A Look at Google DRM 532
pcause writes "The Register is reporting on Google's recent announcement of their own DRM. From the article: 'Google's DRM will make its first appearance as part of a new video downloading service. Page revealed that customers will be able to buy TV shows from CBS, NBA basketball games and a host of other content with Google serving as the delivery broker for the video. This move mimics other technology companies - most notably Apple - which have struck deals with large media houses to send video over the web for a fee.' "
Locking up our culture (Score:4, Insightful)
thanks, i guess the "do no evil" is redundant thesedays, much like the US constitution
Re:Locking up our culture (Score:4, Informative)
The US constitution says nothing about what kinds of lawful agreements (called contracts) you can and cannot make with your fellow citizens (or corporations). If you don't like some particular product, then don't buy it.
It would only be a violation of the constitution if the government were forcing everybody to use DRM; but that is not what we're talking about here.
And besides, maybe if they did force everyone to use DRM, it would stop the whole "buy 10,000 email addresses for $10" kind of privacy violations we see rampantly all over the US.
Re:Locking up our culture (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember the Broadcast flag, anyone?
Broadcast Flag (Score:5, Insightful)
The Broadcast Flag [wikipedia.org] is a great example of governmental checks and balances in action. The courts struck it down. What point were you trying to make? That consumers have all the power they need?
Re:Locking up our culture (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Locking up our culture (Score:3, Informative)
I think you missed the GP's point.
Re:Locking up our culture (Score:5, Insightful)
DRM has the full power of the government behind it - a programmer who write DRM code essentially writes laws/regulations that will be given the full faith and credit of the Federal government.
Repeal the DMCA and perhaps then your point will be on target.
Re:Locking up our culture (Score:3, Insightful)
So, given any particular environment a company is supposed to attempt to maximize its profits. Google's approach to doing this is no different than any other's, they just have a different formula. Most companies define
Re:Locking up our culture (Score:3, Insightful)
While I'll agree copyright law is seriously broken, calling it "substantial harm to the world" is insane. Global warming triggering an ice age, yes. Convincing an impoverished but industrious nation all their problems are caused by some minority group, yes. Releasing toads in Austrailia in a poorly thought out plan to kill bugs, I might buy. Preventing me from watching the "Sound of Music" whenever I want. NO. Show me evidence copyright law is preventing mi
Re:Locking up our culture (Score:5, Informative)
Perhaps a better choice would be obsolete, which means "No longer in use; gone into disuse; disused or neglected".
But to get back to the topic at hand, I have some first hand experience with GOOG, and to me, the whole "don't be evil" concept was a sham from the start. Google got sued because of age discrimination. That's pretty evil to me. I worked at Google for a few months when they were first starting the Adwords program. Most of the temps were let go, but the ones that they considered to be the best were hired on as regular employees. This was all before the IPO, so if you sense some bitterness on my part, you can probably guess why.
When I was shown the door at Google, the young (and gorgeous, I might add) woman told me (I was 32 at the time) that I didn't really fit in with the Adwords group, which was in her exact words "pretty young". I'd have sued too, but I didn't see any way that I could prove that she acutally said that to me.
I have lots of friends that work there, and trust me, there's no one on the planet more evil than a 25 year old millionaire who didn't really earn it.
Re:The Temps were let go? (Score:3, Informative)
What's up with the caps, dude? You seem to be pretty excited about all this. Take a deep breath and put the Mountain Dew down.
I indicated in my post that many of the temps were hired on as regular employees. I was not. I understood that there were no guarantees going into it. But other younger folks did get jobs, and my age was cited as a reason why I did no
Re:Locking up our culture (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing about it is, we have laws in this country. The good guys are supposed to obey those laws. It's one thing if I had a sneaking suspici
Re:Locking up our culture (Score:5, Insightful)
Do not waste your time on this. On this story comments you can see the lack of maturity in a majority of slashdoters. They do not want to see the real state of Google or any other companies. I am amazed at the level of stupidity people show just because someone told them that X company is "good" or "cool" then they should follow like sheeps.
Take for example, this comment [slashdot.org]:
So, it's not the companies that are doing anything wrong so much as the laws need to be changed. But those are very, very different things. Getting mad at Google for doing this would be akin to setting up a boardgame and getting mad if people follow the letter (if not spirit) of the rules.
So, this means, if it is Microsoft, SCO, SONY or any other "not good" company doing something to increase their profit then it is terrible! they are doing illegal things and they should be sued into oblivion.
But if it is Google or Apple or whatever other "good" company, then it is ok to do it, they are doing what they need to do as a public traded company.
It is stupid, the google "do no evil" moto is plain PR crap. Google do not care to be "evil" with their USERS because that would not help them on anything (until now). But if you see it from the side of its CUSTOMERS (the ones that buy the ad space) google is as bad ass [com.com]
as any other company.
And now, that they are selling some service to the end USERS, they will start to screw them out until they get all their money.
Anyway, it is nice to see someone not idiotized with the Google halo, at the end, google is a company.
The problem is in the current capitalism model, as someone else said before, Google, Microsoft, Apple and all of them are companies, publicly shared, and they exist to make money. I remember a story called Nemesis from Isaac Asimov, in which he portraits an intelligent planet system that is composed of all the small microorganisms of the planet, each one of them acts autonomously but they all form a big mind.
This same phenomena happens with economic entities, you, me and everyone that works on them do our work, and we may even be good on our acts but the bigger entity, the "company" is what is evil by its own definition. So, when you join the acts of all the persons, the company gets its own "mind" and acts in an evil way.
Re:Locking up our culture (Score:3, Interesting)
And your evidence for this is...
Re:Locking up our culture (Score:3, Funny)
Oh wait, how many bugs did that code have? Why was the code written so late in the first place? Oh you mean we'll have to re-architect that system in a year when the new guy's moved onto a new company and no-one understands it.
But look at the LOC stats!
Rootkit! (Score:5, Funny)
My measurement of Google's evil... (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=winip&btnG=Go ogle+Search [google.com]
and got See results for Winzip
and see also winipcfg
in the middle of my searches.
I'm using Firefox, but that still made me wonder if there wasn't some sort of malware bringing it up.
That drew me to reflect on Google's other practices. What was Google's line of reasoning that led it to release a non-open source desktop search utility?
Google evil? The winds are beginni
Re:My measurement of Google's evil... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because Open Source isn't the end all, be all of the software industry perhaps?
Re:My measurement of Google's evil... (Score:5, Informative)
It first came to my attention that Google was evil when I did:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=winip&btnG=G
and got See results for Winzip
and see also winipcfg
in the middle of my searches.
They're accounting for the possibility that 'winip' might be a typo for 'winzip' or 'winipcfg'. Given the fact that 'winzip' is approximately 150 times more common than 'winip' (according to googlefight [googlefight.com], at least), it's probably not an unreasonable assumption to make. If you search for "winip" (with the quotes) it only looks for exact matches, so doesn't offer up results for possible alternatives. They are actually trying to be helpful, and while it may be annoying to some, you could hardly call it malicious or evil...
Re:Rootkit! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Rootkit! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Rootkit! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. Digital Restrictions Management (along with constantly-lengthening copyright terms) is being used to shortchange the public domain. The price creators are supposed to pay to get temporary copyright protection for their work is the work's eventual release to the public domain, and the ability to use it for appropriate fair-use purposes today. DRM ensures that neither will happen, ever.
Re:Be fair (Score:5, Insightful)
The public domain argument is less strong than the fair use argument. DRM, plus the laws which prevent you from circumventing it, lets companies restrict you from doing things that you have the legal right to do. That's evil.
Re:Be fair (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Be fair (Score:3, Informative)
Under which legal theory ?
No, and that's part of the problem with current copyrith-law. There are basically two sets of rigths:
Fair use comes
Re:Be fair (Score:3, Interesting)
Assuming the existence of unbreakable DRM, what happens is that you, as the former copyright holder, can choose to make a non-restricted copy available at that time, or not. This is what I was getting at with my comment that a lot of works are already lost, even though they are now legally public domain. That, to me, is a tragedy.
IM
Re:Rootkit! (Score:4, Insightful)
It sucks when stuff resists being copied, but how does that make it so fucking evil? I'm not saying that I like DRM, i'd love if it didn't exist, but I believe in order for it to be evil it must exist for the purpose of causing harm or misfortune. The motivation of DRM is to reduce privacy, I'm sorry to say this, but there's this trend among people to come across IP without the right to. And the distributors of these products would be complete fucking idiots to not try and make it more difficult for people to get ahold of their stuff without paying. This is not usually evil. It just sucks.
Mod me whatever you want, i've got plenty of karma.
It's more then simply not liking it. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's easy to see how the future of DRM will screw you:
Say you buy 100 Blu-Ray movies over the course of a few years. They aren't cheap.
- Then, when you want to watch one, the disc authentication servers are down
- Or your network connection is down
- Or, the company goes out of business or "end of lifes" your movies -now half your collection is unplayable.
- You put in a scratched disc, and the player's broken firmware reports you're a pirate. The server disables your player.
- You've had a flood, fire, and one of your players was stolen. Whoops, that's too many player units for your "consumer discs." All your discs won't play anymore.
- You have no way to protect your investment against disasters - no way to backup the data you paid for. Do no underestimate this! Especially if you have your collection in an area with lots of guests or kids.
- Disney wants to release another "lion king" in Super Remastered Ultra Uncut editions. They disable all their old discs, so you can't show your kid the Lion King when he asks you to unless you go out and buy the new one.
- Sony decides it's costing them too much money to run the DRM authentication servers. They decide to charge all users $15/mo. If you don't you can't play any of your discs.
DVD's DRM is often cited as a DRM that was universally accepted but it doesn't really count because DVD's CSS was so easy to break the discs are pratically unencrypted.
It's worse then "sucks." It's severely punishing the honest consumer at large for the crimes of the few. They spend so much money on developing and enforcing the DRM that it would be cheaper to simple do *nothing.* But you can't make that case, the big corps don't hear it.
Re:It's more then simply not liking it. (Score:3, Insightful)
In the long run, this won't stop me from ever buying digital media. What it WILL do is make me much more selective about what I buy, since I feel like I have to really REALLY like something in order to give up fair use in order to see it. It will also make me gravitate towards formats that are the most easily crackable, so I can make backups of the media like I'm legally allowed to do. How's that for t
But thats the point. (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at DVDs. Pirating DVD's is simple as hell to do. The DRM on them does nothing useful to prevent it.
So what DOES the DRM actually do? For one, it lets studios FORCE you to watch their previes and ads at the beginning of the DVD. So much for the whole random access usefulness of the DVD.
It has nothing to do with piracy. I
Re:It's more then simply not liking it. (Score:3, Insightful)
- Or your network connection is down
Perhaps they will design the system so that it only needs to talk to the servers once every week or such. You know, rootkit aside, Sony has been known to put out technologically sound solutions.
- Or, the company goes out of business or "end of lifes" your movies -now half your collection is unplayable.
Usually, the rights to digital assets are worth money, and thus sought liquidated. Now company B
Re:It's more then simply not liking it. (Score:3, Interesting)
Bluray DRM is programable and can do whatever it wants to screw you over, including messing with your players firmware.
If bluray wins the format war you can kiss all your rights goodbye, because the terms for watching movies can change movie by movie, so they can slowly ratchet up the pain with each new release.
The big problem with bluray DRM is not what i
Re:Rootkit! (Score:5, Interesting)
A look at? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:A look at? (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, it sucks. More and more corporations, even the good ones, are busy taking away things that some of us find pretty valuable. It's a dangerous slippery slope, and Google's entry is not a good thing.
Re:A look at? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A look at? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A look at? (Score:3, Funny)
One detail I'd like to know... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:One detail I'd like to know... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:One detail I'd like to know... (Score:4, Informative)
In another distinction from iTunes, Google Video so far works only on Microsoft Corp.'s Windows-based PCs and not yet on Apple's Macintosh computers.
Maybe in the future they'll support Mac/Linux, but it looks like only Windows for now.
There ya have it, DRM != evil (Score:5, Funny)
Re:There ya have it, DRM != evil (Score:4, Insightful)
If I can see it (play it, view it, download it), then I can make copies of it and distribute it. As long as there are 1's and 0's streaming through my monitor, there's always a way.
Re:There ya have it, DRM != evil (Score:2)
Re:There ya have it, DRM != evil (Score:2)
Re:There ya have it, DRM != evil (Score:5, Funny)
Probably take a day. So, like you said, less than a week, if someone does it during their 20% time.
Reciprocal Agreements (Score:4, Insightful)
Google: Can I sell your content?
Content creator: Yes you can. Here are our terms.
Digital Rights Managment (Score:4, Funny)
You have the power!
Google DRM Hacked........ (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Google DRM Hacked........ (Score:5, Funny)
Wait for the hack... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wait for the hack... (Score:5, Interesting)
And if they don't, will they be in violation of the DMCA for "pointing to" information on how to break a cryptographic system?
In any case, we may have DeCSS all over again, with a much larger and more powerful company (Google) pursuing the crackers.
So... (Score:3, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Google Becomes Microsoft Oh My God! (Score:4, Funny)
---
Naijarita [naijarita.com]
content being used to force hardware choice (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmm. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hmm. (Score:2, Insightful)
They're own player. (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess to have your own DRM, you have to develop your own player.
More FTFA:How will it work with Microsoft's DRM, Apple's DRM and Real's DRM? Will it extend to music? If so, what will the limitations be on how often you can copy songs or how many devices can store the tunes?
Obviously, it can't; unless, MS and Apple add Google's DRM to their players.
Re:They're own player. (Score:2)
Re:They're own player. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:They're own player. (Score:4, Insightful)
Standards is about allowing interoperability.
DRM is about hindering interoperability.
No matter what DRM system Google build, I will not be able to build my own player that can use Google's material without signing contracts and paying money.
Another article (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/07/google_ce
Relevant portions:
====================
Page did manage to announce some new products.
First off, Google revealed an addition to its video search -- payments. Google secured nice wins by signing up CBS and the NBA to its service, along with a number of other content makers. Customers will be able to pay around $1.99 for CBS shows such as CSI and Survivor and download any NBA game 24-hours after it has been played.
This set-up mimics what Apple has done with iTunes and ABC.
Google, however, does have a unique twist on its video service. Any company can put their content up for sale at any price. (Five cents is the minimum charge for a download.) Google takes a few pennies from the sale, and the content makers take most of the cash.
Google has created its own DRM (digital rights management) system for the service but will support rival systems as well, Page said. Not that the world needed another DRM mechanism.
================
As to my own opinion... I wouldn't mind
1) Paying a small amount for content I really want, in a format I can use and archive however I want. The fact that Google's minimum is "five cents" reflects some understanding of some files' (frex MP3s) realworld value to most people.
2) Files being watermarked to prevent widespread "sharing" (since the initial culprit can be pegged).
However, I'm NOT okay with DRM or locked-in formats (ie. requiring a specific player). I want to time/format/medium/player-shift what I paid for however the hell *I* want, not how someone else dictates. And I don't want to discover that when I upgrade my hardware or switch my OS, I can no longer play the files I paid for, because they're locked to an old setup by their DRM, or that now I have to scrounge up some underworld workaround to regain their usefulness.
Media Companies and DRM (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Media Companies and DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
Hold Out Your Hand So I Can Slap It (Score:5, Insightful)
From TFA:
Google has a long history of keeping its technology mechanisms and intentions private. It won't say a lot about how Page Rank works. It's never provided a policy on how it picks Google News stories. Heck, it won't even let Register reporters visit the company's campus, and one of our staff lives right down the street.
I live above a strip club in San Francisco and they won't let me hang out in the dressing room. What gives?
Re:Hold Out Your Hand So I Can Slap It (Score:2)
This should be interesting. (Score:5, Insightful)
If there's one other thing that I know about Slashdot, Slashdot generally bows before Google and their products.
So this is going to be interesting. Will Google be berated for embracing a technology that limits the use of content being paid for? Or will Google be praised as being the only company that would find a good way to implement DRM?
Since we don't know a whole lot at this point, perhaps neither. Depending on exactly how Google distributes the content, and how the DRM differs for the different types (one-view vs. personal copy), this could be a make or break situation. If the DRM is too restrictive, the "good vibe" it gives off towards the technologically inclined will dissapate, creating a cascade of harsh backlash against the company and it's "Do no evil" campaign. It will also show that even a beloved giant such as Google cannot get DRM to be accepted by the general public. This probably wouldn't stop the likes of Sony from continuing their trend of "Do lots of evil", but it would put a kink in the DRM-inclined plans of a good deal of smaller companies. (If there was enough backlash, CBS et al. would probably back out, and Google would drop the video distrobution, as well as its DRM.)
If their DRM is "just right", with regular customers not caring, technically able customers content, and only the most hard-core upset, then we will see a sudden surge and wide-spread use of DRM. Content providing companies will flock to liscense Google's DRM, or at least have their product be distributed through it, and soon everything is locked into one thing or another.
An interesting situation.
Re:This should be interesting. (Score:5, Funny)
Many of you - who have become obsessed with the god you call Googlor - will no doubt suck down Google's DRM with pride.
That's just nasty.
Re:This should be interesting. (Score:3, Funny)
That's just nasty.
Not if it's strawberry flavored.
Or maybe he's talking about drinking the kool-aid [wikipedia.org]
/what's with you people and your fixation with penis?
There are two types of DRM (Score:2)
2. No DRM at all.
Its hard to imaging what Google will do to make a "better" DRM. Perhaps if they allow people to burn to SVCD or DVD, but I can't see it.
Re:This should be interesting. (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem isn't the DRM, it is that the DRM is usually VERY restrictive. Look at Sony. Sony made some of the best products on Earth. Nice, sexy, good products. They made the walkman. They made great CD players. So when it came time to get an MP3 player, Sony would be a natural, right?
Nope. They didn't sell them (until recently). So you could either re-rip all your media into their proprietary format that is worthless everywhere else, or you can re-encode it (perhaps on the fly) as you transfer the music to the player (slower transfers, worse sound quality). Because of these DRM restrictions (which I doubt stopped a single "music pirate") they players were considered junk. Whether you like Sony and their products or not, you have to admit that was a STUPID move.
Apple's iTunes Music Store, on the other hand, has been very successful. What are their terms? Listen to it all you want on as many iPods as you want, up to 5 computers, and you can burn it to 3 or 5 CDs (can't remember). Most people won't be running into any of those restrictions any time soon (possibly the CD one, but only if you don't have an iPod).
DRM isn't that bad if it is done right. Apple has proved that. But most of the time it is used to cripple products (Sony's "MP3" players), cause headaches (unstoppable previews on DVDs anyone?), and other problems.
If Google has DRM that doesn't interfere with use, there is nothing wrong with it. I understand a little copy protection. If I made content, I'd want to be able to put it on my content.
We'll see what happens.
Re:This should be interesting. (Score:3, Insightful)
It prevents works which have fallen into the public domain from being used freely, which is supposed to be the promise of copyright -- meaning that the orphaned works [wikipedia.org] problem is no longer just fueled by copyright law, but by technology. The sole purpose of DRM is to deprive honest consumers of their fair use rights, instead substituting an EULA.
Fair use is something that is protected only by the graces of the court, as it stands now. We need to strike back against any
I expect media portability (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been burned already buying DRM'd (Digitally RESTRICTED Media) files from itunes and from mlb.com and I'm through with that. I won't do it any more. If media companies insist on tying up content so they can decide what I can and can't do with it, then I will continue to NOT give them my money.
I'm sorry, but I should not have to violate the friggin' DMCA to break the stupid copy protection on DVDs just so I can move the files to my laptop so I can watch them on a plane or in a hotel room. And no law, company, or technology should stand in the way of being able to do that.
Bottom line: There is no acceptable DRM. Period.
-S
Re:I expect media portability (Score:5, Funny)
I pretty much called bullshit though. I mean, come on. Things get BETTER over time for the consumer, right? And they tried to tell me at one point:
1) You actually got physical media
2) The media even came with little booklets with song lyrics (and it wasn't illegal)
3) Price was about the same price or cheaper than what you get from iTMS, Nap$ster, etc.
4) You could play the stuff practically ANYWHERE
5) Sound quality was great- even better than the downloaded stuff
6) You could sell the media (LEGALLY!) to a friend, store, or whatever when you were done with it.
7) Nobody ever got sued for any of this
Either my parents are full of shit or they grew up in a much better time. Next thing you know they'll tell me about the days when the theater charged less than than $8.50 a person and they weren't loaded with commercials.
Re:I expect media portability (Score:4, Insightful)
Movie studios and record labels can compete with those not paing license fees using things like faster and assured high quelity delivery of ownership of the work. If you can pay a dime and get it at high speed from a known reliable source, why bother with a file trading network delivering a version of unknown quality with days or weeks of waiting before you get it?
Anyone can make their own version of MySQL and sell it. or change it and sell that. Except, they don't, because MySQL the company keeps ahead of the game and makes it unnecessary.
At present the film and record labels are delivering lower video or audio quality with DRM, so you can't readily move it from computer to computer as you change room, operating system or company you do business with. It's not surprising that they are having problems - it's a comedy of errors.
Like Star Wreck for example (Score:3, Informative)
do not stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
One thing I would like to see is a DRM converter. I don't like DRM's, and would like to see them go away. Given that isn't about to happen any time soon, at least being able to convert from one DRM to another is a decent substitute. This could easily make Google a preferred company to buy from.
Re:do not stupid (Score:2)
When my last Ipod got stolen, I thought about getting an MP3 player from another company. Call me brainwashed, but I couldn't find any other that came close to the look/feel/features of the ipod. So the DRM compatibility thing is nice, but until Apple signs on, or *someone* (how fracking difficult can it be
Google also announced a partnership with DivX (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.greencine.com/divxRelease?content=4 [greencine.com]
According to Divx representatives, the talks are in a very early stage and details still have to be discussed and determined. However, Divx' role in Google appears not be in direct connection with the search engine's announcement of a commercial video download service. Instead, Divx will help Google to move video content across various device types and ultimately onto the TV screen. Of course, content will only be able to be moved, if it carries a digital rights management platform and if devices are "secure. Susan Wojcicki, Google's vice president of product management said that "Google video's goal is to make the world's video content more accessible" to people. "We want to reach a point when consumers can easily access the content that is important to them from Google whenever they want and enjoy that content on a variety of devices."
http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/01/07/divx_google/ [tgdaily.com]
Re:Google also announced a partnership with DivX (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway, my whole problem with DRM is that take away the whole "transfer of ownership" when you buy something. In reality you never own DRM material, you rent it or buy the ability to play it. The defense is that publishers and artists have t
Re:Google also announced a partnership with DivX (Score:4, Funny)
So I'm honestly baffled. First there was DIVX (1), sold through electronics retail stores, which was a technology that ensured that the movies you rented/bought couldn't be played unless your player's phone call completed. This died a well-deserved premature death. Then there was DivX:-) (2), an MPEG4-like video encoder distributed by hackers. Then I think there wasw DivX (3), as the hackers went mainstream? Now there's DivX (4), which seems a lot like (1) but maybe without the phone call.
Am I understanding this all correctly? Is there any relation between (2) and (4)? Between (1) and (4)? Most importantly...
WILL EVERYONE QUIT CALLING THEIR NEW VIDEO TECHNOLOGY DIVX? THE NAME IS TAKEN ALREADY, OK???
Not another video player (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not another video player (Score:2)
Google and Apple... (Score:2)
Why create another one? (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.openmediacommons.org/ [openmediacommons.org]
Vik
video DRM is more tolerable than music DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm currently paying for Yahoo's unlimited streaming audio service. Five bucks a month gets me all I can eat. And at that price it's more than reasonable to me that I'm not buying license to any of what I listen to. Artists get paid a tiny amount every time I listen to a song. Nobody's getting stiffed.
But when I purchase music, as opposed to subscribing to a stream, DRM is a deal breaker. That's why I've never used the iTunes store and never will. I don't have to worry that five years from now I'll have a hard drive crash, or ten years from now I'll lose a password, and all my music purchases will be gone forever. I'm only going to buy music if it's mine for life, and if I can quickly and easily backup my music library whenever I wish.
Video offerings can be another story. Much of what I want to see is stuff I only want to watch once. I'm not interested in paying $30 a month on cable when about the only TV I watch is a weekly NFL game during the autumn. But I'd really like to pay a buck or two to see an NFL game every Sunday. And given that Google's already got the NBA, I bet they'll have the NFL by the start of next season. If I can pay $5 - $10 a month to watch my football, that'll save me tons of money over either getting cable or over going to a bar to watch the game.
As for DRM, in a case like this, why should I care? As long as the price is reasonable, why should I care that I can't share my video, or that I won't be able to watch it months from now? It's not music. Not only would I have no interest in watching a Giants game I already saw last October, you couldn't pay me to watch it again! And if well-designed DRM without a rootkit or something comparably evil gives the NFL and google enough safety to offer a bit of on-demand video at a fair price -- well, I think it's a great deal all around.
What kind of DRM ? (Score:5, Interesting)
One might wonder if they will not simply put a watermark on the files, so they are traceable. Or maybe some other kind of DRM we never saw or heard about.
The real question is: why care ? It will simply be broken. Google should know better and, perhaps, they do. After all, they need it to be able to get *AA to sign.
But I have to wonder on what kind of Linux and MAC support we will have. Google is heavily based on Linux. One would expect they to support it.
Will it be cross platform? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's their ball (Score:5, Insightful)
Voluntary DRM is not evil. What is evil is when DRM is legislated into the system, even interfering with those who choose not to have anything to do with it.
Re:It's their ball (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing more needs to be said if one's view is that copyrighted works rightfully belong to the copyright holder forever.
But if you believe that copyright is a compromise between society and content producers, then the choice by copyright owners to employ DRM on their works has the additional negative consequence of giving them control over their works beyond the term of the copyright. And that's a problem.
As far as I'm concerned, copyright owners can do whatever they want with their works, as long as they don't violate the purpose of copyright. DRM allows them to violate that purpose, and that's why I'm vehemently against it.
Re:It's their ball (Score:3, Insightful)
To play devil's advocate for a bit, consider that copyright and DRM are not really linked at all. In a legal system without copyright, where anyone may copy anything freely, one might still use DRM to prevent people
Predictions (Score:4, Interesting)
2) It will be an inside job.
Don't be evil (yet) (Score:5, Insightful)
With the stock price at about 450, I'm really not surprised by their behavior. Can you imagine how many employees there are at Google that are paper millionaires right now? I'm not exactly sure how the Google stock options work but my understanding is that most stock options cannot be sold immediately - they need to vest over a period of time and then you can sell them later. How many employees are sitting there just *praying* for the stock price to stay high? Management too...
So what do you do to keep the stock price up? Meet expectations, for one. Unfortunately, Google expectations are so high and possibly un-reachable. Everyone expects them to take over the world as if they're magicians, Jesus, or both. They need to keep making money - MORE MONEY with better and BETTER products ALL THE TIME!!! The moment they just perform "exceptionally" or "excellently", the stock price will go down because this is below expectations. So the hype continues.
If they acheive these expectations, then I'll be happy. We'll have some amazing products, and the world may even be a better place for it! But I suspect that their value is based on expectations of a higher future value, as opposed to realistic expectations regarding revenue and future revenue growth. Irrational Exuberance? Perhaps... I think so anyway.
Neener Neener Screener Screener (Score:5, Insightful)
Video from CES 2006 presentation... (Score:3, Informative)
locks are for honest people (Score:3, Interesting)
It seems to me that pay for view TV is already in place and just like telephones and VOIP and how many LD companies are using it, internet TV programming is probably already in wide use.
The DRM spin only does what? What is the point, really?
As it is now, living in Atlanta with at least 9 over the air local stations, all of which the reception is getting worse over the years....
So I buy used videos real cheap at the local movie traders. And I can then watch them as much as I want.
Music... Internet radio showed me enough free or advertiser supported music choices, besides teh local over the air stations.
Copyrights weren't supposed to last so long, and back then it took longer to make a product. So now that its easier to produce, copyrights are extended????
That is a contridiction.
As the world economy improves for more and more of the world, what are we heading towards? It doesn't sound anything like the vision of star trek earth economy. but more like "total recall" dictatorship.
What will the war and power mongers do, when they burn out the phantom terrorist scam? It's not always going to be so easy to fool the population of the planet, as not many today would see teh people of russia as some evil empire, for many of us have friends their.
What next? Gotta criminals out of somebody, do them wrong enough to provoke them to retailiate and then claim they are criminals of the worse kind.
Do a search on "Trillion dollar bet" and read the transcript if you really want to know what provoked 9/11
Laying criminal charges on the consumer, is the last ditch effort to maintain some evil in teh world.
What is DRM really all about?
No Linux yet...... (Score:4, Funny)
How can I tell if a video is copy-protected?
You can determine whether a video is copy-protected during the purchase process: if a video is only available for Windows, it's copy-protected.
companies and evil (Score:5, Funny)
apple = think evil
microsoft = be evil
sony = root for evil
sco = sue for evil
dell = build evil
intel = evil inside -> evil ahead
anyone else?
Google secrecy. Yeah, right. (Score:4, Informative)
Nonsense. PageRank was published in a 1998 paper by Brin and Page [psu.edu].