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.' "

50 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 xiphoris · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:Locking up our culture by h3llfish · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    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 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'
  2. Rootkit! by EuroChild · · Score: 5, Funny

    Google Roooooooooooootkit?

    --
    Does this make my brain look big?
    1. Re:Rootkit! by heavy+snowfall · · Score: 5, Funny

      Do less evil

    2. 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.

    3. Re:Rootkit! by BillyBlaze · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

  3. A look at? by wampus · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  4. There ya have it, DRM != evil by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
    1. 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.
    2. Re:There ya have it, DRM != evil by node+3 · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

  5. 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.

  6. Digital Rights Managment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    You have the power!

  7. Google DRM Hacked........ by ConsumerOfMany · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    1. Re:Google DRM Hacked........ by Red+Alastor · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      --
      Slashdot anagrams to "Sad Sloth"
  8. Wait for the hack... by gizmonic · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!
    1. Re:Wait for the hack... by xiphoris · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

  9. Google Becomes Microsoft Oh My God! by osewa77 · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    ---
    Naijarita

  10. 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...

  11. 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.
  12. 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.

  13. Media Companies and DRM by ziggyzig · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. 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.

  14. 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
  15. 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 i_should_be_working · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

    2. Re:This should be interesting. by MBCook · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
  16. 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 bwy · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

  17. Google also announced a partnership with DivX by microbrewer · · Score: 5, Informative

    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/

  18. 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?

  19. 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.
  20. 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?
  21. What kind of DRM ? by morcego · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  22. 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.
  23. Predictions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

  24. One detail I'd like to know... by sterno · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
    1. 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...."

    2. Re:One detail I'd like to know... by trix7117 · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

  25. 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?

  26. Re:My measurement of Google's evil... by palndrumm · · Score: 4, Informative


    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...

  27. 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.

  28. Another article by Reziac · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  29. 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. -
  30. 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});
  31. 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
  32. companies and evil by pintomp3 · · Score: 4, Funny

    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?