Review of Knol Terms of Service

I would like to think that section 5.1 is more than just a way for Google to declaim any legal liability regarding content, while conveniently using section 8 to trump any actual assertion of author's rights. And I would like to think that section 8 is overstated in Google's favor in the way of typical contractual boilerplate and in terrible need of revision. I'm convinced that the two sections are contradictory and incompatible. But I'm not a lawyer and maybe there's some difference I don't understand between perpetual license and shared ownership.

On the money side, as this contract stands, Google has promised nothing and could extend the purportedly "generous" revenue-sharing model suggested in a recent press conference to motivate the creation of high-quality content and then reduce, radically change, or completely withdraw the revenue sharing at any time, relative to any individual or whole groups of contributors, while continuing to profit from the advertising at the corporate level, and yet withdrawing the passive residual income a long-time contributor has come to expect and depend upon.

Very few freelance writers have any kind of serious retirement fund. Playing outside the confines of a big corporation keeps us fresh in a certain way, but it also requires us to be especially alert and agile in creating a sustainable living. So I hope this review doesn't seem unduly adversarial. And please correct me if I've misconstrued anything here; otherwise, I'd love to see some emendations to these terms.

When I'm faced with the choice of working on an article that I'll be paid $100-$200 cash for as soon as it's published, and then never paid for ever again -- or working on an advertising-supported knol that will make me probably no more than a few dollars in the first two months of its life, but could contribute to a large passive residual income over time, I would love to have some modicum of certainty to justify my choice toward the latter.

Google, please throw us a line in favor of knowledge. At least let us know all the terms. The very best writers are freelance professionals who build their lives around it or gifted and determined amateurs set to become so. 

Works of genius don't spring fully grown from the head of Zeus and don't emerge from the lives of half-concerned hobbyists.  Well, at least not very often.

Will the work we contribute in creating the best possible articles entitle the respective authors to a royalty? Any revenue-sharing model that rewards a creator for the license and use of a creative product based on a backend percentage of profits is a royalty, after all. Or will the work we pour into this endeavor be forever underscored with uncertainty, open to alternating currents of caprice and largess? Corporations have a way of playing it awfully safe.

Freelancers, on the other hand, must work without a net, pay their own health insurance premiums, and open a private retirement fund or have none at all.  We may love our independence and we may pursue knowledge radically and for its own sake, but we still have to make choices in favor of survival.

The contractual terms which allow Google to terminate a writer for any reason at any time would presumably also allow Google to terminate all payments to that writer, including payments for work already completed.  Since there is no salary, no set fee for producing an article, no upfront payment, and only the unwritten promise of some form of profit sharing down the line--it seems that a fantastic contributor could be let go after years of service for nebulous or indecipherable reasons and with no severance pay.  This might be especially egregious if the person worked diligently the first year for less than a living wage, and only very gradually achieved a level of compensation commensurate with worth.  It would also be egregious if done for editorial reasons synonymous with censorship, representing the exact opposite of the academic freedom that a tenured college professor enjoys to pursue critical thought and express it in the classroom without retaliatory dismissal from a conservative administration.  Since this is a knowledge project, I would love to see a better provision, or any provision, for addressing these serious concerns. 

As "worst case scenario" as that last paragraph sounds, it's a reasoned reaction to the corporate over-protection built into the current iteration of the Terms of Service.  I'm an optimistic person by nature and I love this project so far.  Love it.  The publishing platform itself is stunning and no doubt required a great investment in research and development.  Kudos to Google for that.  But offer some recourse to the writer who could become over-invested in this project and then feel unfairly dismissed or stripped of rightful earnings.  People in my profession live with a great deal of uncertainty. I hope you won't mind disambiguating some of the terms and specifying the royalty or profit-sharing structure. We trust you to count the clicks and reward author-owners of ad-supported individual knols based on the real numbers. That should be as far as the contributing author has to go on the basis of faith alone.