Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

A Look at Google DRM

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the evil-or-not-so-evil dept.

Google 532

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.' "

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First post? (-1, Offtopic)

qzulla (600807) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432751)

What do I win?

qz

Re:First post? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14432762)

An off-topic moderation, most likely.

Locking up our culture (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14432753)


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

Re:Locking up our culture (4, Informative)

xiphoris (839465) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432781)

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.

Re:Locking up our culture (3, Insightful)

mikiN (75494) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432843)

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?

Broadcast Flag (5, Insightful)

cryfreedomlove (929828) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432885)

Remember the Broadcast flag, anyone?

The Broadcast Flag [wikipedia.org] 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?

Re:Locking up our culture (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14432862)

simile - A figure of speech in which two essentially unlike things are compared, often in a phrase introduced by like or as.

I think you missed the GP's point.

Re:Locking up our culture (1)

mfago (514801) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432967)

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.

No, it would make such privacy violations worse. DRM is all about _other people_ controlling your computer, and your data. This is compatible with neither privacy, nor security. EFF [eff.org] is a good place to read about this. Cory Doctorow [craphound.com] has discussed this in depth as well (an EFF fellow).

Re:Locking up our culture (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14432785)

It all depends on the meaning of the word "evil" ... unless you happen to own the dictionary, as Google more or less does. Then, "evil" is pretty much always going to be whatever the other guy is doing.

Be afraid.

Rootkit! (5, Funny)

EuroChild (523969) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432759)

Google Roooooooooooootkit?

Re:Rootkit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14432765)

Don't be evil! Being the lesser of two evils, however, is perfectly acceptable.

Re:Rootkit! (5, Funny)

heavy snowfall (847023) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432835)

Do less evil

Re:Rootkit! (1)

Taimoor (891521) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432788)

Of course, but they're only going to use it for "no evil."

After all, every publicly traded corporation holds true to their corporate motto, right?

--Nick

A look at? (5, Informative)

wampus (1932) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432767)

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.

Re:A look at? (1)

Rayaru (898516) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432825)

Seriously... that article was a load of fluff... apart from innate aversion to DRM, I'd like to wait to actually see the thing before crying doom.

Re:A look at? (2, Interesting)

periol (767926) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432853)

that won't stop slashdot from decrying it as evil, broken, and the worst thing to happen

Well, it sucks. More and more corporations, even the good ones, are busy taking away things that some of us find pretty valuable. It's a dangerous slippery slope, and Google's entry is not a good thing.

Re:A look at? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14432977)

I'm just amazed that you weren't modderated as "Troll" or "Flamebate"!

-Ghost of MisanthropicProggram

Re:A look at? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14432985)

This is evil, broken, and the worst thing to happen since the great cabbage fart crisis of 1996!

great cabbage fart crisis of 1996? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14433009)

have a link to that article?

Re:A look at? (1)

RedNovember (887384) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433016)

Hey, I *liked* the cabbage fart crisis of '96...

Seriously, when I discuss it and people have no clue what I'm talking about, it makes me feel important...

One detail I'd like to know... (4, Interesting)

sterno (16320) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433047)

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.

There ya have it, DRM != evil (5, Funny)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432768)

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?

Re:There ya have it, DRM != evil (1)

bryan986 (833912) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432789)

Nice try a getting some mod points, unfortunately the "how long till its cracked" argument has been used 100 times before. Move along.

Re:There ya have it, DRM != evil (4, Insightful)

johncadengo (940343) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432834)

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.

Re:There ya have it, DRM != evil (1)

Splintax (828933) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432894)

Yep, even if you have to film it off your monitor with a video camera.

Hey, people do that now with movies and it gets downloaded, if there is no other way to get the content I'm sure people will download it.

Re:There ya have it, DRM != evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14432903)

As long as there are 1's and 0's streaming through my monitor, there's always a way.

Solution: Analog monitors!

Actually, that might work, as it would be impossible to replicate at perfect fidelity...

Re:There ya have it, DRM != evil (1)

AndreiK (908718) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432942)

Isn't that a step backward?

Re:There ya have it, DRM != evil (1)

uss_valiant (760602) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432962)

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?
Either they developed something truly ingenious or they are pragmatic and created something that is almost designed to be hacked in no time.

Re:There ya have it, DRM != evil (4, Funny)

node 3 (115640) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433015)

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.

Reciprocal Agreements (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14432769)

"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.

Digital Rights Managment (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14432773)

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

You have the power!

Re:Digital Rights Managment (1)

node 3 (115640) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432968)

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

You have the power!


Yeah, but they have the TV shows. And the law.

Besides, you don't vote with your dollars. This is America, so voting effectively takes lots and lots of dollars.

Google DRM Hacked........ (5, Funny)

ConsumerOfMany (942944) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432774)

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

Re:Google DRM Hacked........ (5, Funny)

Red Alastor (742410) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432965)

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.

The real question: (1)

the-amazing-blob (917722) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432776)

Could this someday put google in line with companies like Sony?

Re:The real question: (1)

Matt Perry (793115) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433013)

Could this someday put google in line with companies like Sony?

Sure, someday, provided that Google were to:

  • install their DRM at some low level into the OS.
  • hide the installed files and attempt to make them invisible and hard to remove
  • in the process of installing modify the system to make it less secure than it was
  • show a EULA and, if the user declines, install the software anyway
  • deny that everything listed above is true until you are exposed by a person who disassembles the code and documents what your code is doing
  • show absolutely no remorse or concern for what they have done to users computers until they are confronted with lawsuits and possible government action
  • try and weasel out of lawsuits by offering non-scarace goods that cost no money to replicate and distribute, such as music downloads, as a settlement to the users they have caused financial harm (paying to get OS cleaned or viruses removed) and inconvenienced.
  • blatantly demonstrate that they have failed to learn a lesson by stating that they will continue to use such DRM, although from a different vendor, in the future.

So yeah, someday Google could be in line with companies like Sony. However, I think a lot of companies have learned the lesson that Sony seems to still not have learned from their recent experiment with DRM. Google strikes me as the kind of company that doesn't need to be taught that lesson anyway. They've done a pretty good job of not being evil so far.

Wait for the hack... (5, Funny)

gizmonic (302697) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432777)

Yep, I'll just wait for the hack, and when it's done I'll just search for it on good ole Google...

Re:Wait for the hack... (5, Interesting)

xiphoris (839465) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432814)

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.

Re:Wait for the hack... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14432940)

DRM is a suprisingly quiet topic on the GNOME mailing lists at the moment. I say surprising because GNOME is committed to using Gstreamer as its media framework... and the company that does most of the development work on Gstreamer has announced that it is using it's recent injection of corporate financing to go full-bore DRM: See the blog post of Christian Schaller here [gnome.org] .

I suggest reading the blog entry and making note of all of Schaller's blather about Sun's "Open Source DRM" -- note particulary his deliberate avoidence of the terms "Free software"... a concept on which his company is built. Free software and DRM are fundamentally incompatible. Open source isn't incompatible. How so, you ask?

Well, a later blog post [gnome.org] pretends to answer some questions raised. I say "pretends", because actually he dodges most of the questions. The most notable part of this blog entry is found in the comments -- where Schaller reveals that Fluendo's DRM will be implemented by "code signing" and a chain of trust. A quite clear statement that unless you get Gstreamer from Fluendo, you can't use any of their DRM codecs... if you recompile GStreamer yourself, forget it. How is this Free software exactly. Isn't Fluendo violating this spirit of the GPL (again, on which the company is built), if not the letter. Yes...

Furthermore he adds this somewhat enigmatic comment: "What happens outside GStreamer is of course a different issue, and here there are work happening at the distros to come up with solutions." Naturally, I think any Linux users would like to know what he means by that. My conclusion is that some Linux distros are quietly working on their own "signed" Linux kernels with a Microsoft-type Secure Audio Path. I'd love to know which distros are busy selling out Free software, but as usual Schaller flat-out refused to expand on his comment or answer any questions -- not even from GNOME developers.

Given that Gstreamer is the future for GNOME, and increasingly likely to be the future for KDE too, I think we are owned a few more details.

So... (3, Funny)

88NoSoup4U88 (721233) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432779)

Does this make them evil yet?

Google Becomes Microsoft Oh My God! (4, Funny)

osewa77 (603622) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432786)

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

---
Naijarita [naijarita.com]

Re:Google Becomes Microsoft Oh My God! (1)

gbobeck (926553) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432832)

I thought Google was working on making an internet appliance which could flip burgers. At least that is what Bill Gates said.

Google Mice? (1)

IAAP (937607) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432840)

Just think, the pointer would go off and search for what you want to click on. Just wiggle it, pointing at things you kind of want to point at, and, Voila,l it comes up with a bunch of icons that you may want to click on. But then again, you'll have the firms that'll help companies to get their icons to the top of the list for you click on. Normally, this isn't bad, but if they have themselves placed at the top of the list for "click throughs" well, that could genereate some revenue!

How's that for a business model from a sarcastic remark?!? As a matter of fact, maybe I should start a company: business plans from sarcastic comments. Ooo, yeah! Want in?

Not really. (0, Troll)

Virak (897071) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432898)

Unlike Microsoft, they still offer useful services.

How long? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14432791)

How long before it is cracked and a transcoding package is out there as a first page linked to by Google in response to a "Google Video" search?

Re:How long? (1)

(-hrair-) (942503) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432847)

one day. seriously, with the amount of people using Google, it will probably be exploited and the hole found quickly and then we can use our purchases fully again :-). I, for one, will not however attempt to break it or anything because although I don't like this move by Google, they are otherwise generally a good company and have created what is probably the best search engine on the net. Live with the DRM (however, frustrating it may be) or crack it if you must. But continue to give Google their hits :-).

(-hrair-)

content being used to force hardware choice (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14432792)

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...

Hmm. (4, Insightful)

Lordpidey (942444) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432794)

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.

Re:Hmm. (2, Insightful)

cryfreedomlove (929828) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432857)

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

They're own player. (5, Insightful)

IAAP (937607) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432797)

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.

Please excuse the cerebral flatulence. (1)

IAAP (937607) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432812)

I meant their.

Re:They're own player. (1)

darkmeridian (119044) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432880)

No one has an incentive to let the content of others run with their player, especially Microsoft. I say that because Microsoft more than the others can use their software push methods (Windows Update, Google Packs, AOL CDs) to get their DRM onto as many computers exclusively as possible. Whoever gets power in one end will automagically extend that power in the other. Until antitrust lawyers get involved but tough luck because the players are free gifts to the consumer.

See: (1)

IAAP (937607) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432923)

c:\Windows\wmsetup.txt

I didn't request an update or anything. When the message box appeared saying something to the affect of "Do you want to upgrade to the newest version of MS Media Player?" I clicked on "No" or "Cancel"

Anyway, that fucking log shows the install doing a lot of checking and thing that I'm not so sure I want done to my machine. I'm too paranoid to publish it here, but have a look sometime.

Re:They're own player. (1)

wernercd (837757) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432882)

bah... why install all that crap anyways? K-Light Mega Codec Pack has EVERYTHING to play ANYTHING. They will add googles as needed, I'm sure. K-Light Download Page [hccnet.nl] So personally I don't care if Apple or MS adds GoogleDRM (tm) too their players... I wont install their bloatware on my computer to begin with and I can play their files just fine :)

Re:They're own player. (3, Interesting)

escay (923320) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432886)

hmm...considering that Page made a weird (officially recorded as 'bizarre') plea during his keynote about the lack of standards today, about plugs and cables and whatnot - it seems interesting that they are setting their own DRM standard now, with their own player. so now we are going to have iTunes, WMP and Gplayer on our systems and have to use each accordingly?

Re:They're own player. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14432925)

So, anyone know what the player looks like? I'm curious...

Re:They're own player. (1)

The Amazing Fish Boy (863897) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433020)

Obviously, it can't; unless, MS and Apple add Google's DRM to their players.

I've been thinking about this a bit. A lot of people (myself included) say other services could "simply" offer MP3s, then they'd be compatible with the iPod.

The rebuttal to this is that the recording industry would never allow it, so it's not plausible.

Now I'd say that's more the fault of the recording industry and less the fault of Apple, but we may be able to avoid that line of discussion altogether.

The format could be DRM'd with Google or Microsoft DRM or whatever, but when it is transfered to the iPod, it is converted to MP3. You can't move the MP3 back from the iPod easily, so that satisfies the basic requirement of the record companies.

This is similar to the ability to burn your DRM'd music files to a CD. You can then rip them to MP3, defeating the DRM (admittedly at the expense of some quality). But this would be even less straightforward since Apple/Google/Microsoft do not provide the tools to rip from the iPod.

This is kind of a half-through-out idea, so far, but I'd like to hear the opinions of other Slashdotters.

Media Companies and DRM (5, Interesting)

ziggyzig (944029) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432804)

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.

Obligitory Max Headroom Reference (1)

Taimoor (891521) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432807)

Can anyone say Network 23?

--Nick

Hold Out Your Hand So I Can Slap It (5, Insightful)

Doomedsnowball (921841) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432815)

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?

Re:Hold Out Your Hand So I Can Slap It (1)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432860)

I live above a strip club in San Francisco and they won't let me hang out in the dressing room. What gives?
Thank god for drills eh!

Legal game... (1)

IAAP (937607) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432948)

It is like a fence with a "no trespassing" sign.

To use your comparison: we have to play the legal game. There are times when I really wish I could just shoot tresspassers. Really! Vandalism, littering, noise, etc... The cops have more important things to deal with. But, by doing those stupid little things, I can, hopefully, head off a lawsuit or some easement that'll compromise my rights or possibly have my rights significantly diminshed or even taken away.

Re:Legal game... (1)

Doomedsnowball (921841) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433026)

I totally agree.

Re:Hold Out Your Hand So I Can Slap It (1)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433045)

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.

DRM is not necessary to do this, and in any case, your statement is not true.

Either you steal content, and DRM bothers you, or you're worried about the trouble of accessing your rightfully paid for content.

Or you're worried about public domain content, which includes works which are copyrighted, to the extent that they are not protected by copyright (e.g. fair uses, section 117 backups, section 1008 copying, etc.) It also includes works which are no longer copyrighted at all; DRM doesn't expire when a copyright does, but will impede people from engaging in lawful activity.

DRM really is not tolerable. I don't think we can ban it, but I think we can strongly discourage it.

DRM is NOT evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14432823)

I don't think DRM is evil, BUT what is evil is the inconvenience it brings. Right now, I have to renew the DRM songs on my Zen Micro every month, I also have to make a call to the subscription service every once in a while to listen to what I've download and worst of all, I can't copy music I am suppose to be able to copy sometimes. If anyone gets this right, audio CD can go to hell, $10-$15/CD album can go to hell, heck maybe we'd be enjoying music for less than 50 cents a pop.

This should be interesting. (5, Insightful)

RyoShin (610051) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432838)

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.

beyond evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14432883)

Google DRM is worse than DRM in general. Google should have licensed DRM from either Apple or Microsoft. That way it would have worked with an established base of portable players (ipods if they licensed Apple DRM, and pretty much everything except ipods if they licensed Microsoft DRM). By creating their own incompatible DRM scheme, Google is showing a particularly large amount of disrespect to their customers.


This is one of the reasons I am partial to subscription music services. At least there is no lock-in when they tell me up front that my content expires when I stop paying them.

Re:This should be interesting. (4, Funny)

i_should_be_working (720372) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432896)

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.

There are two types of DRM (1)

Dr_LHA (30754) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432909)

1. DRM that is too restrictive to allow "fair use".
2. No DRM at all.

Its hard to imaging what Google will do to make a "better" DRM. Perhaps if they allow people to burn to SVCD or DVD, but I can't see it.

Re:This should be interesting. (4, Interesting)

MBCook (132727) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432928)

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.

Repeat after me (1)

Concern (819622) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433059)

There is no such thing as DRM.

There is no such thing as DRM.

No such system has ever been invented, nor will such system ever be invented, because it is impossible to create such systems.

What google can do is annoy and harrass customers with purposely crippled software, and thanks to DMCA, perhaps hopefully get some of them imprisoned as well. They cannot protect their content anymore than they can end rainstorms with umbrellas. No one ever has, and no one ever will.

Google cannot "manage" restrictions on digital media in the wild anymore than Bill Gates or Howard Stringer.

Also, this whole "slashdot loves this, slashdot hates that" is ridiculous. What is it about people that makes them so offended when an audience is even slightly above the lowest common denominator, and can chafe when they're lied to/abused/wronged, and also respect an individual or business when they do well? If someone who does something good, also does something bad, will our brains explode? Come on, what do you think this is, the South Beach Diet forums?

I expect media portability (5, Insightful)

sdo1 (213835) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432861)

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

Re:I expect media portability (1)

cryfreedomlove (929828) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432938)

You can start by leading by example. Please produce a full feature length movie that everyone wants to see. Then distribute it without DRM. The example you set then would be a better argument and valued more by today's content owners than the shrill scream that you posted here.

Re:I expect media portability (4, Funny)

bwy (726112) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432944)

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.

Re:I expect media portability (0)

oscartheduck (866357) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432947)

Seems to me that I don't buy software, I purchase a license to use it on a computer. So fair enough, I don't redistribute my software or my license key. But I never read the part on the music I bought that says "You are purchasing a license for one copy of this music." I was under the impression that I bought the CD and the copy of the music on the CD to do with as I like.
 
And given that that is the situation, I happily spend money on music so that I can use it as I want; I don't buy from Itunes because, like yourself, I don't like this notion that I'm "licensing" the music.

Re:I expect media portability (1)

shark72 (702619) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432975)

"But I never read the part on the music I bought that says "You are purchasing a license for one copy of this music." I was under the impression that I bought the CD and the copy of the music on the CD to do with as I like."

They use simpler verbage like "unauthorized reproduction prohibited" and the like. It means the same thing. The copyright holder still has their rights; the music does not pass into the public domain upon publication. The fact that they don't use the word "license" should not be taken as tacit permission to put it in your Kazaa share directory, or make ten copies and give them to your friends.

Re:I expect media portability (1)

oscartheduck (866357) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433027)

My frustration comes from the "unathorised reproduction prohibited" line apparently covering things like placing a copy of the music on a portable music player and having a copy on my computer because I don't want to carry the very scratchable CDs around. As I said, and you quoted me saying (and don't take my tone here as at all harsh because I'm quite a friendly guy and am glad to be able to offer the clarification) I want to do with the music "as I like". I don't like to fileshare music around, but I do want to be able to rip it to electronic format for personal use without having DRM forced upon me.

do not stupid (2, Insightful)

abes (82351) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432878)

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.

Re:do not stupid (1)

microbrewer (774971) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432911)

A interoperble DRM framework is being worked on .

http://www.coral-interop.org/ [coral-interop.org]

Re:do not stupid (1)

abes (82351) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432959)

That's cool, but notice certain ipod-owning companies are not on there. I quickly looked over the members list, and it looks like it's mostly hardware manufacturers, and one TV company (20th century Fox).

When my last Ipod got stolen, I thought about getting an MP3 player from another company. Call me brainwashed, but I couldn't find any other that came close to the look/feel/features of the ipod. So the DRM compatibility thing is nice, but until Apple signs on, or *someone* (how fracking difficult can it be!?) makes a nicer pod, it won't be noticed/used by most people.

Google also announced a partnership with DivX (5, Informative)

microbrewer (774971) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432879)

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 [greencine.com]

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/ [tgdaily.com]

Not another video player (4, Insightful)

Matt Perry (793115) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432887)

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.

Re:Not another video player (1)

AndreiK (908718) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432936)

I wonder how long it will take for the codec to be implemented in VLC [videolan.org] ...

Google and Apple... (1)

ozric99 (162412) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432891)

... the two companies that can do no wrong. Reading Slashdot these days is like having Al Franken shout in one ear while Sean Hannity screams into the other. Massively annoying and ultimately pointless.

Re:Google and Apple... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14433048)

Google and Apple can neither do evil.
Bad thing for Apple is, it can't do anything else, either.

Why create another one? (2, Informative)

vik (17857) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432899)

They didn't have to do this, and one wonders why they did. There is already a perfectly good Open Source, Open Standard DRM system; Project DReaM:

http://www.openmediacommons.org/ [openmediacommons.org]

Vik :v)

Re:Why create another one? (1)

gflores (728935) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433058)

Whatever they choose to use, it'll be hacked to bits. Literally.

video DRM is more tolerable than music DRM (5, Insightful)

Schlemphfer (556732) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432915)

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.

What kind of DRM ? (4, Interesting)

morcego (260031) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432919)

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.

Will it be cross platform? (3, Interesting)

dtfinch (661405) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432929)

I'm sure Microsoft would love it if Google's DRM only allowed Windows and perhaps Mac users to access their media, just like the DRM's of all Microsoft's other competitors.

It's their ball (4, Insightful)

Chris Snook (872473) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432957)

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.

Re:It's their ball (1)

shark72 (702619) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433006)

Very well put. If there comes a day that the major distributors of music, TV and films decide that it's in their best interest to release stuff that's easy to make unlimited copies of, they'll do so. The "Entertainment wants to be free" mantra is true only if both the consumers and producers agree.

Slashdotters can test this by producing their own movies and TV shows, then putting them on the 'net with no restrictions. So far it's not working well (compare Magnatune's sales to those of, say, the iTunes Music Store) but who knows... maybe one day things will change.

Predictions (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14432970)

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

So what (1)

arrrrg (902404) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432983)

I think people around here forget that DRM is not inherently evil (although perhaps it is inherently flawed). The problem we have with DRM is that content producers use it to impose unnecessary requirements (your e-book expires in 3 months, you can play this song on your computer but not your ipod, etc.). Keep in mind that the content producers get to decide what requirements they want, and would refuse to release most current works without some form of DRM. Google is not setting the rules here; they're just trying to stay in the game.

phat (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14432987)

The realization of the DREAM of DRM is upon us! Dozen's of incompatible formats that dont work with anyone else's shit.

OOH SHINY! (1)

MaXiMiUS (923393) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433002)

DRM.
?????
Profit!

brain error, insert thought.

The register is troll? (1)

EdMcMan (70171) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433034)

Why does everything that comes out of the register about Google have a negative slant on it? Maybe they're mad Google won't let them visit their campus.

DRM is not an inherently bad thing. I would rather have DRM access to content then no access at all. I think if any company can use DRM responsibly, it is Google.

Google DRM? (1)

l33tlamer (916010) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433039)

Google Digitally Rooted Me

DRM is unnessesary (1)

a_greer2005 (863926) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433046)

If the DL services just put a string somewhere in the file that when run through their de-crypto, IDs your user account.

This could easily be added to any MP4 format, and with a little effort could be put onto .ogg or divx,

If your name is tied into the file, then no restriction is needed. If a file appears on the illegal sites, look at the name of the DLer and sue them.

This will not solve the problem of piracy in the east, but it will keep honest people honest.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?