Simon of Tuppenceworth has a great post where he reviews the terms and conditions of video sharing sites (YouTube, Blip.tv and Google Video). Simon works in McGarr Solicitors a well known law firm in dublin.
I haven’t tried Google Video yet but I have tried both Blip.tv and YouTube and I much prefer Blip.tv. Google would have to be really good to come close to Blip.tv, in terms of functionality.
However, when considering the ToS, Simon comes down in favour of Google Video – this is what he says for each of the sites:
Take your valued video off YouTube. They can do any damn thing they like with it, for money or any other reason, and you canâ€™t do a thing.
Iâ€™d be unworried were it not for two clauses. You do need to grant Blip a right to disseminate the video- otherwise how could anyone see it? But â€œeither electronically or via other mediaâ€?? What non electronic media does the blip.tv intend to use? I only want to agree to electronic dissemination. Also what is the definition of a â€œBlip.tv affiliated siteâ€?? Leaves us with questions.
and finally, Google Video
â€œnon-exclusiveâ€? is good. â€œmodifyâ€? is concerning, but could be a technical term. Letâ€™s let it slide for the moment. â€œReformatâ€? might be read as referring to a video format. Or it might be selling a DVD of Google Greatest Giggles. Otherwise Iâ€™d say that itâ€™s not so bad. Particularly read in conjunction with the later clause. Youâ€™re taking a risk, of course, but it seems to be a lesser one than in the two examples above.
I must take a look at Google Video in light of that. Thanks Simon.
[EDITED] to correct Simon’s current status