Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Google Businesses The Internet Your Rights Online

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.' "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Look at Google DRM

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09, 2006 @10:37PM (#14432753)

    thanks, i guess the "do no evil" is redundant thesedays, much like the US constitution
    • by xiphoris ( 839465 ) on Monday January 09, 2006 @10:41PM (#14432781) Homepage
      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.
      • 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?
      • by Anonymous Coward
        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.
      • by Frank T. Lofaro Jr. ( 142215 ) on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @01:18AM (#14433475) Homepage
        The government are the ones who will take your money and give it to the plaintiff, fine you, and/or jail you and give you a felony conviction (with all that entails) for breaking DRM.

        DRM has the full power of the government behind it - a programmer who write DRM code essentially writes laws/regulations that will be given the full faith and credit of the Federal government.

        Repeal the DMCA and perhaps then your point will be on target.
    • by h3llfish ( 663057 ) on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @01:10AM (#14433447)
      I don't mean to come off as some kind of word nazi here, but considering that you got "insightful" points, I feel like I ought to point out that I don't think that redundant means what you think it means. Redundant means that something is not required because it is a duplication of something else (or in the case of a RAID, it IS required because it duplicates something else). I'm pretty sure that you didn't mean to say that the Constitution is no longer needed because something else guarantees our civil rights.

      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.
  • Rootkit! (Score:5, Funny)

    by EuroChild ( 523969 ) on Monday January 09, 2006 @10:38PM (#14432759)
    Google Roooooooooooootkit?
    • It first came to my attention that Google was evil when I did: ogle+Search []

      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 beginni
  • A look at? (Score:5, Informative)

    by wampus ( 1932 ) on Monday January 09, 2006 @10:39PM (#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.
  • by QuantumG ( 50515 ) <> on Monday January 09, 2006 @10:39PM (#14432768) Homepage Journal
    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?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09, 2006 @10:40PM (#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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09, 2006 @10:40PM (#14432773)
    Boycot them! Hit them where it hurts! Vote with your dollars!

    You have the power!
  • by ConsumerOfMany ( 942944 ) on Monday January 09, 2006 @10:40PM (#14432774)
    I wonder what search engine I can use to search for a hack............
  • by gizmonic ( 302697 ) * on Monday January 09, 2006 @10:40PM (#14432777) Homepage
    Yep, I'll just wait for the hack, and when it's done I'll just search for it on good ole Google...

  • So... (Score:3, Funny)

    by 88NoSoup4U88 ( 721233 ) on Monday January 09, 2006 @10:41PM (#14432779)
    Does this make them evil yet?
  • Oh my God, Google really has become Microsoft. What's next? Google Mice?

    Naijarita []
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09, 2006 @10:42PM (#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. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Lordpidey ( 942444 ) on Monday January 09, 2006 @10:43PM (#14432794) Homepage
    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. (Score:2, Insightful)

      PShaw. It has nothing to do with shareholders. The content owners will not let Google distribute their property without DRM.
  • by IAAP ( 937607 ) on Monday January 09, 2006 @10:43PM (#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.

    • 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.
    • by escay ( 923320 )
      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?
    • Another article (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Reziac ( 43301 ) * on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @12:30AM (#14433295) Homepage Journal
      Related article: _pack/ []

      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.

  • by ziggyzig ( 944029 ) on Monday January 09, 2006 @10:44PM (#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.
    • by rpdillon ( 715137 ) * on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @12:04AM (#14433176) Homepage
      Yeah, the whole thing is kind of weird. It's not like all the music on iTunes isn't already on the net for free...I'm not sure what DRM does to help things. If people want to get the music free instead of pay, they already can. All the DRM does is annoy the paying customers, and put off people like me who would be willing to pay, if it weren't for the DRM.
  • by Doomedsnowball ( 921841 ) <> on Monday January 09, 2006 @10:47PM (#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?
  • by RyoShin ( 610051 ) <tukaro@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Monday January 09, 2006 @10:51PM (#14432838) Homepage Journal
    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.
    • by i_should_be_working ( 720372 ) on Monday January 09, 2006 @11:03PM (#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.
    • 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.
    • by MBCook ( 132727 ) <> on Monday January 09, 2006 @11:10PM (#14432928) Homepage
      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.

      • No. The DRM is in fact the problem.

        It prevents works which have fallen into the public domain from being used freely, which is supposed to be the promise of copyright -- meaning that the orphaned works [] problem is no longer just fueled by copyright law, but by technology. The sole purpose of DRM is to deprive honest consumers of their fair use rights, instead substituting an EULA.

        Fair use is something that is protected only by the graces of the court, as it stands now. We need to strike back against any

  • by sdo1 ( 213835 ) on Monday January 09, 2006 @10:57PM (#14432861) Journal
    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 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.


    • by bwy ( 726112 ) on Monday January 09, 2006 @11:15PM (#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.
  • do not stupid (Score:3, Insightful)

    by abes ( 82351 ) on Monday January 09, 2006 @11:00PM (#14432878) Homepage
    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.
  • by microbrewer ( 774971 ) on Monday January 09, 2006 @11:00PM (#14432879) Homepage
    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 . []

    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." []

    • 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 t
    • by po8 ( 187055 ) on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @03:47AM (#14433929)

      So I'm honestly baffled. First there was DIVX (1), sold through electronics retail stores, which was a technology that ensured that the movies you rented/bought couldn't be played unless your player's phone call completed. This died a well-deserved premature death. Then there was DivX:-) (2), an MPEG4-like video encoder distributed by hackers. Then I think there wasw DivX (3), as the hackers went mainstream? Now there's DivX (4), which seems a lot like (1) but maybe without the phone call.

      Am I understanding this all correctly? Is there any relation between (2) and (4)? Between (1) and (4)? Most importantly...


  • by Matt Perry ( 793115 ) <> on Monday January 09, 2006 @11:02PM (#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.
  • ... 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.
  • by vik ( 17857 ) on Monday January 09, 2006 @11:04PM (#14432899) Homepage Journal
    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: []

    Vik :v)
  • by Schlemphfer ( 556732 ) on Monday January 09, 2006 @11:07PM (#14432915) Homepage
    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 ? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by morcego ( 260031 ) * on Monday January 09, 2006 @11:08PM (#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.
  • by dtfinch ( 661405 ) * on Monday January 09, 2006 @11:10PM (#14432929) Journal
    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chris Snook ( 872473 ) on Monday January 09, 2006 @11:19PM (#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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kcbrown ( 7426 ) <> on Monday January 09, 2006 @11:50PM (#14433110)
      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.

      Nothing more needs to be said if one's view is that copyrighted works rightfully belong to the copyright holder forever.

      But if you believe that copyright is a compromise between society and content producers, then the choice by copyright owners to employ DRM on their works has the additional negative consequence of giving them control over their works beyond the term of the copyright. And that's a problem.

      As far as I'm concerned, copyright owners can do whatever they want with their works, as long as they don't violate the purpose of copyright. DRM allows them to violate that purpose, and that's why I'm vehemently against it.

      • Re:It's their ball (Score:3, Insightful)

        by oGMo ( 379 )

        But if you believe that copyright is a compromise between society and content producers, then the choice by copyright owners to employ DRM on their works has the additional negative consequence of giving them control over their works beyond the term of the copyright. And that's a problem.

        To play devil's advocate for a bit, consider that copyright and DRM are not really linked at all. In a legal system without copyright, where anyone may copy anything freely, one might still use DRM to prevent people

  • Predictions (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09, 2006 @11:22PM (#14432970)
    1) The Google DRM will be broken.
    2) It will be an inside job.
  • by carlislematthew ( 726846 ) on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @12:09AM (#14433200)
    I was wondering when the endless Googlemania was going to begin to crack. All the "evil" posts are coming in...

    With the stock price at about 450, I'm really not surprised by their behavior. Can you imagine how many employees there are at Google that are paper millionaires right now? I'm not exactly sure how the Google stock options work but my understanding is that most stock options cannot be sold immediately - they need to vest over a period of time and then you can sell them later. How many employees are sitting there just *praying* for the stock price to stay high? Management too...

    So what do you do to keep the stock price up? Meet expectations, for one. Unfortunately, Google expectations are so high and possibly un-reachable. Everyone expects them to take over the world as if they're magicians, Jesus, or both. They need to keep making money - MORE MONEY with better and BETTER products ALL THE TIME!!! The moment they just perform "exceptionally" or "excellently", the stock price will go down because this is below expectations. So the hype continues.

    If they acheive these expectations, then I'll be happy. We'll have some amazing products, and the world may even be a better place for it! But I suspect that their value is based on expectations of a higher future value, as opposed to realistic expectations regarding revenue and future revenue growth. Irrational Exuberance? Perhaps... I think so anyway.

  • by panxerox ( 575545 ) * on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @12:55AM (#14433393)
    My analog hole is a 21 Panasonic monitor with a Digital Video Camera. Not saying of course that I would violate DRM. Just sayin.
  • by antdude ( 79039 ) on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @01:21AM (#14433496) Homepage Journal
    Watch CNET video [] on Google's Video Store if you want to know more about the product. I don't recall DRM mentioned in details though. Be warned Larry is a really bad communicator.
  • by 3seas ( 184403 ) on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @01:44AM (#14433603) Homepage Journal
    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?
  • by hta ( 7593 ) on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @03:21AM (#14433859) Homepage Journal
    From Help Center []:

    How can I tell if a video is copy-protected?

    You can determine whether a video is copy-protected during the purchase process: if a video is only available for Windows, it's copy-protected.
  • by pintomp3 ( 882811 ) on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @04:35AM (#14434066)
    google = do some evil
    apple = think evil
    microsoft = be evil
    sony = root for evil
    sco = sue for evil
    dell = build evil
    intel = evil inside -> evil ahead

    anyone else?
  • by j.leidner ( 642936 ) <leidner&acm,org> on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @11:36AM (#14435850) Homepage Journal
    I quote from The Register article: "Google has a long history of keeping its technology mechanisms and intentions private. It won't say a lot about how Page Rank works."

    Nonsense. PageRank was published in a 1998 paper by Brin and Page [].

The best defense against logic is ignorance.