More On Google Copy Protection
from the still-doesn't-seem-very-good dept
Jeremiah writes in with a followup to our discussions last week about Google's new copy protection, which, according to Larry Page "has a lot of details" that he feels are "not important," since people seem willing to put up with copy protection. Jeremiah points out that: "Thomas Hawk has some fresh info on Google Video's new DRM: "The big Google distinction between how they will offer their pay downloads vs. the other guys is that Google is going to actually let you download your paid download files on to your computer and then allow you total control over the file. Want to copy it to your laptop? No problem. To your portable device? Hey, it's your file, you paid for it, why not. Of course you can't just allow people free and easy access with no controls or the content providers would not license their content. How then does Google secure their paid downloads, by using a log on authentication system. Basically you will download the new Google proprietary media player with secret and proprietary codecs and it will play all of your video for you. Basically when you want to view your content anywhere, any device, any time, you'll just authenticate with your user ID and password and be able to play your previously downloaded free and purchased video." A step up from other copy protection schemes, but still requires you to be connected to the internet and still means it's incompatible with lots of other things and (of course) means that anyone can change the terms of what you "bought" at a later date, since the content needs to call home before you can watch it. Doesn't seem like an advancement. Just adding to the mess.
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
Arg...
Media industry... your screwed.
legitimate consumers looking for easy to use content with no hoops... your screwed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Arg...
That aside, I agree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hi, I'm John Smith, too
Unless Google is requiring that the media only be viewed while connected to the internet? That would make it rather useless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hi, I'm John Smith, too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hi, I'm John Smith, too
The whole thing seems to hinge on the fact that a device has to be online at some point to load the media into the player. For your average desktop or laptop that's not a big deal, but for PDAs and other players that's bound to be irritating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hi, I'm John Smith, too
I'm curious how Google plans to handle copying things to PDAs -- they need to write players for each PDA (guess what, dealing with sound drivers and hardware is tougher than web apps) and deal with storing licenses because no way are those PDAs hooked up to the internet all the time for authentication.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
keeping it short
They have one good point: without DRM, the bulk of media owners would never allow Google to distribute their works. While I'd submit that most artists have no idea how DRM works, or even if it's a good/bad thing for an individual artist, DRM is here to stay. For now.
I see the DRM being used as a lever to push people into buying the GoogleBox (Google's soon-to-be-unvieled Media Center), which will *not* have to call home everytime you playback media - only non-controlled hardware platforms will be laden with that requirement (iPods).
The thing I fear most in this is "creep." In the same way that CalTrans' RAPIDPASS system is now mined by insurance companies (they said they wouldn't), and in the same way that most Internet traffic is mined by various US Gov't agencies (they say they don't), these kind of call-home statistical gathering systems (built behind the DRM) will inevitibly be used to draw inferences about your state of mind, behavior, etc (I'm taking bets on the first appearance of someone's Google search history or Google Video viewing history appearing on The Smoking Gun.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]