

I've been building this for a while and just opened it to signups a hour ago.

It's an image proxy that does on-the-fly image processing for animated GIFs (like this: [https://i.gifsonic.com/example/?src=https://media.giphy.com/...](https://i.gifsonic.com/example/?src=https://media.giphy.com/media/12MhwQm8toOEp2/giphy.gif&background_color=DAF7A6), [https://i.gifsonic.com/example/?src=https://media.giphy.com/...](https://i.gifsonic.com/example/?src=https://media.giphy.com/media/12MhwQm8toOEp2/giphy.gif&background_color=339955), and [https://i.gifsonic.com/example/?src=https://media.giphy.com/...](https://i.gifsonic.com/example/?src=https://media.giphy.com/media/12MhwQm8toOEp2/giphy.gif&background_color=ff6600&text=Hello,%20Hacker%20News!!!)).

Here are docs with examples:

• [https://www.gifsonic.com/docs/](https://www.gifsonic.com/docs/)

• [https://www.gifsonic.com/docs/example/?t=width](https://www.gifsonic.com/docs/example/?t=width)

• [https://www.gifsonic.com/docs/example/?t=height](https://www.gifsonic.com/docs/example/?t=height)

• [https://www.gifsonic.com/docs/example/?t=reverse](https://www.gifsonic.com/docs/example/?t=reverse)

• [https://www.gifsonic.com/docs/example/?t=background_color](https://www.gifsonic.com/docs/example/?t=background_color)

• [https://www.gifsonic.com/docs/example/?t=meme_top_text](https://www.gifsonic.com/docs/example/?t=meme_top_text) (my favorite)

• etc. etc.

What do you guys think about the project? I would really love some feedback.

:-)</comment>


Google Has a Plan to Disrupt the College Degree - <AUTHOR> https://www.inc.com/justin-bariso/google-plan-disrupt-college-degree-university-higher-education-certificate-project-management-data-analyst.html <comment><USER2> I think short-term vocational training is great. The days of getting a degree in order to get a job should be over. And if programs like this succeed, hopefully the pricing on degrees will correct.

But that doesn't mean degrees are getting disrupted - it means people are recognizing that their purpose is orthogonal to getting a job. Anyone who still wants a T-shaped higher education still will get value from a degree.

<comment><USER3> There's a lot they won't get from a six-month program, like writing and other soft skills. (Not that a lot of four-year degrees really end up doing a good job of teaching those, either.)

I'm very interested in Signum University's program to focus specifically on these[1], at a cost higher than a MOOC since it involves a lot of interaction with a human being, but still much lower than a four year degree. Between the two it might just be possible to actually get T-shaped education without the distressingly high cost of a traditional diploma.

Then we just need to get people to actually hire them, instead of taking the easy path of requiring a four-year degree as a proxy for education.

[1] [https://path.signumuniversity.org/badges/](https://path.signumuniversity.org/badges/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I'm a big fan of ending the requirement for four-year degrees to get entry- level jobs, though I'm a bit surprised at the ones they've chosen: project manager, data analyst, and UX designer. IT support makes a lot of sense, since it's a fairly well-defined set of tasks, but the others strike me as wider in scope and thus harder to teach in six months.

If they're really making good on their goal of hiring these people, at decent salaries, with the idea of starting in apprentice-style positions and learning on the job, then that would be fantastic. The experience needed to do those jobs isn't really well served by more years of book-learning anyway.</comment>


How Harvey Karp Turned Baby Sleep into Big Business - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/18/magazine/harvey-karp-baby-mogul.html <comment><USER2> Every kid is different. Our first, we tried everything to help with sleep. Karp's Methods, etc. In the end, "Healthy Sleep Habits" was the most important book for us.

With our second, she slept, er, like a baby from day one. At eighteen months she'd say, "night night", and walk to her bedroom.

There's a lot of learning on the job, which surely played into our first child's sleep issues. Having an extended family nearby seems like it could help immensely.

Biggest things for us were learning to anticipate when the baby would be getting tired and wind down before she became overtired. That and a much earlier bedtime than most people seem to do (4:30 - 6:30 depending on naps and wake up time).

<comment><USER3> You nailed it. Every kid is different, and overtired = not going to sleep. Rituals and good scheduling are where it is at + stupid dumb luck.

Our first, we didn't sleep for like 16 months. It was horrific.

Our second has been great (with a few stretches of waking up (to be expected)). Last week he crawled up the stairs and said "i go sleep" and asked to be put in his crib and laid down and went to sleep immediately. I was just sort of shocked ....

<comment><USER4> Any tips? We have a 10 month old boy, and everything we've tried thus far has failed; has to be rocked, hummed and boobed to sleep every time.

<comment><USER3> Dumb luck.... ritual (do the same things before bed like bath, read books, sing same songs, at the same times etc)...

Also take a shot at getting them to bed earlier as maybe he's overtired (overtired baby = not gonna sleep).

But everyone's mileage varies as there is no magic solution.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Cognitive scientist and first time dad with a 2 month old daughter here.

'Electronically' created white noise is indeed extremely effective to calm down a fussy or crying infant. It also often works instantly, making it certainly a welcome and powerful tool in the arsenal of the sleep deprived parent.

That said, I found its instant effectiveness to be somewhat concerning, as it almost seems to flip a 'brain switch' in your baby - quite different from the longer and more laborious procedure of shushing it to sleep the old fashioned way (which likely works on the same principle, but involves lower volume, more frequency variation and, last but not least, actual parent-infant interaction). Bit of a no free lunch situation.

Driven by concerned temptation, I did some digging, but ultimately couldn't find any large scale studies on the safety of exposure to white noise in human infants - there is one study in the rat model though that suggest delayed auditory cortex development in baby rats that were exposed to white noise _24 /7._ ([http://www.hhmi.org/news/white-noise-delays-auditory- organiz...](http://www.hhmi.org/news/white-noise-delays-auditory-organization- brain)) - which btw is exactly what sensorimotor contigency theory would predict. ([http://nivea.psycho.univ- paris5.fr/Synthese/MyinFinal.html](http://nivea.psycho.univ- paris5.fr/Synthese/MyinFinal.html))

While I don't think the majority of SNOO users will operate the device this way, I would imagine the effectiveness and convenience of the device may mean that there are quite a few babies who will spend a lot of time in the SNOO, approaching long term exposure to white noise.

I am not suggesting that this will cause long term problems to the infant's auditory development as is the case in the animal model, but it is something to be mindful of.

<comment><USER6> The problem with advice like this, which could be summed as "don't use the snoo" or "avoid white noise" is the null hypothesis is worse than the mild application of your advice. The result is parents are over tired all the time and are worse parents at all other times.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I am no pediatric expert, but the SNOO has a pretty terrible flaw: It sensory deprives the baby.

Sure, it provides reactive swaddling and white noise, which is helpful, but it eliminates a few important stimuli for potentially most of the day.

They encourage this to be used for nighttime, but a lot of reviews I have read talk about it's daytime use too. Too much time in this thing isn't good for the baby.

1\. It discourages human interaction. If the baby cries, the machine swaddles it. If the baby is awake and idle, the machine will keep it content.

2\. It blocks out view of the world. The mesh sides are dense and rise up high enough that a person unfamiliar with the device might be surprised to find a baby lying within. From the baby's POV, all they see is mesh walls, the ceiling, and whatever faces appear above them.

Honestly, replacing those tight mesh sides with something easier to see through would make a huge difference for the quality of this product. Also daytime timers forcing parents away from using it as a day nurse as well as a night nurse.

I think one of the most unfortunate parts about parenting is that you don't want to give a baby the amount of attention it requests, but that babies really do need that level of human attention in their most formative years.

<comment><USER8> > It sensory deprives the baby.

Infants can't even significantly move their necks, let alone see color for several months. Once they can roll over competently without the risk of SIDS, that's when you move them from the bassinet to a crib. The whole point of the bassinet is to prevent them from moving around.

When people are using this during the day, it's usually just so they can take a quick shower or something without worrying about the baby. Having a mobile over the bassinet should be more than enough sensory stimulation for the 20 min or whatever.

<comment><USER9> Infants can see contrast. Including color contrast. Interpreting color is the bit they don't really have.

There is an interesting digression to be had about amblyopia and the difference between optic nerve presence and use here if you are into talking about it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> My friends used a SNOO from the beginning with their child and it has worked wonders. Multiple other friends who are parents don't believe the results they're getting out of it, because it sounds too good to be true.

This sounds like an advertisement but it's not. I just plan on using it someday because of the great success my friends have had.

<comment><USER11> Keep in mind, that babies come in lots of varieties. Some babies sleep really really well, others don't. Now some of this can probably be attributed to the babies' surroundings and what the parents do, but also, babies handled the very same way may react totally differently. So this may have worked for your friends, it may work for you, or it may not. Just don't freak out because the magic bullet method doesn't work for your kid.

<comment><USER12> Indeed, something I've learned from having kids is: Nothing prepares you for having a kid, including having a kid.

<comment><USER13> This. Have 4. Each time was completely different. Our first was by far the worst, it actually amazes me we ever had more—guess our reduced retention of memory from sleep deprivation was advantageous?

<comment><USER14> It's almost as if we've evolved to forget just how brutal raising infants can be...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> [https://www.theguardian.com/news/audio/2018/feb/02/the- diabo...](https://www.theguardian.com/news/audio/2018/feb/02/the-diabolical- genius-of-the-baby-advice-industry-podcast)

> The diabolical genius of the baby advice industry

>Every baffled new parent goes searching for answers in baby manuals. But what they really offer is the reassuring fantasy that life's most difficult questions have one right answer

</comment><comment><USER16> A friend told me about the Snoo when we had our first and it was AMAZING. Put him right to sleep, and helped keep him asleep. My wife was able to get a full nights sleep for the first 6 months because of it.

<comment><USER17> Can you elaborate? Night-weaning often takes more than six months (read: someone is not getting a full night's sleep during that time frame).

Even SNOO's own marketing material suggests waking your baby to feed in the middle of the night.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> So from what I understand, the US doesn't have a swaddling tradition? I thought that was common knowledge.

<comment><USER19> We do now, thanks to Harvey.

<comment><USER20> Happiest Baby on the Block was the one and only parenting class my wife and I ever took, and I'm glad we did - felt like we had cheat codes when our daughter got fussy as a baby (she slept through the night within a month too, we actually had to wake her for overnight feedings).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I've got a Snoo on order, if it works it's worth every penny.

</comment><comment><USER22> Hmm, now I am super tempted to get one but $1k+ is steep. Has anyone bought any of the other stuff in the store (like the class and bed sheets)?

<comment><USER23> It is frequently on sale for 600. It is on Facebook area sales as well. We only bought it because we think we can sell it for pretty close to purchase price

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Is this a paid advert? the article has more adjectives and unbased grandeur i care to count. Almost look like a Wired puff piece.

</comment><comment><USER25> If there's any gene out there that causes babies to sleep through the night, it's probably under _enormous_ selection pressure. Parents carrying that gene would have twice as many kids.

<comment><USER11> having a baby, especially one younger than 6-8 months, is an extraordinarily exhausting time of a parents life. I don't think that the fatigue in that period is a good predictor for couples to get another child. The memories fade as you see the baby grow, you'll have new things to worry about, too, and then each parent has their own tolerance levels for that kind of stress. So in the end, I don't think there is a selection pressure. Furthermore, with families I know, there isn't much of a coincidence between crybabies and easy babies among siblings. Maybe there is on paper, but it probably isn't the strongest effect. Also, there I see families who became more kids after a troublesome first one.

I'd like to add: Genetics isn't as easy as we software people think.

<comment><USER26> Sex is a motivation and kids are the result at least over the long term pre contraception. We are wired for it.

<comment><USER14> This will change very quickly with the advent of contraceptives. There is huge selection pressure right now in favor of people who have an innate drive to have children.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Anyone know if this is anything like B.f. Skinner's crib?</comment>


Judea Pearl: The Art and Science of Cause and Effect - <AUTHOR> http://bayes.cs.ucla.edu/LECTURE/lecture_sec1.htm

<comment><USER2> The book (Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference) to which this is the epilogue is excellent, I cant recommend it strongly enough.</comment>


Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service - <AUTHOR> http://curiousrat.com/home/2012/4/24/google-drive-terms-vs-dropbox-terms.html

<comment><USER2> On the other hand, this post from The Verge explains what is actually going on: [http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/25/2973849/google-drive- terms...](http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/25/2973849/google-drive-terms- privacy-data-skydrive-dropbox-icloud)

The important quote: "Looking at some of Google's competitors, it's clear that they need the exact same permissions — they just use slightly more artful language to communicate them."

All of these services need similar permissions, as do most web services: it's just an artifact of how our copyright law works. Google does a bad job of expressing that reality as nicely as others (like Dropbox), but with almost equivalent permissions, I'd put them pretty far down on the list of companies not to trust.

<comment><USER3> Google's is worse because it takes all rights to use your work however it likes, and then states in its privacy policy that it won't use it for anything other than to provide the service. But if it likes, it can amend the privacy policy in the future to remove or modify that limitation. So you have to trust Google, which may be fine now, but what about in 20 years? They have rights to your work forever.

Other providers clearly state that they are only taking rights to your work for the purpose of providing the service, right in the ToS. IANAL, but this seems important.

<comment><USER2> I'm confused. You say Google "states in its privacy policy that it won't use it for anything other than to provide the service", but that's not good enough, because they can amend it later to remove that protection.

How is that different from the other providers, who (as you said, again) "clearly state that they are only taking rights to your work for the purpose of providing the service"? What is different about them which stops them from amending their policies?

<comment><USER4> > I'm confused.

No, you're not. You identified a crystal clear double standard in your parent post.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Complete FUD. Best article I've read on this is from The Verge. Google would be unable to create backups or thumbnails for example without these rights.

[http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/25/2973849/google-drive- terms...](http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/25/2973849/google-drive-terms- privacy-data-skydrive-dropbox-icloud)

<comment><USER6> Problem is: the rights as worded by Google allow a whole lot more than the reasonable-use wording by Dropbox. Remember that recent flap about iOS apps uploading users' entire Contacts list for non-relevant uses? hey, users gave permission for the apps to access that data without explicit limits; same idea, same concerns.

<comment><USER7> No. If they are to enable you to share a document you need to give them license to do so. If they are to create copies of the files across datacenters and employ OCR on images and use that to improve their algorithms, they need to inlucde that in their terms of service to avoid getting sued.

<comment><USER8> "use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works[...], communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content."

That's very different from what you are describing.

<comment><USER9> I'm not so sure about that. Use, host, store, reproduce are no-brainers. Modify and create derivative works are for thumbnails, OCRing, converting to other formats for displaying. The rest are for sharing with friends, or the world, right?

Edit: Read stuartmemo's The Verge article if you're interested, it's pretty insightful.

<comment><USER6> As phrased, the agreement would let Google publish, for open searchable access by the world, all files from all users. Indeed, methinks Google's whole underlying goal in all their endeavors is to mine data they'd not get thru other means. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd be hard-pressed to believe Google _isn't_ (or just hasn't gotten there but intends to someday) scouring every GMail, every Chrome OS click, every OCRed image (even every snapshot just in case some text may be discerned), etc. to feed back into their grand ads- placed-via-data-mining profit center - it's just what they _do_ ; they may not do it (yet) in any way revealing private details, but they're sure not providing all these free services and tools out of sheer good will.

You're thinking in terms of what reasonable uses the terms apply to. The problem is what UNreasonable uses are allowed by those who consent to those terms. Publish the entire private works (at least those docs stored on Google Drive) of yesbabyyes in a collectable volume? you agreed to it...

<comment><USER10> > As phrased, the agreement would let Google publish, for open searchable > access by the world, all files from all users.

This would be corporate suicide and Google won't do this unless they fall to the current status of the like of AOL. At which point we will all have moved on to the next shiny object.

<comment><USER11> You may move on, but their backups of your data won't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> "Some of our Services allow you to submit content. You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours.

When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) 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. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones. This license continues even if you stop using our Services (for example, for a business listing you have added to Google Maps). Some Services may offer you ways to access and remove content that has been provided to that Service. Also, in some of our Services, there are terms or settings that narrow the scope of our use of the content submitted in those Services. Make sure you have the necessary rights to grant us this license for any content that you submit to our Services.

You can find more information about how Google uses and stores content in the privacy policy or additional terms for particular Services. If you submit feedback or suggestions about our Services, we may use your feedback or suggestions without obligation to you."

<comment><USER13> Its the derivative works that I am worried about. But in context it may just be "thumbnails" or other things for searching content.

<comment><USER14> Editing a shared Google Docs document is inherently creating derivative works. You and anyone editing with you are asking Google to change the original document via HTTP requests. Each edit is a derivative work of the original document you uploaded to Google Docs, so of course Google needs to be allowed to do this as part of its license to use your data.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I do agree that Dropbox's wording is much friendlier, but I attribute most of the difference to Google having big plans (e.g., searching and sharing) and being careful that their terms will permit them. I suspect a big part of this is Google's intention to analyze your data to make it indexed/searchable (e.g., their 'search for Mt. Everest and get back your pictures of it' features).

<comment><USER16> Really, the difference seems to be almost _exclusively_ wording. Both licenses grant very broad powers to the service to redistribute (Google is guilty only of enumerating them more fully, where Dropbox simply claims "all the permissions we need"). Both providers include language that they will only do this in order "to provide the service", but neither enumerates exactly what that means.

Does anyone see anything specific that Dropbox _can't_ do that Google can? That grant looks really broad to me, just ... friendlier.

<comment><USER17> What people are noticing is perceived intent. Dropbox is clear what their intent is. Google is less clear. People like clarity, especially ewhen dealing with personal items.

<comment><USER16> Google: "The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones."

Dropbox: "You give us the permissions we need to do those things solely to provide the Services."

I'm not sure there's any difference in intent or clarity here. I think it's clear that Dropbox is _nicer_ about it. And because their product is smaller in scope maybe the rights they reserve seem less scary.

But really, I think this is a giant kerfuffle over nothing (fueled in no small part by the "Dropbox is on the HN team" feeling here). These licenses look almost 100% equivalent to me.

<comment><USER18> What isn't clear in "promoting" the Services?

Google can broadcast TV ads with your private photos if they want to.

<comment><USER16> No, they can't; don't be silly. That's not what "promoting" means, and in any case such a use would be a clear copyright violation (note elsewhere in the license where they make it clear that you still own the copyright). It seems clear to me that the intent is things like the Youtube "recommended" list. If you upload a public video, they need permission to repackage it for display in other contexts than direct viewing.

But if you insist on reading the license that uncharitably, you have to accept that _Dropbox too_ can find plenty of wiggle room to be evil. Seriously, you're granting "all needed permissions" without enumeration -- you don't find that scary? What if Dropbox decides that "providing the service" requires revenue gained from scraping credit card numbers from stored files? See? I can come up with equally silly scenarios.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> That's standard wording allowing them to provide the content to you on any device you access the services from over the internet (i.e. publicly).

[http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22a+w...](http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22a+worldwide+license+to+use%2C+host%2C+store%2C+reproduce%2C+modify%2C+create+derivative+works%22+-Google)

</comment><comment><USER20> Y no one compares them to skydrive?

«we don't claim ownership of the content you provide on the service. Your content remains your content. We also don't control, verify, or endorse the content that you and others make available on the service.»

« we may access or disclose information about you, including the content of your communications, in order to: (a) comply with the law or respond to lawful requests or legal process; (b) protect the rights or property of Microsoft or our customers, including the enforcement of our agreements or policies governing your use of the service; or (c) act on a good faith belief that such access or disclosure is necessary to protect the personal safety of [ppl]»

</comment><comment><USER21> There's been several articles on this topic, and I don't understand why they all seem to ignore this line in Google's TOS: "Some of our Services allow you to submit content. You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours."

These terms are across all of Google's services, and of course they need to state these sorts of things to keep themselves covered.

<comment><USER22> "I don't understand why they all seem to ignore this line in Google's TOS."

Because not many people are good at reading and at understanding what they read.

Which, here, is this:

Gmail or Google Docs/Drive or Google Apps are not among Google's services that "allow you to submit content". You don't submit anything to them. A service like YouTube, on the other hand, is, and it obviously needs such terms in order to operate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Dropbox had the same issue in 2011. Their TOS was very similar to Google Drive's, for the same reasons - lawyers putting CYA language in.

<http://blog.dropbox.com/?p=846> <http://blog.dropbox.com/?p=867>

<comment><USER24> Yeah, and Dropbox fixed it after public complaint. It's amazing to me Google would launch with a license with the same problem.

<comment><USER23> Frankly, I'd be surprised if Drive didn't get an addendum to the TOS to address the concerns. Lawyers don't often have 24 hour turnarounds on this sort of change.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> The exact same language is in the _Google_ terms of service, so if you use Gmail, your emails are covered by the same language.

Clearly, this is lawyer boilerplate being taken out of context.

<http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/>

<comment><USER26> _"if you use Gmail"_

Yes, Gmail has the same issue. Google can use your data "to develop new services" for it's own benefit.

<comment><USER23> > Google can use your data "to develop new services" for it's own benefit.

Which sounds nasty, until you realize they potentially need such language to be able to do something as simple as implementing a better spam filter, or offline syncing for your e-mail.

<comment><USER26> That doesn't however explain why they need such language for drive.

Furthermore, Google could, like dropbox, limit their use of your data to providing or improving the services they provide you. Spam filtering and syncing resonably fall in that category.

<comment><USER23> > That doesn't however explain why they need such language for drive.

Google just recently went through a unification of their disparate privacy policies, terms of service, etc. I also don't see why Google wouldn't want to add services to Drive down the road...

<comment><USER26> Unification of Google's privacy policies was done for Google's benefit.

Furthermore, as an explanation for why these policies should apply to drive, it begs the question.

<comment><USER23> There's a significant benefit to users from having fewer policies applying to Google's many services.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> _We may need your permission to do things you ask us to do with your stuff, for example [..]. This includes [..]. It also includes [..]. You give us the permissions we need to do those things solely to provide the Services._

So I give Dropbox full access to do _things with my stuff_? Seriously? IANAL, but doesn't that include more than what Google says?

Also note that Google has this line (you know, _just_ above the paragraph that was quoted in the article): _Some of our Services allow you to submit content. You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours._

<comment><USER23> > So I give Dropbox full access to do things with my stuff?

Why'd you leave out the "things you ask us to do" bit?

"You give us permission to kick you in the balls" sounds bad in a contract if you leave out the "because you're signing up to become a mixed martial arts combatant" bit, too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I'm actually not so worried about the privacy of the files I might put in GDrive. The handful of files I really care about (financial data etc) I store in other ways.

But I _am_ worried about having my Google account yanked out from under me. I'm simply not willing to depend on one capricious company with no customer support for email, phone, storage, online collaboration, chat, social etc. Ironically the harder Google tries to squeeze all their services together the less inclined I am to use any individual service.

</comment><comment><USER24> If I understand Google's ToS right, you are giving them a license to do pretty much anything with the data you upload to Drive. For instance, if you backup your git repo to Drive, Google's engineers have a license to take your source code and incorporate it into their own products. Now of course Google's not actually going to _do_ that. So why not make the license say that?

Google is using a generic ToS for all their products, but it's not appropriate to products that host valuable intellectual property.

<comment><USER29> Because it's impractical to create a TOS that defines all possible ways they might need to use that data in order to provide the service (from any court's viewpoint) but also explicitly carve out that usage. If re-using the code as you posit is indistinguishable (legally) from a valid use of the data they need in order to provide the service, they're not going to carve it out of the TOS. It's better to not attempt that, and let you (as the customer) pick if you're okay with that. If you find the risk unacceptable, don't use the service. To some degree that's a better outcome than exposing the host to a ton of legal risk.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Looks like Google accidentally started two memes this month: #whitespace and #selectivelyquoteprivacypolicy

</comment><comment><USER31> While it's obvious Google isn't planning to rape, pillage and publish your private files, their terms of service are starting on the wrong foot.

Ask for the base permissions you need and work from there. This is even more important when you're not a Google. Explain what you need and why to give them what they want from you, earn their trust and karma.

More importantly, if you sell off your company later, they will protect your users from those who might take a more liberal view of the TOS.

</comment><comment><USER32> Dropbox writing their TOS in a way that non-lawyers can read it was a good move here. Neither TOS really effects anything being done with your data in a practical way but the PR Dropbox is getting from theirs is worth 100x the time they put into it. Nice investment.

</comment><comment><USER33> If you're truly concerned about your data integrity build a TrueCrypt volume within the Goog Drive / Dropbox.

Despite what the TOS says on either end there are always going to be breaches, court orders, or potentially even employees with the power to access your files.

<comment><USER34> So if you want to change one bit, the whole freaking volume has to be uploaded again?

<comment><USER35> Disk encryption is usually block-based.

(disclaimer: I know nothing about TrueCrypt).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> It's the derivative works part of the T&Cs for GDrive that makes it a little wonky, I don't want to give them full license to create _any_ derivative work but I'm happy with them making changes for technical architecture.

But that's so selective and does miss the part where they say your content and copyright is all yours, so it justifies picking on Google for being supposedly creepy.

<comment><USER37> As others have mentioned, it probably is about producing thumbnails of images or something like that.

>You give us the permissions we need to do those things solely to provide the Services.

This give Dropbox the ability to modify your images to create thumbnails as well if that's a part of their service. It also allows them to do whatever else they want without being explicit and hiding behind vague wording.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Amendment of a Privacy Policy doesn't retroactively apply the policy to all the data previously provided to the service without first consulting the user.

If that is the case then they need to make the user ACCEPT the new terms before this can be done. (This is what is happening whenever you are forced to accept an amended TOS before returning to a service.)

</comment><comment><USER39> One thing is that the phrasing of Google's terms is more open, more importantly: I would rather like to store my files with someone that are in the business of storing files - than someone that is in the business of making "everything" searchable (for anyone?)

</comment><comment><USER40> If any of this blather is an attempt to prevent me from giving my money to Google instead of Dropbox, mission failed. Pay 2 to 4 times as much for the same service? I don't think so. Google wins, T. K. O., pwned with a capital P.

</comment><comment><USER41> can I encrypt it first...

</comment><comment><USER42> I think this image nicely compares the TOS for Dropbox, Google Drive and Microsoft's Sky Drive: [https://twitter.com/#!/jmacdonald/status/195184740209401856/...](https://twitter.com/#!/jmacdonald/status/195184740209401856/photo/1)

</comment><comment><USER43> Yup. This is EXACTLY what I knew Google would try to pull. There is no way I'm switching from Dropbox to one of the shadiest online companies out there.

<comment><USER44> Sounds a little tin-foil hat to me. Care you justify your hyperbole?

<comment><USER43> [https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&#...</a> (PUN intended on using Google to show you some of many complaints towards their policies...)

<comment><USER23> <https://www.google.com/search?q=bluetidepro%20bad%20policies>

<comment><USER43> DID lol.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Startup SEO: Getting High-Quality Links for Free - <AUTHOR> http://www.lauradhamilton.com/startup-seo-getting-high-quality-links-for-free

<comment><USER2> 'I don't spend any money running my personal blog (it costs me literally $0)' How do you get free lifetime domain and hosting?</comment>


A Netflix for Film Geeks? - <AUTHOR> http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-netflix-for-film-geeks-1476395406?mod=e2tw <comment><USER3> This is _brilliant_. (Mubi is apparently similar, which I hadn't yet seen.)

From a user's perspective, this is ultimately the best case scenario for siloed content. The editorial perspective offered by the steaming service provides a value added that Netflix demographic research just cant -- it offers, to some extent, access to _the canon_. Also, this eliminates the awful feeling of browsing endlessly looking for something to find.

From the companies' perspective, this allows them to pick and choose which films they acquire the steaming rights for, and to do it for only a limited time, similarly to how TCM and Criterion operate in today's market. They're at a HUGE financial advantage to Netflix. They aren't trying to cater to tons of demographics, they're offering a critical perspective.

What would be truly interesting is if one of these smaller, more nimble streaming services started to get involved in the actual production of film (a la Netflix), rather than just film criticism.

Netflix Originals are great, and they've done amazing work, but ultimately they suffer from the same fatal flaw as the film studios, the same failure to produce mythology. Films produced through demographic research and testing ultimately can never transcend commerce; they can only tell viewers things they want to know.

<comment><USER4> Mubi has its benefit. It is great for the "show me something new" / "surprise me" approach. Discovering new genres, new films, new directors.

But if you decide you want to watch all the Brian de Palma movies you haven't seen, then neither Mubi nor Netflix or any competitor will satisfy this demand. Right now only the Pirate Bay will (or Amazon if you are happy to wait a couple of days to receive a DVD, and if you still even have a device that plays DVDs).

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> unfortunately mubi, Netflix, etc have really bad quality. Netflix is ahead, obviously. specially in sound. buy any fast horizontal pan scene and compression ruins everything.

mubi sometimes has sound so badly compressed i just give up watching.

also, accessibility and original sound. Netflix decides if you're going to be able to hear the original language or not. some movies have all tracks, some have only the one in the language of whichever country you're at the time. some have subtitles in the local county language. some have deaf cc subtitles. mubi has zero regard for the deaf. Netflix has zero regards for the deaf overseas, in the US it's pretty good though.

bottom line is, all the talks that Netflix et al are the answer to piracy are wrong if the user is minimally self respecting. i will stop writing now because typing on mobile in this tiny box is also bad for self respecting me.

<comment><USER6> > Netflix has zero regards for the deaf overseas, in the US it's pretty good > though.

Sure, because the National Association for the Deaf sued them to get them to do it. [0] It's an important case for online businesses because the judge concluded that the ADA applies to them, too (which is sort of on obvious conclusion but it hadn't be tested in court).

Captions already existed for the large majority of TV shows and movies Netflix was licensing, they just needed to get them from the studios though may have needed to be recreated if they weren't saved in text form, DVD and Blu-ray captions are stored as images on the discs. Of course for their original programming they would need to have them created, for a ballpark figure of $2/minute of content.

Outside the U.S., I assume it depends on what captions already exist and what local laws require.

[0] [https://nad.org/news/2012/6/landmark-precedent-nad-vs- netfli...](https://nad.org/news/2012/6/landmark-precedent-nad-vs-netflix)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is _sad_.

We are going to end up with something very much like what cable TV is - <USER2> an aggregator service for a collection of different providers and premium channel subscriptions.

How different is that grid of ten different streaming apps in your device from a cable channel guide?

<comment><USER8> What would you prefer instead? Everything to be available via Netflix?

<comment><USER9> The solution would be for the content to be decentralized and simply available through an API with licensing fees for each program you want to watch, and stores would basically talk to each API and would be dissociated from the content distribution. That way stores could compete on the better UI and payment systems and everyone could have access to the same movie collection.

I don't think this is going to happen, though. Companies love walled gardens too much.

<comment><USER10> If you want the pay-per-view model, Google, Apple, and Amazon all feature this today with a much larger library of films than are on the subscription streaming services.

<comment><USER9> But the prices are ridiculous.

<comment><USER10> The prices for "purchasing" often seem absurd -- as much as buying a DVD, with no guarantee that the service will have the movie forever. But rental is typically only $2-$3 dollars -- basically what renting a movie from a video rental store used to cost, so not that unreasonable

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> If this appeals, check out Mubi. They're basically an arthouse Netflix.

<comment><USER12> As a non-US citizen, the Mubi website is annoying. They have a single list with the thirty "now showing" movies, yet they say in the FAQ that each country has its own unique line-up, so I'm left wondering what would actually be available here.

<comment><USER13> Have a look on [https://www.justwatch.com](https://www.justwatch.com) in the country you want to know and filter for Mubi!

Disclosure: I'm Cofounder there :)

<comment><USER14> this looks really useful. I like the clean UI.

Maybe I missed it but is it possible to look for TV shows or documentaries or is it just movies.

<comment><USER15> TV shows are in there, there's a 'TV' icon in the top right of the cover to distinguish. There's 'Movies' and 'TV series' filters on the left of the filter bar too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> FilmStruck is the service I am waiting for the most. As someone who used to pirate terabytes of films from Karagarga and other "good film" trackers, I'm happy to be able to support Criterion and Turner in this endeavor.

</comment><comment><USER17> This used to be the DVD form of Netflix! The community function especially. I still miss it :(

It's so sad what they've become, I plan on cancelling in a bit, as amazon prime is free 2 day shipping + a batch of binge watching crap as well.

</comment><comment><USER18> There's also Fandor [1], which has a ton of indie/art house content and covers the major festivals (though lagging by >1 year -- they have almost nothing newer than 2015). They have apps for AppleTV, iOS and probably other systems.

But I'm definitely looking forward to FilmStruck launching. Criterion access alone is worth the subscription price.

[1] [https://www.fandor.com](https://www.fandor.com)

</comment><comment><USER19> I just want a netflix of the Turner Classic Movies catalog.

I was so pissed when Comcast dropped TCM and left me with 100 other garbage channels I don't watch.

</comment><comment><USER20> [http://www.filmstruck.com/](http://www.filmstruck.com/) is the streaming service in question.

</comment><comment><USER21> Great to learn about all the other services in the list of competitors. Some years ago, I did an Ask HN about why there wasn't a specialized "Netflix" (akin to an indie movie rental store). It only got a few answers but they all said, if memory serves, it wouldn't happen.

</comment><comment><USER22> Fandor is pretty good.

</comment><comment><USER23> Shame I'll have to go through proxy from UK to get this.

<comment><USER24> You don't have to. Click the "web" link on top of this page, and then click the first google result.

Update: oh sry, you meant the movies...

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> It will be perfect if they don't repeat every movie in every category listing, a la Netflix.

</comment><comment><USER26> On the complete other-side of the spectrum we used to have Cinemageddon. :P

</comment><comment><USER27> Canadian availability?

</comment><comment><USER28> mubi.com

</comment><comment><USER29> Archive.is for those who can't get past the paywall using the usual tricks:

[http://archive.is/5ZmFH](http://archive.is/5ZmFH)

</comment><comment><USER30> FYI This link (from outside the US) was requiring a subscription. I copied the URL into Google and was able to read it in its entirety with this method.

<comment><USER31> This is what the "web" link below the HN headline does.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I thought the Netflix for film geeks was Mubi.com ...

</comment><comment><USER33> If they target geeks, they should start releasing films DRM-free.

<comment><USER34> Different kind of geek. There is the film buff geek and there is the burn- your-DRMbra computer geek, and while there is some crossover the Venn diagram is far from a total eclipse.

<comment><USER33> GOG tried to cater for both. But the effort was stalled by retarded paranoia of control freaks.

[https://www.gog.com/forum/general/introducing_gogcom_drmfree...](https://www.gog.com/forum/general/introducing_gogcom_drmfree_movies/post499)

<comment><USER35> Two years on... No one wants to be the first.

This is depressing - because it has the exact flexibility that so many people want.

For example, one of the first questions I get asked when introducing an older person to Netflix is, "Can I play it on X?"

Sure, if it can run the app. Oh, just a TV? Let me get you Y hardware so it will.

<comment><USER33> Yet, pirates provide this flexibility of DRM-free films for years already. So not competing with them is simply dumb as anyone understands. This "no one wants to be first" just doesn't make any logical sense, since they aren't first by any means - they are very late. As you can see from that story, even studio execs admit all that. But their lawyers just can't admit how dumb this is. It's some kind of mind sickness of those who are obsessed with control.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>