Slashdot Mirror


Google Video Store Shutting Down

babbling writes "Google is going to close the Google Video Store, leaving users who bought videos that used Digital Restrictions Management without their purchases. The users of Google Video Store will be compensated with Google Checkout credit, but it seems they will be out of luck if they don't happen to be Google Checkout users."

26 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. Change of motto. by Funkcikle · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Do no business"

    1. Re:Change of motto. by badasscat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The same fine article which announces the end of the Google Video store announces that Google is getting into video advertising! As if these things are related... hmmm....
      Just think. What would it mean if the real purpose of Google's video store was to get their internal video player working well enough that they could do AdSense on video?


      Eh?

      I think you've managed to confuse at least three different points in your last sentence.

      First of all, adsense is for content creators. Google obviously gets a cut, but the whole point is that people attach adsense ads to their own content. So now you'd be against revenue sharing with video content creators? I've always thought it was pretty offensive that sites like YouTube get to keep all their ad revenue themselves while those who actually make the content that draws the traffic in get nothing. Talk about a racket! AdSense for video would be one of the best things to ever happen to YouTube. People would actually have a real incentive to create more videos, and better quality ones too (since there's no incentive in creating videos nobody would watch). And those who actually draw the traffic in would be able to make money, not just the YouTube guys sitting there watching it all happen.

      Second, there's no big mystery to getting a Flash video player "working well enough", and anyway the Google Video and YouTube players are totally different. Google basically admitted defeat to YouTube when they purchased them; they're now de-emphasizing Google Video. Little or none of that technology is going to end up filtering back to YouTube - they already have a player that works perfectly fine.

      Third, YouTube (post-Google purchase) has been talking about their plans for pre-roll video ads for at least six months. These will be at the option of the content owner, ie. Google won't be inserting them. The purpose of this is to attract more major commercial content owners, many of whom will not (or legally cannot) post video to YouTube without having a sponsor ad shown beforehand. My company, for example, is one of the few that does post video on YouTube, but we have certain videos that we have to hold back because we have sponsor deals that say pre-roll must be shown before any web exhibition. Once they get pre-roll going, we'll be able to add those videos. Some people may get pissed off about this, but the alternative is that we just don't post those videos. You either watch with an ad or you don't watch at all; that's the choice. (And the logical extension of that is that these clips wouldn't even exist without the sponsor; that's why they require the pre-roll.)

  2. Once again... by BWJones · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yet another example of where DRM harms the consumer. This has happened now with Microsoft and their music service among other examples and now Google with their video service. Once companies (and governments) stop thinking of all their customers and citizens as criminals, we might start getting somewhere. This is not about business protection, it is about providing services that protect and enrich peoples lives that are being selected voluntarily. You (companies and governments) do not have a *right* to me as a customer or a citizen, but you exist at the customers or citizens pleasure. Once we manage to get that concept across, garbage like DRM will go away.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:Once again... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem comes in when you equate "citizen" with "consumer".

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:Once again... by Afecks · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This really sucks. I bought quite a few videos I couldn't find anywhere else. People take for granted that VHS and DVD are at an endless supply. That's simply not true. Most VHS and a lot of DVD are out of print now. The only way to watch these are to get very lucky and find an overpriced copy or do something illegal.

      Now that I look back over my purchases, I see a few shows that were never released to DVD at all. So the only way to watch these is to record them off the air or watch the download that I paid for. Suddenly it looks like I won't have that option now. If I could have done something to protect my investment (I bought it to own, not rent) such as burn it to a CD or backup to another HD I would be fine. As it is, I'm completely screwed, thanks to the whim of some company that cares absolutely nothing about me.

      Using this as a way to push Google Checkout is even more evil. Not only do I not get what I paid for, I don't get a refund and to claim my exchange I have to jump through hoops and buy something I didn't want in the first place.

      Do no evil my ass!

    3. Re:Once again... by BWJones · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The problem comes in when you equate "citizen" with "consumer".

      Hey, once governments started conflating economies with their *rights* to exist, the calculation of citizen and consumer became inevitable. You will find this as far back in history as you can find organized monetary systems. The problem of course is when companies start thinking of themselves as governments or government entities with certain *rights* that supersede those of citizens. Occasionally, companies and governments forget that they exist because of who their clients or citizens are, and when that happens you have two outcomes: Fascism and state/corporate sponsored war or revolution... take your pick.

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    4. Re:Once again... by arth1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Did they operate also in the Western European market? The EU has laws requiring the owners of a closed down business to continue to provide support for several years, and the non-EU Western European countries have consumer protection laws even stricter than that (the expected lifetime of the product), which would come into play here. Continued support for the DRM part would be expected.

      IANAL, but I believe the only way to pull of something like this in Europe, and get away with not providing support for several years, would be to spin off a subsidiary as a wholly independent company, and then when the subsidiary declares bankruptcy, there's no new owner of that part of the business.

    5. Re:Once again... by thomas.galvin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yet another example of where DRM harms the consumer.


      Somewhere, Richard Stallman is muttering "I told you so" through a gnarly beard...
    6. Re:Once again... by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ``Yet another example of where DRM harms the consumer.''

      Example? We need examples of that? Harming cosumers is the _only_ thing DRM _does_!

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
  3. Piracy is the only consumer guarantee by biocute · · Score: 5, Insightful

    leaving users who bought videos that used Digital Restrictions Management without their purchases

    That'll teach them to never buy non-pirated videos in the future!

    1. Re:Piracy is the only consumer guarantee by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Is this anything new? Pirated versions of movies and games have always been superior. No unskippable (UOP) fbi warnings and previews on DVDs, no region codes, games that don't require a disc in the drive... plus movie pirates are the best in the industry when it comes to video compression with minimal loss of quality. We've been taught over and over again that the legitimate options always fall short of the abolutely unrestricted nature of pirated IP

    2. Re:Piracy is the only consumer guarantee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "We've been taught over and over again that the legitimate options always fall short of the abolutely unrestricted nature of pirated IP"

      Music is the exception (I know you did not mention it).
      Red book music CDs are better fidelity than mp3s, last longer than CDR copies as they don't fade, have nice artwork, and have no intrusive copy protection. The compatibility is outstanding, so you can play them anywhere in the world on any of the billions of CD players out there.

      It's a great medium and I'm sad to see it being supplanted by low quality DRM'd audio from iTunes etc.

    3. Re:Piracy is the only consumer guarantee by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Reminds me of an ad they used to put on rental VHS tapes. Some guy buys a pirated copy of "train spotting" off some dodgy guy down at the market, and tries unsuccesfully to get his money back as the tape is of unwatchably poor quality. The follows a stern warning that pirated tapes suck and can even damage your VCR.

      10 years into the future, and the situation is reversed. People now laugh at the poor dope dumb enough to buy a legitimate copy. And they don't laugh because he paid money. I'd pay, to get a decent copy without the hassle of having to find it first (and downloading it only to find it's a German language version). As long as that copy is mine.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  4. Re:But is this any different ... by ductonius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A better analogy would be you arrived at the cooking school and the receptionist told you they no longer teach the classes you'd paid for, but they could give you credit for yoga lessons at a place across town.

  5. Another great slashdot edit... by Denis+Troller · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you happen to read TFA, you will notice that there is no mention of DRM.
    Simply because this is not a DRM issue. This service offered to WATCH video on demand, not download it.
    Once the service stops, there is no way to continue watching information you don't have (you might call that the ultimate DRM...)

    In the end, it's about people who have been drawn to an service which cannot guarantee them what hey might think it does. It is not a DRM issue, it's a "customer thinking before he buys" issue. Google has every right to close its store and people should have thought about that.

    Now, the fact that Google will provide refunds only through Google Checkout, now that seems pretty unfair to me.

    --
    That's not a nick, that's my NAME.
    1. Re:Another great slashdot edit... by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Informative
      If you happen to read TFA, you will notice that you're talking out your ass.

      Google has been selling the right to watch a wide range of video, including sports, music and news, since January 2006. Most of the video sold for anywhere from a couple US dollars to $20. Customers could pay less to "rent" the right to watch a selected video for a day or buy the show so it would be available to watch indefinitely.

      All paid programming had to be watched through a viewer on Google's site.


      To compensate customers who will no longer be able to see the videos that they purchased, Google is providing refunds in the form of credits that can be used on its online payment service, Checkout. You can only watch it through a viewer on Google's site. Google is no longer offering the service, thus your videos are not watchable.

      How is that not DRM? And does that clarify the matter?
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:Another great slashdot edit... by Denis+Troller · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm just saying that what /. people usually yell about is companies that try to sell you something as "goods" (I bought a song) when it really is only a "service" (I bought the right to listen to a song).

      It was a rental service. When you rent a movie, you clearly have no right to make a copy or whatever, and neither do you have any right to keep the tape if the store chooses to close. Not a DRM issue in my book.

      What Google sold was clearly a service. If from what Google sold people thought they would be able to watch it "indefinitely" then they deserve what happened. It was a stupid move in the first place.

      The content wasn't sold and locked out. What was sold was clearly an access right. You were never supposed to have any possibility of accessing it otherwise (which is what most people think they can do with DRM'd files, up to the point where it explodes in their face).

      I agree, the business model was shitty from a customer point of view. And I agree that you could tie that into the whole DRM stuff somehow as far as educating the customer and so on. I was just pointing out that it's different from companies selling you files and THEN trying to lock the content out of your reach and sue you when you use it as intended.

      It would not bother me if Google was to reimburse its customers in a proper way, because people in that case got what they actually bought, which is not a DRM'd file.
      On this board it is enough to say DRM to see people going up in arms, without even bothering to read TFA to see what really happened.

      --
      That's not a nick, that's my NAME.
    3. Re:Another great slashdot edit... by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm sorry, but I find it difficult to think of a stream as DRM. Do we talk about FM radio being DRMed (or ARMed)? Pay-per-view cable? When you are prevented from bringing a video camera into a movie theater (which is streaming from the projector, onto the screen, and then to your eyes), do you complain about the theater's DRM?

      Yes, you can video tape pay-per-view (afaik). You can do the equivalent to a stream coming in to your computer using a variety of software and methods. So, why the insistence on calling everything DRM? The word is losing its meaning. It's getting watered down and eventually will mean "anything I don't like about an entertainment product".

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  6. Never trust someone else to keep giving you access by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Buy DRM locked music from Microsoft? Surely there is no possible risk. They even labelled it "PlaysForSure", so I know I'll still have access to it in a few years. Oops, you old music doesn't work on the new media player, and your new music doesn't work on your old media player.

    Buy DRM locked movies in the form of silver access to DIVX disks? A giant chain like Circuit City won't screw you. Unless they decided it's no longer profitable and take your access away.

    Love your EV1 electric car and would happily pay to own it? Too bad, the manufacturer wants it back and would rather destroy the car than sell it to you.

    Buy video to watch online through Google? Google's a good company with a long view, there is no risk there. Oops, again.

    This is why a world where you don't own anything is a bad idea. The people leasing or licensing the access to you can and will take it away from you. It's alright to agree upon fixed terms up front (I'm only guaranteed my apartment for a year; I'm only guaranteed access to a given NetFlix video stream for a day or two), but when I decide I want access forever, it damn well better be forever.

  7. At least it's a valuable object lesson by jimicus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For years, us geeks on /. have been very wary of DRM. Mainly because many implementations depend on being able to regularly phone home - and if "home" ceases to exist (or, for that matter, continues to exist but decides it's not taking any more calls, as in this case), all the media you've paid good money for essentially evaporates.

    But as long as that's a theoretical problem, one that's never been known to happen - it's one which won't get taken seriously by the masses who actually buy this stuff. Now, however, there's a concrete example. "Do not buy this, all your music and video can suddenly stop working for no immediately apparent reason and you won't have any comeback whatsoever".

    On a side note, I wonder how long I'd last in the real world if I sold physical products which could, if I so desired, evaporate overnight with no prior warning and the purchaser having done nothing wrong? And then I started making them evaporate?

  8. Re:But is this any different ... by NickFortune · · Score: 3, Insightful

    [But is this any different] from buying services (a gift certificate or classes or something) from a brick-and-mortar store that then closes?

    Yes, I think it is. Customer expectations are different when they buy a film; they expect it to be like a video or DVD where they get ongoing access. Personally, I think that's a legitimate expectation.

    Now you can argue that expectations are going to have to change if you want. But that isn't going to help if no one buys DRM content because they've not received the value they expected for their transaction.

    --
    Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
  9. That is so very sad. by an.echte.trilingue · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That'll teach them to never buy non-pirated videos in the future!
    The fact that this comment is right on the money is really depressing.

    I hate pirating as a way to get entertainment, not for some ephemeral moral reasons, but simply because it is a pain in the ass. Bittorrent takes forever (maybe that isn't true for everybody but my ISP shapes traffic), IRC and USENET are unreliable and ususally have queues. Quality is sometimes good sometimes not, you never know. If your tastes are the least bit eclectic or outdated, you can forget about finding what you want easily. Pirating entertainment just sucks. It sucks less than going to the store to get your entertainment, but it still sucks.

    I would love to pay money (even at the current going rates for CDs and DVDs minus a couple bucks since I have to make my own cases and provide my own disks) to download quality files from fast servers. And, low and behold, every time somebody starts something like this, they make it suck more than pirating movies. You get tied to a platform, the store closes out from under you, you have to run an interface that shows you ads just so that you can play your music, movie, whatever.

    How hard is it to make an interface that sucketh not? Their content is already on thepiratebay, so its not like offering video and music for download is going to increase piracy. They should at least offer a viable alternative for those of us who would rather pay (and I bet there are many of us).
    --
    weirdest thing I ever saw: scientology advertising on slashdot.
  10. Actually... by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problem is when customers and citizens fail to realize that they are ALL consumers... citizens are consumers of government services, the same way customers are consumers of company services. Since both of those groups rarely insist on being informed consumers or better yet, SELF RELIANT, they end up at the mercy of their service providers.

    DRM is merely the latest in a monopoly non free market that has been prevalent since government got created and got involved in regulating the market. Until the sheep stop being livestock and assert their own right to exist and make informed decisions, until the slogan singing stops, there will be little but more of the same. Tyranny never stopped, it merely dropped the eastern iron gauntlet and grabbed the velvet glove... and it hasn't lost a match yet, and once more, we're nearing the game point of the match called "Western Civilization".

    --
    " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
  11. Re:Never trust someone else to keep giving you acc by eggoeater · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is precisely why I won't buy video from iTunes.
    Unless I can burn it to a standard DVD, I will never buy DRM'd video from anyone!.

    I do buy music from iTunes since they openly allow you to burn it to disc, therefore making it usable even if I run out of "authorized computers" or Apple decides to deprecate their DRM.

    I'm in the process of looking at eMusic too, but they won't show you their whole catalog unless you sign up (ie. give them a credit card number) for their free trial. I'm guessing their catalog is, uh, limited since they don't want you to see it before you sign up.

  12. Google should've followed Microsoft's example by I'm+Don+Giovanni · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This incident shows the pitfalls of DRM, but Google didn't HAVE to do this.
    When Microsoft shutdown their MSN Music Store (the music store portion of http://music.msn.com/ ), they kept the DRM servers in place so users that had purchased music from there could still obtain DRM licenses for the music as needed (for example, when moving the music to a new computer). Google has *plenty* of money and ability to do the same. This is a BS move by Google.

    --
    -- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
    1. Re:Google should've followed Microsoft's example by raynet · · Score: 3, Informative

      The difference ofcourse is that in Google's case, the files are streamed, thus continuing the service would require more resources than just a DRM authentication service. But instead of refunds, Google should have allowed users to download the videos and perhaps, if required by content owners, put some "traditional" DRM on them, eg. Playsforsure or whatnot.

      --
      - Raynet --> .