Slashdot Mirror
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.' "
Google Roooooooooooootkit?
Does this make my brain look big?
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?
How we know is more important than what we know.
Boycot them! Hit them where it hurts! Vote with your dollars!
You have the power!
I wonder what search engine I can use to search for a hack............
Yep, I'll just wait for the hack, and when it's done I'll just search for it on good ole Google...
WWJD?
JWRTFM!
Does this make them evil yet?
Oh my God, Google really has become Microsoft. What's next? Google Mice?
---
Naijarita
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.
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.
This is evil, broken, and the worst thing to happen since the great cabbage fart crisis of 1996!
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
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?
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
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.
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???
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?
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!
"The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -