A Look at Google DRM

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.' "

Media Companies and DRM

[ziggyzig]

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.

Re:Wait for the hack...

[xiphoris]

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:A look at?

[periol]

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:They're own player.

[escay]

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?

What kind of DRM ?

[morcego]

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.

Re:This should be interesting.

[MBCook]

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.

Will it be cross platform?

[dtfinch]

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.

Predictions

[Anonymous Coward]

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

One detail I'd like to know...

[sterno]

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.

My measurement of Google's evil...

[hackwrench]

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 [google.com]

and got See results for Winzip
and see also winipcfg
in the middle of my searches.
I'm using Firefox, but that still made me wonder if there wasn't some sort of malware bringing it up.

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?

Google evil? The winds are beginning to blow in that direction.

AdSense Intergration...

[Intocabile]

Imagine though that Google takes the idea of AdSense to the next level and integrates targeted commercials into the DRMed downloads. I would despise the idea like nothing else f I had to pay for it but what if downloads that included the commercials were cheaper or entirely free. Make them non fast forwardable and the content providers will jump at the idea and consumers will enjoy the free legal downloads while the content providers get paid and the advertisers get better then TV exposure. Make it better then TV and make sure there are fewer commercials.

Re:Google also announced a partnership with DivX

[Stalyn]

Too bad there is no way to play DRM DivX on Linux. Currently if you want to "buy" a video and you are on a non-windows system you get a Sorry, purchasing this video requires Windows 2000 or Windows XP message. Will the Google Video Player be available for Linux or Apple?

Anyway, my whole problem with DRM is that take away the whole "transfer of ownership" when you buy something. In reality you never own DRM material, you rent it or buy the ability to play it. The defense is that publishers and artists have the right to protect their copyright. Yes of course they do. But if we buy something don't you waive all rights to ownership to us? Shouldn't we be allowed to play it on whatever we want. This DRM stuff is to prevent us from distributing their works illegally. But why treat every person who pays for something as a potential criminal? If you treat someone like a criminal they quickly become one.

Ok, time for me to get bashed again

[barefootgenius]

Why can't they just time limit the stuff for say two years with a separate encrypted key for each song and then un-DRM it when when the two years is up by getting the user to access a server controlled by the media company? Is that such a bad idea?

Another article

[Reziac]

Related article:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/07/google_ces _pack/ [theregister.co.uk]

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.

Re:A look at?

[infinityxi]

While we would all like DRM to go away and for companies such as Google not to focus on making money to sustain their business and expand that is the facts. The market for your livingroom is growing as soon by the next generation consoles as well as itunes and other media applications. Now do you think the big media houses would allow google to distribute their content as is without a DRM? If Google refused than I am sure that would be the end of the deal and NBC, CBS, etc would go somewhere else and allow their DRM. I am sure that DRM isn't something Google enjoys implementing but I believe it's necessary to distribute Big Media's content. Another point I would like to make: Would all of you stop nitpicking over google and what is evil and what is not. Making a dollar is NOT evil. Suggesting words for more common searches is NOT evil, I mean you guys need to get a grip. Google is a company, it is not Jesus Christ. It has done a lot of good most notibly opening up email quotas out of the 6MB range. Making search pages clean and extensible, opening APIs to give the user control of content. Wake me when Google REALLY does something "evil" and quit crying wolf. (Latter point not necessarily aimed only at previous post)

Re:do not stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

" Sorry, purchasing this video requires Windows 2000 or Windows XP."

This is from video.google.com :(

locks are for honest people

[3seas]

and honest people really don't need the overhead complexities of DRM.

It seems to me that pay for view TV is already in place and just like telephones and VOIP and how many LD companies are using it, internet TV programming is probably already in wide use.

The DRM spin only does what? What is the point, really?

As it is now, living in Atlanta with at least 9 over the air local stations, all of which the reception is getting worse over the years....

So I buy used videos real cheap at the local movie traders. And I can then watch them as much as I want.

Music... Internet radio showed me enough free or advertiser supported music choices, besides teh local over the air stations.

Copyrights weren't supposed to last so long, and back then it took longer to make a product. So now that its easier to produce, copyrights are extended????

That is a contridiction.

As the world economy improves for more and more of the world, what are we heading towards? It doesn't sound anything like the vision of star trek earth economy. but more like "total recall" dictatorship.

What will the war and power mongers do, when they burn out the phantom terrorist scam? It's not always going to be so easy to fool the population of the planet, as not many today would see teh people of russia as some evil empire, for many of us have friends their.

What next? Gotta criminals out of somebody, do them wrong enough to provoke them to retailiate and then claim they are criminals of the worse kind.

Do a search on "Trillion dollar bet" and read the transcript if you really want to know what provoked 9/11

Laying criminal charges on the consumer, is the last ditch effort to maintain some evil in teh world.

What is DRM really all about?

the answer reveals itself

[cashman73]

The answer may have just revealed itself tonight. It seems that users can already purchase videos on Google Video [google.com].

Google Mouse!

[Anonymous Coward]

This kit, which includes a mouse, was sent out as a christmas gift to some AdSense affiliates:

http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/googlechristm aspresents2005600.jpg [seroundtable.com]

Re:Rootkit!

[BillyBlaze]

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.

Re:It's more then simply not liking it.

[Dion]

The ones that a bluray movie *CAN* demand to speak to, just like it can demand that you buy a $50 tub of popcorn which comes with a watch-once-code on it.

Bluray DRM is programable and can do whatever it wants to screw you over, including messing with your players firmware.

If bluray wins the format war you can kiss all your rights goodbye, because the terms for watching movies can change movie by movie, so they can slowly ratchet up the pain with each new release.

The big problem with bluray DRM is not what it demands from the player, it's what it allows the producers to do over time.

HD-DVD doesn't have this particular problem, it only has plain AACS, which is bad enough on its own, but at least it's not programable.

Re:Locking up our culture

[Weedlekin]

"A 25 year old programmer is usually more productive than a 65 year old programmer."

And your evidence for this is...

Re:Broadcast Flag

[Bill Hayden]

The Broadcast Flag is a great example of governmental checks and balances in action. The courts struck it down.

Here's how checks and balances work in this case:

• The courts struck the rule down
• Checks come in from large donors who are afraid of fair use.
• Congressmen look at their contribution balance sheet and see that people who support fair use are greatly underrepresented monitarily.
• Congress passes a new law to do an end-run around the court's decision.

Unfortunately, this is not really a joke but what is actually going on right now.

Re:Be fair

[abulafia]

So if I write a really awesome song and exclusively distribute it with unbreakable DRM that limits your play to one computer... what happens when it falls out of copyright?

Assuming the existence of unbreakable DRM, what happens is that you, as the former copyright holder, can choose to make a non-restricted copy available at that time, or not. This is what I was getting at with my comment that a lot of works are already lost, even though they are now legally public domain. That, to me, is a tragedy.

IMHO, you have legal permission to engage in Fair Use, but (unless I missed something) you don't have the explicit right to do it. IE you can't force a copyright holder to provide you a DRMless file that you can sample from.

That's more or less correct. To be more precise, fair use is an affirmative defense [law.com], which is not a right, and not really "legal permission", depending on how you think about that phrase. Without getting overly legalistic, basically, when accused of copyright infringement, the defendant says, yes, I did that, but my actions are justified, and here's why. For fair use, there's a fairly specific 4 part test [wikipedia.org] defined in the Copyright Act of 1976 that attempts to specify what fair use looks like. The burden is on the defendant to show that their actions qualify as fair use.

And of course you're correct that, absent a contract, there's no way anyone can force anyone to provide data in any particular format - that would be silly.

As always, IANAL, this is not legal advice, etc.