A Look at Google DRM 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.' "
A look at? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Locking up our culture (Score:4, Informative)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
I think you missed the GP's point.
Google also announced a partnership with DivX (Score:5, Informative)
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]
Why create another one? (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.openmediacommons.org/ [openmediacommons.org]
Vik
Re:My measurement of Google's evil... (Score:5, Informative)
It first came to my attention that Google was evil when I did:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=winip&btnG=G
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 [googlefight.com], 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...
Re:One detail I'd like to know... (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Locking up our culture (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Video from CES 2006 presentation... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Be fair (Score:2, Informative)
Note that these are not breaches of the author's copyright.
Further, keep in mind that under the U.S. constitution, all materials falling under copyright law belong to the public already. Works don't need to be added to the public domain, they're already ours. The copyright is meant to secure the exclusive right to copy a work from the public. The same goes for patents.
Re:It's more then simply not liking it. (Score:2, Informative)
- After you spend $300 on a Blu-Ray player, a firmware hack is released on the net which circumvents the DRM. All players of that model are blacklisted by the authentication servers, and your player becoms non-functional.
Re:The Temps were let go? (Score:3, Informative)
What's up with the caps, dude? You seem to be pretty excited about all this. Take a deep breath and put the Mountain Dew down.
I indicated in my post that many of the temps were hired on as regular employees. I was not. I understood that there were no guarantees going into it. But other younger folks did get jobs, and my age was cited as a reason why I did not. In fact, it was the only reason given to me. She specifically said that the quality of my work was good. Also, I had actual experience, having spent two and a half years at Yahoo. All of the kids they did hire were fresh out of college and ten years younger. Sorry bud, but that's evil in my book. Just one man's opinion, nothing to flip out over.
Maybe when the girl said "The rest of the group was pretty young", she was politely saying "The rest of the group are up-to-speed on new tech and brilliant and you're a temp whose skills have languished in your old age."
So it's your position that rather than cite a valid reason for not hiring me, she gave an illegal one? All in the name of being polite? Yeah, that makes perfect sense. And besides, this job had nothing to do with tech skills. It was reviewing the ads to make sure they conformed to editorial policy.
Maybe that's my polite way of saying that you're a dumbass.
Like Star Wreck for example (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Be fair (Score:2, Informative)
In the sense that any material that has been released must allow fair uses? Yes. Certainly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_warranty_of_m erchantability [wikipedia.org]
Fair use isn't a set of rules to follow. It's all the ways of using a copyrighted work that are fair to both the consumer and producer. When people buy their media, they have an expectation to be able to use it as they see fit, so long as it is fair to everyone involved.
Few people have sued for it -- the Sony rootkit scandal was one of the first mercantibility lawsuits I've heard of regarding IP.
Re:Be fair (Score:3, Informative)
Under which legal theory ?
No, and that's part of the problem with current copyrith-law. There are basically two sets of rigths:
Fair use comes in the second category; It is not *forbidden* to use a copyrigthed work in a way that is covered by fair use. But on the other hand, there is nothing that guarantees you that exersizing the rigth will be practical, possible or legal.
An example: You *are* explicitly allowed to cite from a work for purposes of critique. If, however, the work in question is a movie, protected by some sort of DRM, then the DMCA forbids you from breaking the DRM to be able to cite from the movie. It does not matter that the citing in itself is legal. The DMCA contains no language whereby breaking technological barriers becomes legal if the purpose is legal. You'll be punished for breaking the barrier itself, regardless of the fact that your purpose in doing so was perfectly legal.
There are absolutely no single thing you are guaranteed to be allowed doing with a copyrigthed work.
So when people talk of, say "fair use rigth" they mean rigth only in the sense of "not forbidden", not in the sense of: "guaranteed to be possible/legal"
Google secrecy. Yeah, right. (Score:4, Informative)
Nonsense. PageRank was published in a 1998 paper by Brin and Page [psu.edu].
DRM Fundamentaly Flawed (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Be fair (Score:3, Informative)