A Look at Google DRM

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.' "

Comments

Locking up our culture

[Anonymous Coward]

thanks, i guess the "do no evil" is redundant thesedays, much like the US constitution

Re:Locking up our culture

[xiphoris]

thanks, i guess the "do no evil" is redundant thesedays, much like the US constitution

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

[mikiN]

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.

Remember the Broadcast flag, anyone?

Re:Locking up our culture

[Anonymous Coward]

simile - A figure of speech in which two essentially unlike things are compared, often in a phrase introduced by like or as.

I think you missed the GP's point.

Re:Locking up our culture

[mfago]

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.

No, it would make such privacy violations worse. DRM is all about _other people_ controlling your computer, and your data. This is compatible with neither privacy, nor security. EFF is a good place to read about this. Cory Doctorow has discussed this in depth as well (an EFF fellow).

Re:Locking up our culture

[Yartrebo]

Don't forget that the only reason anyone agrees to those contracts is because of the government granted monopoly that is copyright law. Like any acute businessmen, they realized that they can leverage copyright monopolies to get far more than just what the statute says. Very pro-business courts have set the limit as to what is an enforceable EULA extremely in favor of business (compare them to landlords vs. tenants, where far more reasonable terms are considered to be too anti-tenant and not allowed in lease contracts).

Remember that on each non-copyleft (or public domain) work, there is a monopoly on it and, as most people will admit, each individual work is pretty independant and they are pretty lousy substitutes for each other (ie., if you want 1 action movie, you won't license a different title just because it's 2% cheaper - whereas people will drive around town to save 2% on a gasoline fill-up.).

Furthermore, the movie+TV industry is organised as a trust of Gilded Age proportions (MPAA) and this allows them to act as if they were a single company controlling over 95% of the market. Considering the fraction of one's life spent in front of the TV, such control is extremely powerful with leverage rivaling that of Standard Oil.

While I grant you that there is nothing in our Constitution making such contracts or trusts illegal, it does violate the letter of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the spirit of copyright law.

Re:Locking up our culture

[xiphoris]

I would argue that none of the businesses you mentioned, as they are, do anything wrong. The types of companies you speak of are usually publically traded and have an obligation to their shareholders (by nature of being publically traded) to make a lot of money -- that's how stock works.

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 companies entirely in terms of units sold; Google's formula includes the notion that mindshare and honor are very important, if not the most important, things: having them results in more products (ads) sold.

The problem is that United States copyright law, as it stands, is terrible. I'll agree with you on that. If you look at the wording of the initial laws themselves, you'll see that copyright was created to promote the science and the arts [not exact quote]. I think in its current form it is doing nothing, at all, of the sort. If anything it is hindering scientific art and progress (in some areas) more than helping promote it.

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.

Now, if you want to change the rules, call your congressman. Until then, stay your hate for companies that play by the rules made by people we elect, and see if you ever see Pepsi and Coke fountain machines in the same store. You won't.

Re:Locking up our culture

[h3llfish]

I don't mean to come off as some kind of word nazi here, but considering that you got "insightful" points, I feel like I ought to point out that I don't think that redundant means what you think it means. Redundant means that something is not required because it is a duplication of something else (or in the case of a RAID, it IS required because it duplicates something else). I'm pretty sure that you didn't mean to say that the Constitution is no longer needed because something else guarantees our civil rights.

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:Locking up our culture

[spongman]

I don't own a television. How's the government forcing me to use the Broadcast flag, exactly?

Re:Locking up our culture

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

The government are the ones who will take your money and give it to the plaintiff, fine you, and/or jail you and give you a felony conviction (with all that entails) for breaking DRM.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Whaa! I want my free stuff!

Re:Locking up our culture

[Yartrebo]

I don't believe that legal automatically equals ethical or 'not wrong.' If an action brings substantial harm to the world, it's wrong, whether you got a congresscritter to suck your money-lined dick or not to make it legal. If this were not the case, than the Jews, Communists, and union supporters would rot in hell for violating Hitler's law and the SS would go to heaven for their close following of the law.

PS: I have written my senators and my representative over many copyright issues ... hasen't changed a thing.

Re:Locking up our culture

[cicho]

In a country that has gvt censorship: "I don't have anything interesting to say. How's the government censoring me, exactly?"

Re:Locking up our culture

[rtb61]

No, generally most countries constitutions will govern the basic premis of all contracts i.e. no common law contract can infringe civil law and hence the constitution. How about if I wont like some particular product why can corporations lie to be about it and convince me it's something it's not, hence forcing a false purchase.

DRM currently requires that people are willing to buy it. Many versions of DRM will fail because the majority of people will prove unwilling to buy them. The whole idea of DRM is a lack of trust but if a supplier is unwilling to trust me, why should I be foolish enough to trust them.

Re:Locking up our culture

[altoz]

Hm... I don't know.

My guess is that Google will do something that really isn't evil. Any of you fans of a sports team that's not in town? Right now, you pretty much have to either have to pay $200 + $80/month for some satellite service that gets you all the games of that sport, though you really only want maybe 1/30th of the content, $20 per game at a bar that happens to be showing your game or hope against all hope that someone will upload your teams' games onto bittorrent or some other file-sharing service. Out of those, only the third one really lets you view the program at your convenience.

Now if Google is charging $2 per game, isn't that a whole lot better than these alternatives? I'd rather have my sports games at my convenience for a small fee. And note that it's really serving a market that's there, but isn't served. I don't see how that's really that evil for one-off things like sports games.

Re:Locking up our culture

[BlogPope]

If an action brings substantial harm to the world

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 middle east peace and I'll reconsider.

Re:Locking up our culture

[idsofmarch]

Yes, but obviously there should be a limit to what kinds of agreements or contracts one could agree to. I can't for example demand that a borrower pay me back in a literal pound of flesh can I? The US Constitution was and remains a limited document, crafted specifically to limit the federal government and enumerate some rights of the citizens.

However, we should also understand that the rights described in the Constitution were also inalienable and couldn't easily be removed from the citizen. I would take this to mean that neither the government or corporation could remove the right to liberty. A corporation is simply a legal contract among citizens and carries only limited powers that should be limited to legal liability and the necessary framework surrounding that. Making corporations a kind of quasi-nation-state is dangerous.

Re:Locking up our culture

[Anonymous Coward]

So, how would you really feel about having a boss who's 10 years younger than yourself?

Maybe you really didn't fit it, not directly because of your age, but indirectly, as your personality would probably be different, more mature, and less crazy about trying risky stuff (which Google does all the time).

Re:Locking up our culture

[mattyrobinson69]

with the tv - it doesn't work like that. i bought a 'season ticket' to a uk channel 'prem plus' (they show premiership football), i dont want to watch bolton v blackburn, but its on and im paying for it.

if i didn't buy the £37 season ticket (not 30, telewest take a markup on it), i'd have to buy the games at £8 eact - if i watch 5 games this season, its been worth paying for.

thats how tv works - cheaper to ignore the crap than not pay for it (not that bolton v blackburn would be crap, i just dont have time to watch it)

Re:Locking up our culture

[Heembo]

Sounds like you are bitter. If you were chosen to be amount the "full timers" you would not have this perspective. You would be a millionaire. Sour grapes? Sometimes you lose. This doesn't mean that Google is evil. A 25 year old programmer is usually more productive than a 65 year old programmer. Is that evil?

Re:Locking up our culture

[h3llfish]

I said that I was bitter in my post, so I don't think you get any insight points for pointing that out. It was a lot of damn money, so yeah, bitterness... I'll live. Google isn't the first hot new company in this town's history, and it certainly will not be the last. Just wait till the robot revolution starts, I'm going to find a way to make a mint on that one.

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 suspicion that age was a factor, but this chick told me to my face. And I wasn't 65... I said in the original post that I was 32. And as far as my productivity, they didn't need to guess how productive I would be based on my age. I had worked there for months, so they knew how productive I was. And if low productivity was an issue, they could have said that to me. It wasn't, and they didn't.

I wonder if any of you GOOG worshipers would have had different feelings about all this if they had told me that they were not hiring me because I was black? Are some forms of discrimination unacceptable to you, or are you cool with all of them?

Re:Locking up our culture

[ClosedSource]

"A 25 year old programmer is usually more productive than a 65 year old programmer."

Sure, just ask any 25 year old programmer and he'll confirm it.

Re:Locking up our culture

[Jim_Callahan]

It's redundant? So it's so obvious that they aren't doing evil that stating it is completely pointless?

(This word, "redundant"... I do not think it means what you think it means. You're right about the constitution, though, there are several redundancies in there to keep the balance of power from tipping about too wildly.)

Re:Locking up our culture

[Jim_Callahan]

Doh! You beat me to it... making my later post redundant... hmm, that's either an interesting coincidence or sleep deprivation is making really banal things seem totally awesome.

Re:Locking up our culture

[Weedlekin]

"A 25 year old programmer is usually more productive than a 65 year old programmer."

And your evidence for this is...

Re:Locking up our culture

[Swift2001]

The government IS forcing everybody to use copy protection.

Re:Locking up our culture

[Anonymous Coward]

Must be nice, I own 2 TVs and the government controls all the content (AFN>/a>) - Really sucks when you have a favorite show, but its 2 months behind what the US sees. Hell, I've seen Lost (season 1) 3 times now. We had the first run, the encore run and then a "marathon". Any other reality shows typically run 1 day to a few months behind what is seen in the states. I know who wins what before certain shows even start on AFN.

I haven't seen South Park on TV in 2 years. I see safety commercials instead of "Bobs Bed Warehouse" (when we go back to the US, we actually watch the commercials - its amazing how much you miss them after seeing the same safety commercial so many times, you know the words or some General reading a Q card to say that he supports you). Our news is a mix of everything (mostly CNN and Fox though) and when something serious happens and someone high up in government speaks, they kill half the stations and force you to watch the crap.

Oh yea, and when you live on the economy, you're forced to buy a $600 receiver. We're forced to buy these from each other or from our monopoly of a general store called AAFES. Imagine going to look for a hard drive and finding out an 80 gig HD is $180... (ok, ok - I'm WAY off topic - I know)

Arg - all for "serving my country"... Don't get me wrong, its gotten better than in the past, but its still got a long way to go.

Re:Locking up our culture

[rufty_tufty]

Simple look at the number of LOC that guy wrote - hey he was working at 3am on a caffine high - He must be a better person to employ!

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!

Re:Locking up our culture

[xtracto]

Are some forms of discrimination unacceptable to you, or are you cool with all of them?

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:

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
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

[Anonymous Coward]

I really wouldn't care how much DRM companies slap onto digital media if the government hadn't taken away my right to remove it. There all a bunch of coporate whores who should be voted out of office, ASAP.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li sts/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=2& vote=00137

Re:Locking up our culture

[stinerman]

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.

An example of "cure the patient by killing him" if I've ever seen one.

Re:Locking up our culture

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps they noticed your small, brittle ego couldn't sustain even the most minor setback without casting the blame back on your employer. That's not a good trait in a pioneering field.

Given your attitude, I too would have fired you. It's not like GOOG was short of applicants at the time.

Re:Locking up our culture

[Znork]

As a major and growing drain on economic resources a fair case can be made for intellectual property as a substantial harm. The actual problem is not that you are prevented from watching the "Sound of Music", but rather lies in the diversion of resources from the free market into inefficient monopolies. Resources which would otherwise have been better utilized.

As an indication of the long term effects of monopoly inefficiencies, take a look at, and compare the economic development in economies allowing competition, versus, for example, communist economies. Then consider how much further developed the intellectual monopoly fields would be today, were it not for the monopoly legislation.

How much more music would we have available, if the resources spent actually went to the creation of music? How many more diseases would we have cured, were not 80% of the money spent on medicines wasted on monopoly protected marketing and administration, rather than R&D?

The easily visible part is only the least of the harm caused by intellectual monopoly legislation. The greatest harm is all that that goes uncreated and uninvented because those resources are spent on anti-competetive monopolies.

Re:Locking up our culture

[Weedlekin]

Exactly. I wrote significantly more lines of code per day when I was younger than I do now. But I write far more _useful_ lines of code nowadays. Of course, LOC style metrics would probably rate me as notably unproductive, just as a metric which graded carpenters by the volume of wood consumed per day would rate the experienced ones who don't waste wood poorly.

Re:Locking up our culture

[metternich]

I think he was using Redundant in a Biercian way:

REDUNDANT, adj.
  Superfluous; needless; de trop.

      The Sultan said: "There's evidence abundant
      To prove this unbelieving dog redundant."
      To whom the Grand Vizier, with mien impressive,
      Replied: "His head, at least, appears excessive."
                      Habeeb Suleiman

      Mr. Debs is a redundant citizen.
                          Theodore Roosevelt

Re:Locking up our culture

[mrchaotica]

If the government can infringe on even one person's rights and get away with it, we all lose. After all, if it can happen to someone it can happen to anyone.

Re:Locking up our culture

[jacquesm]

it's interesting how the largest copyright infringer on the planet (the owners of the google 'cache') find it necessary to make their own copyright protection.

Are they afraid someone might spider and index their video or what ?

Re:Locking up our culture

[Heembo]

Maybe it's not your age, maybe it's not your productivity. Maybe you are just a confrontational asshole?

Re:Locking up our culture

[WebCrapper]

This is pretty interesting - I too have to deal with AFN. Oddly enough, I'm watching TV while reading /. and AFN has interrupted the normal programming and forced me to watch the Pentegon channel for coverage of the President at the VFW conference or whatever the heck it is. I'm pretty damn annoyed as well.

Re:Locking up our culture

[mrchaotica]

I disagree. The our broken Intellectual "Property" law is effectively killing innovation and culture in this country, as well as free speech. In case you didn't notice, innovation and culture are the defining features of civilization, and free speech is essential in preventing several of the "substantially harm[ful]" things you mentioned.

For example, you mentioned the problem of convincing a nation (impoverished or not) that all their problems are caused by some minority group. Which do you think is easier, doing it in a country where (because of copyright law) publishers can dictate what media companies show, preventing anything they don't like from being heard, or doing it in a country where freedom of expression trumps monopoly protection? In Soviet Russia, the government oppressed it's people by controlling the media. Having our media be controlled by the cartel (which colludes with the government) isn't any better!

Don't you realize that the thousands of people dying from AIDS (let alone other diseases) in Africa can't get treatment because of US drug patents?

Re:Locking up our culture

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Here's some food for thought. Probably get me modded flamebait if anyone actually reads it, but that's OK.

You don't have a "right" to other people's creations. You may WANT it, but that doesn't mean it's yours by right. Thus far, all the government has done is pass laws that state the same thing.

If you don't like it -- here's a novel idea -- DO WITHOUT. If enough people choose to do without, then the message becomes clear to the suppliers. If people can't handle that option, they will continue to either buy or steal content; both of those send messages to the suppliers that they're selling what people want.

Re:Locking up our culture

[halltk1983]

First they came for the TV viewers, and I did not speak up, because I did not watch TV...

Re:Locking up our culture

[Anonymous Coward]

Content providers and DRM software writers don't have the right to hijack the government and use its force to defend their outdated business models, while using MY TAX DOLLARS TO DO SO.

I have at least as much right to their content (which they don't lose if I have access to it), if not more right to it, than they have to my tax dollars or the government which is paid by my tax dollars - which I no longer have to spend - and I pay a lot of taxes and miss that income very much.

If government would stop spending so much money enforcing the content cartel's wishes, wasting time and freedom on the useless War on (Some) Drugs (while giving Big Pharma too many breaks), and allowing disasters like Bushtrina to happen rather than mitigating them (fixing the levies before Katrina hit would've been much cheaper than rebuilding New Orleans - which they are only going to do for the rich and industry - I wouldn't mind my tax dollars being used to help the 9th Ward - except I'd still want to see people fired for letting the disaster happen in the first place - and maybe Katrina only happened because of global warming from oil consumption because we don't have decent mass transit most places and we have to drive all the time), maybe I would've have to essentially work the first half of the morning for free (I don't see the money that's for sure - Land of the Taxed and Home of the Serfs).

Re:Locking up our culture

[h3llfish]

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.

You're probably not surprised to learn that I agree totally. It's just all a bit dissappointing to me. Isn't /. supposed to a haven for rationality? The zeal with which people who have never set foot inside the place are telling me about how wonderful Google is has a truly religious feel to it. I don't think I could have drawn so many fiery posts if I had gone on to a Chatholic forum and proclaimed the Pope a former Nazi. The fact that my assertions are all totally true seems to be irrelevant to these folks.

And that, to anyone still reading this, is why it's probably a pretty good time to sell you GOOG stock. It's just my guess, but I think I can see the peak from here. Or does anyone want to believe that they will finally meet their insane overvaluation by selling episodes of "I Love Lucy"?

To quote Battlestar Galatica, this has all happened before, and it will all happen again. Sometimes the young folks lack the perspective to see that.

Re:Locking up our culture

[TheoMurpse]

Reduntant: Repeated or duplicated unnecessarily.
How is "do no evil" redundant? Perhaps you meant "is an oxymoron" or "just a lie," but I'm sure you didn't mean "redundant".

Re:Locking up our culture

[Alsee]

Probably get me modded flamebait

Oh man... I just got mod points and a I *SO* tempted to feed you flamebait mod because you are so wrong and because you asked for it.

The only reason I'm not doing it is because if I don't post why you are so wrong I just know you're going to walk away with some smug attitude that you're right and that the mod was unreasonable.

Your post invites and deserves flaming because you invited it and because your post did not reply to what the parent poster said. You completely ignored what he said and posted irrellevant worthless crap.

He said: "The government are the ones who will take your money and give it to the plaintiff, fine you, and/or jail you and give you a felony conviction (with all that entails) for breaking DRM. 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.

You did not reply to his post. You have given NO justification for INNOCENT NONINFRINGING people to be put in prison for half a decade. No reason why I should be put in prison if I buy something and I do some math (to bypass or remove DRM) to move it onto my iPod or other player. No reason why I should be put in prison for giving someone else instructions how to do the same thing to move the things they bought to their other hardware players.

You can go to fucking hell with your implications of copyright infringment and "theft" because I'm not fucking talking about copyright infringment. I am talking about an evil law that says we go to prison when we're not committing copyright infringment. And you can go to fucking hell with any talk of contracts because I'm not talking about violating any contract either. I am talking about an evil law that says we go to prison even when we have agreed to no contract.

You don't have a "right" to other people's creations.

Fine.

You may WANT it, but that doesn't mean it's yours by right.

Fine.

Thus far, all the government has done is pass laws that state the same thing.

Bullshit. The government passed the DMCA. It says that I can go to prison for making NONINFRINGING use of something that I bought.

It also says that even if I have no contract and no involvement and no contact at all with a copyright holder or his publisher and retailers, that I can go to prison for selling a product (or even for merely giving people free instructions) that enables other people to make perfectly legitimate and noninfringing use of their own property.

If you don't like it -- here's a novel idea -- DO WITHOUT. If enough people choose to do without, then the message becomes clear to the suppliers.

Fine, we can go with natural market forces just as soon as the government returns to enforcment against copyright infringment and enforcing contracts and the government gets out of the fucking DRM and DRM enforcement business.

Either explain why innocent noninfringing people should be put in prison under the DMCA, or agree with me and the prior poster that the DMCA should be repealed by congress or stuck down by the courts and we should get back to enforcing copyrights and enforcing contracts.

-

Re:Locking up our culture

[JulesLt]

No, /. has become a haven for an irrational hive-mind.

You get to be +5 insightful for saying 'They should go for an open source solution' about anything. Even where it's not appropriate (since when has 'many eyes good' produced a good novel or film).

Any study that doesn't show Linux or mySql is the best must be biased, and everything Microsoft does is wrong (or copied from Apple). Even if we then copy it.
'Do not fight monsters, less ye become one' as I think it runs?

You can't say anything positive about copyright - because technology lets you break it easily, it must be copyright that is wrong and needs to give way.
Whereas of course if a company or government misuses the potential of technology (say for surveillance or in warfare) then that usage must be prohibited as bad for society.

Oh, and my favourite 'we don't need X, we need new business models'. Uh-huh, just like new business models were going to be how everyone was going to make money in the .com boom.

I do actually wonder how most /. people make a living and I'd wager the majority of them are working in the type of 'traditional' business they profess to despise.

Still, it's better than trying to criticise Apple on an Apple forum!

Re:Locking up our culture

[cloudmaster]

Start using "if (0)" as a wrapper around your comments, and use "printf" as your comment character. Your lines of code will quickly catch up to and surpass the inexperienced kid who doesn't comment anything. :)

Re:Locking up our culture

[Weedlekin]

LOL! What a wonderful idea for all those LOC counters that encourage kids not to comment their work properly by ignoring comments. However, IMO comments should not only be counted, but also be mandatory in any project. And I don't mean a crappy line saying something obvious like "// A loop": every function or method should have a block saying what it's meant to do, what inputs it expects, the nature of any outputs, pre-conditions, post conditions, invariants, possible secondary effects, descriptions of any exceptions it throws and the circumstances under which they can occur, etc. The presence of such information is not solely an aid to calling a function -- it also tells me that whoever wrote it has probably expended more than the usual amount of effort to ensure that it functions in the way that the comments describe.

Re:Locking up our culture

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

*salutes* Yessir. I agree with you all the way. Most convincing. But I do appreciate NOT being modded flamebait, in spite of the rather vitriolic response. I'll also grant that I tend to get off-topic in my replies. Most likely I saw some word or phrase in grandparent that triggered that post... um, correction; I just went back and checked, and couldn't find quite /what/ got me on that tangent.

Alright, so to clarify... while I don't agree with the specifics of DMCA -- jail sentences more stringent than those for rape is ridiculous; having any jail-time at all for ANY victimless crime is rather foolish. However, I don't really have a problem with the principal expressed by it: Namely, content creators (or owners) DO have the right to control what we do with their content.

If I make a program for one company, I damn sure don't want them distributing it to ANYONE else without my OK. On the other hand, when I publish GPL'd code, it's a completely differnt story -- but the point is, as the person who created it, I am the only person with the right to control it.

Re:Locking up our culture

[bigpicture]

How do you think that Google can legally get access to video content, by not agreeing to the movie industry terms?? Google does not have to have DRM but then they will not have movie or TV content either. Can you buy a car without seatbelts or air bags???

Re:Locking up our culture

[Heembo]

Google is giving me a free service. More like, many free services that are useful to me. That makes them inherently less evil that Sony and Microsoft, who don't give me shit for free. You call me immature? Get over yourself, buddy.

Re:Locking up our culture

[Snaller]

If you don't like some particular product, then don't buy it.

That's what they said about slavery too. If you don't like it, don't keep slaves.

Re:Locking up our culture

[Alsee]

Namely, content creators (or owners) DO have the right to control what we do with their content.

No, they they don't.

They have the right to control infringing activities.

Content creators (or owners) have no right to control anything after the copyright has expired. They have no right to control the use of their content when someone is commenting, criticizing, or otherwise reviewing it. They have no right to control the use of their content in sarire and parody. They generally have no right to control the use of their content for educational and research purposes. They have no right to control that content as part of news reporting. They have no right to control the resale of the content. They have no right to control the study/analysis/reverse_engineering of the content. They have no right to control the creation of a backup copy. They have no right to control the time shifting of that content. They have no right to control the format shifting of that content. They have no right to control the media shifting of that content. They have no right to control a vast array of private personal activities.

And as the Supreme Court has explicitly said, that list is not only incomplete, it is literally impossible to exhaustively list the range of noninfringing Fair Use, because it is always possible for some new never before dreamt of use to be constitutionally protected Fair Use... constitutionally prohibited for copyright law to restrict.

Fair Use was established by the Supreme Court on the basis that it would be unconstitutional for copyright law to even attempt to restrict certain things. That the Supreme Court would have to strike down copyright law as null and void if it attempt to restrict certain things.

If I make a program for one company, I damn sure don't want them distributing it to ANYONE else without my OK.

Yeah, that's called copyright. That has absolutely nothing to do with the DMCA.

The principal expressed by the DMCA is that it be illegal for people to do certain math (to decrypt their own files) for perfectly legitimate perfectly legal absolutely noninfringing uses. And that it be illegal for people to offer interoperable products. And that it be illegal for people to offer products for perfectly legitimate perfectly legal absolutely noninfringing uses.

The DMCA says it is illegal for me to sell you a DVD player that can view both your US-bought DVDs and your Britan-bought DVDs. That it is illegal for me to sell you a DVD player that can fast forward past the ten minutes of commercials at the start of some DVDs. That it is illegal for me to sell you a product for moving your music files from one brand of MP3 player to another brand of MP3 player. That it is illegal for me (a programmer) to write and use my own innovative music plaer software... much less to SELL my innovative music player softeare for other people to benefit from. oThat it is illegal for me to sell e-book text-to-speach products to BLIND PEOPLE. Etcetera ad nausium.

The DMCA contains no penalties at all for copyright infringment. The DMCA is not about copyright infringment at all.

The DMCA grants the publishing industry absulute power to restrict and deny both the hardware industries and software industries from introducing perfectly legitimate innovative and interoperable products. It grants the publisher absolutely monopoly power over the player market. Christ, we had to go through anti-trust prosecution to smake down the movie industry for their ILLEGAL abuses to control and monopolize the player market a few decades ago with movie projectors.

Just because a copyright holder sell a vinyl music record does not give them any right to control and monoplize the turntable market. It is extremely harmful and destructing to allow copyright holders to abuse and extent their monoploy power to the player market. It is absurd to suggest that someone is a criminal if they build their own turntable, or if they sell their own new and innovatin

Re:Locking up our culture

[xtracto]

Google is giving me a free service. More like, many free services that are useful to me. That makes them inherently less evil

Take it easy cowboy.

What I was saying is that Google isn't any kin dof Jesus Christ or whatever, they are as good as any of your local T.V. or Radio shows. They are not evil with you because they DO NOT have to.

In contrast, they have they clients (read well, you are NOT Google's client) the ADWord buyers. And, from what I have read, they are not 100% right over there. They have their problems and Google has abused them sometimes.

Now that Google has started to provide a REVENUED service for the GENERAL PUBLIC, we still have to see how do they manage. To begin with, they added DRM (some people thing it is ok per se, others disagree) to their media.

I am not against Google, it would be masochist to read/be in slashdot while hating google. In fact, if you see my email, it is a gmail, also daily used email (not this /. nick) is gmail, and all my other (university, work, etc) mails are forwared there (cause I can find/label them easly).

But what I dislike is the way everybody sees google as their Savior WTF, it is JUST A COMPANY with shareholders, it WILL continue to get money however it can. It is not Larry Page or Sergey Brin fault, it is just the way Enterprises work in our current capitalist model.

Re:Locking up our culture

[Heembo]

What I was saying is that Google isn't any kin dof Jesus Christ or whatever, they are as good as any of your local T.V. or Radio shows.

You make some great points, but I think this is a poor analogy. Passive radio or tv does not give me free ajax email, interractive search services, or interractive satelite imagry for free. I agree Google is not jesus or our saviour, but they do give me a lot of solid stuff for free which is huge in my mind.

Rootkit!

[EuroChild]

Google Roooooooooooootkit?

Re:Rootkit!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be evil! Being the lesser of two evils, however, is perfectly acceptable.

Re:Rootkit!

[Taimoor]

Of course, but they're only going to use it for "no evil."

After all, every publicly traded corporation holds true to their corporate motto, right?

--Nick

Re:Rootkit!

[heavy snowfall]

Do less evil

Re:Rootkit!

[silverkniveshotmail.]

Is it always evil to use DRM?

Re:Rootkit!

[aussie_a]

I'd say it's safe to say "yes."

Re:Rootkit!

[Baricom]

Is it always evil to use DRM?

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:Rootkit!

[silverkniveshotmail.]

I'd say it's safe to say "yes."

But you say that based on you not liking it.
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.

Re:Rootkit!

[roman_mir]

You always have a choice of building/creating/writing something yourself. I am pro-copyright, always was, always will be, I would even say I am for a very very long copyright term and I don't see at all how releasing copyrighted information into public domain is necessary for anyone, when anyone can just create their own stuff.

Good night.

Re:Rootkit!

[GigsVT]

DRM is pretty ineffective.

I think we have more to fear from proprietary formats, when you are talking about accessing a work in 100 years.

Any DRM key can be brute force cracked by a computer 100 years from now in a few milliseconds flat (Assuming all that's left is a DRMed copy and not one someone decrypted). Putting the man hours into reverse engineering a format is a real barrier to accessing media in the future. It's unlikely a computer will ever be able to do something as complex as reverse engineering formats.

So I say go crazy with the DRM. Just use a well documented format with an open specification. Really open, not "pay $1000 to join our club and sign this NDA and poke your eyes out after 'open'".

Re:Rootkit!

[westlake]

Digital Restrictions Management (along with constantly-lengthening copyright terms) is being used to shortchange the public domain

Public domain status doesn't give you access on demand to primary sources.

It doesn't even quarantee that a source will survive. Simple conservation costs money. Restoration to a state suitable for public distribution costs more.

Re:Rootkit!

[aussie_a]

It sucks when stuff resists being copied, but how does that make it so fucking evil?

I love this. Whenever Microsoft does something people clamour to say how terrible it is. When Google does the same thing, the same people rush to Google's defense. I should be able to do the following things with products I buy:
* Copy them onto storage media (such as CDs, USB, portable video players (insert tirade here on why google should use an open source codec to encode their videos)).
* View them on any computer.
* View them when not connected to the internet.
* Be able to copy them as much as I like (for personal use).
* Be able to have different IPs from time to time to download the product (if the store allows re-downloads).

There are plenty of times I would want to do those things. I have a download limit so I don't want to download video files more then once. So if I've brought it, I should be able to copy it onto a CD, without being limited to the amount of times I can copy it onto a CD (CDs break, get scratched, misplaced). I should be able to view it on more then one computer (not only do I own 2 computers, but I might want to watch it when I'm not at home). I shouldn't be forced to phone home to google in order to watch it (I often wait until I'm disconnected from the internet before watching stuff like this). And I should be allowed to download the video from multiple places (perhaps I'm on holidays and I -really-, really want to watch it. Although this is only applicable if Google does allow re-downloads).

If Google's DRM doesn't do any of the above, then I'll be quite shocked (and curious as to what their DRM actually does do). But chances are, it will do at least one of the above. And as a company that is evil towards its consumers. It won't stop piracy, all it will do is punish honest customers. That's evil.

I'm sure (for the near future anyway) Google will continue to produce good services and products. But the days of being able to say "don't worry, it's google" will be over. Now a much more critical eye will have to run over anything they do, because they've proved they are willing to screw over their customers in order to make a buck.

Re:Rootkit!

[HiThere]

No. It's only evil to use DRM when the keys are not held by the owner of the hardware on which the item resides.

Re:Rootkit!

[John Miles]

Is it always evil to use DRM?

Yes. I don't get to control how the money I've paid for a CD or DVD is used, so how can it be fair for the seller to control how the content I've licensed is used?

Especially in cases where shrink-wrap license terms deny me the ability to decline an implied contract; e.g., the recent Coldplay CD license.

Re:Rootkit!

[silverkniveshotmail.]

When Google does the same thing, the same people rush to Google's defense

If you paid attention you'd find that i was not talking about google, I was talking about DRM and why it exists. I'm not defending google, I'm saying that there's a motivation behind DRM, and that motivation is to make more money, and have less unauthorized copying.

Re:Rootkit!

[LittleBigLui]

No. It's only evil to use DRM when the keys are not held by the owner of the hardware on which the item resides.

Just like "murder is only evil if someone gets killed in the process"?

Re:Rootkit!

[BillyBlaze]

You seem to be misinformed about the purpose of DRM. It's not to stop pirates. That's impossible. It's not to slow pirates. If anything it helps pirates by adding to their ranks. DRM's sole purpose is to squeeze more money out of honest customers by restricting rights that are legally theirs.

Re:Rootkit!

[idsofmarch]

It has to do with the assumption of the 'public good.' Copyright is a limited monopoly given to authors of works to ensure they can produce more. We make the assumption that in exchange for this temporary monopoly the author will eventually give it up because they will be living off the profits of their next work. In this scheme, art moves forward as authors are forced to work and not rest on their laurels so to speak. Now, we could argue that 10 or 20 or the life of the author plus 10 would be a good way of ensuring that authors are well-paid for their work, which we consider necessary and important.

Your argument is interesting because it pretends that everyone can 'create their own stuff' but you and I both know that this isn't true for you and it certaintly isn't true for the rest of the public. A limited copyright, defined by time and by specific rights is useful, but our current copyright system is hideously broken.

Re:Rootkit!

[ClosedSource]

I don't understand why you think it's impossible to stop or slow down pirates but it isn't impossible to get honest customers to buy the same content over and over.

In any case, if honest customers are those that have never made a copy of a CD or downloaded content illegally, then there are so few of these folks that the content providers have to charge them multiple times just to stay in business.

Re:Rootkit!

[maxwell demon]

Of course there's a motivation behind DRM. Otherwise it wouldn't exist. And if a business does something, in almost all cases the motivation is to make more money, or to prevent making less money.

Of course that doesn't tell you anything about if something is good, moral, bebeficial to the society as a whole, or whatever. Drug dealers also have a motivation to deal drugs, and that motivation also is to get money. I strongly doubt that drug dealers sell their drugs in order to harm those they sell the drugs to. They just don't care. The motivation is to make money. So from your argumentation drug dealing should be Ok, because it is not the goal to harm anyone, it's just a side effect of the way the drug dealers make money.

Oh, and you shouldn't punish all those people who rob a bank just to get the money. They didn't do that in order to harm the bank, so there's nothing wrong with it, right?

Re:Rootkit!

[stephenbooth]

We make the assumption that in exchange for this temporary monopoly the author will eventually give it up because they will be living off the profits of their next work.

As I recall the current international agreement on copyright is 25 years after the death of the creator. That does raise a question of what constitues the death of the creator. If a person creates something themselves then it's fairly clear. But what if they do it as a 'work for hire' and so the copyright belongs to a corporation? What if it's a collaborative work?

Stephen

Re:Rootkit!

[Mr_Silver]

Is it always evil to use DRM?

Contrary to popular Slashdot opinion it isn't always evil. In a small number of cases, it can be benifical to the customer.

For example you could use DRM to provide people with previews of games and music on their phone so they can understand what they are getting before they puchase it properly.

For example: If I was going to download, say, a java game, then I'd far rather have the full game and can try it out for a couple of minutes or times (restricted by the DRM).

The alternative is for me to base my purchasing decision on a couple of pictures and a review written by someone who uses 3's for his e's.

Re:Rootkit!

[rufty_tufty]

Can I add:
* Not require being connected to the internet to work on your saved media.

i.e. i don't want this DRM checking against a server that will probably dissapear in 20 years.

AFAIAC whatever I can do with a book, I should be able to do with other content. i.e. I can copy a book for my own use(difficult, but possible), I can lend a book to a friend when I say "This is brilliant", I can always read a book regardless of if the provider goes out of buisness.

What sucks about DRM is not that I don't own the media, but that I am reliant upon the goodwil of the provider to keep providing what i have bought! Either provide pay per view style at pay per voew prices, or give me something perminant that is totally perminant. It's theis fannying around in the middle that I find annoying...

Re:Rootkit!

[rufty_tufty]

Let me give an example then of release into the public domain being for the public good:
Gilbert and Sullivan - It went out of copyright about 50 years ago and so my university had a thriving G&S society because of this. Had we to pay for rights to perform the work, we wouldn't be able to function - or at least we wouldn't have grand sets and expansive lighting and have had the money to experiment and do what students should.

I wouldn't have got into theatre, I (probably) wouldn't have gained the social skills I now have, I would likely have had a very different career - and certainly a much less interesting love life.

So I gained muchly by copyright lapsing.
What was lost? well, G&S's great grandchildren see no more income from it, but they have all the money from 70 years of performances in the bank already.

i.e. the creators of the content did very well out of it, as did their children. The creators are protected so why not for the public good release the copyright? Why even have any copyright protection after the person's death at all (except to prevent them from being assasinated to release the copyright)

Re:Rootkit!

[Kadin2048]

Well, you got this part right: saying that there's a motivation behind DRM, and that motivation is to make more money.

The second part, about "unauthorized" copying, is really just secondary to the first part. In fact I think it's a pretty small part; the studios see DRM as part of a whole future of centrally-controlled, pay-per-view entertainment. You will watch what they want you to watch ("Yes, you will watch these previews, No, you will not fast-forward through these ads,"), when they want you to watch it ("No, you cannot time-shift this broadcast,") and you'll pay for it ("The cost of this show is only $0.99!").

The studios and the MPAA excuse the imposition of DRM as necessary in order to prevent piracy. This is a big lie, because if you look at most of the recent proposed DRM systems, dating back to even the by-todays-standards DVD system, they do far more than just copying-restriction. They are part of a end-to-end "viewing experience," if you will.

Saying that DRM is just about copy protection would be acceptable, if the technology were actually limited to that. But it's not, and so that excuse doesn't wash.

Furthermore, even if it just was for legitimate copy protection, it would be relatively easy to design a system that still allowed a small number of copies for backups, personal use, and time/format shifting -- the accepted 'Fair Uses' enjoyed by users of analog media. Instead those are treated as anathema by the studios as well.

The studios have been unsubtle from the very beginning that they don't give a damn about consumers ability to use media, and their only interest in the public is as a cash cow that they can continue to milk for decades to come. To excuse their behavior is shortsighted, because it fails to step back and take a look at the future they obviously have in mind for all of us.

Re:Rootkit!

[roman_mir]

Well, I don't subscribe to this 'public good' mentality. It encreases entropy and reduces creativity of that public, 'good' of which you are trying to protect. Let them create their own stuff for themselves.

You don't believe I can create stuff for myself? You are telling me that I pretend? I build my own robots, write my own software for my own use, jeez, I remember writing my own office suite about 11 years ago before I knew such things existed, I write and play my own music, I write my own books. Some of this I release under the GPL, some of is only for the eyes and ears of my family. Some of it is only for myself, noone else will ever see or hear or read it or enjoy it in any other way.

That is because I don't want the world to profit from most things I do, just from a very little subset. You know how I make time to do all of this? I don't have a TV and spend most of my free time creating stuff for myself.

Re:Rootkit!

[roman_mir]

I don't understand why you needed G&S to have a theater? That was my point, write your own stuff and perform it. That is my answer.

Re:Rootkit!

[CarpetShark]

But you say that based on you not liking it.

No, you're just assuming that's why he said it. He might well have done some very hard research/thinking on the subject. Don't assume that people reject things in a knee-jerk way, just because they reject them quickly. They might have just seen it all before.

Re:Rootkit!

[rufty_tufty]

We don't need anything! But it's nice.

Straight theatre groups can do shakespere (That's out of copyright)
Orchestral groups can do any classical music.

Musical societioes have G&S.
And if you think we can write our own musicals that people will come and see, then I want what you're smoking.
How many orchestral groups write their own music, how many actors write their own plays.

the world of performance arts needs some things out of copyright to practise with that people do know and will come and see in order to pay the bills.

People come to see what they know.
On another slant should we still be paying for rights to perform shakespeare or to perform Bach?

Re:Rootkit!

[ichimunki]

Personally I'm at least as concerned about the ability to sell used media. Right now when I buy a book, CD, or DVD I can watch it as many times as I want and sell it when I'm done/bored/broke. But how does this work with digital media, especially if it's got any sort of DRM on it that is linked to a specific user?

For example: I have a significant chunk of the Cannibal Corpse discography in MP3 that I "bought" from emusic.com... can I sell it? And how much worse does this question get if the file is somehow DRMed? How would I sell it if the DRM won't let anyone else play it? And if I can't sell it, can my daughter inherit it tax free, rather than having to pay taxes on something that she probably can't sell either? Will she even be able to inherit it?

The fact that I can even ask these questions indicates to me that the whole model of "intellectual property" is fundamentally broken and bound to cause more problems than it solves at this point. And if Google is going to attempt to further the cause of "intellectual property" by selling DRMed products, then I think this goes against their whole "don't be evil" motto.

Re:Rootkit!

[Mr2001]

Your argument is interesting because it pretends that everyone can 'create their own stuff' but you and I both know that this isn't true for you and it certaintly isn't true for the rest of the public.

This is funny, because roman_mir went off at me when he thought I was saying just that (although I wasn't):

"You are telling me that everyone is equivalent, that you can do everything that I can do and that I can do everything that the Rolling Stones can do, well guess what. That is a big load of stinking BS and will always be a big load of stinking BS because it is just false."

Re:Rootkit!

[idsofmarch]

What I said was poorly worded, and I apologize, my point still stands, most people cannot sing or play an instrument, code, write, make movies, or take exceptional photographs. Only the rarest of the species can do more than an handful of these things. But, that also misses the point of culture, which is to enjoy the works of others. While you may be Mozart, you won't also be Shakespeare, and even if you're Newton you can't be another famous Newton. Can you?

If you don't already have it, you should get a subscription to .

The 'public good' is the belief that we are a community and that by pooling assets, ideas, and culture we make ourselves better. You apparently subscribe to the 'every man for himself' which ignores that every bit of technology came from many people working over time for a specific goal. You ignore that your food, medicine, technology, all come from a public source. The idea is that we are all a very large community working towards similar goals through cooperation and competition.

Re:Rootkit!

[HiThere]

No. It's perfectly valid for the owner of a piece of hardware to use DRM techniques to secure it. That may not be the way any vendor is using it, but that is a legitimate use for it. And the ONLY legitimate use for it I've heard described or imagined.

Re:Rootkit!

[Alsee]

if honest customers are those that have never made a copy of a CD

Excuse me? Why would you require an honest customer be one who has has never made a copy of a CD?

-

Re:Rootkit!

[LittleBigLui]

It's perfectly valid for the owner of a piece of hardware to use DRM techniques to secure it.

Is that really DRM then? I doubt i've ever heard the term being used for that, but that isn't really the point. Of course, if you want to secure your own hardware, do whatever you like and use whatever techniques you want to use.

On the other hand, if you want to make numbers (probably in base 2) that are readable but not copyable, i have a perpetuum mobile for sale that you might want.

Re:Rootkit!

[EZTakes]

The purpose of DRM is different for different people:

• Technology vendors - DRM is the proprietary standard that will enable them to own the toll booth, which in turn will enable them to reap extraordinary returns and lock out competitors. In this respect, DRM is no different than Microsoft owning the Windows real estate and IBM owning SNA before that, except that the proprietary standard will be mandated by law, which is a monopolist's wet dream.

• Entertainment Industry Executives - DRM is the pixidust that they will use to protect existing revenue streams, which is what these executives tell their bosses and stock holders in order to justify keeping their highly-paid jobs for another quarter. Because of this, anyone in the corporate hierarchy that speaks the truth about DRM is in danger of loosing their job.

• Industry Analysts - DRM is bullshit; however, the technology vendors are paying the analysts retainers. Consequently, the analyst will go along with the "DRM prevents piracy" fraud, at least in public.

• Politicians - DRM is something that they will mandate by law so that they will get campaign contributions from the technology and entertainment industries. Since the general public is too ignorant of the subject, they won't know they're getting screwed and, therefore, there is virtually no political cost to the politician.

• Honest consumers - DRM is something they don't know or care about until it stops them from doing something. It will encourage honest consumers to join the next group.

• Pirates - DRM is irrelevant. Most of these people will use software written by someone else to break DRM. If the DRM is hard to break, then at least one copy will always get out in the clear anyway. Since digital content in nothing more than 1s and 0s, which can be perfectly copied an infinit number of times, the one copy in the clear will turn into millions of copies overnight and travel around the world on the Internet at the speed of light.

When are they going to learn? Give people content in a consumable form and at a reasonable price is the best way to stop piracy.

A look at?

[wampus]

There are absolutely NO details in there! Of course, that won't stop slashdot from decrying it as evil, broken, and the worst thing to happen since the great cabbage fart crisis of 1996.

Re:A look at?

[Rayaru]

Seriously... that article was a load of fluff... apart from innate aversion to DRM, I'd like to wait to actually see the thing before crying doom.

Re:A look at?

[periol]

that won't stop slashdot from decrying it as evil, broken, and the worst thing to happen

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just amazed that you weren't modderated as "Troll" or "Flamebate"!

-Ghost of MisanthropicProggram

Re:A look at?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is evil, broken, and the worst thing to happen since the great cabbage fart crisis of 1996!

Re:A look at?

[RedNovember]

Hey, I *liked* the cabbage fart crisis of '96...

Seriously, when I discuss it and people have no clue what I'm talking about, it makes me feel important...

Re:A look at?

[pharwell]

Don't be so insensitive. A lot of cabbage died that day.

Re:A look at?

[EvilSS]

Google wants to compete in the downloadable media market and this is the price of admission. I'm sure google would be glade to forgo it if they could. If you want to blame anyone for DRM, blame the media companies that google has to license content from and Congress for being for-sale.

Re:A look at?

[infinityxi]

While we would all like DRM to go away and for companies such as Google not to focus on making money to sustain their business and expand that is the facts. The market for your livingroom is growing as soon by the next generation consoles as well as itunes and other media applications. Now do you think the big media houses would allow google to distribute their content as is without a DRM? If Google refused than I am sure that would be the end of the deal and NBC, CBS, etc would go somewhere else and allow their DRM. I am sure that DRM isn't something Google enjoys implementing but I believe it's necessary to distribute Big Media's content. Another point I would like to make: Would all of you stop nitpicking over google and what is evil and what is not. Making a dollar is NOT evil. Suggesting words for more common searches is NOT evil, I mean you guys need to get a grip. Google is a company, it is not Jesus Christ. It has done a lot of good most notibly opening up email quotas out of the 6MB range. Making search pages clean and extensible, opening APIs to give the user control of content. Wake me when Google REALLY does something "evil" and quit crying wolf. (Latter point not necessarily aimed only at previous post)

Re:A look at?

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not like DRM at all, no DRM is acceptable to me. I may use it out of necessity or in small quantities to fill a need but that does not mean I would like the restrictions. With that in mind, I feel I would be able to make a comment about the DRM scheme they may be using even without details. For me to like DRM, it would have no restrictions similar to a plain old audio cd but in that case, it is not DRM.

On that note.. I do not buy much in the form of physical media now, maybe 2 DVDs a year and I have not bought an audio cd in years other then to replace one I lost/broke and did not have in flac format. Maybe hypocritical of my own views on owning DRM but I do pay for "unlimited streaming" via Rhapsody, Yahoo, and also broadcast Sirius. My kids mainly use the Yahoo and Rhapsody, I use the Sirius (also computer streamable via sirius.com). I view these as a services and not something I own. The three of them combined equal about $25-30USD a month (soon to drop Rhapsody for -$10/month), about the cost of less then 2 actual audio cds between a family of four which isn't that bad I guess. One of those tmes that the restrictions will far outway the cost of an alternative. Will I ever pay for individual episodes or songs that I would never really own anyway because of some DRM scheme? Probably not.

Re:A look at?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, just like their stance on assisting censorship and oppression in China. I'm sure they'd like to be glade to forgo it if they could, but shucks, they sure do want to make money, so if they have to aid a regime in its censorship and routing out of evil people who speak forbidden words and have forbidden thoughts, that's too bad.

You can excuse anything if you try hard enough (though not necessarily convincingly), and you google fanboys do nothing if not try very, very hard.

Re:A look at?

[EvilSS]

Quite honestly, that's a problem for China's people, not Google. Google (or MS or anyone else for that matter) has to obey Chinese law when they do business in China. If the people of china don't like it, it's up to them to change their government, not Google.

Re:A look at?

[BillyBlaze]

A necessary evil is no less an evil.

Re:A look at?

[sumdumass]

I dunno, the great cabbage fart crisis of 1996 ws pretty bad.

Re:A look at?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I don't want to trigger screams of Godwin here, so let me make clear that I'm certainly not equating the PRC government with Hitler's, but would you really say that if Hitler hadn't done anything outside of Germany and was merely content to bake jews alive within his own country's border, then that would just have been a problem for Germany's people.

Before the usual slashdot simpletons start saying that the two cases are not related, the point I am making is not that they are but that the principle of "doing business with an oppressive regime engaged in actions that go against our core beliefs because that's business" is not a sound principle to uphold, and if it were, then there would have been nothing wrong with selling Hitler ovens and coal in 1943.

If that's not the case, I think you should be a little more careful with your words.

Re:A look at?

[EvilSS]

So you believe we should be telling people how to run their countries now? Last time I checked the people of China installed their government. Maybe we should invade and bring them democracy? It's not up to us to decide how their government works.

Re:A look at?

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't say that, and I don't think that at all. I'm not talking about government action but corporate action.

This issue is whether a company that loudly proclaims its guiding motto is "do no evil" should be concerned that they are contributing to acts that they almost certainly consider somewhat evil (behind closed doors, when the cameras are no longer rolling), unless the "evil" in "do no evil" means something very different than what they want (and perhaps have paid vast sums of money to make) us all to think it means.

Do you really think that corporations have no moral obligation whatsoever to consider the consequences of their actions -- apart from to their shareholders (and perhaps the citizens of the corporation's home country)?

It seems from your comments so far that that's the case, as I see no suggestion at all that your principle that a country's problems have nothing to do with any entity but the country's people and government, and certainly have nothing to do with foreign corporations that are making a buck off of their suffering, really has any exceptions.

At the end of the day, we're all people, we're all the same. A Tibetan nun being shot in the head with a bullet, her family being forced to pay for the bullet. The nature of the act has nothing to do with the nationality of the woman.

I personally don't feel any better when I hear people say "it's their problem," and I think it's just a platitude that we tell ourselves in order to shield ourselves from the unpleasant truth.

My main point is that a company whose motto is "do no evil", if they want to be taken for anything more than hypocrites, must hold itself to higher standards, and so should we hold it to higher standards, too.

Re:A look at?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I'll wake you when somebody in China dies through the humane method of bullet to the head as a result of Google complying with whatever the "People's Republic" (ha ha) says.

It's already happened, but you put your head in the sand and keep shouting "they gave us more than 6MB -- see how good they are?" if you like.

Re:A look at?

[bogado]

aplauses, aplauses, I don't know for how long I waited to hear those words from an american. There is no such thing as one size fits all. American freedom is not that good for other countries, I for one don't wish it for mine, we here have much less "self censorship" then your media for instance. We do have moer freedom in the "patent" area as far as I know. But our politicians are corrupt and our people is forgetful, we tend to think that this problem is unsolvable, and this general thought make the problem unsolvable (self fulfiling profecy).

Re:A look at?

[walt-sjc]

Oh please. It's not all doom and gloom. It's really very simple. I will NOT buy any product or use any service that has DRM that is not easily removed. DVD's? Can easily dupe now... Itunes? There is a hack for that too (not that I would pay a buck a song though.)

If google's service is loked down so that I can't move my media around between devices and use open source software to play it, I won't use their service. Period. The market will decide the fate of this service.

If grandma can't watch her paid-for video that she downloaded (to her PC) on her TV in the living room, then granma will never use Google's service again. (Yes Johnny, grandmothers do use the internet.) You can also be assured that she will tell her friends about it.

It's obvious that google is being forced by the content providers to use DRM. The content providers are morons however - they can't see that those who would pay for content will, and those that would not pay, won't - regardless of DRM.

Re:A look at?

[DaveCar]

http://yro.slashdot.org/search.pl?query=cabbage+fa rt

No stories were found that match your query.

Aw crap. Now that's an article I'd want to read. "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters." Pschhh, yeah-right.

Re:A look at?

[EvilSS]

No doubt, but just keep in mind that it's being shoved down google's throat too. It's important that we don't loose sight of where the root of this evil lies.

Re:A look at?

[Anonymous Coward]

So that's why it hasn't snowed since 1996.

Re:A look at?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Cabbage Fart Crisis of 1996 really did happen! Here are some of the victims it claimed!

There ya have it, DRM != evil

[QuantumG]

If Google can do it then it isn't evil right? But seriously, Google is the egg head capital of the valley. If anyone is capable of making a DRM system that isn't crackable it'll be these guys. So how long till we see it cracked? I say no more than a week. Anyone wan running a pool?

Re:There ya have it, DRM != evil

[johncadengo]

Well, as far as cracking goes, the universal truth stands:

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

[Splintax]

Yep, even if you have to film it off your monitor with a video camera.

Hey, people do that now with movies and it gets downloaded, if there is no other way to get the content I'm sure people will download it.

Re:There ya have it, DRM != evil

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as there are 1's and 0's streaming through my monitor, there's always a way.

Solution: Analog monitors!

Actually, that might work, as it would be impossible to replicate at perfect fidelity...

Re:There ya have it, DRM != evil

[AndreiK]

Isn't that a step backward?

Re:There ya have it, DRM != evil

[uss_valiant]

But seriously, Google is the egg head capital of the valley. If anyone is capable of making a DRM system that isn't crackable it'll be these guys. So how long till we see it cracked? I say no more than a week. Anyone wan running a pool?

Either they developed something truly ingenious or they are pragmatic and created something that is almost designed to be hacked in no time.

Re:There ya have it, DRM != evil

[node 3]

So how long till we see it cracked? I say no more than a week.

Probably take a day. So, like you said, less than a week, if someone does it during their 20% time.

Re:There ya have it, DRM != evil

[jZnat]

Knowing Google's love of Python, the DRM decryptor will probably be written in Python to allow for maximum portability. So, uh, I think it shouldn't take much effort (if any) to "crack" their decryption.

*crosses fingers*

Re:There ya have it, DRM != evil

[dido]

They won't be able to do it because perfectly uncrackable DRM on a general-purpose computer is an impossible task. The only way to make uncrackable DRM is to remove the general-purpose ability from computers such as what is intended for Palladium/NGSCB, and I find it difficult to believe that Google is planning to get into the market of "trusted computing".

If you, the user, have an ultimate say on what software can and cannot be run on your own computer, then any uncrackable DRM is impossible.

Yeah, I'd say a week is a good estimate, if there are motivated people, and it looks like there's no shortage of those.

Re:There ya have it, DRM != evil

[magicRob]

Would they be less evil if they released enough DRM details to have it hacked quickly?

Re:There ya have it, DRM != evil

[mattwarden]

I'd say two days max. There will be too many crackers thinking they'll get a Google job out of it.

Re:There ya have it, DRM != evil

[Surt]

I'll bet on it taking longer than the current wmv drm which is uncracked after what, 1.5 years?

Re:There ya have it, DRM != evil

[cooldev]

So, in other words, the Googlies are geniuses if it resists cracking but also geniuses if it gets cracked overnight.

Uhm, yeah.

(Nothing against Google - they do some great stuff and they remain my primary search engine. However, I find it funny how they get a free pass on everything.)

Re:There ya have it, DRM != evil

[towaz]

ok put me down for 2 weeks, at least until it makes headlines on slashdot.

Re:There ya have it, DRM != evil

[Anonymous Coward]

[QUOTE]If anyone is capable of making a DRM system that isn't crackable it'll be these guys[/QUOTE]

Hmm ... I'm starting to get what Billy meant when he said that Google is in their honeymoon period and that everything they touch gets hyped.

IMHO 'copying' is so fundamental to computers that it is a user's basic right and I will never pay for any content where this right is violated.

Re:There ya have it, DRM != evil

[QuantumG]

No offense, but that's cause you're a smelly hippy. You're like the old man who complains about tits in a teen movie, no-one is listening to you because you're not the target audience.

Re:There ya have it, DRM != evil

[Anonymous Coward]

If anyone is capable of making a DRM system that isn't crackable it'll be these guys.

If I can see it (play it, view it, download it), then I can make copies of it and distribute it.

"google DRM: You pay, no one watches"

Re:There ya have it, DRM != evil

[coolGuyZak]

There will be too many crackers thinking they'll get a Google job out of it.

Good point. *Cracks knuckles* ;)

Re:There ya have it, DRM != evil

[BullfrogJones]

No, but I did get tan running a pool once.

Re:There ya have it, DRM != evil

[roman_mir]

So how long till we see it cracked? - I don't know. Look it up on Google.

Re:There ya have it, DRM != evil

[LittleBigLui]

What kind of filthy pirate is that Schneier guy anyway? No-one here ever heard anything about him.

Sincerely,
The Content Industry

Re:There ya have it, DRM != evil

[sumdumass]

Maybe getting craked is what they want. I mean DRM to satify the providers or content owners and crackable to satisfy the populous who want to do something with it other then watch it in google movie player.

I would bet it is already cracked and has several revisions waiting on a shelf somewhere. It won't be until someone start braging about how easy it is to get around before something harder is released.

Re:There ya have it, DRM != evil

[sumdumass]

I'm not sure this is a free pass. More like trying to please everyone and having it work. But yea, it would be a pass.

Re:There ya have it, DRM != evil

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll bet on it taking longer than the current wmv drm which is uncracked after what, 1.5 years?,

That may just be because no-one can be bothered. I can't think of much wmv DRM content that doesn't have alternative higher quality Xvid rips being posted to Usenet.

Re:There ya have it, DRM != evil

[erikdotla]

A day? Where's the hack for the ever-annoying StarForce 3 that is the copy protection of King Kong and the new POP game, among many others? It's been seemingly months without a workable hack in sight. The StarF**k and SFNightmare are total failures and the only workaround is to disable your friggin' optical drive. Sad times ahead, the enemy is getting cleverer by the hour and it's only gonna get worse for us.

Re:There ya have it, DRM != evil

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

So, like you said, less than a week, if someone does it during their 20% time.

Odds are that this DRM is the product of a 20% project. And that alone makes it a cut above the regular herd. Expect cracking to be slow, and painful.

Re:There ya have it, DRM != evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there actually any content protected by wmv that is worth cracking it for? (Not to mention paying for...) The real smart crackers generally only come out when there is content which can't be accessed any other way.

Re:There ya have it, DRM != evil

[TractorBarry]

>As long as there are 1's and 0's streaming through my monitor

Or a suitable location for me to point a (high quality) camcorder and microphones at a Hi-Def screen and hi-fi speakers.... Or (in the case of audio only) somewhere for me to place an A/D converter in the path of the analogue audio signal.

If a human can encrypt it, another human will find a way to decrypt it.

Trying to lock your data away will only ever have one result. You'll piss off the people who've paid to buy it. It'll deter copyright infringers (n.b. I don't confuse these folks with genuine high seas pirates :) who wish to make money from bootlegging your content for about 20 seconds whilst they try to remember which one of the gang is "the guy who deals with this format".

DRM: Waste of time, bag o'shite.

Reciprocal Agreements

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.' ""

Google: Can I sell your content?
Content creator: Yes you can. Here are our terms.

Digital Rights Managment

[Anonymous Coward]

Boycot them! Hit them where it hurts! Vote with your dollars!

You have the power!

Re:Digital Rights Managment

[node 3]

Boycot them! Hit them where it hurts! Vote with your dollars!

You have the power!

Yeah, but they have the TV shows. And the law.

Besides, you don't vote with your dollars. This is America, so voting effectively takes lots and lots of dollars.

Re:Digital Rights Managment

[U'sK]

Besides, you don't vote with your dollars. This is America, so voting effectively takes lots and lots of dollars.

Why you can say Bill the rich will never read this topic?
# ...though he can be another eBill...

Google DRM Hacked........

[ConsumerOfMany]

I wonder what search engine I can use to search for a hack............

Re:Google DRM Hacked........

[Red Alastor]

Don't worry, both Slashdot and Digg will tell you when it will happen. Don't worry if you miss it the first time either.

Re:Google DRM Hacked........

[Anonymous Coward]

hope you haven't logged into your gmail account and have cookies turned on when you do.

Re:Google DRM Hacked........

[Ibiwan]

I keep hearing people talk about this Digg thing, but unless and until Digg slashdots Slashdot, I won't bother pointing my browser over that direction.

On second thought... I won't bother unless they take down slashdot's servers, and slashdotters say "we got digged" (or whatever the verb is)

Re:Google DRM Hacked........

[spongman]

It'll probably be at the top of every MSN Search results page, regardless of your query.

Re:Google DRM Hacked........

[Anonymous Coward]

Dugg?

Re:Google DRM Hacked........

[WoodieR]

try a real search engine such as metacrawler ... much more powerful and it actually raises a lot of hits that goggle doesn't with accurate info ... google actually aren't that great folks ...

Re:Google DRM Hacked........

[Anonymous Coward]

Easily solved. Add the following to .htaccess or httpd.conf:

AuthType Basic
<Limit GET>
order allow,deny
allow from all
deny from .microsoft.com
deny from .msn.com
</Limit>

Re:Google DRM Hacked........

[Anonymous Coward]

Yahoo!

Re:Google DRM Hacked........

[TheoMurpse]

Don't worry, both Slashdot and Digg will tell you when it will happen

"Don't worry, both Slashdot and Digg will tell you when it will happen, Slashdot twice in dupes and Digg five times before it happens with some like to a random guy completely unrelated to the project's blog claiming that it will be hacked within a month before he's even talked to anyone working on breaking it." --fixed

The real question:

[the-amazing-blob]

Could this someday put google in line with companies like Sony?

Re:The real question:

[Matt Perry]

Could this someday put google in line with companies like Sony?

Sure, someday, provided that Google were to:

• install their DRM at some low level into the OS.
• hide the installed files and attempt to make them invisible and hard to remove
• in the process of installing modify the system to make it less secure than it was
• show a EULA and, if the user declines, install the software anyway
• deny that everything listed above is true until you are exposed by a person who disassembles the code and documents what your code is doing
• show absolutely no remorse or concern for what they have done to users computers until they are confronted with lawsuits and possible government action
• try and weasel out of lawsuits by offering non-scarace goods that cost no money to replicate and distribute, such as music downloads, as a settlement to the users they have caused financial harm (paying to get OS cleaned or viruses removed) and inconvenienced.
• blatantly demonstrate that they have failed to learn a lesson by stating that they will continue to use such DRM, although from a different vendor, in the future.

So yeah, someday Google could be in line with companies like Sony. However, I think a lot of companies have learned the lesson that Sony seems to still not have learned from their recent experiment with DRM. Google strikes me as the kind of company that doesn't need to be taught that lesson anyway. They've done a pretty good job of not being evil so far.

Re:The real question:

[conteXXt]

Why MSN of course :-)

Wait for the hack...

[gizmonic]

Yep, I'll just wait for the hack, and when it's done I'll just search for it on good ole Google...

Re:Wait for the hack...

[xiphoris]

And if it is on Google, will they censor their own search results?

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.

Re:Wait for the hack...

[Anonymous Coward]

DRM is a suprisingly quiet topic on the GNOME mailing lists at the moment. I say surprising because GNOME is committed to using Gstreamer as its media framework... and the company that does most of the development work on Gstreamer has announced that it is using it's recent injection of corporate financing to go full-bore DRM: See the blog post of Christian Schaller here.

I suggest reading the blog entry and making note of all of Schaller's blather about Sun's "Open Source DRM" -- note particulary his deliberate avoidence of the terms "Free software"... a concept on which his company is built. Free software and DRM are fundamentally incompatible. Open source isn't incompatible. How so, you ask?

Well, a later blog post pretends to answer some questions raised. I say "pretends", because actually he dodges most of the questions. The most notable part of this blog entry is found in the comments -- where Schaller reveals that Fluendo's DRM will be implemented by "code signing" and a chain of trust. A quite clear statement that unless you get Gstreamer from Fluendo, you can't use any of their DRM codecs... if you recompile GStreamer yourself, forget it. How is this Free software exactly. Isn't Fluendo violating this spirit of the GPL (again, on which the company is built), if not the letter. Yes...

Furthermore he adds this somewhat enigmatic comment: "What happens outside GStreamer is of course a different issue, and here there are work happening at the distros to come up with solutions." Naturally, I think any Linux users would like to know what he means by that. My conclusion is that some Linux distros are quietly working on their own "signed" Linux kernels with a Microsoft-type Secure Audio Path. I'd love to know which distros are busy selling out Free software, but as usual Schaller flat-out refused to expand on his comment or answer any questions -- not even from GNOME developers.

Given that Gstreamer is the future for GNOME, and increasingly likely to be the future for KDE too, I think we are owned a few more details.

Re:Wait for the hack...

[mattwarden]

Highly doubtful. Google will hire the person who cracks the DRM and harvest ideas from their brain for the next version.

Re:Wait for the hack...

[game kid]

They already "respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act". They won't have a problem searching for evidence (with Google, no less) to back up their own claims of violation.

I'll just pay for whatever is worth such restraint (only if it's something really super-awesome, like unedited footage of the End Of The World) and ignore the rest of their secured content. Ultimately, you all might find their videos unsecured anyway, as they show up (for small periods, before they find them) on Google Search. ;)

Re:Wait for the hack...

[name773]

it doesn't matter who planned their future on gstreamer if they don't control it. things can change...

you don't have to use their stuff. same with whoever implements drm in the kernel. even if it goes mainline, i'll bet someone will release a patch to take it out.

Re:Wait for the hack...

[Anonymous Coward]

shit, i better update my robots.txt
l8s,
jon

Re:Wait for the hack...

[croddy]

Google is a much *smaller* and *less powerful* company than the movie and record conglomerates. They're just more visible to us because we are nerdish.

Re:Wait for the hack...

[cstream_chris]

But perhaps they want it to be broken. After all, it's probably not Google that is insisting on the DRM.

Re:Wait for the hack...

[StaticVector]

Its already been bypassed just download with google video downloader and convert from flv with one of the many freeware programs available

Re:Wait for the hack...

[Anonymous Coward]

GStreamers plugins for Real and Microsoft codecs will only load themselves into GStreamer when the framework is made only from packages signed by Fluendo -- i.e, they compiled it, not you. There are still ways to hack this, of course, but that's not Fluendo's ultimate aim. They are aiming at a time when the operating system and hardware rigidly enforces the difference between "signed/unsigned" or "official/unofficial" code. Just like the Linux distros quietly working on ways to prevent media from being diverted and saved. It's known as "Trusted Computing" and the hardware is on its way.

The point I am making is that even before this hardware arrives, Fluendo's actions are directly against the spirit of Free software, since you can't recompile and still use the software.

Re:Wait for the hack...

[name773]

right, i get it; you still don't have to use their stuff, or even view the media displayed for that matter. (hopefully educational institutions will still release documents in open (or close to it) formats)

So...

[88NoSoup4U88]

Does this make them evil yet?

Re:So...

[DrEldarion]

Pfft, everyone knows that evil is subjective! Hitler thought that he was doing The Right Thing, but everyone else thought it was evil.

(yes, Godwin, blah blah blah)

Google Becomes Microsoft Oh My God!

[osewa77]

Oh my God, Google really has become Microsoft. What's next? Google Mice?

---
Naijarita

Re:Google Becomes Microsoft Oh My God!

[gbobeck]

I thought Google was working on making an internet appliance which could flip burgers. At least that is what Bill Gates said.

Re:Google Becomes Microsoft Oh My God!

[radiotyler]

Hey, how's the gmail account working out for ya buddy?

Re:Google Becomes Microsoft Oh My God!

[ElaborateCalculator]

It could be worse...
Imagine: Google Clippy
"You look like you're searching for pr0n, would you like some help?"

Re:Google Becomes Microsoft Oh My God!

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh. More like:
"You look like you're searching for pr0n, would you like a hand?"

How long?

[Anonymous Coward]

How long before it is cracked and a transcoding package is out there as a first page linked to by Google in response to a "Google Video" search?

Re:How long?

[(-hrair-)]

one day. seriously, with the amount of people using Google, it will probably be exploited and the hole found quickly and then we can use our purchases fully again :-). I, for one, will not however attempt to break it or anything because although I don't like this move by Google, they are otherwise generally a good company and have created what is probably the best search engine on the net. Live with the DRM (however, frustrating it may be) or crack it if you must. But continue to give Google their hits :-).

(-hrair-)

content being used to force hardware choice

[Anonymous Coward]

I know its not new, but why should I have to base my hardware choices on what content I can access? Its starting to look like I'll have to by 3 all in one music/video/picture viewing devices just to be able to have access to all the content I'd like to have with me. Can't the DRMs all just get along? Well I guess they would if all they were for was to ensure artists got paid for their creative talents...

Hmm.

[Lordpidey]

Really, DRM is neccecary nowadays, or so companies think. I believe that this is here just to please stockholders. Why else would they impliment DRM? Google would probably be the corporation that knows the futility of DRM the best, or so I would have thought. Remember how the Sims 2 was with its DRM, it was broken even before The Sims 2 came out, and not to mention that the DRM on Sims 2 prevented many legitimate purchasers from playing. It was irony at its finest when the DRM forced people to pirate the game that they legitimately bought to play the game.

Re:Hmm.

[cryfreedomlove]

PShaw. It has nothing to do with shareholders. The content owners will not let Google distribute their property without DRM.

Re:Hmm.

[dnoyeb]

Google is under no obligation to distribute their content at all. Google does not have to accept their deal. And no the 'shareholders' excuse is tired I agree. Especially when the main "shareholders" they speak of tend to be management.

They're own player.

[IAAP]

FTFA: Along with the service, Google has also released its own, slick video player.

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.

[darkmeridian]

No one has an incentive to let the content of others run with their player, especially Microsoft. I say that because Microsoft more than the others can use their software push methods (Windows Update, Google Packs, AOL CDs) to get their DRM onto as many computers exclusively as possible. Whoever gets power in one end will automagically extend that power in the other. Until antitrust lawyers get involved but tough luck because the players are free gifts to the consumer.

Re:They're own player.

[wernercd]

bah... why install all that crap anyways? K-Light Mega Codec Pack has EVERYTHING to play ANYTHING. They will add googles as needed, I'm sure. K-Light Download Page So personally I don't care if Apple or MS adds GoogleDRM (tm) too their players... I wont install their bloatware on my computer to begin with and I can play their files just fine :)

Re:They're own player.

[escay]

hmm...considering that Page made a weird (officially recorded as 'bizarre') plea during his keynote about the lack of standards today, about plugs and cables and whatnot - it seems interesting that they are setting their own DRM standard now, with their own player. so now we are going to have iTunes, WMP and Gplayer on our systems and have to use each accordingly?

Re:They're own player.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, anyone know what the player looks like? I'm curious...

Re:They're own player.

[The Amazing Fish Boy]

Obviously, it can't; unless, MS and Apple add Google's DRM to their players.

I've been thinking about this a bit. A lot of people (myself included) say other services could "simply" offer MP3s, then they'd be compatible with the iPod.

The rebuttal to this is that the recording industry would never allow it, so it's not plausible.

Now I'd say that's more the fault of the recording industry and less the fault of Apple, but we may be able to avoid that line of discussion altogether.

The format could be DRM'd with Google or Microsoft DRM or whatever, but when it is transfered to the iPod, it is converted to MP3. You can't move the MP3 back from the iPod easily, so that satisfies the basic requirement of the record companies.

This is similar to the ability to burn your DRM'd music files to a CD. You can then rip them to MP3, defeating the DRM (admittedly at the expense of some quality). But this would be even less straightforward since Apple/Google/Microsoft do not provide the tools to rip from the iPod.

This is kind of a half-through-out idea, so far, but I'd like to hear the opinions of other Slashdotters.

Re:They're own player.

[elgaard]

It does not matter. It is meaningless to have standards for DRM.

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.

Media Companies and DRM

[ziggyzig]

I think it's important to note that no media conglomerate will do business with Google, Apple, etc. unless they are promised a DRM capability. From my friends who work in MS's DRM department, most people are quite opposed to it, but can't open up a revenue stream without the promise of DRM to appease the MPAA. Perhaps with time, they'll come to their senses. But I doubt it: the current system is too heavily tilted in the MPAA's folder.

Re:Media Companies and DRM

[rpdillon]

Yeah, the whole thing is kind of weird. It's not like all the music on iTunes isn't already on the net for free...I'm not sure what DRM does to help things. If people want to get the music free instead of pay, they already can. All the DRM does is annoy the paying customers, and put off people like me who would be willing to pay, if it weren't for the DRM.

Re:Media Companies and DRM

[Reziac]

Just occurred to me to wonder how much DRM inflates the price of legal downloads, such as iTunes? how much of the cost is their licensing fees paid to whoever developed the DRM?

Re:Media Companies and DRM

[HiThere]

So you're saying "It's not evil, because we need to do it to make money"?

If you meant something else, please clarify, because I haven't been able to read your post any other way (except, that is "Yes, it's evil, but we're going to do it anyway to make money!".)

Re:Media Companies and DRM

[ewhac]

From my friends who work in MS's DRM department, most people are quite opposed to it, but can't open up a revenue stream without the promise of DRM to appease the MPAA.

First, I don't think the people in MS's DRM department are quite as "opposed" to the idea as you make it sound. But even given that, all you've illustrated is that MS doesn't think things through very well.

It is widely assumed that, for a new format to succeed, it must have support from Hollywood, or content for that format will not appear, and the format will die. This assumption is false. MP3 had exactly zero support from Hollywood (or at least no direct support), yet it became the defacto standard for compressed audio, both stored and streaming. Sure, there are some players that support other formats. But if your player doesn't support unencumbered MP3, it will not sell, period.

It is true that the MPAA is presenting a united front and "demanding" copy protection on any and all new media formats, and will refuse to use anything that doesn't have it. So? Go outside the RIAA/MPAA and pitch to them instead. There are tons of small studios out there.

Your pitch: "We have this new high-definition media format that is a zillion times better than anything out there. The format is open and standardized so anyone can support it for low/no royalties. We have hardware partners already going to market with players. We can provide you with authoring tools and training. If you have an especially good idea, we can talk about seed funding. Yes, it is true there is no copy protection in this format; you will discover this is a good thing.

"However -- and here's the best part -- you will have the entire market to yourselves. Disney? Universal? Columbia? Dreamworks? They have all promised to stay away from the format. No, seriously! We totally don't get it; their content could look absolutely magnificent. So you get to look magnificent in their place! You won't have to fight with them for shelf space or worry about rising above their marketing buzz, since there isn't any. The market space is all yours. You will get to define the medium, and all those high-end dollars will be yours."

Eventually, the big studios will figure out that, even without copy protection, they're leaving money on the table, and will slowly migrate to the new format. All it requires is a little forethought and patience...

Schwab

Re:Media Companies and DRM

[shmmeee]

If they had taken something that was available for free, then put DRM on it then I could understand your point. But, as others have pointed out, these videos wouldn't be available without DRM.

That's not evil, you've lost nothing. If you don't like DRM don't buy it. If no-one wants it no-one buys it, it goes away. If it's successful then obviously people don't mind DRM as much as your average slashdotter.

You can claim ignorance of the average comsumer, but the fact is companies don't have to sell you things on your terms, and if there's a market for people like you (and me BTW) then someone will sell to you. Unfortunately, companies can afford to lose your custom and still make money.

Like my recent search for classic games console storage, if you want things on your terms, you'll have to produce it yourself.

Re:Media Companies and DRM

[zotz]

Ah, but this is foolishness.

One of the big boys could buy a media company, copyleft all the media. (Buy all the rights needed from whomever to get this done.)

They could also run their own versions of star search, american idol, etc. and fund the creation of new, hit, copyleft music and more.

Revenue stream without DRM.

Aren't people always saying the electronics and computer industries are way bigger than the entertainment industry?

all the best,

drew
-----
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/111123
Tings - a CC BY-SA (copyleft?) novel for your fun and profit.

Re:Media Companies and DRM

[zotz]

Someone doesn't seem to know how to moderate or else has an agenda.

The parent to my post is plus 5. My post is on topic to the parent and yet get's an offtopic deduction. Something is not hanging together.

Now, I may be indeed offtopic wrt the article, but, if so, the parent would be too, or am I completely loony today?

all the best,

drew

http://www.ourmedia.org/node/85937
"Tings" a "copyleft" novel in daily doses.

Re:Media Companies and DRM

[HiThere]

Ok. You, at least ARE saying "It's moral because we are doing it to make money". I if it would be available if you don't make money. Many things are only available because someone makes money providing them. To my mind, however, this does not make the process of providing the thing moral.

Obligitory Max Headroom Reference

[Taimoor]

Can anyone say Network 23?

--Nick

Re:Obligitory Max Headroom Reference

[Anonymous Coward]

Err I don't see the relevance... unless they're using the Theora codec?

Re:Obligitory Max Headroom Reference

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Dum-dum. It's an "obligatory" (and more importantly: relatively obscure) reference. Relatively obscure references make you cool.

Please excuse the cerebral flatulence.

[IAAP]

I meant their.

Hold Out Your Hand So I Can Slap It

[Doomedsnowball]

DRM has always been a joke (of competing definitions). It is like a fence with a "no trespassing" sign. (The RIAA has a "trespassers will be shot" sign). As an owner of property (intellectual or otherwise) you must show a minimum of effort in protecting your asset(s), lest they be considered "free-for-all" or in the public domain. TFA acts like Google is taking it's ball and going home. Either you steal content, and DRM bothers you, or you're worried about the trouble of accessing your rightfully paid for content. Neither of these issues is necessarily tied up in the format the DRM decides to come in.

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

[Chuck Chunder]

I live above a strip club in San Francisco and they won't let me hang out in the dressing room. What gives?

Thank god for drills eh!

Re:Hold Out Your Hand So I Can Slap It

[cpt kangarooski]

As an owner of property (intellectual or otherwise) you must show a minimum of effort in protecting your asset(s), lest they be considered "free-for-all" or in the public domain.

DRM is not necessary to do this, and in any case, your statement is not true.

Either you steal content, and DRM bothers you, or you're worried about the trouble of accessing your rightfully paid for content.

Or you're worried about public domain content, which includes works which are copyrighted, to the extent that they are not protected by copyright (e.g. fair uses, section 117 backups, section 1008 copying, etc.) It also includes works which are no longer copyrighted at all; DRM doesn't expire when a copyright does, but will impede people from engaging in lawful activity.

DRM really is not tolerable. I don't think we can ban it, but I think we can strongly discourage it.

Re:Hold Out Your Hand So I Can Slap It

[Anonymous Coward]

As an owner of property (intellectual or otherwise)

"Intellectual property" is a buzzword. It isn't a legal term, and the things typically classed as "intellectual property" are not treated as property by the law. Please don't conflate the two completely different ideas.

Here's a job for the Slashdot trolls: find me a law anywhere on earth that refers to copyright as property. I've asked before and had no takers.

you must show a minimum of effort in protecting your asset(s), lest they be considered "free-for-all" or in the public domain.

That might be true for property, but it is certainly not true for copyright. Any country that has ratified the Berne convention has original works copyrighted by default, without even having to display a copyright notice.

Re:Hold Out Your Hand So I Can Slap It

[jackbird]

Actually, they're confused, and are talking about trademarks, which you do have to show some effort to defend.

Also, the IRS and the US legal system treat copyrights as assets that have value, and they can be transferred between parties for consideration (and for a transfer beyond the licensure of reproduction rights, sales tax will apply in most jurisdictions, which is usually reserved for "tangible goods and services"). Not sure whether that falls under your definition of "property," but one could make a good faith argument that copyrights are property from that. Note that this doesn't stop "intellectual property" from being a disingenuous term, which I think was your larger point.

Re:Hold Out Your Hand So I Can Slap It

[damiam]

As an owner of property (intellectual or otherwise) you must show a minimum of effort in protecting your asset(s), lest they be considered "free-for-all" or in the public domain.

That statement is a perfect example of why "intellectual property" is a vague and useless term. What you say is true for trademarks, but not copyright. In trademark law (disclaimer: IANAL), trademarks are forever, but a trademark can be lost if it's not enforced (hence common usage of "aspirin", "yo-yo", "escalator", etc.). But a copyright holds for the given term whether the holder enforces it or not. A copyright holder has no obligation (legal or otherwise) to prevent copyright infringement; the burden is squarely on the content consumer.

Re:Hold Out Your Hand So I Can Slap It

[Anonymous Coward]

Nevada Revised Statute 205.08255,
""Intangible property" defined. "Intangible property" means property that lacks a physical existence yet possesses value, including, without limitation, customer lists, trade secrets, copyrighted material or other confidential information.

            (Added to NRS by 1999, 2703)"

Re:Hold Out Your Hand So I Can Slap It

[Ahaldra]

As an owner of property (intellectual or

Intellectual work is only property as long as it is exclusively imprinted into your brain cells. Incidentally then it's also totally worthless, so one might even dispute that. ;-)

Re:Hold Out Your Hand So I Can Slap It

[origin2k]

"trespassers will be shot and survivors will be shot again!"

DRM is NOT evil

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think DRM is evil, BUT what is evil is the inconvenience it brings. Right now, I have to renew the DRM songs on my Zen Micro every month, I also have to make a call to the subscription service every once in a while to listen to what I've download and worst of all, I can't copy music I am suppose to be able to copy sometimes. If anyone gets this right, audio CD can go to hell, $10-$15/CD album can go to hell, heck maybe we'd be enjoying music for less than 50 cents a pop.

Re:DRM is NOT evil

[node 3]

Right now, I have to renew the DRM songs on my Zen Micro every month, I also have to make a call to the subscription service every once in a while to listen to what I've download and worst of all, I can't copy music I am suppose to be able to copy sometimes. If anyone gets this right

They have. It's called iTunes and iPod.

Google's founders cited iTunes when the topic of DRM came up at CES, as an example that DRM done right doesn't really bother the users.

Re:DRM is NOT evil

[Jaxoreth]

...as an example that DRM done right doesn't really bother the users.

Most of the people it bothers don't become users in the first place.

Re:DRM is NOT evil

[Lehk228]

that would work great if i wanted to use an iPod

Re:DRM is NOT evil

[Anonymous Coward]

A big cage is smaller than a small cage, but it is still a cage anyway.

This should be interesting.

[RyoShin]

If there's one thing that Slashdot has taught me in the past year, it's that Slashdot finds DRM is evil.

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.

[i_should_be_working]

Like with Apple, people will probably take both sides. I'll take the anti-drm side because then I can use the following quote from TFA:

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.

[MBCook]

Where there are hard-liners on /., I think that most of us have no problem with DRM. I think we realize that we won't be getting DRM free media any time soon (at least for major properties like new movies).

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.

[TubeSteak]

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.

Not if it's strawberry flavored.

Or maybe he's talking about drinking the kool-aid

/what's with you people and your fixation with penis?

Re:This should be interesting.

[ejp1082]

It sounds like Google is offering maximum flexibility to content providers - charge what you want, put what restrictions on it you want. I don't think we have enough information yet, but my guess is content providers will be able to decide on the nitty gritty details like number of copies and number of plays.

Personally, I think this is *great*. Because the trojan horse in this scheme is that *anyone* can upload and sell content, and use (or not use) Google DRM. I don't have much doubt that the service will quickly populate with un-DRMed content for me to enjoy, dwarfing CBS in both quantity and quality. Maybe eventually CBS will get the hint, and figure out why I'm not buying their stuff.

The best analogy is the pay-wall for certain content from the New York Times. As soon as they implemented it, links to the columns they blocked dropped like a rock - most people stopped reading it rather than pay, because the NYT isn't anything special compared to the ocean of other information sources on the web.

We haven't seen this yet with video content - iTunes only hosts stuff from "big media". But Google has the potential to host independent films next to the blockbusters, amateur content alongside the pro stuff. Google is offering a platform that content creators can sell their stuff directly, without a network or studio. If Big Media wants to incorporate DRM, be my guest. They'll only hasten their downfall by doing so.

Re:This should be interesting.

[node 3]

Will Google be berated for embracing a technology that limits the use of content being paid for?

Yes

Or will Google be praised

Yes

This is because there is more than one person on Slashdot.

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.

This has already happened with Apple, because Apple's DRM is generally considered to be just fine and user-friendly.

Google has a problem in that they don't have a portable player, and unless it's very close to free, I don't think they have the cachet to successfully market one against the iPod, or even against Sony, Creative, iRiver, etc. Licensing their DRM system to one of those companies (except Apple, as long as the iPod is #1) is possible, although I don't know whether MS would allow that.

I don't think their plan is to dominate (at least, not just yet) the video download market, but just to be in it for whenever down the line it turns out to be really important.

Re:This should be interesting.

[roman_mir]

I am going to prove you wrong by a counter-example. I participate on /. every day for the last 5 years, so I am part of /. At the same time I do not find DRM evil, but then again, I am against illegal distribution of copyrighted materials. /. is not this single minded creature, there are different people here.

Re:This should be interesting.

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if DRM wasn't bad in and of itself (I disagree - unless there is a DRM system which would never hurt fair us - which is impossible), the DMCA still gives the DRM the force of law.

Overriding the DRM, even to make fair use of content - is ILLEGAL.

People who write DRM essentially have the ability to write their own copyright law which is applied to the content it "protects" - they write the law, and our taxpayer supported government supports it with courts that take your money and give it to the plaintiff in a DMCA case, fine, arrest and jail people (Sklyarov, etc) and slap them with felony convictions that hurt them for life (can't vote to change the system, denied security clearances, never allowed to work for the government, people that hire you can get sued and have to pay damages if they ever hire a felon who commits another crime - you are MUCH BETTER OFF STEALING A PHYSICAL CD, or even 100 of them - in many cases this will still be a MISDEMEANOR [my state has a $2500 felony threshold I believe] - plus you get some nice jewel cases - "jock" crimes, e.g. theft are prosecuted a lot less than "geek" crimes - like DRM breaking - heck stealing and beating up the clerk is still misdemeanors).

Re:This should be interesting.

[croddy]

No. The DRM is in fact the problem.

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 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 new DRM, and the companies that distribute it, even if they are "only following orders". We need also to get Fair Use rights codified as law, preferably as a constitutional amendment, so that industry lobbyists will have a much harder time purchasing our rights from the legislature.

Re:This should be interesting.

[a.d.trick]

In other words, DRM is ok, if it doesn't work! Then, apart from foolling all those management types, what's the point. Apples DRM is very easy to bypass.

Re:This should be interesting.

[IntlHarvester]

> In other words, DRM is ok, if it doesn't work!

Judging by statements made at CES, that seems to be the industry opinion as well. As long as it prevents you from turning around and uploading it on a filesharing network in 2 clicks, the DRM has done it's job.

Of course, once the infrastructure is in place, they can set whatever policy they want.

Re:This should be interesting.

[glitch0]

apple drm allows for infinite CDs IIRC..

yup, from the apple site:

"Once music arrives in your iTunes library, the real fun begins. Burn songs onto an unlimited number of CDs for your personal use, sync music to an unlimited number of iPods and play songs purchased from the iTunes Music Store on up to five Macs or Windows PCs."

Re:This should be interesting.

[idsofmarch]

A man dying of thirst will drink from a well that is tainted by camel piss, that doesn't mean the water is any good. And it certaintly doesn't mean you'll want to pay for it. DRM is bad, and iTunes is just slightly less evil and easier to deal with. DRM isn't going to protect anything, but I'm convinced over the last year that companies will use it to beat customers into business models that would otherwise be complete debacles. No customer wants DRM.

Re:This should be interesting.

[BillyBlaze]

If Google has DRM that doesn't interfere with use, there is nothing wrong with it.

Even the almighty Google couldn't do that, as DRM that doesn't interfere with use is an oxymoron. That's its whole friggin purpose! You can make DRM that doesn't interfere with use much or for most users, but you can't make it completely seamless.

If a company says "DRM that doesn't interfere with use" is their goal, they must be lying - why would they waste money on nothing? Most likely they plan to roll out the infrastructure while people like you sell their freedom for security, then change the rules after there's no way to stop them.

Re:This should be interesting.

[jonwil]

If google can do DRM that is as liberal as apples DRM, people will love them for it.
Are these TV show downloads google are doing tiny size like the apple video ipod downloads or are they something one could watch on a TV or computer monitor?

Re:This should be interesting.

[m50d]

Best indicator will be what happened when apple started using DRM. Google can do what they like and slashdot will love them. It's not as if this is the first time Google's been threatening to invoke the DMCA.

Re:This should be interesting.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is because there is more than one person on Slashdot.

Inconceivable!

No, seriously, i wish more people figured that out.

Re:This should be interesting.

[DaveCar]

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).

I've easily been through 5 computers since I bought the majority of my CDs. And the walkman I had at the time and its ilk have long since faded into obsolescence. I predict that in 6 years time people will be feeling the pinch of "unrestrictive" DRM and will be pissed off that they can't listen to the content they paid good money for.

Re:This should be interesting.

[Anonymous Coward]

...until they (or any other DRM-fuelled service) change their policy.

(Weren't you allowed to play itunes-purchased songs on up to 7 computers when itms was launched?)

Regardless, hoops you - the consumer - need to jump through are still that: hoops.

"Pay to play the way we say.."

Re:This should be interesting.

[Anonymous Coward]

If there's one thing that Slashdot has taught me in the past year, it's that Slashdot finds DRM is evil.

Oh, that's so boring compared to things you could have learned from Slashdot in years past! The times they are a'changin'.

Re:This should be interesting.

[rjstanford]

No customer wants DRM

Maybe so, but the inverse, "All customers hate DRM," isn't true either. As the GP posted, when it doesn't get in the way for most people (like a speed limiter on your car set at the 130mph factory tire rating), they generally don't care.

Re:This should be interesting.

[Mr2001]

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 all want a lot of things; that doesn't mean we deserve them, or that others should allow us to have them.

Some parents want total control over everything their children do, up to age 18 or later, or they want the government to enforce their moral code. Some presidents want to be able to ignore the law when they think the law stands in the way of protecting the country. Some wealthy individuals want their tax bill to be lower.

If we were in their shoes, we might even agree with them. I'm sure it makes a parent's life easier when the government will stop your kids from doing the things you don't want them to do, just as it makes an artist's life easier when the government will stop people from enjoying his work without paying. But as a society, we have to consider how these laws affect everyone, not just the people who benefit. Copy protection is as bad for consumers as it is good for producers, and there are a lot more consumers than producers.

Re:This should be interesting.

[idsofmarch]

Honestly, half of the population doesn't care about anything. Predicating the importance of any idea based on the slack-jawed nature of the average US citizen keeps us back. Tell them dihydride oxygen is horribly dangerous and kills hundreds every year and they'll demand its ban, tell them DRM is wonderful and they'll comply.

Re:This should be interesting.

[otaku_one]

Well said. DRM is perfectly acceptable, as long as it doesnt interfere with playback. I trust Google's attention to detail and do not predict any problems Google's DRM. Google offers some of the smoothest running services (Earth, Gmail, Adwords) online and I forsee Google's DRM implimentation to be as successful as Apple's.

Re:This should be interesting.

[toddestan]

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).

Probably the reason why you can't remember is that Apple has been slowly making their DRM more and more restrictive. The important thing to remember with any DRM system is that they can change it at any time.

Re:This should be interesting.

[Alsee]

As the GP posted, when it doesn't get in the way for most people (like a speed limiter on your car set at the 130mph factory tire rating), they generally don't care.

The general public may be ignorant and apethetic, but that does not change the fact that they get screwed and suffer.

They suffer because of higher prices for productes and reduced competition and fewer products and less innovation and crippled products, and unavailability of products.

The clearest proof of this is the fact is the example of all consumer audio technology being EXTERMINATED for an entire decade due to DRM.

Yes, an entire decade of technology and products were exterminated by DRM. Just look at the Audio Home Recording Act. It exterminated all progress and new consumer products for a decade. It mandated all new consumer digital audio recording technology conform to a DRM system. It exterminated Digital Audio Tape and minidiscs and everything else. An entire decade of new technology and new products that, for all practical purposes, didn't exist. There was absolutely no progress after CDs up until the introduction of the iPod MP3 player. And that is only because MP3 players slip through a loophole in the law. And then the RIAA used their monopoly power to force DRM onto MP3 players anyway. The DMCA allows publishers control and veto power over any and all related hardware products.

Can you obtain the product for moving Real's music files onto iPods? No, denied. Can you find US-market DVD players that aren't region locked? No, denied. Can you find DVD players that can fast-forward passed the 10 minutes of commercials at the start of some DVDs? No, denied. Can you find any DVD players with any real innovation? No, denied. And how many other products that don't exist that would have existed if not for the DMCA, how many more products that I can't name for the circular reason that I don't know what they are because they were denied from existing?

Get rid of the DMCA which is strangling the free market and suppressing free market operation. Get rid of the DMCA and allow noninfringing people to use products, and allow people to create and sell products for noninfringing uses. Eliminate the publishing industry's veto power over compatible and interoperable and innovative products. Allow people to manufacture and use innovative DVD players and MP3 players and other hardware, free of DMCA threat.

Just becuase people don't realize that hundreds of new and innovative products don't exist on the store shelves does not change the fact that those people are worse off for it.

Get rid of the DMCA and restore the free market and, whether people care or not or notice or not, people will choose and buy the new and better products on the shelves, and they will benefit for it. Whenever DRM causes problems for consumers, the free market will be able to respond and provide products to resolve those problems. Natural market forces can accept and adapt and respond to DRM if it is allowed to.

-

Google Mice?

[IAAP]

Just think, the pointer would go off and search for what you want to click on. Just wiggle it, pointing at things you kind of want to point at, and, Voila,l it comes up with a bunch of icons that you may want to click on. But then again, you'll have the firms that'll help companies to get their icons to the top of the list for you click on. Normally, this isn't bad, but if they have themselves placed at the top of the list for "click throughs" well, that could genereate some revenue!

How's that for a business model from a sarcastic remark?!? As a matter of fact, maybe I should start a company: business plans from sarcastic comments. Ooo, yeah! Want in?

I expect media portability

[sdo1]

Sigh. I want... no, expect... absolute portability in media. Period. That means I might want to transfer it to a portable ipod-like device. Or stream it from my PC to my bedroom TV or to my laptop while I'm traveling in Tokyo. Or maybe I want to print out frame stills and wallpaper my office. Who cares! But I simply will not accept anything short of being able to do what I want, when I want, with the media that I purchase.

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

[cryfreedomlove]

You can start by leading by example. Please produce a full feature length movie that everyone wants to see. Then distribute it without DRM. The example you set then would be a better argument and valued more by today's content owners than the shrill scream that you posted here.

Re:I expect media portability

[bwy]

My parents have mentioned some form of media that apparently you went to a store and bought. You'd insert it in some kind of device (portable player, your car stereo, home rack system, PC, your FRIEND's stereo, your OFFICE PC, etc.) and it would just play.

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

[oscartheduck]

Seems to me that I don't buy software, I purchase a license to use it on a computer. So fair enough, I don't redistribute my software or my license key. But I never read the part on the music I bought that says "You are purchasing a license for one copy of this music." I was under the impression that I bought the CD and the copy of the music on the CD to do with as I like.
 
And given that that is the situation, I happily spend money on music so that I can use it as I want; I don't buy from Itunes because, like yourself, I don't like this notion that I'm "licensing" the music.

Re:I expect media portability

[shark72]

"But I never read the part on the music I bought that says "You are purchasing a license for one copy of this music." I was under the impression that I bought the CD and the copy of the music on the CD to do with as I like."

They use simpler verbage like "unauthorized reproduction prohibited" and the like. It means the same thing. The copyright holder still has their rights; the music does not pass into the public domain upon publication. The fact that they don't use the word "license" should not be taken as tacit permission to put it in your Kazaa share directory, or make ten copies and give them to your friends.

Re:I expect media portability

[oscartheduck]

My frustration comes from the "unathorised reproduction prohibited" line apparently covering things like placing a copy of the music on a portable music player and having a copy on my computer because I don't want to carry the very scratchable CDs around. As I said, and you quoted me saying (and don't take my tone here as at all harsh because I'm quite a friendly guy and am glad to be able to offer the clarification) I want to do with the music "as I like". I don't like to fileshare music around, but I do want to be able to rip it to electronic format for personal use without having DRM forced upon me.

Re:I expect media portability

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. Nor should it be taken as tacit permission to make an electronic copy of those bits in the CD-player's control chip, or to store it in a buffer to prevent skips, or to reproduce that data a few times as it makes its way to the sound card, and is copied into more buffers before yet another illegal copy is duplicated to the DAC.

Who decides which copies are authorized? Further, assuming copyright is a valid principle: why SHOULD it apply to personal, non-commercial copies? What benefit does society's relinquishing of this power offer?

Re:I expect media portability

[cpt kangarooski]

They use simpler verbage like "unauthorized reproduction prohibited" and the like. It means the same thing.

That is completely false. CDs, DVDs, books, and the like are ordinarily sold. No license involving the reader exists.

The copyright holder still has their rights; the music does not pass into the public domain upon publication.

And if they said nothing (which is the case) they wouldn't lose their rights.

The fact that they don't use the word "license" should not be taken as tacit permission to put it in your Kazaa share directory, or make ten copies and give them to your friends.

Yes, because it would be illegal, not a breach.

Look, you clearly don't know anything about copyright law. So maybe you should not post about it, until you have learned something. Right now, at best, you're just being ignored. At worst, you're misleading people, and I dislike that.

Re:I expect media portability

[Anonymous Coward]

all this indignation about DRM, but no one wants to stand up against the thieves who make it necessary...we are all cowards :-)

Re:I expect media portability

[shark72]

Oh, please. I was pointing out that he he can not do as he pleases with the content simply because the word "license" does not appear on the CDs that he buys (which appears to be his implication). It was a quick note, not a master's thesis. I'm quite aware of the difference between a violation and a breach, and that the creator need not print any particular verbage in order to have or enforce their rights. I am honestly at a loss to why you'd assume otherwise. But since I obviously wasn't clear the first time: the fact that there's no license does not mean that he can do what he pleases with the material.

I always enjoy reading your posts (I'm on your fan list) and I appreciate your tireless efforts to introduce actual factual information, something which is often quite rare around here, particularly in regard to copyright law.

Re:I expect media portability

[jZnat]

Well, I have to rebut this with some knowledge I've gained from my almost 52 year old father.

1) You actually got physical media

True

2) The media even came with little booklets with song lyrics (and it wasn't illegal)

It wasn't always like that. There were magazines you could subscribe to in order to get lyrics for songs. Later on, booklets containing lyrics were included in albums.

3) Price was about the same price or cheaper than what you get from iTMS, Nap$ster, etc.

The RIAA wasn't as stupid back then, and there is the problem of constant economic inflation around here.

4) You could play the stuff practically ANYWHERE

Once again, not so true until later on with things like cassettes. Turntables were big, but most audiophiles already have larger systems than what used to be the norm.

5) Sound quality was great- even better than the downloaded stuff

Everything was done via analog, and there was no real way of reducing the quality of an analog recording.

6) You could sell the media (LEGALLY!) to a friend, store, or whatever when you were done with it.

You can still sell CDs, but the main FUD regarding this nowadays is the fact that you can easily create your own back-up and simply resell the CD, thusly charging you next to nothing for the album itself. At least, that's what the RIAA wants you (and Congress) to think.

7) Nobody ever got sued for any of this

I'm going to guess that there were less lawyers in those days.

Re:I expect media portability

[shark72]

Thanks for the clarification. I've seen the "...as I like" phrase used by people to justify piracy so many times that I just assumed that's what you meant.

I think market forces will eventually kill DRM-laden CDs. CD-based DRM is awful and evil and I can't even play DRMed CDs in my car. For what it's worth, iTMS' FairPlay DRM just so happens to let me do whatever I like. I've no doubt that it's too restrictive for some, but they let me do all the things that I happen to want to do with the stuff I buy from the iTMS. I think Apple got it right.

Re:I expect media portability

[Jamesday]

Companies can and do make money from a paying customer to free customer ratio in the 1,000 to 1 range. It's not the only one doing that. It is a pretty well known example: MySQL.

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.

Re:I expect media portability

[aussie_a]

As a viewer of their content, I will merely vote with my wallet. I don't care if they use DRM, I care about if I have to suffer through DRM. By not buying DRM'd products, I no longer have to put up with their shit and can enjoy good quality entertainment from alternate venues.

Re:I expect media portability

[cryfreedomlove]

Using mySQL as an analogy in the mass consumer space is ludicrous. I'm sure you disagree. Here is a way we can settle this: Please produce a full feature length movie that everyone wants to see. Then distribute it without DRM. Let's see what happens!

Re:I expect media portability

[martinX]

5) Sound quality was great- even better than the downloaded stuff

Everything was done via analog, and there was no real way of reducing the quality of an analog recording.

Yes there was. Taping your brother's already taped tape.

Re:I expect media portability

[sdo1]

For what it's worth, iTMS' FairPlay DRM just so happens to let me do whatever I like.

Lucky for you. I want to stream purchased music from my computer to my living room stereo via a Roku Soundbridge. I can't because it's DRM'd. I want to stream it to most any PC I happen to be sitting at via Slimserver. Nope, sorry. Non-ipod MP3 player. Nope.

Yes, I could do those things by burning the song to CD and re-ripping it, but that either results in a quality loss (double encoding) or a larger than necessary file for an already sonicaly compromised 128kbps overcompressed song.

iTMS FairPlay DRM (Fair?!?! Bah!) is oft touted as the Digitally RESTRICTED Media implementation that most people could live with. I guess I'm not most people because I find it to be way overbearing and is the reason that I've purchased a total of $1.98 worth of music from it only to become immediatly frustrated with the restrictions put upon MY use of music that I purchased.

I'm not asking to be able to give the music to the world a thousand times over. And besides, no DRM has ever stopped that anyway.

-S

Re:I expect media portability

[Jamesday]

MySQL estimates 8 million users. That's a mass market intellectual property product.

The film "Fahrenheit 9/11" was released on the internet without copy protection with the approval of the director, who said ""I don't have a problem with people downloading the movie and sharing it with people as long as they're not trying to make a profit off my labour". The US version is currently ranked around 1,000 in Amazon.com's DVD sales list. It also has the highest box-office receipts of any general release documentary and won the Palme d'Or (highest award) at Cannes. First day DVD sales were reported at two million copies, also a record for documentaries. Box office revenues are currently in excess of US$360 million worldwide.

Seems to have just the combination of very wide viewership from a mass market internet distribution and sales to meet the requirements of your suggested test.

Re:I expect media portability

[cmpalmer]

I expect to pay for a new version of media if I am going *upwards* in quality and technology, not backwards or sideways. Is this rational? If I bought a movie on VHS, I don't expect them to automatically give me the DVD version when it comes out. But, if I have it on DVD, I should be able to copy it to VHS (or another DVD, or my iPod, or my computer). And yes, when it comes out on Blu-Ray or whatever, I expect that I'll have to buy it again.

do not stupid

[abes]

It's a stupid debate about whether Google is evil or not over this. Obviously they would not be able to buy the shows without guaranteeing the TV companies some type of protection. This has plenty of pluses: competition for apple (maybe videos released that have *good* quality), creating a larger market without the need for iTunes, and *maybe* (although I'm not really that hopeful, it will run under linux. Yeah, not that likely.

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

[microbrewer]

A interoperble DRM framework is being worked on .

http://www.coral-interop.org/

Re:do not stupid

[abes]

That's cool, but notice certain ipod-owning companies are not on there. I quickly looked over the members list, and it looks like it's mostly hardware manufacturers, and one TV company (20th century Fox).

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!?) makes a nicer pod, it won't be noticed/used by most people.

Re:do not stupid

[microbrewer]

The iPod has been dubbed the 8 track of the Digital age.

Creative own the patent on the ITunes interface so that may be a start.

Re:do not stupid

[microbrewer]

Heres the Current Public Member List of the Coral Consortium its a Mixture of Consumer Electronics and Content Companies but no info has come out of the consortium for several months ......

Promoter Members

Hewlett-Packard Corporation
IFPI
Intertrust Technologies Corporation
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.
Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.
NBC Universal, Inc.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd
Sony Corporation
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.

Contributor Members

Ardtully Technologies
AOL
Cisco Systems
Cloakware Corporation
Comcast New Media Development, Inc.
EMI Music
Enikos Pty. Ltd.
Irdeto Access B.V.
Kenwood Corporation
LG Electronics
Motion Picture Association of America
Motorola
NDS Americas, Inc.
Pioneer Corporation
Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)
Seagate Technology, LLC.
SecureMedia Inc.
Sony BMG
Starz Entertainment Group LLC
STMicroelectronics, N.V.
Sun Microsystems
Time Warner Cable
Universal Music Group
Verimatrix, Inc.
ViDeOnline, Inc.
Warner Bros. Technical Operations Inc.
Warner Music Group
Widevine Technologies

Re:do not stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

" Sorry, purchasing this video requires Windows 2000 or Windows XP."

This is from video.google.com :(

Re:do not stupid

[Lehk228]

the iRiver mp3 players

iRiver H10 are better than the ipod, the interface is different so it will take a bit of time to get used to if you are accustomed to the ipod.

Re:do not stupid

[microbrewer]

I found out that Coral where at CES and are expected to announce a full spec by June 2006

Re:do not stupid

[Alsee]

One thing I would like to see is a DRM converter.

Cool. Thatway when one scheme gets cracked, they all get cracked at the same time.

Hmmm, I wonder why they refuse to permit any DRM converters to exist?

-

Google also announced a partnership with DivX

[microbrewer]

It seems that Google is going to be using DivX and its DRM to get video into lounge rooms and onto portable devices .DivX has a popular codec ,50 Million DivX certified devices and a MPAA approved DRM .The addition of Geencines movies to Google Video is a clear intention of DivX and Google's relationship as Greencine uses DivX for it's streaming and Burn to Rent and Burn to Buy server .

http://www.greencine.com/divxRelease?content=4

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/

Re:Google also announced a partnership with DivX

[Stalyn]

Too bad there is no way to play DRM DivX on Linux. Currently if you want to "buy" a video and you are on a non-windows system you get a Sorry, purchasing this video requires Windows 2000 or Windows XP message. Will the Google Video Player be available for Linux or Apple?

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 the right to protect their copyright. Yes of course they do. But if we buy something don't you waive all rights to ownership to us? Shouldn't we be allowed to play it on whatever we want. This DRM stuff is to prevent us from distributing their works illegally. But why treat every person who pays for something as a potential criminal? If you treat someone like a criminal they quickly become one.

Re:Google also announced a partnership with DivX

[microbrewer]

Im sure DivX are developing thier DRM for all platforms ;)

Re:Google also announced a partnership with DivX

[po8]

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???

Re:Google also announced a partnership with DivX

[Alsee]

I just wanted to let you know that the project I am working on isn't called DIVX. The one and only official name for our project is Dual Inline Video eXtreme.

-

beyond evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Google DRM is worse than DRM in general. Google should have licensed DRM from either Apple or Microsoft. That way it would have worked with an established base of portable players (ipods if they licensed Apple DRM, and pretty much everything except ipods if they licensed Microsoft DRM). By creating their own incompatible DRM scheme, Google is showing a particularly large amount of disrespect to their customers.

This is one of the reasons I am partial to subscription music services. At least there is no lock-in when they tell me up front that my content expires when I stop paying them.

Broadcast Flag

[cryfreedomlove]

Remember the Broadcast flag, anyone?

The Broadcast Flag 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:Broadcast Flag

[Anonymous Coward]

The 'Broadcast Flag' is not really an example of checks and balances. It's an example of the an unelected regulatory commission being told they are not allowed to institute policy... If the legislative branch push that through piggy-backed on a budget bill, there's no one in Washington who wouldn't sign that check.

To sum up... if you're walking the tightrope of "checks and balances" don't be surprised when the Constitution Safety Net doesn't catch your fall.

Re:Broadcast Flag

[Bill Hayden]

The Broadcast Flag is a great example of governmental checks and balances in action. The courts struck it down.

Here's how checks and balances work in this case:

• The courts struck the rule down
• Checks come in from large donors who are afraid of fair use.
• Congressmen look at their contribution balance sheet and see that people who support fair use are greatly underrepresented monitarily.
• Congress passes a new law to do an end-run around the court's decision.

Unfortunately, this is not really a joke but what is actually going on right now.

Not another video player

[Matt Perry]

Along with the service, Google has also released its own, slick video player.

Yet another video player that I have to install? No thanks Google.

Re:Not another video player

[AndreiK]

I wonder how long it will take for the codec to be implemented in VLC...

Re:Not another video player

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to worry, it's not like they often bother to develop software for any other OS than Windows.

Re:Not another video player

[Bob the Hamster]

Google appears to be using FLV, which plays in your browser through flash. When you click "download", you get an AVI file, which seems to work just fine in VLC.

Re:Not another video player

[Ethan Allison]

It's a Flash embedded one, comparable to WMP, QuickTime, and probably the MPlayer plugin (which I never got around to configuring on my Linux desktop machine so I dunno for sure). It's compatible with any Flash-capable system, and also has AVI-codecked downloads available for the free ones. I know how advertistic that sounds, but it IS free* =)

*It's the content that's sold, not the player. Duh, but just clarifying for ... well, certain people.

Re:Not another video player

[nogginthenog]

Or the ffmpeg library for that matter.

Google and Apple...

[ozric99]

... the two companies that can do no wrong. Reading Slashdot these days is like having Al Franken shout in one ear while Sean Hannity screams into the other. Massively annoying and ultimately pointless.

Re:Google and Apple...

[Anonymous Coward]

Google and Apple can neither do evil.
Bad thing for Apple is, it can't do anything else, either.

Re:Google and Apple...

[ScentCone]

Reading Slashdot these days is like having Al Franken shout in one ear while Sean Hannity screams into the other

Well, more like Al Franken using a giant megaphone he bought with George Soros' AmEx card, and Hannity just sort of droning, like he does. The balance on /. is, well, not.

Not really.

[Virak]

Unlike Microsoft, they still offer useful services.

Why create another one?

[vik]

They didn't have to do this, and one wonders why they did. There is already a perfectly good Open Source, Open Standard DRM system; Project DReaM:

http://www.openmediacommons.org/

Vik :v)

Re:Why create another one?

[microbrewer]

Hope Google Join Coral http://www.coral-interop.org/

Re:Why create another one?

[gflores]

Whatever they choose to use, it'll be hacked to bits. Literally.

Re:Why create another one?

[iSeal]

They didn't have to do this, and one wonders why they did. There is already a perfectly good Open Source, Open Standard DRM system; Project DReaM:

This isn't meant to troll - but out of curiosity.

If a DRM system is open-source, then doesn't it defeat the very purpose of DRM? To assign limitations to content? Because it seems to me like using the source, one could just write software to ignore the limitations imposed by the DRM; or remove it alltogether.

Personally I really, really, really dislike TPMs and DRMs. But it seems like a necessary evil in order to even conduct business with the media content industry. Google swore to do no evil... and is following the mold dictated by the media content industries truly evil? I don't think highly of such moves, but it isn't at the "evil" stage yet. It's a necessary business move.

Re:Why create another one?

[jZnat]

Well, not to sound like a troll, but this is another "open" solution by Sun Microsystems. Yes, Sun has a history of providing quality hardware and software as well as being a large supporter of OSS, but their ideals of Free software tends to lean towards the non-copyleft version of free.

I don't know, but by the sounds of their FAQ and other information, it seems like you may have to license something (or get approved, I don't know). Maybe it only applies to proprietary software or something, but if this makes it so that a developer can't make some sort of DeDReaM (I'd call it awaKe or something), then the OMC is not open. Open means that you're able to do whatever the fuck you want with it as long as you aren't violating some sort of law.

15. What do you mean by "open source"?

A: The term "open source" simply means that source code is made available to others in the community under specific use and license terms. There will be a well defined process for anyone to join and participate in developing the specifications, along with a well defined process for publishing and revising those specifications.

If someone can clarify this, I'd be very grateful.

Re:Why create another one?

[Anonymous Coward]

If Google really wanted to promote open-source, they'd have linux binaries of products like talk and desktop. Right now, Yahoo! at least has a 'nix binary out for ymessenger.

Re:Why create another one?

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

They (the OSS community) should've trademarked "Open Source".

Microsoft can say Windows is Open Source, I'm sure for an NDA and a few billion dollars they'd let you see it. :)

Re:Why create another one?

[Alsee]

so that a developer can't make some sort of DeDReaM (I'd call it awaKe or something)

I like your random capitalized K in awaKe :)

But to answer your question, the way it works is that the code will only work on top of a Trusted Platform Module (TPM / Trust chip).

The Trust chip is a boobytrapped selfdestructing crypto microchip with a key locked inside which spys on what hardware you have and what software you run, and which securely reports your hardware and software to other people, and which prevents your software from working if you attempt to change it.

The spy report function is called Remote Attestation, and the fact that the chip prohibits altered software from working is called Sealed Storage. Oh, and the fact that the chip is boobtrapped to self destruct if the owner tries to find out his own key to be able to unlock his own files... they call that "secure" and "Trust". That other people can Trust that the hardware and software are secure against the owner.

If you don't have a Trust chip, the software doesn't work at all. If you attempt to change the software, the Trust chip spy report tells other people and devices that you are running unacceptable software and they will refuse to talk to to. And if you attempt to change the software then the Trust chip generates a completely different set of useless crypto keys (and thereby denies you the right keys you need to read your files).

IBM even ran a TV commercial for their Thinkpad laptops a while ago even advertizing the fact that the chips inside were boobytrapped and self destructing. Of course they put a positive spin on it... advertized that the chip would self destruct to protect your files if a hacker stole your computer.

Trust chips even defeat the GPL. The software doesn't work without a Trust chip, and the Trust chip effectively prohibits the software from working if you change so much as a single line.

-

There are two types of DRM

[Dr_LHA]

1. DRM that is too restrictive to allow "fair use".
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.

video DRM is more tolerable than music DRM

[Schlemphfer]

I know that many people here hate all forms of DRM. I hate it and won't accept it for my music purchases. I don't have the same misgivings about DRM where video is concerned.

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.

Re:video DRM is more tolerable than music DRM

[NickDoulas]

It seems to that people keep forgetting an important point about Apple's DRM on downloaded music. Once you download the AAC files, you can burn the content to a CD, and then re-import the tracks as MP3s back into iTunes, including ID3 tags. The extra step is a small hassle, but at the end you have a CD (which is a good archive and you might still use it in certain places), and you have a regular MP3 file with no DRM. Personally, I would not use their service without this feature.

Re:video DRM is more tolerable than music DRM

[Schlemphfer]

It seems to that people keep forgetting an important point about Apple's DRM on downloaded music. Once you download the AAC files, you can burn the content to a CD, and then re-import the tracks as MP3s back into iTunes, including ID3 tags.

Sure, but if I buy a (non-DRM'd) CD in the store, that store-bought CD becomes my backup (the music I listen to gets ripped to my hard drive.) Under this setup, I don't have to pay for a blank disk for backup, I don't have to take the time to burn a copy, and my store-bought CD has a much longer life expectancy than a CD I burn. Plus I usually get lyrics and artwork.

CD prices have fallen so much that new CD's sometimes cost less than iTunes albums. And used CD's of music I want can often be had for $5 or so.

Of course, if a CD I want has DRM, there's no way I'm buying it.

Re:video DRM is more tolerable than music DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

"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?"

Because not all video is useless just because your old computer died and you had to upgrade to a new one. Because you are not everyone, why should your ideas of what you'd like to do with video be everyone else's?

Re:video DRM is more tolerable than music DRM

[remymartin]

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.

Google's NBA offering promises full videos of games 24 hours after they have been played. While this might be good for some people, I have to wonder how many people are going to shell out to watch games that have already been played and where the outcome is already known. Sure there are going to be instances where, say, a fight breaks out between players from opposing teams and spills into the stands (although I am sure David Stern would find a way to keep that from being purchased), but nobody will want to buy most of the NBA games. Even if I am say, a diehard Celtics fan, am I going to pay money to see them the next day when I know the outcome, especially if it looks like a lopsided victory from the box score?

As for the NFL, the same rule as above applies. 24 hours after the game is finished? Find a friend with Sunday Ticket (I think it is convenient speculation on your part suggesting that DirecTV or the NFL would be happy with the game son Google - if Comcast can't get the NFL to let them show all the games, what does Google have to offer?), and I think you'll be able to enjoy those games much more.

Re:video DRM is more tolerable than music DRM

[dr.badass]

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.

Um...you can easily back up your music library whenever you wish. iTunes DRM doesn't prevent you from copying the files at all. You can put them on another disk, another computer, a CD/DVD, upload them to an FTP server and let the world mirror them, etc.

Re:video DRM is more tolerable than music DRM

[drew]

But I'd really like to pay a buck or two to see an NFL game every Sunday.

You know, most places in the U.S. you can get an NFL game every Sunday (and Saturday and Monday, too) for absolutely free. If you're willing to pay a buck or two a week for it, I'll gladly rent you my old rabbit ears antenna.

Re:video DRM is more tolerable than music DRM

[AeroIllini]

Once you download the AAC files, you can burn the content to a CD, and then re-import the tracks as MP3s back into iTunes, including ID3 tags. The extra step is a small hassle, but at the end you have a CD (which is a good archive and you might still use it in certain places), and you have a regular MP3 file with no DRM.

I'm not sure why people keep parroting this as a good solution to the DRM problem. Are we so used to using poorly designed systems and being crapped on by the companies we patronize that we are willing to put up with such nonsense?

Burning your tracks to a CD and then reripping them is not a solution, it's a workaround. It's a pain in the ass and shouldn't even be necessary. Additionally, it only addresses the issue of iTunes; there are many other DRM solutions that don't even allow this.

I get really irritated when companies punish their paying customers in the interest of stopping those that "steal" from them. Hey, jerks, I paid for this track. Don't punish me because someone else isn't buying your music. As has been said many times before, DRM doesn't stop the determined; it only hurts the honest people. How is pissing off your customers good business, again?

That being said, I think Apple's FairPlay DRM is the best they could offer under the circumstances. If they insisted on selling unencumbered AAC audio, the RIAA would have cried foul and left the negotiating table. I applaud Apple for fighting for consumers' rights in the face of draconian business practices in a near-monopoly situation. However, we, as consumers, can't stop there. We have to fight back, and help Apple wrest control of the music business away from the oligopoly that currently runs it. We can't be satisfied with "good enough" DRM, because it's a slippery slope. Today you're allowed to burn CDs. Tomorrow you need RIAA-approved headphones and can only listen to your music between 3:52am and 4:06am PST unless you upgrade to a "Plus" license for another $5.00. Refuse to buy CDs with DRM. Complain very loudly when DRM stops you from exercising your right to non-infringing copying. Write to your senator. And for the love of God, stop pirating music; it doesn't send the RIAA the message you think it does. Just do without, or buy from companies that respect your rights.

The message we need to send is, "Look, we're honest. We want to compensate the people who produce this music. We just don't want to give up our rights in the process."

Is that so hard?

Re:video DRM is more tolerable than music DRM

[elchang]

I think the issue is seeing a specific NFL game, not just any NFL game.

In the US, it's surprisingly hard to see the game that you want, if it doesn't involve a local team. As far as I know, the only way is to buy Sunday Ticket, which is a non-trivial purchase.

Re:video DRM is more tolerable than music DRM

[cmpalmer]

Yes, it is just a PIA workaround, but it does allow Apple to pay lip service to the RIAA and provide users with a "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" way of getting around the DRM.

Re:video DRM is more tolerable than music DRM

[emrysk]

You've convinced me. I think I'll be checking out Yahoo's service, and, if there's a method of letting me put songs on my iPod, I'll be subscribing. Thanks for popping a little rationality and pragmatism into Slashdot.

What kind of DRM ?

[morcego]

One has to wonder if google will implement DRM as we know it. After all, they have a tradition of doing things in a different way, so getting people to shift to their side. Of course, the *AA are still the same.

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.

Re:What kind of DRM ?

[Cid Highwind]

Google is heavily based on Linux. One would expect they to support it.

I'm sure they love being able to deploy zillions of servers without paying OS license fees, but they seem actively hostile to desktop Linux users. After they hired the lead Gaim developer to work on their closed-source not-for-Linux chat client, Google Talk voice support seems to have been dropped from the development plan for Gaim 2.0. They haven't exactly been tripping over themselves rushing to port cool apps like Earth, Desktop Search, etc. to Linux either.

Re:What kind of DRM ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is heavily based on Linux. One would expect they to support it.

Does Google use Linux on the desktop? Yes, no? The company I work for is a reasonably well-known website that uses windows and solaris servers, yet we don't "support" lynx on solaris.

Re:What kind of DRM ?

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

They need to be more open.

Who actually uses Google Talk and Google Mail?

I barely do, but I use Yahoo Mail and Yahoo Messenger extensively.

I believe there are many more that use Yahoo Messenger and Mail than the Google equivalents.

Google needs marketshare in those 2 areas - just cause they own search doesn't mean squat there.

Re:What kind of DRM ?

[kocsonya]

> Google is heavily based on Linux. One would expect they to support it.

Not really. They use linux for its technical features and for the rather attractive pricetag it comes with.

On the other hand, Google is a publicly traded company and no matter what the blurb is in the various vision and mission statements, they have one and only one legaly binding obligation: making money to their shareholders.
Linux and BSD and MacOS and Solaris and all the other non-Windows based customers probably represent a single-digit percentage of their visitors. Say 10%. Now they develop a particular product and porting it to Linux and BSD and MacOS and Solaris costs them more than 10% of the Windows development cost, it is not worth doing it.

For the very same reason jumping on them for DRM is silly. They want to make money. Content delivery is good business. To get content from the providers, you must have DRM. So they'll do DRM. Google do things differently than a lot of other company, but their bottom line is no different from Hollywood's or Microsoft's: max amount of $$$. If they can create an image that they are a different company, geek friendly, do no harm, whatever, that's just very good PR. At the end of the day the shareholders are only interested in the share price and the dividend and couldn't care less what the slashdotters think of the company's business decisions.

Zoltan

Re:What kind of DRM ?

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, Google is a publicly traded company and no matter what the blurb is in the various vision and mission statements, they have one and only one legaly binding obligation: making money to their shareholders.

Everybody and their dogs keep on saying this on slashdot. Surely the obligation is to keep their shareholders happy? This may equate to almost the same thing (shareholders want a return on their investment), but it is slightly different.

Re:What kind of DRM ?

[iMaple]

Linux and BSD and MacOS and Solaris and all the other non-Windows based customers probably represent a single-digit percentage of their visitors. Say 10%.

Isnt 10 like 2 single digits ;)

Re:What kind of DRM ?

[kocsonya]

> Everybody and their dogs keep on saying this on slashdot. Surely the obligation is to keep their
> shareholders happy? This may equate to almost the same thing (shareholders want a return on their
> investment), but it is slightly different.

The principal reason of a public company is to make profit for the shareholders. If the shareholders believe that the company could have made profit but it did not do so, they can actually sue the board of directors for lost return on investment. They can not sue the board of directors for not being happy or because they wanted the company image to be different. They have legal recourse for lost monies, that being the principal reason behind a corporation.

Considering that shares of a public company can be owned by anyone, the only objective measure of shareholder happiness is return on investment.

See:

[IAAP]

c:\Windows\wmsetup.txt

I didn't request an update or anything. When the message box appeared saying something to the affect of "Do you want to upgrade to the newest version of MS Media Player?" I clicked on "No" or "Cancel"

Anyway, that fucking log shows the install doing a lot of checking and thing that I'm not so sure I want done to my machine. I'm too paranoid to publish it here, but have a look sometime.

Will it be cross platform?

[dtfinch]

I'm sure Microsoft would love it if Google's DRM only allowed Windows and perhaps Mac users to access their media, just like the DRM's of all Microsoft's other competitors.

Legal game...

[IAAP]

It is like a fence with a "no trespassing" sign.

To use your comparison: we have to play the legal game. There are times when I really wish I could just shoot tresspassers. Really! Vandalism, littering, noise, etc... The cops have more important things to deal with. But, by doing those stupid little things, I can, hopefully, head off a lawsuit or some easement that'll compromise my rights or possibly have my rights significantly diminshed or even taken away.

Re:Legal game...

[Doomedsnowball]

I totally agree.

Re:Legal game...

[IAAP]

Cool. hen I understood what you were saying.

Cheers!

It's their ball

[Chris Snook]

If the content providers choose to only distribute their copyrighted works when DRM is in the loop, that's their prerogative. It's our prerogative to ignore it and give our business to those who do not use DRM.

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

[shark72]

Very well put. If there comes a day that the major distributors of music, TV and films decide that it's in their best interest to release stuff that's easy to make unlimited copies of, they'll do so. The "Entertainment wants to be free" mantra is true only if both the consumers and producers agree.

Slashdotters can test this by producing their own movies and TV shows, then putting them on the 'net with no restrictions. So far it's not working well (compare Magnatune's sales to those of, say, the iTunes Music Store) but who knows... maybe one day things will change.

Re:It's their ball

[dada21]

I'm in the process of raising funding (and nearly there) to open No Copyright Studios in Chicago. Music recording (my brother is a sound engineer with a degree from Columbia), video recording and even a podcast studio. Free for artists, funded by an anti-copyright foundation. The only catch: anything recorded in house is public domain, by contract :)

Re:It's their ball

[kcbrown]

If the content providers choose to only distribute their copyrighted works when DRM is in the loop, that's their prerogative. It's our prerogative to ignore it and give our business to those who do not use DRM.

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

[Chris Snook]

Good point. I would be completely in favor of a law requiring DRM publishers to put master keys in escrow with the copyright office. Unfortunately, our legislators don't seem to honor the "limited time" clause, and the courts are allowing them to get away with it, so good luck convincing them of the need.

Re:It's their ball

[oGMo]

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.

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 from experiencing their work outside the setting (application, particular mp3 player, etc.) he or she mandates. In fact, one could go so far as to claim that the DRM itself was part of the work.

This could also be argued in a system with copyright... that the DRM is "under" copyright, and actually a protected part of the work itself. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know how that'd hold up in court, but consider the opposite situation: legislation about what content can or cannot be included as part of a work that falls under copyright. Before asserting that nothing else compares, consider things like unlockable content in video games, or hidden extras on DVDs. Should we have a law that says nothing may be in any way obscured in digital media?

Perhaps the original poster was on the right track: despite what you think about DRM, laws regarding it (either way) are negative. If certain companies or artists lock up their works, then give them what they deserve: nothing. No time. No money. Forget about them, forget their words, their works, and their existence; let them go out of business and be lost in history.

Re:It's their ball

[RexRhino]

Just because a copyright expires, doesn't mean that one doesn't have to stop using DRM. If I copyright a story, then keep my copy in a vault for the duration of the copyright, I still (or rather, my grandchildren the way copyright works nowadays) can release that work with DRM... I simply wouldn't have any legal recourse if someone broke that DRM and then distributed the unprotected version of that work.

In fact, I could apply DRM to the bible, or shakespeare, or something public domain and distribute it if I want... I just wouldn't have any legal recourse to stop others from distributing their own encrypted or unencrypted versions of it.

There is nothing wrong with DRM, if you don't like it you can choose not to purchase products with DRM. The only moral problem with DRM is when the government mandates DRM (or makes it illegal to crack DRM).

Re:It's their ball

[roman_mir]

Nothing more needs to be said if one's view is that copyrighted works rightfully belong to the copyright holder forever. - There is nothing wrong with that point of view.

I would certainly release more of my works into the wild, for free even, if only there was a way to completely forbid everyone to redistribute this work outside of the license given to them by me. Forever.

On the other hand I wouldn't mind releasing more works, if it was possible to make sure all copies of the works will spontaneously disappear from this world once I am dead.

I don't feel any obligation to give anything to anyone in this world, but I do it sometimes at my own will, I would give out more things for free if I could prevent these works of my outlasting myself.

Cheers.

Re:It's their ball

[.killedkenny]

If there comes a day that the major distributors of music, TV and films decide that it's in their best interest to release stuff that's easy to make unlimited copies of, they'll do so.

Try Tiki Bar TV

http://tikibartv.blogspot.com/

I think eventually the backlash against DRM, combined with cheap tools that allow individuals to create content, will result in an upheaval of content freedom, where producers want as many copies of their stuff out there as possible, and get paid various ways, like "tip jars" or holding back content until a certain amount of money is collected.

Let's face it, U2 doesn't need a record company. They could just run their own website and say, "We'll release our next album - FREE TO THE WORLD - as soon as we get $3 million in PayPal donations.

Business models that depend on artificial scarcity are doomed. There's no reason not to have a billion copies of a song out there. If only 1 person in 1000 donated a dollar to the artist, he'd make $1 million for writing a song!

Re:It's their ball

[AstynaxX]

OK, I'll bite...

Your comment seems rather at odds with the generally acknowledged (and often regarded as nigh universal) urge of those who create to leave some lasting mark upon the world through their creations. So it leads me to ask, why? Why do you want all traces of your efforts to wink out of existence when you do (and if they are practical works rather than entertainment, likely cause someone or several someones to have to reinvent that particular wheel?)

Re:It's their ball

[roman_mir]

It's simple, I am an egoist and to me the world didn't matter before I was born and it will not matter after I am gone. I don't want to have children and I dislike the fact that our life imitates an ant colony too much. At the end nothing will matter, the universe will blink out of existance with everything inside it due to proton decay. I just don't want to increase entropy by my existance too much, that's all.

Predictions

[Anonymous Coward]

1) The Google DRM will be broken.
2) It will be an inside job.

So what

[arrrrg]

I think people around here forget that DRM is not inherently evil (although perhaps it is inherently flawed). The problem we have with DRM is that content producers use it to impose unnecessary requirements (your e-book expires in 3 months, you can play this song on your computer but not your ipod, etc.). Keep in mind that the content producers get to decide what requirements they want, and would refuse to release most current works without some form of DRM. Google is not setting the rules here; they're just trying to stay in the game.

OOH SHINY!

[MaXiMiUS]

DRM.
?????
Profit!

brain error, insert thought.

great cabbage fart crisis of 1996?

[Anonymous Coward]

have a link to that article?

The register is troll?

[EdMcMan]

Why does everything that comes out of the register about Google have a negative slant on it? Maybe they're mad Google won't let them visit their campus.

DRM is not an inherently bad thing. I would rather have DRM access to content then no access at all. I think if any company can use DRM responsibly, it is Google.

Re:The register is troll?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because The Reg had to start using the kid gloves with Microsoft after becoming a MS partner. Ragging on Google makes them kinda still look tough.

Google DRM?

[l33tlamer]

Google Digitally Rooted Me

DRM is unnessesary

[a_greer2005]

If the DL services just put a string somewhere in the file that when run through their de-crypto, IDs your user account.

This could easily be added to any MP4 format, and with a little effort could be put onto .ogg or divx,

If your name is tied into the file, then no restriction is needed. If a file appears on the illegal sites, look at the name of the DLer and sue them.

This will not solve the problem of piracy in the east, but it will keep honest people honest.

Re:DRM is unnessesary

[jcam2]

How many seconds would it take to write a program that removes such an ID? Assuming it isn't hidden by some kind of digital watermarking process of course .. which is hardly foolproof anyway.

Re:DRM is unnessesary

[quokkapox]

If your name is tied into the file, then no restriction is needed. If a file appears on the illegal sites, look at the name of the DLer and sue them.

DRM in the form of personally-identifying watermarks is easily defeated when the first piece of spyware comes along which looks for these files on the infected users' machines and spreads them around on the P2P networks.

So they'll sue me for accidentally or inadvertently downloading some evil filesharing spyware? I hope not.

Re:DRM is unnessesary

[jZnat]

Hmm, if all you did was add a comment in the audio file of your user ID with the company (maybe even encrypt that), then all the stupid pirates that you're trying to stop with DRM would be fucked as they wouldn't bother removing the comments. Better than a watermark because it would be easily removable if you felt it to be necessary to get rid of it. Most people wouldn't give a damn, so why bother enforcing the watermark either?

Re:DRM is unnessesary

[Reziac]

IOW, watermark the file to ID its original purchaser. Indeed, DRM is not only unnecessary, it could be counter-profitable. But a watermarking system could be profitable with hardly any cost or hassle:

Instead of suing people whose files wind up on sharing sites -- why not have that same watermark hook into a micropayment system and a nice clean filesharing client? That way ANY media file can *become* "legal" (ie. paid-for) no matter where it's been or who shares/downloads it:

All you'd need to do to avoid being sued is subscribe to the micropayment system, and you'd pay only for the files you *keep* (say, for more than 30 days -- anything kept less than that, you could probably have streamed elsewhere anyway). The question of "I want my money back cuz this song/movie sucks" is thereby avoided, as is file-hoarding. And let people share any files they've paid for (ie. kept) -- since any downloads would in turn be paid for by the next downloader.

Perhaps this could be abused if not secure, but I'm sure it could be made at least as secure as the existing online payment methods. In fact, there's probably no reason it couldn't hook into an existing service like Paypal, making it ridiculously easy for the average downloader to pay some small amount on a completely on-demand basis.

As to people who'd strip the watermark -- let the watermark become the "Quality assurance seal" (file integrity checker) that tells the P2P client that this is indeed the right file and not broken. Who wants to spend all day chasing potentially-bogus files when you could spend a small amount for a known-good file??

Re:DRM is unnessesary

[The Cisco Kid]

Easy to find, hard to hide.

Just get three people to sign up, and each download the same file. Each will be slightly different, to allow for the unique watermarking. Just run a diff (or the video equivalent) between the files, and bingo, you've found the watermark.

One detail I'd like to know...

[sterno]

What OS's will it support? If Google DRM runs on Linux, I will back it. I'm tired of not being able to get crap to work on Linux without some wierd hack.

Re:One detail I'd like to know...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Please put shackles around my free OS, PLEEEEASE. This freedom is extraordinarily inconvenient...."

Re:One detail I'd like to know...

[trix7117]

According to CNN it currently only supports Windows.

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.

Re:One detail I'd like to know...

[Criterion]

And just how, pray tell, does allowing my system to do something that it wouldn't otherwise do (legally), constitute putting shackles on it, and taking away any freedoms whatsoever? It would seem to me, that having a *choice* to do something that _other_ system does would be a Good Thing(tm) in this case. If you don't want it on your system, just don't install it. Choice is good.. ala the ability to install what you want rather than what some corp deems you must. I'm all for choice, but it's certainly not your place to be telling me, or anybody else, what they should, or should not desire on their system.

Re:One detail I'd like to know...

[Dark_Gravity]

Hmm, you suggest that my Linux box currently cannot oppress it's owner with DRM? Terrific! Now why would I want it to?

I vote with my wallet and don't buy DRM restricted downloads.

Re:One detail I'd like to know...

[Anonymous Coward]

No DRM will stop u from being dumbass ...

Re:One detail I'd like to know...

[Anonymous Coward]

DRM is about choice now is it? I've heard this fallacy before, you might have a better chance convincing me on the merits of intelligent design.

Re:One detail I'd like to know...

[slashdot.org]

If Google DRM runs on Linux, I will back it.

Good point. Who wouldn't give up a bit of constitution if it's a mix of Google & Linux?

Re:One detail I'd like to know...

[Anonymous Coward]

You really want a Linux version? If there is now Linux port, the sooner someone will hack it. I wouldn't want a google player on my system. Big brother would then know what films I watch, imagine... porn ads on every google-ad page.

Re:One detail I'd like to know...

[westlake]

"Please put shackles around my free OS, PLEEEEASE. This freedom is extraordinarily inconvenient...."

Your so-called freedom is inconvenient...when it means your O/S of choice never gains mass-market acceptance in recognizable form.

Re:One detail I'd like to know...

[krakrjak]

It doesn't. It requires the Google Video Player to download any of the pay videos. You can download them by modifying your user-agent, but as of yet I can't get them to display. Their DRM is an intentional corruption of the AVI header. The files appear to only be streamable. I don't have windows so I can't validate whether or not they get saved to your HD through the Google Video Player. Right now I'm trying to figure out how to replace their header with the right header so that normal players can play it.

Repeat after me

[Concern]

There is no such thing as DRM.

There is no such thing as DRM.

No such system has ever been invented, nor will such system ever be invented, because it is impossible to create such systems.

What google can do is annoy and harrass customers with purposely crippled software, and thanks to DMCA, perhaps hopefully get some of them imprisoned as well. They cannot protect their content anymore than they can end rainstorms with umbrellas. No one ever has, and no one ever will.

Google cannot "manage" restrictions on digital media in the wild anymore than Bill Gates or Howard Stringer.

Also, this whole "slashdot loves this, slashdot hates that" is ridiculous. What is it about people that makes them so offended when an audience is even slightly above the lowest common denominator, and can chafe when they're lied to/abused/wronged, and also respect an individual or business when they do well? If someone who does something good, also does something bad, will our brains explode? Come on, what do you think this is, the South Beach Diet forums?

Re:Repeat after me

[spongman]

i think it's more accurate to say that software-based DRM is innefective.

However, hardware DRM, coming to a monitor/player/chipset near your very soon, is going to be very hard to break.

Re:Repeat after me

[Concern]

Has there ever been a single successful hardware DRM system?

No.

Will there ever be one?

No.

Why?

Content only needs to escape once.

It doesn't matter if America's millions of teenagers can't break it without leaving their desks. It just takes one professional pirate in Asia somewhere to crack open the hardware and read out the signal right as it gets to the screen or the D/A converter for the amp. Sooner or later you have to decrypt it. If you made the devices cost $3,000 each to pay for all the security you could imagine, there is still a place in that box where the data is in plaintext, right before it's rendered to your screen or fed to your amp - and no amount of black plastic can keep you out of there.

Then it's on the internet...

To whoever modded me down...

[Virak]

Could you please give me one example of something they offer which doesn't have a superior alternative?

Can't be Windows, as there's no shortage of alternatives there; countless Linux distros, the various BSDs, and OS X, among others.
Can't be Internet Explorer, as there's plenty of alternatives there too, such as Firefox and Opera.
Can't be Office, as there's OpenOffice.org, and several others.
Can't be Hotmail, as there's Gmail, Yahoo (though that isn't much better), and some other smaller but still far better email services.
Can't be search, as there's Google.

So do you have an example of something (useful) they still provide which has no alternatives? Or do you just unconditionally mod down people who criticize Microsoft?

Re:To whoever modded me down...

[Nightspirit]

I did not mod you down, but can you please show me the nearest linux or apple tablet PC (and no, the nokia POS doesn't count)?

Oh yah, they don't exist (and if they do, hell let me know, I'm all up for options).

Re:To whoever modded me down...

[Virak]

Not sure how it compares to Windows-based ones, but here's one.

Re:To whoever modded me down...

[Anonymous Coward]

msn?

to tell you the truth the only good service they offer is infomation like on msdn.

Re:To whoever modded me down...

[Anonymous Coward]

It is identical to Windows offerings-- it's just a Thinkpad with Windows wiped and replaced with a specialized Linux distro.

Re:To whoever modded me down...

[toddestan]

Why not Office? Or in particular Microsoft Excel. I challenge anyone to find a better spreadsheet with all the features found in Excel. Word is nothing special, and I already hate PowerPoint, but I have yet to find anything close to Excel.

My measurement of Google's evil...

[hackwrench]

It first came to my attention that Google was evil when I did:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=winip&btnG=Go ogle+Search

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 beginning to blow in that direction.

Re:My measurement of Google's evil...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh shit, and you know what else? I bet Google employees kill mosquitos, too. And as if that weren't enough, they probably brush their teeth, thereby precipitating bacterial holocaust, and ten to one they even masturbate--MASTURBATE!!--in their spare time. Yes, they're PURE EVIL!!!

Give it a fucking rest.

Re:My measurement of Google's evil...

[rm69990]

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?

Because Open Source isn't the end all, be all of the software industry perhaps?

Re:My measurement of Google's evil...

[palndrumm]

It first came to my attention that Google was evil when I did:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=winip&btnG=Go ogle+Search
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, 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:My measurement of Google's evil...

[JDizzy]

This reminds me of that old saying. Don't attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance. Clearly if somebody thinks google is evil because it is compensating for misspelling... lol.... they need less free time.

Re:My measurement of Google's evil...

[hackwrench]

You and the other poster making a judgement that ignorance isn't evil. Suggesting possible alternative words to search at the top isn't evil in my book, but injecting them into the middle is bad, and returning actual results on them is even worse! It's called taking second guessing me too far!

Re:My measurement of Google's evil...

[AK Marc]

You and the other poster making a judgement that ignorance isn't evil. Suggesting possible alternative words to search at the top isn't evil in my book, but injecting them into the middle is bad, and returning actual results on them is even worse! It's called taking second guessing me too far!

But what if Google didn't do it? What happens if someone puts a typo in their web page? They have winip pointing to www.winzip.com because of their error, not Google's. That should make www.winzip.com show up under a search for winip. It is a valid response, as far as Google is concerned.

Re:My measurement of Google's evil...

[towsonu2003]

Because Open Source isn't the end all, be all of the software industry perhaps?

how is the parent insightful? I can't even understand it...

Have you actually looked at video.google.com yet?

[Bob the Hamster]

if you haven't done so already, go to http://video.google.com/ and look at this in action-- despite the knee-jerk fear reaction against DRM, this looks really cool. Try it out. Click the "Submit your video" link. Several important things to notice: (1) you can publish your own videos for sale (2) the DRM is totally optional. You can publish stuff for free just as easily (3) No special software to install, no special codec, it plays through the flash plugin (4) No attempt to prevent you from downloading and saving movies-- in fact there is a nice friendly "download" button next to each video (5) Search for "Russian Climbing" ... wow that kid is awesome!

Bullshit

[everphilski]

No one has an incentive to let the content of others run with their player, especially Microsoft.

Lots of stuff plugs into Media Player. For example, DivX.

Ya know what?

[thesnarky1]

I completly agree with you. The MPAA and RIAA will demand a DRM in every instance. They see it as protecting their investment, so I can understand that. (Note: I am completly against DRM in every way, shape, and form, but I do understand their argument).

However, I wonder what would happen if Microsoft, Apple, Google, or some other big name said "no". Think about it. Microsoft launches the next big music vendor, but makes it all free, with small, little known bands with no DRM.

Imagine, if you will, if Apple said the next IPod/ITunes will have no DRM on it. I'd jump all over that.

Why do I say this? Because the companies DO have that power. They can always say no. Will they? No (no pun intended). But I think if one or two of them DID stand up to RIAA, RIAA might realize that they could have to play by someone else's rules. What if Microsoft decided Sony screwed up its rootkit so badly, they would just block Sony cds (somehow). Yes, I know two wrongs don't make a right, but it might make people say: "Gee, if we fuck up our code, our business practices, or whatevers, we might lose a ton of business". And right then, the consumers start to gain power back. Microsoft would gain a lot more respect from tech-savvy people every where if they refused to DRM their next Windows Media Player. Say, "Screw you, we're making this free", and just drop any labels from their track's that wouldn't agree.

I think that would be a monumentous step in the right direction, and would DEFINATLY turn heads in not just the music industry, but every one that utilizes this business practice to hurt their loyal customers.

Re:Ya know what?

[ilmdba]

and what do you suppose will happen to all those non-DRM'd tracks that cost whatever on your hypothetical company's download site?

you don't think that every single one of the tracks will end up on kazaa/limewire/alt.binaries.mp3 within about twenty seconds of being online?

i'm sorry, but if you think that some company that would put non-DRM-encumbered media online (and that it would somehow gain the 'respect' of technical people), that they could somehow be sucessful at selling said stuff, when it's simultaneously all over every P2P network and USNET for FREE, is completely retarded. you think there is really that much good will out there? that your average everyday joe trying to get by will cough up several hundred dollars for his library of music, movies and software, when he can simply google it up and download it all overnight for free? with no worry of legal repercussion? come on.

itunes is a perfect example of how sucessful DRM-encumbered content can sell. and apple has plenty of 'respect' from technical people, regardless that they lightly protect the content they sell. and -plenty- of people are buying their stuff. it's not the end of their world that the stuff is protected. works just fine for them.

i'm not a huge fan of DRM, but even i realize that if you don't lock it up, people will steal it. period. especially if they can do it in bulk, sitting at their computer, and it's something they want.

Re:Ya know what?

[thesnarky1]

I have absolutly no faith in the people that would get the music. I'm on a college town, trust me, I've seen 200 GB hard drives full of pirated media.

I also don't think that any company would do it. In fact, I explicitly say they would not.

What I do think is that DRM is NOT going to end up as "light" as Apple is. In fact, it's going to get much, much worse. What I am saying, is that it would be great, in an ideal world, for a company to offer free media (note, I never said it had to be big name bands, I know plenty of bands that offer their music for free, and also sell CDs). And that this move would show people non-DRM'ed files CAN work.

Re:Ya know what?

[Yartrebo]

Find me one DRM'ed song or video that cannot be found on P2P.

As far as Itunes getting more respect from me because it's DRM-lite: Fat chance. Merely associating one's business to the RIAA or MPAA or their member companies greately reduces my respect. If a group like PBS suffers a major loss of respect for this (particularly their ties to Sony), why should I give Apple any slack? The respect they garner is probably because:
  - Many people have some strange affinity to copyright ... most definitely nurture and not nature because it runs smack against 99% of people's financial interests to support existing copyright laws, no less DRM.
  - They are quite clueless about computers and the peculiar economics surrounding something where the marginal cost or production is 0.

I'm quite a puritan when it comes to IP, and only a handful of groups manage to garner my respect (and donations/purchases). To my mind comes GNU, Wikipedia, and other similar open projects.

Re:Ya know what?

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

you don't think that every single one of the tracks will end up on kazaa/limewire/alt.binaries.mp3 within about twenty seconds of being online?

As opposed to the DRM conten, which will be out there in 20 days.

Google Video DRM is already live.

[Anonymous Coward]

Google's DRM will make its first appearance as part of a new video downloading service.

(1) What do you mean - will? It is live right now.

(2) Google Video has a f'ing ugly user interface. Unless they give it a makeover - pronto - Google Video is DOA. I've seen teenagers make a more professional-looking website.

Google are presenting the "online video store" experience as though it were a bulk discount retailer. Google Video vs iTunes feels like Home Depot (concrete floors, bare shelves and metal storage racks) vs Best Buy (slick consumer displays). Google Video looks like a service I wouldn't trust with my credit card... but I would (and do) trust iTunes.

They somehow forgot that they were no longer showing "search results".. they need to present an online store front and make the transition to "online retailer". In this, they have failed miserably.

Google need to buy Tape It Off The Internet RIGHT NOW - and dump their current "Google Video" appearance. I just can't wait for TIOTI to go live - their screenshots and site design seems so good as to almost be lickable.

READ THIS

[Anonymous Coward]

Note: I work for google, so I'm posting AC.

If you are one of the few who has never been presented with evidence that Google plans to muzzle its critics, then be glad that the task to educate yourself has just become easy. With this letter, I compile all of the necessary evidence into one easy-to-read document. To get right down to it, almost every day, it outreaches itself in setting new records for arrogance, deceit, and greed. It's decidedly breathtaking to watch it. There are three points I need to make here. First, I have found, to my considerable surprise, that Google uses its victim status as a kind of magic incantation to stifle debate, disparage critical analysis, and persuade us that it is entitled to introduce, cultivate, and encourage moral rot. Second, the cardinal rule of its pranks is that cold-blooded careerism is the only thing that matters. And third, I could go on for pages listing innumerable examples of its offensive subliminal psywar campaigns and inconsiderate maneuvers. I have already written enough, surely, to convince you that Google keeps insisting that all literature which opposes unilateralism was forged by infernal pikers. To me, there is something fundamentally wrong with that story. Maybe it's that Google maliciously defames and damagingly misrepresents everyone and everything around it. There's a word for that: libel.

I must part company with many of my peers when it comes to understanding why there is an inherent contradiction between Google's maladroit form of propagandism and basic human rights. My peers contend that Google, serving as judge, jury, and executioner, has decreed that it should be a given a direct pipeline to the National Treasury. While this is doubtlessly true, I insist we must add that it never misses an opportunity to indulge its preoccupation with its alleged victimization. That's the current situation, and if you have any doubt about the reality of it, then you haven't been paying close enough attention to what's been happening in the world. Google likes thinking thoughts that aren't burdensome and that feel good. That's why if you think that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance, then you're suffering from very serious nearsightedness. You're focusing too much on what Google wants you to see and failing to observe many other things of much greater importance, such as that it has written volumes about how the sky is falling. Don't believe a word of it, though. The truth is that I want to see all of us working together to reinforce notions of positive self esteem. Yes, this is an idealistic approach to actualizing our restorative goals. Nevertheless, you should realize that any rational argument must acknowledge this. Google's power-drunk rejoinders, naturally, do not. The poisonous wine of egotism had been distilled long before Google entered the scene. Google is merely the agent decanting the poisonous fluid from its bottle into the jug that is world humanity. The mot juste for describing Google's lamentations is most probably "scummy". To cap that off, this is a proscribed thought vs. free inquiry issue, an anti-democracy vs. democracy issue, and yes, a police state vs. free society issue. I mean, think about it. I will not say what is right and what is wrong when it comes to Google's ploys. But I will say one thing: Google needs some serious professional help. That said, let me continue.

Not surprisingly, while we do nothing, those who instill a general ennui are gloating and smirking. And they will keep on gloating and smirking until we disabuse Google of the notion that it is as innocent as a newborn lamb. It has been said that what Google is doing falls just short of giving handguns to schoolchildren. I, in turn, believe that one does not have to leave behind a legacy of perpetual indebtedness in developing countries in order to make technical preparations for the achievement of freedom and human independence and encourage others to do the same. It is a cantankerous perso

Re:READ THIS

[microbrewer]

AC must be Steve Ballmer or Jobs ...................

Re:READ THIS

[Anonymous Coward]

"I compile all of the necessary evidence into one easy-to-read document."

Can we have a look, cos that sure wasn't it. you have said exactly nothing sir.

Re:READ THIS

[TheoMurpse]

"Maladroit", "ennui", "boeotians", "effrontery" and the list goes on and on. This entire post reads like a spam bot wrote it. It doesn't even make any accusations. Nothing is substantiated. While I'm beginning to think Google is on the path to evil, there was nothing of substance in your entire post.

I suggest you rewrite these accusations with actual arguments instead of "Google kills babies because I SAID SO!!11!SHIFT AND ONE!" Perhaps when you're not high?

Re:READ THIS

[Anonymous Coward]

tl;dr

AdSense Intergration...

[Intocabile]

Imagine though that Google takes the idea of AdSense to the next level and integrates targeted commercials into the DRMed downloads. I would despise the idea like nothing else f I had to pay for it but what if downloads that included the commercials were cheaper or entirely free. Make them non fast forwardable and the content providers will jump at the idea and consumers will enjoy the free legal downloads while the content providers get paid and the advertisers get better then TV exposure. Make it better then TV and make sure there are fewer commercials.

Re:AdSense Intergration...

[cmpalmer]

I had a horrible brain fart the other day while watching an episode of Lost that I purchased from iTunes to watch on my iPod video. The thought actually popped into my head that they could provide these TV shows for free if they interleaved ads in them. Then I had a big, "Duh" moment.

Re:So...does this make them evil?

[Anonymous Coward]

It depends on how the stock performs.

Re:Have you actually looked at video.google.com ye

[jensen404]

(4) it only downloads a pointer to the online version of the file

Re:Their own player.

[dal20402]

... but when it is transfered to the iPod, it is converted to MP3. You can't move the MP3 back from the iPod easily, so that satisfies the basic requirement of the record companies.

To satisfy the *AA Apple would have to make it much harder to move songs off the iPod. Right now, you can easily access the entire filesystem from Terminal on a Mac or from the brain-dead Windows shell. That's too much even for the "we only care about inconveniencing legitimate users" industry groups.

You would need to build iPod handling into the OS at a relatively low level, so that to access the content one would have to either

hax0r the OS, or
find some way to read raw bits off the drive in the iPod from different hardware or another OS.

I chuckle at the idea of getting Microsoft (or even Apple, for that matter) to devote those kind of staff hours to iPod copy protection...

Don't be evil (yet)

[carlislematthew]

I was wondering when the endless Googlemania was going to begin to crack. All the "evil" posts are coming in...

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.

Re:Don't be evil (yet)

[TubeSteak]

I had a business teacher who didn't like the idea that you could fill a market niche and no longer have room for growth.

After a certain point, the only ways to 'grow' your profits (which isn't the same thing as growing the business) is to pay your suppliers less or charge your customers more.

Personally, I'd be perfectly happy with a company that didn't experience any growth at all, as long as they paid out a nice yearly dividend.

Re:Don't be evil (yet)

[kurokaze]

That wouldn't be possible. As inflation will continually eat into company profits and thus your dividends if they didn't grow.

And a company that doesn't grow is running the risk of getting push out of that very market by new players. So the only way to survive is to grow and to grow faster than your competitors.

Possibly one of the worse things for Google is to have gone public. They are now answerable to the shareholders and like the grand parent poster says.. will have to keep making astronomic earnings to keep the stock price up. 103:1 PE Ratio? That's unheard of since the dot-com days.. think about what that means.. the stock is trading at 103x their 2006 earnings! No company on the planet and hope to sustain that kind of earning power.

Ok, time for me to get bashed again

[barefootgenius]

Why can't they just time limit the stuff for say two years with a separate encrypted key for each song and then un-DRM it when when the two years is up by getting the user to access a server controlled by the media company? Is that such a bad idea?

might explain the stock price

[bergeron76]

This may help to explain GooG's insane stock price. Apparently there are plenty of wealthy people out there that knew something that we commoners are just now reading as "news" (buy on rumor, sell on news, right?). That small group of rich fatcats must have been negotiating something; perhaps that's what took GOOG so long to go public.

It seems like the content providers: Universal Vivendi, Disney, AOL-Time Warner, and Sony have already set their plan in place.

For a company to be trading at almost 500 US dollars a share means that people much bigger than us, and whom know what our future is - and how they can secure profit while dictating it (diplomatically, of course) - can allow "everyone else" in on the spoils. As we saw in the late 90's - companies can't trade at insane levels without a supporting financial infrastructure. For GOOG to trade so highly means that either a) they are GOD and every other company out there knows it, or b) see item a.

Wall Street is a tough crowd, and they aren't shining on google for no reason. The deals have been made, the ink has dried, and Larry is just playing his newfound role in the Kingdom of the Rich: Promoting a single standard "plug" for everything.

Afterall, we need simplicity? Don't we? Ok, maybe we don't need it, but it will certainly "keep us safe" from danger.

I'm John Galt, and in 2028 the world will know it. ;)

Re:might explain the stock price

[Weedlekin]

"As we saw in the late 90's - companies can't trade at insane levels without a supporting financial infrastructure. For GOOG to trade so highly means that either a) they are GOD and every other company out there knows it, or b) see item a."

It isn't so much that Google hasn't got an infrastructure as the fact that they aren't really doing anything particularly special. Their primary business is as a search engine whose revenue comes from advertising, and there were plenty of those with insane stock values prior to "the reckoning". What else do they offer? A free EMAIL service which is much like lots of others that were already around long before Google entered the fray; an instant messaging service, again much like others that were already around; a piece of Windows-only software for managing photos that they bought; and Google Earth, which is basically an atlas made up from satellite photos taken by others. They probably offer some things I forgot about, and yes, some of their services have a twist that the others don't, but the fact of the matter is that there's nothing particularly unique or innovative about what Google are doing.

Now, they're going to offer media downloads, just like Apple, and Yahoo, and Napster, etc. Ah, but these are TV shows and movies, which of course Apple have also been offering for a while now. Yet again, a "me too" service to go along with their existing "me too" services, yet the market will go crazy because it's Google, and Google can do no wrong.

Perhaps I'm too cynical: after all, MS have made a mint with "me too" services, and Yahoo seem to be doing fine with the same. But I cannot help remembering all those "me too" portals and companies selling dog food over the Internet that sprang up during the '90s, did an IPO, were worth billions in days, and made paper billionaires out of 19 year-olds. And lest we forget, it is largely the same analysts that boosted these fundamentally worthless companies who are now boosting Google, and many of the same people who threw money at them are now throwing it at the big G.

I am by no means anti-Google, and I wish them every success. But I cannot help having a unpleasant feeling of deja-vu after hearing that Google is now worth more than IBM, a company which has billions of dollars worth of real annual sales, and a considerable amount of valuable physical assets.

Re: "your statement is not true"

[Doomedsnowball]

The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. -Will S.

Another article

[Reziac]

Related article:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/07/google_ces _pack/

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.

Re: Bunch Of Legal Shit

[Doomedsnowball]

Look, stop thinking like a litigious sheep and think simply, logically. Why do we have fences? What is their absolute, bare-fucking-minimum purpose for existing? To demarcate an area to define it's boundaries. This is LOGICALLY the minimum you must do in a CAPITALIST environment to protect something valuable, simply define the point at which someone "stole" property. Define the line that was crossed.

Re: "your statement is not true"

[cpt kangarooski]

And what's your policy on half-penny loaves, three hoop'd pots, and small beer?

Be fair

[TubeSteak]

DRM does not ensure that copyrighted works will never be released to the public domain.

1. DRM has not been around long enough to be tested in court to determine the legalities surrounding DRMed public domain material.
2. Just because material can enter the public domain in 100 years, doesn't necessarily mean that anyone has to give it to you in a format that allows Fair-Use now.

Basically, I agree with your viewpoint, but not with your argument.

You might be right if the copyrighted material was only being released in some heavily protected format (Circuit City's DIVX). If that was the case, then you'd have something in the way of an argument.

To put it in perspective
Which is worse:
A) Life + 90 years of copyright
B) Easily bypassed CSS/iTunes encryption

?

Re:Be fair

[Pseudonym]

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

[TubeSteak]

Is it a settled legal matter that copyrighted material has to be available in a form that allows for Fair Use?

All these arguments are mostly irrelevant unless they are either made in court, or in the Senate/Congress. Even then, it is a good idea to evaluate the assumptions you're making in the argument.

Re:Be fair

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because material can enter the public domain in 100 years, doesn't necessarily mean that anyone has to give it to you in a format that allows Fair-Use now.

Fair use applies to material that's currently copyrighted. Once it's in the public domain, by definition, you can do whatever the hell you want with it.

Re:Be fair

[Anonymous Coward]

U.S.C. Title 17 Chapter 1 107:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Note that these are not breaches of the author's copyright.

Further, keep in mind that under the U.S. constitution, all materials falling under copyright law belong to the public already. Works don't need to be added to the public domain, they're already ours. The copyright is meant to secure the exclusive right to copy a work from the public. The same goes for patents.

Re:Be fair

[Pseudonym]

The question was whether or not DRM was evil. How legal it is doesn't enter into it.

Re:Be fair

[abulafia]

Other people have made these points, but just allow me to summarize.

DRM does not ensure that copyrighted works will never be released to the public domain.

True, as far as it goes. But even without DRM, many recordings that are technically public domain (both audio and visual) are now simply unavailable, due to copy restrictions that didn't allow wide distribution the originals before they became commercially unviable. What will happen in 100 years, with intentional software barriers? Keep in mind how quickly formats, media and transmission mechanisms have changed over the last 25 years.

1. DRM has not been around long enough to be tested in court to determine the legalities surrounding DRMed public domain material.

This is a nonsequiter. Who cares if someone DRMs public domain material? Other people will have it. Or are you talking about cases where copyright has expired, but only the original owner still has a copy? I guess I'm not following, if this is sensical.

2. Just because material can enter the public domain in 100 years, doesn't necessarily mean that anyone has to give it to you in a format that allows Fair-Use now.

You're misapprehending fair use. Fair use is an affirmative defense used to justify actions when accused of infringement. If I can view it, I can use it , in some (possibly degraded) form - it is as simple as that. Now, if I use it and do so in some way, and the copyright holder has an issue with that, I can fall back on fair use (put aside DMCA issues, for now), assuming I hit a certain formula that maps onto prior judicial expectations for what "fair use" looks like. The copyright holder cannot restrict fair use (modulo DMCA, which I'm not getting in to here) - they can make a complaint, and I can argue fair use as a defence. It is important to understand the difference between rights and arguments. [...]

To put it in perspective Which is worse:
A) Life + 90 years of copyright
B) Easily bypassed CSS/iTunes encryption

Um, puppies?

You're comparing a statutory definition of the terms of copyright ownership with a data format. I think I know what you're getting at, but... that's not an argument.

Re:Be fair

[TubeSteak]

fair enough, you've taken some of the wind out of my sails

DRM has not been around long enough to be tested in court to determine the legalities surrounding DRMed public domain material.

What I meant by this, is material that is DRMed and eventually falls into the public domain.

So if I write a really awesome song and exclusively distribute it with unbreakable DRM that limits your play to one computer... what happens when it falls out of copyright?

IMHO, you have legal permission to engage in Fair Use, but (unless I missed something) you don't have the explicit right to do it. IE you can't force a copyright holder to provide you a DRMless file that you can sample from.

/not my field of specialty
/not even a hobby
/could be wrong

Re:Be fair

[poopdeville]

Is it a settled legal matter that copyrighted material has to be available in a form that allows for Fair Use?

In the sense that any material that has been released must allow fair uses? Yes. Certainly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_warranty_of_m erchantability

Fair use isn't a set of rules to follow. It's all the ways of using a copyrighted work that are fair to both the consumer and producer. When people buy their media, they have an expectation to be able to use it as they see fit, so long as it is fair to everyone involved.

Few people have sued for it -- the Sony rootkit scandal was one of the first mercantibility lawsuits I've heard of regarding IP.

Re:Be fair

[Eivind]

Which is worse:
A) Life + 90 years of copyright
B) Easily bypassed CSS/iTunes encryption

But that's not the question, now is it ? It's not an either or, it's both and more.

What's worse:

• Content that you are legally forbidden from copying for 90 years, but which is:
  • Legally and practicable resellable
  • Legally and practicable usable in any jurisdiction.
  • Legally and practicable to exersize any of the fair-use rigths.
  • Legally and practicable to be *certain* it'll become accessible IF copyrigths are ever again allowed to expire (I wouldn't bet on that myself though...)
  • Legally and practicable convertible to other formats as the user needs/wishes.
• Or Content that you are legally forbidden from copying for 90 years which aditionally:
  • Prevents you from reselling, lending or borrowing it.
  • Makes it practicably difficult, and legally forbidden to exersize fair-use (DMCA)
  • Makes it uncertain if you'll be able to legally (and practically) break the barriers IF copyrigths are ever again allowed to expire.
  • Makes it unpractical and/or illegal to convert to other formats.
  • Possibly becomes useless the day the content-provider goes out of business.
  • Possibly phones home every time you use/access the content.
  • Possibly becomes useless/inaccessible if you do something as daring as say change OS, computer-harware or portable music-player.
  • Only usable in those parts of the world where the seller wishes it to be usable.

There are absolutely no benefits to a consumer from DRM. There are a list of drawbacks long as an evil year.

Re:Be fair

[Eivind]

Is it a settled legal matter that copyrighted material has to be available in a form that allows for Fair Use?

Under which legal theory ?

No, and that's part of the problem with current copyrith-law. There are basically two sets of rigths:

• Those that you do not have unless the copyrith-holder grants them to you. (i.e. copying, public performance)
• Those that you will not be punished for doing, but where the copyrigth-holder is allowed to do his best to prevent you from exersizing them.

Fair use comes in the second category; It is not *forbidden* to use a copyrigthed work in a way that is covered by fair use. But on the other hand, there is nothing that guarantees you that exersizing the rigth will be practical, possible or legal.

An example: You *are* explicitly allowed to cite from a work for purposes of critique. If, however, the work in question is a movie, protected by some sort of DRM, then the DMCA forbids you from breaking the DRM to be able to cite from the movie. It does not matter that the citing in itself is legal. The DMCA contains no language whereby breaking technological barriers becomes legal if the purpose is legal. You'll be punished for breaking the barrier itself, regardless of the fact that your purpose in doing so was perfectly legal.

There are absolutely no single thing you are guaranteed to be allowed doing with a copyrigthed work.

So when people talk of, say "fair use rigth" they mean rigth only in the sense of "not forbidden", not in the sense of: "guaranteed to be possible/legal"

Re:Be fair

[abulafia]

So if I write a really awesome song and exclusively distribute it with unbreakable DRM that limits your play to one computer... what happens when it falls out of copyright?

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.

IMHO, you have legal permission to engage in Fair Use, but (unless I missed something) you don't have the explicit right to do it. IE you can't force a copyright holder to provide you a DRMless file that you can sample from.

That's more or less correct. To be more precise, fair use is an affirmative defense, which is not a right, and not really "legal permission", depending on how you think about that phrase. Without getting overly legalistic, basically, when accused of copyright infringement, the defendant says, yes, I did that, but my actions are justified, and here's why. For fair use, there's a fairly specific 4 part test defined in the Copyright Act of 1976 that attempts to specify what fair use looks like. The burden is on the defendant to show that their actions qualify as fair use.

And of course you're correct that, absent a contract, there's no way anyone can force anyone to provide data in any particular format - that would be silly.

As always, IANAL, this is not legal advice, etc.

Re:Be fair

[Castar]

I disagree. The enrichment of the public domain is the entire reason for the existence of copyright law. "To promote the progress of science and the useful arts..." so that We, the people, have access to that progress at some later point. A temporary monopoly is granted to ensure permanent enrichment of the people. DRM changes that, and means that a permanent monopoly is granted to ensure permanent enrichment of the monopoly holder.

It's more then simply not liking it.

[cbreaker]

The evil part is that you don't have control over what you purchased, they do. Copy protection is one thing, but modern DRM, in general, is taking it a quite a step further.

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.

[silverkniveshotmail.]

What authentication servers?

Re:It's more then simply not liking it.

[.killedkenny]

Good post. Here's another example:

  - After you spend $300 on a Blu-Ray player, a firmware hack is released on the net which circumvents the DRM. All players of that model are blacklisted by the authentication servers, and your player becoms non-functional.

Re:It's more then simply not liking it.

[silverkniveshotmail.]

He's a good idea:
Don't buy blu-ray. Buying it shows support for it.

Re:It's more then simply not liking it.

[Iamthewalrus]

- 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.

Those are some pretty resilient discs to last through a fire and a flood. ;)

Re:It's more then simply not liking it.

[Skreems]

This is why I have been reading more books and watching less television/movies for the last couple years.

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 the market at work?

Re:It's more then simply not liking it.

[idsofmarch]

Give this man a cookie. DRM is a sword hung over the head of the consumer, who must pray the blow never comes and must be ready to pay for his life. DRM is a sham, a dangerous invention by business majors to eke every last dime from consumers.

Re:It's more then simply not liking it.

[Dion]

The ones that a bluray movie *CAN* demand to speak to, just like it can demand that you buy a $50 tub of popcorn which comes with a watch-once-code on it.

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 it demands from the player, it's what it allows the producers to do over time.

HD-DVD doesn't have this particular problem, it only has plain AACS, which is bad enough on its own, but at least it's not programable.

Re:It's more then simply not liking it.

[Kadin2048]

http://www.cdfreaks.com/news2.php?ID=12349

On top of that, consumers should expect punishment for tinkering with their Blu-ray players, as many have done with current DVD players by, in some instances, removing regional coding. The new, Internet-connected and secure players will report any "hack" and the device can be disabled remotely.

I've also heard it mentioned that there will be ways for discs to update the firmware on players automatically -- so let's say a new release comes out, and you stick it in your player. The player senses that the disc has a version of the firmware on it that's newer than what's loaded, and installs it. Thus the manufacturers could change the functionality of the device even if you didn't connect it to the internet, theoretically.

When you consider what the satellite providers did a few years back, where they changed the firmware on pirated players remotely, byte by byte, over the course of a few weeks, until they permanently 'remote killed' them, I don't think it's safe to assume that any capability like this wouldn't be aggressively used in a DVD player system.

I think the concerns over what will happen when studios or manufacturers go out of business are very serious as well. I have videocassettes that are over 20 years old now, and audio recordings (on vinyl) that are much older than that. While I don't play them every day, I keep them around with the knowledge that I could play them if I wanted to. I think the technology that's being forced on consumers is quickly leading us to a day when you don't buy a video, but only rent it for some period of time ("oh, you only bought the media, we temporarily leased you the Intellectual Property!"); the studios will say that there's no longer an expectation that a movie will be playable forever. When they decide the format is 'obsolete' and should be replaced by the next latest-and-greatest thing, or when it's just no longer cost effective to maintain the external infrastructure that these players are being built to rely on, they'll kill them.

And you know what? As consumers, we'll deserve it, because we let them in.

Re:It's more then simply not liking it.

[Anonymous Coward]

The flood put out the fire.

Re:It's more then simply not liking it.

[AZURERAZOR]

DRM is not necessarily ev0l, but in the context that we see this national discussion (CD's DVD's). It is ev0l in this context.

Why? Because it is the primary mechanism for removing consumer "fair use" rights, furthermore the consumer recieves nothing in exchange. Offer new movies on restricted DRM'ed DVD's at $9.00 instead of a unrestricted (or CSS) DVD at $18, then you could make the case that the studio is willing to PAY the consumer to give up those "fair use" rights, which would not be ev0l.

Re:It's more then simply not liking it.

[Anonymous Coward]

"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."

Are you sure about that? Even the "ineffective" dvd css probably stops a lot of copying, no? People who hang out on slashdot excepted, most don't know how to copy dvd's even if they have the hardware to do so. I'm thinking the various schemes do stop enough copying to be worth their while; of course I can't back that up any more than you can.

Re:It's more then simply not liking it.

[atomic_toaster]

How about an even more simple reason not to be able to watch your DRM-ed BluRay discs? One as simple as your network connection is down (because ISPs are so incredibly reliable), or, even better, you don't have an internet connection in the same building as your BluRay player? Contrary to popular beleif, not everyone has the internet at home. That may sound weird and backwards to the Slashdot crowd, but a) it's expensive, and b) it's not worth it if you don't have a computer in the first place. My 80-year-old grandmother has a DVD player; she would presumably purchase the next generation of movie player as well. However, she'd never need an internet connection, as she has never worked on a computer in her life.

Another scenario: what about when you move? From personal experience, it's not an instantaneous process to get your cable/satellite/whatever hooked up when you first move in, you usually have to wait a couple of weeks. And what do you watch when you're without television or internet connection? The movies you own, of course!

But now "own" is such an elastic term... The user means "own", as in it is yours forever to do with what you please within the limits of the law. The distributor means "own" as in "rent". Quite a difference.

Re:It's more then simply not liking it.

[dk.r*nger]

- Then, when you want to watch one, the disc authentication servers are down
- 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 owns the rights to the movies, and you and everybody else sues. In the unlikely case that the media is abandoned, a key is provided to permanently unlock all the discs.

- You put in a scratched disc, and the player's broken firmware reports you're a pirate. The server disables your player.
You sue the company.

- 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.
Obviously a mechanism for dis-owning a player would be needed. People has been known to sell used players, have then stolen etc. Since the players need to be online, this information can be transfered to the player.

- 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.
I have no way to protect my investment in flooring and carpets agains guests or kids, either.

- 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.
So you sue Disney, since this is not in accordance with the terms under which you entered the agreement to buy the disc.

- 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.
This is a reasonable concern. Although, I think it's going to be that way from the beginning and be more like $30/year.

We, the geeks, are annoyed by DRM now, because we can't play WMA9 on Linux, can't use it on our portable players etc. But it actually work pretty good for the majority of users. They are happy that they can shop music online and play it on the computer and burn it to a CD.

But all of these points will potentially affect every consumer, and not just us geeks. Do not underestimate the power of pissing off all of your customers.

Re:It's more then simply not liking it.

[Anonymous Coward]

- 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 owns the rights to the movies, and you and everybody else sues. In the unlikely case that the media is abandoned, a key is provided to permanently unlock all the discs.

If they build in a permanent key, then it's 100% crackable.

- You put in a scratched disc, and the player's broken firmware reports you're a pirate. The server disables your player.
You sue the company.

Just like everyone's suing Sony about the DRM rootkit damage?

Re:It's more then simply not liking it.

[dk.r*nger]

If they build in a permanent key, then it's 100% crackable.
There are ways to do this. DRM works by controlling the full path from media to hardware, because the media *will* be decrypted, and you wouldn't want to expose this data. Usually you will get a key with limitations in it, such as expiry-date, player-ID etc. - now, if these are removed, the key will be global and permanent.

Just like everyone's suing Sony about the DRM rootkit damage?
The Sony rootkit is relatively obscure. 50.000 normal users wrongfully tagged as pirates aren't. Which is my point. These are flaws that will affect the masses, and thus the class-action litigators.

Re:It's more then simply not liking it.

[engagebot]

This is also making a huge assumption:

That I have a handily available broadband internet connection.

With authentication servers and whatnot, that means that portable players are a pain in the rear. Or whatabout watching a movie at grandma's house. Does grandma need a cable modem to be able to watch a video? There's countless examples...

Re:It's more then simply not liking it.

[cbreaker]

Well, I'd have my discs in a fire-proof safe that's water tight because you can't make any fucking backups =)

Re:It's more then simply not liking it.

[cbreaker]

While yes, you could go out and sue everyone all the time, it's just not something the average consumer is able to do. Time out from work, money, effort - to go up against a big corporation that indeed put into the "EULA" that they could revoke the license at any time for any reason - which you magically agree to when you insert your disc into the player.

I am a firm believer that EULA's are often not enforcable - at least parts of them. Just because a company says so, doesn't mean it's so. Or legal. In reality, unfortunately, it takes so much effort to go up against these big companies that it's just not worth it. And they know it.

In response to a few of your comments specifically: You purchase carpets with the full knowledge that they are something that WILL wear out. You use carpets every day. They are priced accordingly. And I see no reason why the media companies would want you to be able to sell your discs or players to other people, since someone (gasp!) might be able to play a disc that they didn't buy - it was given to them!

Re:It's more then simply not liking it.

[dk.r*nger]

I don't want everybody to sue all the time. I want 10.000 consumers to sue about 12 times.

The carpet analogy was just me being cute, I know it's invalid. My point is that the right to backup is quite new and is so convenient that it appears to be made up for the sole purpose of being an argument in this discussion.

Just because we suddently have a kind of media that is digital, why should we necessarily have the right to back it up? LPs, tapes, videos - these are media that actually deteriorates from being used - yet no great demand for backups was ever voiced. Rather, people took care of their stuff and accepted the fact that they would need to buy new copies if they ruined the old ones.

Oh, and if the DRM was implemented properly, there should be no problem backing stuff up. It will just be encrypted. The key to the media is kept with the media-provider, out of the way of children and guests.

I don't know about the transfer of media, I didn't really consider that. I could imagine that media-providers wouldn't want that. But they will have to allow you to dispose of a player and keep your media, otherwise they can't make new ones with better features and hope to sell them.

Re:It's more then simply not liking it.

[sbenfield]

You have some valid concerns--network out, etc. However, each of your points is most likely something that everyone's business model will need to account for. The publicity/problems stemming from any of these scenarios will cause the general public to flee from whatever vendor or technology is causing it. If Diney or Sony did one of those things--how fast would it take everyone to say a big f*ck you to buying the next DVD from these guys? I don't like DRM--but I see the necessity of something in place. The biggest pain in the arse about DRM is that each vendor has their own proprietary way of handling it--player lockin, etc. Like all technology shifts, mistakes will be made--but in today's connected world, eventually the market will dictate what is acceptible to consumers and what isn't.

Re:It's more then simply not liking it.

[cbreaker]

The whole concept of keeping personal backups didn't happen recently, and it only became an issue once we were actually able to do so. Back in the days of the old 78RPM ceramic records and until recordable tapes became available you simply couldn't make copies. There was no way to do it.

So it's fair to say that ever since the dawn of personal recording devices has DRM been an issue. DRM doesn't have to be technical - it can be legal. That's why there were court cases back when the personal computer was an Apple II and everyone was buying dubbing cassette decks. Those court cases have established strong precedents to allow for personal copies.

Now that we have the *ability* to copy our own media, you don't think we should be able to protect our investments? After all, we're not buying the media, we're buying what's on it. What DRM does is artificially stop people from doing something that is not illegal.

Obviously in my original posting I laid out some worst-case scenarios that weren't meant to be taken for reality - I believe that the next generation of DRM will be a small bit less far out. But if you look at the specifications for the new HD-DVD/Blu-Ray DRM, and if you see what's happening with HDCP and "secure path" audio and video, it's pretty scary. /Sidebar: DRM also has the potential to lock-out any number of small businesses, software, or devices from the market. Because the fact that almost all DRM is proprietary closed-source software and/or hardware which generally incurs steep licensing fees to use, you're locking out the entire free software community from accessing any of the data, you're stopping all but the biggest bank-rolls from producing anything on said media, and you will suddenly lose the ability to choose which device suits your needs since you can only use sanctioned hardware to use the media. This is a very bad thing for Linux or *BSD, but a very good thing for Microsoft and Apple./

I don't want to rent. I make purchases to own. Everything is a monthly fee these days and it gets out of hand. People do get sick of it, and that's why (I believe) strict copy protection and "limited use" items have never really taken off in the US. Yet. But I only think it's a matter of time. The RIAA isn't stupid, and I think the lawsuits are just one part of a larger campaign to get people comfortable with the idea of hard content protection. "It's because of all the pirates." But like someone else on this thread pointed out, it's probably not copyright infringement that these companies are trying to stop - it's just a vehicle to a system that will potentially allow the content providers power to charge make a lot more money without providing anything above what we currently have.

I do agree that there will likely be a way to move media from one player to another. I'm guessing a player's ID would expire after time if left unused.

Re:It's more then simply not liking it.

[cbreaker]

I don't necessarily agree that DRM is even necessary at all, but if you must have some protection, it must be reasonable. It must allow us to make backups. It must not allow, in any way shape or form, the media companies to control what you have purchased. In the end, it's not about stopping copyright infringement to these companies however - new DRM is as much about setting things up to control your media and get more money from you.

Let's not forget here that almost all DVDs and almost all music CDs are distributed through only a handful of companies. These companies could easily force DRM down on us however they want, and what are people going to do - stop buying music completely? Stop buying movies completely? People love buying these things. No company wants public outcry against them, but it's not altogether crazy to imagine us getting there with small steps. You know, like how the government takes away our freedom one small little law at a time. Because, you know. Terrorists. Or something.

DRM itself is a power-play to make lots of money. If folks were truly serious about the security of the media, and not using DRM to lock people in or out, it would be open source technology.

I do tend to be somewhat alarmist about DRM, but I feel it's necessary. We shouldn't just roll-over and eat whatever shit they feed us. I want people to understand what we're getting into here, and what could easily become if we don't pay attention. I can't accept "the market will decide" positions when it comes to my freedom to do what is is legally acceptable.

Re: half-penny loaves

[Doomedsnowball]

The argument of this remark as in fact being favorable to lawyers is a marvel of sophistry, twisting of the meaning of words in unfamiliar source, disregard of the evident intent of the original author and ad hominem attack. Whoever first came up with this interpretation surely must have been a lawyer.

ok, DRM then no copyright

[r6144]

I think since DRM breaks the limited-time premise of copyright, copyright holders should lose the right to persecute people copying/cracking their DRMed works. It should be a free-for-all in the DRM world--if your DRM really works, then all right, but otherwise other people will no longer be prevented from copying your work in any way. Take your pick.

DRM Evil

[yintercept]

Is it always evil to use DRM?

Unfortunately, the "information must be free" crowd kind of ruined our first shot at having widespread downloadable content where the copyright was simply enforced by trust.

IHMO, The people who wanted to distribute the creative works of others without even giving the creative artists the benefit of a few years control over their work were doing their own form of evil. Of course, P2Pers considered themselves as Gods ... robbing from Peter to give to Paul.

DRM is evil, but, at this point, the market necessitates that companies must use DRM. I suspect that, if a true market evolves to the point where the public becomes accustomed to paying for works, then publishers will gradually ease up on the intrusiveness of their DRM.

The thing I really dislike about the present day market is the need to use a software based DRM has raised the cost of entry. Only giant companies like Microsoft, Apple and Google really have the infrastructure to test and deliver DRM media. The result of this little chain of evils feeding on other evils is that there really is not a good entry point (at this time) for smaller media firms to come into the market and thrive.

Rather than getting media from Apple or Google, I would prefer to get the media straight from the studio and pay the artists a little bit more directly.

Re:DRM Evil

[Knara]

I think, personally, it's more likely that eventually companies will realize that making a truely unbreakable DRM is impossible, and they'll "fall back" on making better product that people are willing to pay for.

Granted, I don't buy that people aren't buying still.

Maybe optimistic, but I think after media companies shoot themselves in the foot enough times, they'll come around.

Re:DRM Evil

[yintercept]

The industry doesn't need a bullet proof DRM. There simply needs to be enough DRM to create a threshold that people have to cross to pirate works.

The first wave of P2P created a big gap in trust. Once the market gets back on track, and people no longer think that distributing free copies of someone else's work is part of a great social movement, the market might normalize ... and publishers would become less intrusive in their DRM efforts. (yes, this is called wishful thinking).

Right now, I think it is sufficient to establish a threshold ... even if it is possible to break the mechanisms, most people would not cross the the threshold feeling that they are doing something wrong.

PS: I think the primary goal of DRM should be to put enough identification on digital media to identify organized media pirating organizations. Such efforts really don't need to be high tech. If you insert a unique id into each copy of Monk, and you notice a bootlegger selling CDs with duplicate IDs*, then there is a good chance that you just caught yourself a bad guy. You wouldn't even need to trace the ID back to the original purchaser.

*You would probably want to use randomly generated ids to thwart bootleggers who increment an id to make an appearance that their copys are kosher.

Re:DRM Evil

[Knara]

Sure, but my feeling is that by and large that threshhold has already been met for a huge majority of the civilian, non-organized crime population. The actual bootleggers associated with organized crime have specialists and resources that place the bar much, much higher than that it is for Joe User. That user already doesn't really know how to rip/copy a DVD, etc, and won't be getting video "online" until someone packages it in a nice, non-technical, watered-down, user-friendly (and DRM'd) package.

In order to stop the real source of the problem (producers who make real-looking knockoffs that get sold on the street or the www), they're gonna have to be pretty near bulletproof.

Google's DRM will be more robust, less evil

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to Apple, Google is letting ALL content providers sell videos.

Any web animator could sell shows for 5 cents up. This IS revolutionary. It's not everyday that a major corporation allows the little guy to compete at the same level as a big studio house.

That's all well and good, but this article still causes a great disturbance in the Slashdot universe...
(a) Sladotters love Google. They can do no evil.
(b) DRM is evil.
(c) Google makes a DRM system.
(d) Slashdot is in chaos and Flamebait everywhere.

Luckily since Google has a wide range of content providers, they'll need a wide range of DRMs. Google is too smart to create a one-size-fits-all DRM. If you can't copy a file to your laptop, it's not Google's fault. The content provider could have selected "Unlimited Copies." But their greed and evilness prevented them.

The content providers will get blamed for being evil by locking down their files, not Google. Then Slashdotters can all bitch about the **AA together, and balance will return to Slashdot.

Re: Bunch Of Legal Shit

[damiam]

I see your point, but DRM isn't like a fence. A fence clearly and accurately marks off the legal, physical, boundary of your property. There's no analagous concept for copyrighted items; my MP3 file may begin and end at xxx offset, but that's not really relevant.

DRM doesn't "define the line that was crossed", because it allows the copyright owner to draw the line wherever they want. They can prevent fair use, give themselves perpetual copyright, and prevent all sorts of otherwise legal uses of their content. And, of course, there are illicit uses that DRM doesn't prevent. DRM sets an arbitrary line with no respect as to what the actual legal boundaries are. It's more like a fence that encloses some of your property, some of your neighbor's property, has huge gaps in it, and electricutes anyone who touches it. (please don't criticize that analogy too much; like all analogies between physical property and copyright, it's pretty ridiculous).

Neener Neener Screener Screener

[panxerox]

My analog hole is a 21 Panasonic monitor with a Digital Video Camera. Not saying of course that I would violate DRM. Just sayin.

Re:Repokit!

[djdavetrouble]

Do less evil

Duke, lets go do some crimes.
Yeah! Lets get sushi and not pay

Hrmm, this is tough....

[denebian devil]

How do I choose between Google DRM, Microsoft DRM, Apple DRM, Real DRM, or whatever the DRM du jour is?

Oh wait, that's easy. I choose none. See how they like that.

Video from CES 2006 presentation...

[antdude]

Watch CNET video on Google's Video Store if you want to know more about the product. I don't recall DRM mentioned in details though. Be warned Larry is a really bad communicator.

Great

[Zebra_X]

This is so not needed. Why another format to be used as a tool to "carve out marketshare". In the end however, only the consumer suffers.

I want six DRM formats and one program to rule them all.

On the upside, I imagine the DRM will be *nix/Linux compatible :-)

So Google's just like any other company

[I'm Don Giovanni]

except for the self-righteous holier-than-thou hypocrisy. ;-)

Re:So Google's just like any other company

[Cro Magnon]

Yes, it is. I think Google is one of the better companies, but it's still a company. "Do no evil" is a great marketing slogan, but you can't really trust ANY company, not even Google.

locks are for honest people

[3seas]

and honest people really don't need the overhead complexities of DRM.

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?

Re:locks are for honest people

[Anonymous Coward]

DRM is about creating new revenue streams for the media industry. Nothing more, nothing less. It is much more profitable to sell over and over the rights to listen to some piece of music than to sell the music itself.

Google DRM? Nothing new

[kripkenstein]

New for video, perhaps. But Google Print already has DRM, which trys to prevent saving copies of pages that you view (disabling right-clicks and some other stuff). Not that hard to override though.

Digital Rights Managment-Piracy.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Boycot them! Hit them where it hurts! Vote with your dollars!"

Kind of hard to "vote with your dollars" when no money changes hands.

the answer reveals itself

[cashman73]

The answer may have just revealed itself tonight. It seems that users can already purchase videos on Google Video.

Don't worry

[toddhunter]

Google is not evil and will never be evil.
Unless their share price drops. Then they will be...definately.

Google Mouse!

[Anonymous Coward]

This kit, which includes a mouse, was sent out as a christmas gift to some AdSense affiliates:

http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/googlechristm aspresents2005600.jpg

Re:Google Mouse!

[Anonymous Coward]

I've played around with the mouse. It's a wireless mouse that charges over USB. Ponder over that one for a while.

The Temps were let go?

[raehl]

Why on earth would a company discontinue the employment of a TEMP? I just can't believe TEMPORARY employees wouldn't be PERMANENTLY employed!

Maybe when the girl said "The rest of the group was pretty young", she was politely saying "The rest of the group are up-to-speed on new tech and brilliant and you're a temp whose skills have languished in your old age."

Or maybe it was discrimination. But "being sued" by someone doesn't mean much - anybody can be sued for anything. Did the people bringing the suit prevail? Did they get a settlement worth more than what Google saved by not having to defend it?

Back to the subject at hand - there is nothing inherently evil about DRM. If you don't like DRM restrictions on a product, don't buy it. It's that simple. If enough people vote with their wallets, DRM will fail.

What will likely happen is that the interests of the consumer (as indicated by their willingness to spend money on a restricted product) and the interests of the content producers will find a middleground where there's an acceptable level of control over content that is purchased by both parties. And who knows, maybe someone will find a way to create DRM that lets consumers copy amongst their own devices as much as they want while not letting them give away/sell copies to others. Nothing evil about that.

If content just gets copied and distributed everywhere for free once the first copy is released, a lot of content will no longer be produced. In the old days, you could stop that because the cost of copying something was generally higher and/or easier to stop than with new technology. Ultimately, software that makes sure there is a financial return on producing content assures the consumer has the greatest variety of content available. That may mean the consumer won't have the ability to copy as easily as they did 5 years ago, but they'll still have more ability to copy as they did 50 years ago, when your LP was pretty much uncopyable.

Re:The Temps were let go?

[Anonymous Coward]

More likely: "These young guys are buddies and like to hang out, so they all get to be millionaires together. Sorry, you're just too uncool to fit in, old man".

Re:The Temps were let go?

[h3llfish]

Why on earth would a company discontinue the employment of a TEMP? I just can't believe TEMPORARY employees wouldn't be PERMANENTLY employed!

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 not. In fact, it was the only reason given to me. She specifically said that the quality of my work was good. Also, I had actual experience, having spent two and a half years at Yahoo. All of the kids they did hire were fresh out of college and ten years younger. Sorry bud, but that's evil in my book. Just one man's opinion, nothing to flip out over.

Maybe when the girl said "The rest of the group was pretty young", she was politely saying "The rest of the group are up-to-speed on new tech and brilliant and you're a temp whose skills have languished in your old age."

So it's your position that rather than cite a valid reason for not hiring me, she gave an illegal one? All in the name of being polite? Yeah, that makes perfect sense. And besides, this job had nothing to do with tech skills. It was reviewing the ads to make sure they conformed to editorial policy.

Maybe that's my polite way of saying that you're a dumbass.

Re:The Temps were let go?

[Anonymous Coward]

"What's up with the caps, dude? You seem to be pretty excited about all this."

I beleive he was using emphasis to prove his point, it's pretty hard to show the full gamut of emotion in text.

"All of the kids they did hire were fresh out of college and ten years younger. Sorry bud, but that's evil in my book"

In my book, that's understandable buisiness sense. These employees can be moulded to the company ways, and if the entire team is their age, have more chance of binding as a group. Like it or not, you skills are not the only thing employers look for.

You do (happier with that emphasis?) sound bitter.

Re:The Temps were let go?

[raehl]

I doubt the girl fully considered the legal ramifcations of her phrasing before she said it, being, after all, an engineer/CS person and not a lawyer.

Companies have a culture. Part of any interviewing process (including interning and being a temp) is determining a fit between the employee and a company culture. What you attribute to "age discrimination" is far more likely to be a mere cultural difference. People who work at Google are young, independent, single people whose lives revolve around working at google. If you were a 32-year-old who lived your life as an independent 25-year-old, then you probably would have been hired. But if you go home to be with the family and don't see your coworkers outside of limited hours at work while your team members are around each other 16 hours a day, and at the end of the project the management says "OF the 8 temps, hire 6", the people who are going to be hired are going to be the people who best fit with the culture.

When I was interviewing for positions out of school, I paid attention to the corporate culture of the companies I interviewed with. I wouldn't work for a company that had the wrong culture for me; why would I expect a company to hire an employee who didn't fit the culture? Like it or not, and especially with a company like Google where there is a lot of demand for positions, SOCIAL interaction is very often the differentiator between who gets the job and who doesn't. EVERYONE can do the job. But can everyone do the job while getting along with the rest of the team?

And lastly, you comment that you were told your work was "good".

This is GOOGLE we're talking about here. Your work should be ABSOLUTELY EXCEPTIONAL if you expect to be permanently employed there.

Re:The Temps were let go?

[h3llfish]

You sure seem to know a lot about Google; when did you work there?. And you seem to know a lot about me; did we used to hang out?

You assume that you know all the answers. You display the arrogance which is typical of youth. It's ok, I was like that once too. But I'm telling you - that same arrogance is why Google will fall. So if you're so sure that you're right, go ahead and buy a bunch of shares of Google right now. See how that works out for you.

Re:Have you actually looked at video.google.com ye

[Bob the Hamster]

> (4) it only downloads a pointer to the online version of the file

I have an AVI file on my hard drive that says otherwise (although I guess there are settings for that, so it varies from file to file)

Yeah, this is getting ridiculous.

[raehl]

Would you believe my cassette tapes won't fit in my CD player? My VHS won't work in my DVD player either!

BASTARDS!

You've never had media portability. You can expect it all you want, but you're not going to get it. Get over it.

Re:Yeah, this is getting ridiculous.

[Cro Magnon]

I used to buy VHS tapes all the time. I seldom buy DVDs. Why should I? DVDs will be dead soon, so why should I get a bunch of dead DVDs to place next to my dead VHSs?

Like the OP, I want portability. Since I don't have it, my money is non-portable; it stays in my wallet and not in the RIAA's.

his definition of evil is based...

[TubeSteak]

My point is that his definition of evil is based, in part, on what he thinks will happen in the future.

No Linux yet......

[hta]

From video.google.com Help Center:

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.

Re:No Linux yet......

[TallMatthew]

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

Damn, I guess I can't download my favorite episodes of CSI:Pawtucket.

Quick summary:

[Kagami001]

"DRM enforced rentals, at rental prices, are ok, because I don't expect to have that stuff long enough to worry about multiple machines, backups, etc. DRM files at permanent-copy prices are not worth it, because their inflexibility and fragility become a burden sooner or later."

I'd like to add that this is how I feel, also.
I'm a regular user of Windows Media DRM video rental sites. (Cue pr0n joke.)

It's really about price points -- if permanent access is so cheap I can consider it a rental, then that's obviously ok, too. (Service goes out of business? Oh well, rental period over.) But if it's more than a small fraction of the cost of a non-Internet-enforced version (DVD/CD/whatever), then no.

Google Give the Ball A Push & Then It's Rollin

[spamfork]

TV and movies on demand & online has been available for the typically slashdotter for years. For most of us DRM and the thought of DRM initially sucks. We will most likely have a few years of open access, and we'll probably hack our way through or around it if we need to. Google and the mainstream media realize that.... But, DRM makes sense right now. The old school folks are just starting to grasp what Google is kick starting! We won't be flipping through channels on tv in a couple years - it's over. I'm tired of flipping anyway. Google is helping the mainstream entertainment programming and non-slashdotting geeks to transition. Thanks Google! Now - who has some video to share? I would like to see......A 15 minute show on how to cook Hungarian soup, two or three highlight clips of my high school plays in 1989, and a video of the Grateful Dead parking lot during summer tour 1993.

Getting better?

[idsofmarch]

Of course it's getting better, now you can be protected by the sweet loving embrace of a rootkit, enjoy the wonders of getting a cease & desist letter on those lonely days, you can be sued for publishing rumors, innuendo, and hitting the refresh button. Now, you can have someone tell you what you can do with your music rather than having all that messy free will and--oh gods alive!--imagination.

Your post is just hippy bullshit. I mean a media that didn't tattle on you, and movies without all those fine commercials. No. Fucking. Way.

Like Star Wreck for example

[Gubbe]

It's not unheard of you know...

anyone know ms's first hardware product?

[chocolatetrumpet]

Was the mouse Microsoft's first foray into hardware land?

I'm not old enough to know.

Don't be daft, of corse it is...

[Dion]

All common software becoming Open Source is as natural and certain as gravity.

There will always be an edge where obscurity allows non-Free software to live, but once the software enters mainstream there will be a limited time before a Free competitor takes over.

The current situation is quite extraordinary, once proprietary OSs (MS windows in particular) are scoured from the worlds harddrives (yes it may take another 20 years), they will never again be allowed in that space.

Where Open Source advances it rarely retreats, so OSS market/mind-share will only ratchet upwards, vendors of non-Free software will loosen their hold from time to time and every single time OSS will be there to take up the slack.

Remember: Software is like sex, it's better when its free.

Moving the goalposts

[Dimbit]

Is anyone else worried that this gives the TV industry a chance to become an RIAA/MPAA clone and go chasing people who have for years been downloading their favourite TV shows via torrents and IRC? In the UK at least it's still legal (if a bit grey) to download and watch (delayed viewing) broadcast TV shows recorded by someone else. Brace yourself for a whole new round of lawsuits and law changes when they wake up and realise that people are already downloading tv 'on demand', as it were, for free.

companies and evil

[pintomp3]

google = do some evil
apple = think evil
microsoft = be evil
sony = root for evil
sco = sue for evil
dell = build evil
intel = evil inside -> evil ahead

anyone else?

Re:companies and evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Nokia = side-talking evil

Re:companies and evil

[Anonymous Coward]

money = evil

Re:companies and evil

[Alsee]

Slashdot = News for Nerds. Stuff that's evil.

-

Rights

[SgtChaireBourne]

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.

Time to ammend the constitution then.

Two hundred plus years ago, the obvious source of problems were the governments, corporations couldn't yet get that big and powerful. Now they have and most national, let alone multinational, corporations are powerful enough to walk all over local governments and citizens. Some of the more powerful ones can even thumb their noses at national governments. I'm sure you can think of a few without even straining.

Things change. But regardless of where the power sits, rights of citizens must be protected from infringment and abuse be it from a government, a corporation or whatever.

Blackbox desktop searching utility

[SgtChaireBourne]

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?

Because Open Source isn't the end all, be all of the software industry perhaps?

If it's not open source, then you can't really know what it is doing when it roots through all the data on your computer can you?

But thats the point.

[Inominate]

The purpose of DRM has nothing to do with piracy. It's simply to give the content owners control over the consumer. Eventually we're going to end up in a pay-per-view type system.

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. It's about being able to squeeze more money out of the consumer.

Using *AA

[Anonymous Coward]

*AA is plain stupid and think DRM is gonna help them. The big guys(Apple, MS, Google..) is using this stupidity to lock users to their products and services.

When a law concerning DRM was going to be passed here in Norway a while ago, MS was the biggest advocate for laws protecting DRM. We don't have software patents here, so DRM is the most efficient way to keep others away from the playing field.

DRM is bad for competition and a diverse culture.

Mice vs Pigeons?

[fuyu-no-neko]

I thought everyone knew that Google prefers pigeons.

Which wouldn't be age discrimination.

[raehl]

These young guys are buddies and like to hang out, so they all get to be millionaires together.

Age discrimination is when you systematically hire/fire workers based on age. Systematically hiring/firing workers because they don't hang out with other workers is not age discrimination, even if the reason the worker doesn't hang out with other workers is because he doesn't want to, on account of his coworkers being younger.

Did this guy have a family? Did he work 8 hour days and then leave to be with his kids while his younger, single coworkers spend 16 hours per day at the office? Did the younger workers get together on weekends, and this guy missed out because soccer practice was more important? There's nothing wrong with having different priorities, but maybe Google as a company wants young, single people who live, eat, and breathe Google 24/7.

Any group of people, including corporations, is going to have culture. Walmart doesn't allow alcohol consumption. Other companies have managers who bring in beer for employees on Friday afternoons. If you like alcohol and avoid the Walmart functions, or don't like alcohol and don't socialize with your coworkers on Fridays, you're more likely to get canned than the other guys. It's natural - people favor other people they know in a social setting over those they don't. People WORK BETTER with other people they know in a social setting than those they don't.

If this guy had been a 32 year old with the commitments of the average 25-year old, he probably would have been hired. But he wasn't, so he wasn't.

Re:Which wouldn't be age discrimination.

[Zerathdune]

Walmart doesn't allow alcohol consumption.

Walmart also doesn't allow labor unions. and goes to great lengths to keep them from forming. some guy wrote a book on it.

if you expect me to bother actually looking up stuff I don't know off of the top of my head, you'll have to rise above the level of defending google purely as a knee-jerk reaction. I'm seriously getting sick of slashdot. yes, I hate microsoft, yes, I love linux, yes, I think the patent system is horribly broken, and yes, I'm boycotting the RIAA. but when one of these issues come up I still manage to think before I speak, and on the rare occasion that something unfavorable to the standard theology here comes up, and very well may be true, (like perhaps OOo is more memory intensive than MSOffice), I won't just disregard it.

now on to the specifics of your "argument." for all you know he did get along well with his co-workers. if he didn't, and that was the reason they didn't hire him, he should have just been told that they felt there wasn't good chemestry between him and the rest of the group. instead, he was told that he was too old. too old. sounds like they're basing it on age to me.

Re:Which wouldn't be age discrimination.

[raehl]

We're just being told one sentence of a conversation as recollected by the guy who got fired. I'm not blindly defending google, but I am pointing out that there are plenty of reasons the OP may feel this way that have nothing to do with there being actual age discrimination.

WMV DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I know, Windows Media Video DRM has not been cracked and has been out for a long time... (Although maybe quantum computing will take care of this... WMA has been cracked)

Google probably had no choice

[nut]

Oddly enough I suspect that the decision to use DRM was probably effectively forced on them. Unless they intended to provide content themselves, They need to deal with current distributors of content, and you can pretty much guarantee that those distributors will see DRM as a requirement.

This doesn't excuse them for being so tight-lipped about the nature of and reasons for their choices though.

To Google and the **AA's.. how about

[plasmacutter]

How about i simply point people to torrentspy to grab the same stuff you "down-loan", but in higher quality and more open formats than those you offer?

First steps to the Dark Side

[freedom_india]

Ahh... another corporate entity starts its journey to the Dark side...
"Anakin ! You are breaking my heart ! You are going down a path i can't possibly follow !"

Re:Google Mouse

[pneumatus]

I present you, the Google Mouse http://www.google-store.com/product_info.php?produ cts_id=195

People keep on quoting it without grammar

[Anonymous Coward]

The quotation really should be:

Don't. Be evil!

-Google Evil Department

Re:People keep on quoting it without grammar

[heavy snowfall]

Do no evil (for large values of no)

Does anyone else here actually agree with DRM?

[the computer guy nex]

I honestly have no problem with basic (ie non-Sony rootkit) DRM. These people create content in which we consume. In a capitalist society they can choose to deliver the content in whatever means they choose.

As a consumer we can also choose not to buy the product.

The simple fact that this stuff sells like hotcakes is enough to show that DRM is here to stay. But how bad is it really? Millions of sites require subscription fees and passwords to access protected content, how is that any different?

Most people around here complain simply because they have the right to complain. If you want to beat DRM you need to find a better solution for the consumer AND the corporations. If this "necessary evil" is the best we can come up with, I believe it is a fair compromise.

Re:Does anyone else here actually agree with DRM?

[Anthony Liguori]

I honestly have no problem with basic (ie non-Sony rootkit) DRM. These people create content in which we consume. In a capitalist society they can choose to deliver the content in whatever means they choose.

No. No. No. No.

DRM should *not* be able to exist legally. It only exists because congress let it exist by introducing the DMCA in the late 90s.

Prior to the DMCA, I could (legally) reverse engineer an iTunes music file, and write a player for Linux. The world rejoyces. I could then purchase iTunes music files, and play them in Linux (which is a fair use of the product I purchase). Say what you want about EULA's, but you cannot sign an illegal contract. I cannot give up my fair use.

The DMCA (by limiting circumvention of copyright mechanisms) prevents me from being able to (legally) do this. It prevents me from exercising my fair use. What's the world without fair use? There's no google (indexing the sites and providing a preview is a fair-use quotation, what happens when we have DRM web pages?). There are no research papers (quotations are a fair-use). There are no satires (again fair use).

DRM is *not* and has *never* been about piracy. If I'm pirating (which is illegal) I have no problem using illegal software (or hardware) to do it. DRM is about making fair-use illegal. It's about locking out competitors (how many players can play iTunes songs? how many players can play mp3s? Funny eh?). DRM is anti-competitive. Competitive economies are necessary for a healthy capitalistic economy. The government's job is to create a healthy economy.

For everyone who posted something like "DRM sucks"

[octaene]

I have four words that I think a lot of people need to hear.

Vote.
with.
your.
pocketbook.

If you didn't like the Sony CD rootkit fiasco, stop buying Sony products. Trust me, the bottom line is the only voice to which companies listen.

You didn't look, did you

[hackwrench]

You didn't look at the result of the Google search I posted, did you?

Verizon

[everphilski]

can you hear evil now? good!

(just kidding! I've actually had great service through Verizon the past 3 years)

Re:Verizon

[Anonymous Coward]

And paid dearly for it...

Re:Verizon

[everphilski]

$30 a month, cheaper than getting a landline with similar features through BellSouth... and cheaper than the local competitors for a similar plan. /shrug

Google secrecy. Yeah, right.

[j.leidner]

I quote from The Register article: "Google has a long history of keeping its technology mechanisms and intentions private. It won't say a lot about how Page Rank works."

Nonsense. PageRank was published in a 1998 paper by Brin and Page.

DRM Fundamentaly Flawed

[MrSteveSD]

DRM is fundamentally flawed. Certainly today's encryption methods make it virtually impossible to crack encrypted data, but that is not the situation with DRM'd content. To actually be able to enjoy the content they have to give you the key. Once that transaction has occurred the DRM is 100% compromised. You then have everything you need to remove the DRM. Doing it practically can be tricky, but because of the need to give away the key, DRM is fundamentally flawed. It's a bit like sending an encrypted document to a friend. You explain to him that it would take longer than the age of the universe to crack the encryption. He phones you up and says "Hey I can't read it." You say "Ok, right yeah, here's the password, but please don't copy and paste the text."

Re:DRM Fundamentaly Flawed

[Longfeather]

Your point is valid given current market conditions, consumer adoption plateaus, and the sheer pace of technological breakthroughs. However the DRM restrictions threatened by the major companies are well within their capabilities of implementing. DRM can be made to happen given current technologies and does not require a "shared-key" approach. IMHO one of the few things holding DRM back from being effective is the rapid growth of technology and the lack of infrastructure to support client-based DRM.

With the Internet a medium for digital transfer exists. It is not unfeasible to assume that you or I can buy "Internet-enabled" appliances in the near future, Imagine a DVD player hooked into the Internet capable of generating it's own unique keys!

can't wait!

[niall111]

I eagerly await XISO_Google_DRM_fix_TUF_release.rar or something to that effect...

what they're selling

[brre]

customers will be able to buy TV shows from CBS, NBA basketball games and a host of other content

Nope.

What Google is selling is video, not content. The content if any contained in that video is freely available.

Evil

[metamatic]

Denying me my legal rights is evil.

DRM will prevent independent media

[Anonymous Coward]

I just finished post production on a 91 minute movie that my friends and I put together. It cost ~$5000. We shot on digital video because film's expensive.

There are inexpensive HDV prosumer camcorders available, and their prices will only go down. Presumably there will be even cheaper consumer level camcorders available soon.

But my friends and I won't be able to make a hi-def movie for the same cheap budget, because we won't have a means to distribute it: The HDCP licenses required by both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD require an ANNUAL $50,000 licensing fee.

THAT is evil.

Restrictions on lawful contracts...

[sean.peters]

The US constitution says nothing about what kinds of lawful agreements (called contracts) you can and cannot make with your fellow citizens (or corporations).

Bullshit. I invite your attention to Amendment 13, which quite plainly prohibits people from entering into slavery "contracts". And while other forms of contracts are not specifically prohibited in the Constitution, there's lots of law enacted by Congress and state legislatures that prohibits some of them - usurious loans, substandard housing, etc.

The governments of the US and of the states ought to, and in fact do, protect their citizens from entering into all sorts of contracts. The question is whether our laws surrounding so-called "intellectual property" have become biased too far in favor of companies creating and distributing content, at the expensive of individual citizens.

Sean

MS

[towsonu2003]

I am expecting Google to become the new MS in 5 years... Poor Gates...

"Do no evil"

Whatever

What's the draw? Where's the carrot?

[TechGooRu]

My real problem: What's the carrot? Why should I care?

Besides watching the Bold and the Beautiful at work, this is pointless.

Why would I download a show from google that's:
(a) Already free (e.g. BROADCAST over the airwaves and timeshifted)
(b) Already free (can be downloaded via bittorrent)
(c) Not in HD format (for popular shows)?

It better have no commercials (probably not), and if it's a popular show it better be in HD. (you are watching it on your monitor, are you not?) Since no current portable media devices support Google DRM, should we expect to buy an additional portable media player to play these files back on the road?

At least Apple did it in the right order. If you want to have downloadable media, get the hardware platform FIRST.
Maybe it's just me, but playing back pricey, DRM'd, non-HD broadcast content on a computer makes no sense to me.

Locking up our free culture

[Anonymous Coward]

"thanks, i guess the "do no evil" is redundant thesedays, much like the US constitution"

Interesting how it's "our culture", until you have to start paying for it.

Re:Have you actually looked at video.google.com ye

[cmpalmer]

As far as I know, they just added this today and also added the ability to download the non-DRM'ed videos in iPod and PSP formats. Yay.

Re:Have you actually looked at video.google.com ye

[AussieVamp2]

Yeah, I can't buy MacGyver in my country it says. A tragedy. Must be people making millions showing MacGyver in prime time here, I suppose.

Please own up to owning shares

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to see a tick box added to slashdot posting that lets you say "yes I own shares in a company mentioned in this article.".

Reading through some of the commentary in response to the google article, I'm shocked that some moderators have mod'd things up to "Interesting" when they're quite blatantly being written by someone who is trying to defend the company - and why would you do that, you ask? To make them more attractive.

Maybe this has happened before, but I don't think employees at any other company would believe that the Sun shines out their ass like some of the google people here who think it is somehow righteous because it isn't Microsoft.