PureBasic Forums - English

Well, I thought VirusTotal would be even better now that Goggle own it, but look what they have put in their Terms of Service:

Terms of Service and Privacy Policy
"When you upload or otherwise submit content, you give VirusTotal (and those we work with) a worldwide, royalty free, irrevocable and transferable licence to use, edit, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works, communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content."

https://www.virustotal.com/about/terms-of-service/
...basically, that is a license to steal your work. It should not be legal to publish such terms in my opinion.

What if someone else uploads my application? Download portals and worried users do this...
Although my application is publicly available for download, they cannot give Google any rights I own.

If I'm understanding this correctly, it's a huge scandal?!


By the way: A slash is missing at the end so that the Url is working correctly: https://www.virustotal.com/about/terms-of-service/

The uploader must prove ownership of submitted content.
So, it is unlikely they would attempt use of such content for fear of law suit.
In general, the terms of service sound too wide open and a total forfeiture of intellectual property.
But, I am no lawyer, so who knows?

There are alternatives: https://www.metascan-online.com/

Thanks for the link skywalk, bit of déjà vu there, so similar to the original Virus Total. Metascan Terms and Conditions short and sweet which is how it should be!

I just do not understand Google's attitude, it is small wonder that they have fallen foul of European laws - there is no need to behave the way they do. What is it that compels them to flirt with a bad reputation?

IdeasVacuum wrote:that is a license to steal your work

Their terms also state: "You retain all ownership rights in any submission you may make", which seems a contradiction to themselves.

"You retain all ownership rights in any submission you may make"

... that's probably there in case anything goes wrong with your app - they sell it, take the profits, send the unhappy customers to you

I really would like the governments to be tougher with the giant corps - at the moment, they do what they want, knowing it's wrong legally, morally or both, then try to haggle later with any government that finally challenges their actions. As it happens, the UK gov is tightening it's grip a little bit, so watch your back Google!

MachineCode wrote:

IdeasVacuum wrote:that is a license to steal your work

Their terms also state: "You retain all ownership rights in any submission you may make", which seems a contradiction to themselves.

You do retain ownership rights, what they get upon submission is a license to do as they wish with what was submitted. Your ownership rights as the creator is not a license, its pure rights, what they get is a royalty free (meaning they don't pay anything) license and in that license they get to act as the owner of what was submitted. Its not a contradiction, ownership rights and license are two different things. The trouble here is that the person doing the submission is assumed to be the owner, which means your rights as the creator owner are moot in terms of submitting in this because this 'agreement' forms a contract between the person submitting and Google. If Google does something with your application you don't want to have happen then you can sue the heck out of them because there was no contract between you and Google (if you were not the person submitting) and you as the creator owner did not grant them anything (if you were not the person submitting) and another person submitting does not have the right to grant them anything. Of course suing Google for something like this has never been tried before but they count on that not happening because the cost of doing so would be prohibitive for most developers and companies. Google has a tendancy to force or bully its way into an area then worry about the lawsuits later and when it does happen they mitigate the suit down to nothing of significance. Unless you could go dollar for dollar with them there is no way to sucessfully win a significant victory in a lawsuit against Google even if you are clearly in the right and they are clearly wrong, even if they admit it in court they were wrong, because they will bleed you of funds by dragging it out as long as possible with numerous motions and legal rangling to which you are forced to respond and expend more funds.

c4s wrote:What if someone else uploads my application? Download portals and worried users do this...
Although my application is publicly available for download, they cannot give Google any rights I own.

If I'm understanding this correctly, it's a huge scandal?!


By the way: A slash is missing at the end so that the Url is working correctly: https://www.virustotal.com/about/terms-of-service/

Let's see what - if any - response I get to the email I sent them

SFSxOI wrote:Its not a contradiction, ownership rights and license are two different things.

I meant in the "we may create derivative works" clause. They say we retain all rights, but then also say they can mod my app and distribute it. That's a contradiction, because if I own the rights, they have no legal right to modify and/or distribute it.

skywalk wrote:There are alternatives: https://www.metascan-online.com/

Nice one. I also use this -> http://virusscan.jotti.org

Comodo's Instant Malware Analysis is also good -> http://camas.comodo.com/cgi-bin/submit

Comodo's tool shows which files are created, which Registry entries are made, which web sites are being contacted, and so on, by the app. Good for when testing something that you downloaded and want to see just what it'll do to your system. BUT, it has a similar clause to VirusTotal, where they retain rights to use your submission ("you grant Comodo an irrevocable license to modify, use, display, perform, reproduce, transmit, and distribute any submitted files"), so maybe don't submit your own files to it!

MachineCode wrote:

SFSxOI wrote:Its not a contradiction, ownership rights and license are two different things.

I meant in the "we may create derivative works" clause. They say we retain all rights, but then also say they can mod my app and distribute it. That's a contradiction, because if I own the rights, they have no legal right to modify and/or distribute it.

I understand, but they do have a right because when its submitted it automatically grants them the right via granting them a license right to do it. So while you do retain all rights if you are the creator owner, they also get rights by granting the license by submitting so its not a contradiction because you are speaking of creator owner rights and they are speaking of license rights and they are two different things.

Its the license rights that gives them the rights they claim, and that license is granted automatically upon submission according to their wording. This goes back to what i posted above, they assume in their agreement that the person submitting is the creator owner and has the authority to grant them a license, this is not correct because the person submitting may not be the creator owner thus their agreement is or may be null and void because no one but the creator owner can grant the license. This places their agreement, as worded currently, possibly in direct violation of law because it basically self-grants them a license they are not legally able to grant and thus possibly unlawfully exercise ownership rights via unlawful license - in other words they possibly have stolen the rights upon submission.

> they do have a right because when its submitted it automatically
> grants them the right via granting them a license right to do it

But if I upload your app without your permission, I've effectively
given Google the rights to your app. Not legal. They can't do it.
They can claim to do it, but when push comes to shove, they
don't have a legal leg to stand on.