Google's Copy Protection: Supplying The Tools For Others To Be Evil
from the yay!-less-choice! dept
When we called attention yesterday to the news that Google was apparently launching its own proprietary copy protection, we dinged AP and Reuters for completely ignoring it in their reports. At least for the AP, the reason they didn't mention it was because it was under embargo, and that embargo is now over, since Larry Page is on stage in Las Vegas talking about it. Unfortunately, Google's copy protection scheme sounds just as bad as we feared. It is their very own, and it will limit what you can do with the video significantly. You can't transfer the video to mobile devices. It doesn't work on a Mac. And, you can only view the video when you're online, as the copy protection obviously is calling home first (which, of course, opens up the potential of security holes).On the flip side, Google will (I'm sure) quickly point out that their DRM offers more "flexibility" than others, in that you don't have to use it, and if you do, you have choices about how restrictive it is. In other words, Google is basically going to say that they built the locks, but it's up to the content provider to be evil with those locks. As part of this whole offering of letting anyone sell videos through their system, they're also offering more payment options so that (unlike iTunes) content providers can choose how much things cost, and even allows some variability (for example, Charlie Rose will offer free streaming for a day after his shows air, and then unencumbered downloads for $0.99 after that). Google takes a 30% cut of any sale. It's nice that they're giving content providers some choice, but it's still quite worrisome that there's now yet another incompatible copy protection scheme that will be making the rounds. This isn't good for anyone and shrinks the overall market. Google may think that it was "necessary" to simply give content providers the option to hang themselves with bad copy protection, but it's a cop out position. Google, at this point, should have a strong enough market position to let content providers know that there's a better way to offer content without copy protection -- and if content providers are too scared, that's their problem. Eventually they would come around when they saw success stories without copy protection.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
but why?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: but why?
but i think Google had planned to enter the video business a long time ago but had to come up with their own drm before major players as abc would even think of signing on. IMHO i think that it is good to at least give an option for content owners.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: but why?
I just don't see why Google needs to kowtow to the big content players. Despite what those content player believe, they're not necessarily the core of successful online video content.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: but why?
If a corp tells (or sells) you anything else they are lying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
*nods*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: but why?
Right, but what we're saying is that this will make them *less* money. They're shrinking the market by fragmenting it and cutting off all sorts of opportunities to really make money by trying to prop up an obsolete system.
If anyone could see that, it should be Google.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: but why?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Google DRM is possibly just DivX Networks DRM
This means, if you buy a DRM video at Google Video, you will be able to burn it to a disc and play it back on your DivX Certified consumer electronics device, be it a DVD player or a portable device.
You just have to do some maneuvre when burning the disc, you have to put in the special disc burning program your DivX player DRM unique ID, thus the burnt copy will be quickly digitally signed to be played back on that DivX Certified device.
Sure I don't like DRM, and I think CBS and others will quickly stop wanting to use it, and DRM will be a bad memory. But Google are maybe not introducing a new kind of DRM, they are maybe just using DivX Networks DRM. Or at least some kind of DRM that is compatible with the 50 million DivX Certified DVD players that people allready have.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Relax
First, like most DRM, it's enabled by the copyright *owner*. I would submit that most IP owners don't understand some of the longer term issues with DRM (myself included) and may choose it with little regard for those conseqeunces. It is, however, still their perogative, and their's alone.
My hope is that a large, level playing field ("level" meaning roughly equal access to the same distrubution platform, i.e. the internet) provided by Google will make our contention shockingly obvious and clear: DRM-less media will far outstrip DRM-laden media in downloads, publicity, etc, due to its ability to seamlessly migrate over playback platforms.
At the end of the day, however, it's still the sole determinination of the copyright holder what option is appropriate for them.
Siderail:
This may be far-fetched, but I'll go so far as to invoke VHS/Betamax, in the sense that the core argument there was that while the possibility of copyright infringment (evil) was possible with the VHS format, the possibility of purely legal (good) applications was so overwhelming. Hence, the technology was allowed to survive, so to speak. Same with DRM: it may provide the capacity for copyright holders to "be evil", but the probability is that it will be used in beneficial (to the copyright holder) ways is of a great enough degree that DRM (and it's adherents) should be granted their own discretion at its use.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
More Incompatibility for the Masses
Final thought: Given that GMail has been in beta for like 18 months as have most Google technologies (ones they release rather than run on their own servers) I'd be fearful of spending any real money on their stuff.
Well I'm off to list my Betamax movies and 8-track tapes on eBay. Later.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Google DRM is possibly just DivX Networks DRM
No, the Google DRM isn't with DivX. Google and DivX separately announced a deal, but admitted that it's in name only, nothing has been done. The Google DRM is separate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: but why?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in thread ]
history
[ link to this | view in thread ]