Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A Look at Google DRM

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the evil-or-not-so-evil dept.

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.' "

51 of 532 comments (clear)

  1. Locking up our culture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful


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

    1. Re:Locking up our culture by mikiN · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

      --
      The Hacker's Guide To The Kernel: Don't panic()!
    2. Re:Locking up our culture by xiphoris · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Locking up our culture by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    4. Re:Locking up our culture by Yartrebo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Locking up our culture by cicho · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

      --
      "Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." - Marshall McLuhan
    6. Re:Locking up our culture by altoz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:Locking up our culture by BlogPope · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.

      --
      My other car is a Popemobile
    8. Re:Locking up our culture by h3llfish · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

    9. Re:Locking up our culture by xtracto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    10. Re:Locking up our culture by Weedlekin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
  2. Reciprocal Agreements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.

  3. content being used to force hardware choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

  4. Hmm. by Lordpidey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Some people encrypt by using rot-13 twice. I prefer the more secure method of using rot-1 a total of twenty six times.
    1. Re:Hmm. by cryfreedomlove · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

  5. They're own player. by IAAP · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    1. Re:They're own player. by elgaard · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  6. Hold Out Your Hand So I Can Slap It by Doomedsnowball · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    --
    7h3$3 4r3n'7 7h3 Ðr01Ð$ ¥0 4r3 £00|{1n9 f0r. M0v3 4£0n9. --OB1
  7. Re:There ya have it, DRM != evil by johncadengo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    My page.
  8. This should be interesting. by RyoShin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:This should be interesting. by croddy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.

  9. I expect media portability by sdo1 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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

    --
    --- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
    1. Re:I expect media portability by Jamesday · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  10. do not stupid by abes · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  11. Broadcast Flag by cryfreedomlove · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  12. Not another video player by Matt+Perry · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.
    --
    Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    1. Re:Not another video player by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

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

  13. video DRM is more tolerable than music DRM by Schlemphfer · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    --
    I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
  14. It's their ball by Chris+Snook · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    There's no failure quite as dissatisfying as a complete and total solution to the wrong problem.
    1. Re:It's their ball by kcbrown · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

      --
      Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
    2. Re:It's their ball by oGMo · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.

      --

      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage

  15. Re:So... by DrEldarion · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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)

  16. Re:What kind of DRM ? by Cid+Highwind · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    0 1 - just my two bits
  17. Re:Rootkit! by silverkniveshotmail. · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is it always evil to use DRM?

  18. Re:Rootkit! by Baricom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  19. Ya know what? by thesnarky1 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Want to find other gamers to play board and role playing game
  20. Re:One detail I'd like to know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  21. Re:My measurement of Google's evil... by rm69990 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  22. Re:Media Companies and DRM by rpdillon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  23. Don't be evil (yet) by carlislematthew · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

  24. Re:Rootkit! by silverkniveshotmail. · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.
  25. It's more then simply not liking it. by cbreaker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
    1. Re:It's more then simply not liking it. by Skreems · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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?

      --
      Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
      The Urban Hippie
    2. Re:It's more then simply not liking it. by dk.r*nger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      - 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.

  26. Re:Be fair by Pseudonym · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The public domain argument is less strong than the fair use argument. DRM, plus the laws which prevent you from circumventing it, lets companies restrict you from doing things that you have the legal right to do. That's evil.

    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  27. Re:A look at? by EvilSS · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
  28. Re:There ya have it, DRM != evil by QuantumG · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  29. Neener Neener Screener Screener by panxerox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My analog hole is a 21 Panasonic monitor with a Digital Video Camera. Not saying of course that I would violate DRM. Just sayin.

    --
    "It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
  30. Re:Google DRM Hacked........ by Ibiwan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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)

    --
    -- //no comment
  31. Re:A look at? by BillyBlaze · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A necessary evil is no less an evil.

  32. But thats the point. by Inominate · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.