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.' "
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.
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.
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.
morcego
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.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
1) The Google DRM will be broken.
2) It will be an inside job.
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.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Related article:
s _pack/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/07/google_ce
Relevant portions:
====================
Page did manage to announce some new products.
First off, Google revealed an addition to its video search -- payments. Google secured nice wins by signing up CBS and the NBA to its service, along with a number of other content makers. Customers will be able to pay around $1.99 for CBS shows such as CSI and Survivor and download any NBA game 24-hours after it has been played.
This set-up mimics what Apple has done with iTunes and ABC.
Google, however, does have a unique twist on its video service. Any company can put their content up for sale at any price. (Five cents is the minimum charge for a download.) Google takes a few pennies from the sale, and the content makers take most of the cash.
Google has created its own DRM (digital rights management) system for the service but will support rival systems as well, Page said. Not that the world needed another DRM mechanism.
================
As to my own opinion... I wouldn't mind
1) Paying a small amount for content I really want, in a format I can use and archive however I want. The fact that Google's minimum is "five cents" reflects some understanding of some files' (frex MP3s) realworld value to most people.
2) Files being watermarked to prevent widespread "sharing" (since the initial culprit can be pegged).
However, I'm NOT okay with DRM or locked-in formats (ie. requiring a specific player). I want to time/format/medium/player-shift what I paid for however the hell *I* want, not how someone else dictates. And I don't want to discover that when I upgrade my hardware or switch my OS, I can no longer play the files I paid for, because they're locked to an old setup by their DRM, or that now I have to scrounge up some underworld workaround to regain their usefulness.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
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.