What you say might sound good in theory, but this is absolutely no different than the original Napster.
First of all, Google is hosting the video files on their servers. This was the one point that made it easy for Napster to lose. Notice all the file sharing software that came later used P2P for a distribution model. (And even can lose in court.
Secondly, Google is financially benefitting from the distribution of these copyrighted files. They are showing ads, so at the very least gaining revenue from that. I'm sure there are many other indirect points that could show them gaining financially (eyeballs, brand loyalty, etc).
Thirdly, it's possible that Viacom has their own video sharing distribution method in the works. With very little work, they could at least start a project in that direction and use it in court that Google is unfairly stripping their business from them. (Look at Verizon suing and WINNING against Vonage. No coincidence that Verizon is now revealing their own VOIP business).
Lastly, it specifically lists in copyright law, that you MUST have permission of the copyright holder to distribute any of their copyrighted material for commercial uses. I would imagine that sending one DMCA notice to Google is a first step before a lawsuit. Google complied and took down Viacom copyrighted video. But all it takes is one more user to post yet another Viacom video, and suddenly we fall under a situation that already has precedence in court: Google will have to take a huge proactive step in developing software that can detect copyrighted vs. personal videos before being allowed to post a video to youtube. Viacom shouldn't have to troll the whole of YouTube every day to find their videos and resubmit DMCA notices for each one.
I found the article very interesting. A long time collector of music, willing to play by the rules. Burned in the end.
Remember iTunes at the beginning? Slashdot had an article about how a customer moved to Canada only to find out all the songs he purchases suddenly quit working the first time he went to buy a new tune from Canada. For me, that is the only real fear of following DRM. The license explicitly states that it can change at any time. A couple years from now they could suddenly say, "Hey, we decided all your songs expired. Pay us again, this time, in monthly installments"
I've heard many complaints about DVD's too. Many people rip them to AVI so that they can skip the crap in the beginning. Even I'm starting to get frustrated by the 20 second menu screens. I just want to play!
Then there's Disney's 10 minutes of commercials, and one company's brief trip in disabling the remote functions during those commercials!
The most painful thing I read in that article was the steps needed to download the DRM license. Firewalls and ad-blockers are treating it like a virus? Indeed.
Slashdot Mirror
Says the guy who bought a laptop with Vista.
Engadget
Mobile Magazine (with video)
I'm kind of sad, though. Reading this makes me feel like a complete idiot and noob.
First of all, Google is hosting the video files on their servers. This was the one point that made it easy for Napster to lose. Notice all the file sharing software that came later used P2P for a distribution model. (And even can lose in court.
Secondly, Google is financially benefitting from the distribution of these copyrighted files. They are showing ads, so at the very least gaining revenue from that. I'm sure there are many other indirect points that could show them gaining financially (eyeballs, brand loyalty, etc).
Thirdly, it's possible that Viacom has their own video sharing distribution method in the works. With very little work, they could at least start a project in that direction and use it in court that Google is unfairly stripping their business from them. (Look at Verizon suing and WINNING against Vonage. No coincidence that Verizon is now revealing their own VOIP business).
Lastly, it specifically lists in copyright law, that you MUST have permission of the copyright holder to distribute any of their copyrighted material for commercial uses. I would imagine that sending one DMCA notice to Google is a first step before a lawsuit. Google complied and took down Viacom copyrighted video. But all it takes is one more user to post yet another Viacom video, and suddenly we fall under a situation that already has precedence in court: Google will have to take a huge proactive step in developing software that can detect copyrighted vs. personal videos before being allowed to post a video to youtube. Viacom shouldn't have to troll the whole of YouTube every day to find their videos and resubmit DMCA notices for each one.
The fact you even mention BrainBench in the same post, makes me think you should aim a little higher. A lot higher.
Remember iTunes at the beginning? Slashdot had an article about how a customer moved to Canada only to find out all the songs he purchases suddenly quit working the first time he went to buy a new tune from Canada. For me, that is the only real fear of following DRM. The license explicitly states that it can change at any time. A couple years from now they could suddenly say, "Hey, we decided all your songs expired. Pay us again, this time, in monthly installments"
I've heard many complaints about DVD's too. Many people rip them to AVI so that they can skip the crap in the beginning. Even I'm starting to get frustrated by the 20 second menu screens. I just want to play!
Then there's Disney's 10 minutes of commercials, and one company's brief trip in disabling the remote functions during those commercials!
The most painful thing I read in that article was the steps needed to download the DRM license. Firewalls and ad-blockers are treating it like a virus? Indeed.
No, I'm Some Kind Of Record.