What is Digg?73 Comments
- geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Uhh so you can't copy it, of course.
While it might suck that everyone's DRMing their *****, it's not like it's incredibly hard to break or anything. Secondly, they wouldn't get the right to sell corporate crap without it.
Hopefully, however, they will let endusers who sell their videos over Google Video choose whether or not to include DRM. - spiderland, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Blog spam, which linked to another blog. I'm getting sick of sorting through blogs to find the source content.
Anyway, here it is (from WSJ): http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113643814564838423-wGEG4V5bN3Q0Pm7bvt0ceWXfYjQ_20060112.html - Vektuz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3DRM is evil.
DRM is spyware
DRM is rights-removing
DRM is counter-productive to the average person, but beneficial only to corporate interests. - monticello, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3DRM is ok now, because Google does it
remember for future notice - halophoenix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2God, people are short-sighted.
If Google is going to sell premium content from people like TV networks and movie studios, they don't have a choice but to include DRM with their content. There's NO WAY the likes of the big networks and studios would allow someone to download content without some kind of use-limiting wrapper that protects their interests. Whether it's good or bad, I'm not going to debate that, but for the record, I hate DRM, but I understand that it's necessary whenever you're going to sell content. You have to have some way as a content distributor to make sure that the person who gets your stuff can use it, but not spread it around the world for free-it'd defeat your whole business plan.
Come on people, wise up. The article doesn't even discuss WHAT KIND of DRM is going to be in the movies, and what you can and can't do with the movies. If Google can strike the line between making sure I can do whatever I want with my movies short of giving them away for free to all my friends and relatives while simultaneously protecting my privacy, then they could be an example of how to protect both the customer AND the distributor. Wait until the details are released before passing judgement, although I doubt they'll be able to hit that line.
It's not DRM that's evil, it's the way so many companies have implimented it; that is, sacrificing our rights and privacy for the benefit of the distributors and content owners. :( - Raian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Let me guess.... It's in beta?
- bertd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This might be a funny experiment. Let's see what all the "DRM-IS-EVIL" zealots do when they suddenly have the chance to make a few dollars with it.
- eurotransient, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's ridiculous to expect that it WOULDN'T be DRMed, Google or not. The true test will be how they DRM it; will they make it ridiculous and unwieldy? Or will it just simply be "protected" for the purchasing user, but not completely crippled? I'm curious to see how this pans out. But shocked? No way.
- wolfger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"without DRM I dont know how content providers would make money.... "
Gee, I don't know... How about selling stuff people want to buy? I have over 400 DRM-free CDs on my shelf. CDs I bought from legitimate sources, not pirates. Now how could they possibly have gotten my money without DRM?
For the record, in my house the score is DRM-free: $6,000 DRM: $0 - wilf_brim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Oh, and settsu, yes, DRM does in fact steal fair use rights. Here is how.
Prior to DRM and the DMCA fair use was what a court said it was. I write a book, you take some portion of it and use it in your work. I claim infringement. You say fair use. Eventually we either come to agreement or go to court and let them decide. Either way, there will be limits to your fair use and my claims of absolute control.
Move forward to today. I have a video on DVD. You want to transfer to your portable player. I want you to pay for it again, and have DRMed it so you can't. You fail in your transfer. "Sod off, fair use!" says you, and cracks my DRM, and transfers it to your portable player. "No fair," says me and drags you into court. "My content!" says me. "Fair use!" says you. "Irrelevant," continues me "he broke the DMCA by circumventing my copy protection!" Game, set, and match to me, the content creator.
Right now there is absolutely no fair use in digital content, and the creator can stick any restriction they desire on it. And nothing you can do about it. - vodkamattvt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Because DRM is akin to putting everyone in chains just so we cant hurt each other. It hurts the freedom of movement from format to format, while doing virtually nothing for professional piracy. The people that make a living off exploiting this have no problem getting around it, but the rest of us are screwed over with regards to having complete control over experiencing the media the way we want to.
DRM is the beginning of your computer becoming a rental station that you cant manipulate the way you want. You already see the next step with the more aggressive "secure computing" initiatives. It has nothing to do with security or computing, its all about controlling corporate position in the marketplace and on "your" computer (which is becoming less and less yours).
Everyone seems to think, "hey, it isnt so bad" but it doesnt matter how bad it is now. When interests diverge like this, one group will continue to push until the other group pushes back. Companies continue to push their profits (many times to the detriment of the consumer) until peole start pushing back. - mistshadow2k4, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2DRm is not a necessary evil. If I pay for the damn video I have the right to use it however I want. DRM is not digital rights management, it's legalized THEFT of digital rights. So to hell with google now too.
- docmanhattan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@shade
I expect people to pipe up and say, "But I DO buy music." Of course you do. Which is why I didn't make an absolute statement.
That said, there are a lot of things that the content providers "should" do, but the only thing you can count on them doing are things that'll make them money. So, if you feel that things are not easy enough to use, vote with your wallet and stop using those things. If they are impediments to your fair use, find another reasonable way.
Personally, I don't feel short-changed using iTunes (audiophiles can save the sound quality schtick) as it works with how I want to use music. I don't purchase video online as there's nothing in a suitable format for me. I recently dropped TiVo because I don't see a benefit with the impending Broadcast flag. I can't support something that is cartering to Hollywood so fully. - aThing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0There goes the respect.
- j0keR, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0BOOO. Shame on you, Google! I thought that since they now have more money ($$) they might be able to STAND UP against ***** DRM. Isn't it Google's nature to do things the way they want and screw what the other coorperations think? Looks like they're doing things the MS way now.
- n00854180t, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0DRM pretty much only hurts legitimate customers. And it violates fair use. Those are the reasons it's "bad" and shouldn't be considered a necessary evil. Just an evil.
Google babyheadeating FTW! Sony and Google can have a contest. Like with pies, but with babies' heads instead.
(BTW, that's a joke, son.) - sardonicbryan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I really don't understand the sense of entitlement that people have here regarding what they can or can't do with their media. Sure, it would be nice to be able to move media around freely, but it would be nice to do a lot of things. It'd be nice if people didn't drive SUVs so that gas would be cheaper, too. Just because things were a certain way in the past, doesn't mean they have to continue that way indefinitely into the future. If you don't like new DRM products, don't buy them. No one's stopping you from buying CD's or even records or recording things on VHS. No one's forcing you to buy iTunes. I use Yahoo! Music Engine to rent my music. Sure, it would be nice to put the songs on an iPod or burn them for personal use. But for $5 bucks a month, I'm happy to be able to download songs onto my computer and listen to them off of that.
In a sense, how is DRM any different from Blockbuster? Is Blockbuster violating your fair use rights by taking away the DVD/VHS after a few days? No, because everyone knows going in that they are renting. I guess I just don't see why people think companies should just sell them things on whatever terms they want. If consumers really aren't being served, then someone could easily step into the market, fill that need and make a pretty penny. - troydoogle7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0EMail to Google: How do you spell Jumping the shark? Welcome to the new trend Evil Empire 2.0. Surely the next google should be coming around the corner any minute
- Muddle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Some of you guys are unbelievable!! do you think any content provider will sign a deal without any kind of DRM???"
Why should they, every idiot tech company in the world is falling all over themselves to sell DRM.
Waste em, share, rip and burn!
http://waste.sourceforge.net/
http://www.mediachest.com/ - Muddle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What did we all do before Google, n what will we all do after?
Google does absolutely nothing novel worth it's stock price. If they disappeared tomorrow I'd lament for for all of five minutes. They do nothing currently that can't be replaced within a days time by a dozen other free services. They make a bunch of money through advertising, whoop-te-do. What do you call every advertiser and lawyer chained at the bottom of the sea? A good place to start! - TheSiz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Did anyone actually not expect this to happen sooner or later?
- grayapple, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0sell*
damn, I should spell check more. - captainjy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hahahahhaa, your mighty Google has fallen...
- xedeon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Some of you guys are unbelievable!! do you think any content provider will sign a deal without any kind of DRM??? I know, DRM is not the greatest thing in the world but DRM is okay ONLY if properly implemented and reasonable for the paying consumer perfect example? Fairplay by Apple no I am not an apple fan it's just of all of the DRM I have encountered it is the less intrusive & restrictive.. and for all those saying that google is now evil because they implemented DRM have you tried it? if no then don't talk crap, your just making yourself look like an ignorant idiot..
- n00854180t, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Not long now until Google starts devouring baby heads, like Sony.
- ek3s, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0When did google own the "noob" video?
- ColdWind, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Don't be evil. Use DRM. ¬¬
- Gryffydd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Grayapple: "sell* damn, I should spell check more."
Yeah, but spell check still won't catch your spelling of 'lose' as 'loose' ;) - vigil, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Oh noes...not the evil DRM machine! Noez! Where goez my ability to copy moviez for free?"
Come on kids, it's only DRM not the anti-christ. Why is there a problem with people protecting their content from distribution if they see fit? - Matt2k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0There's nothing wrong with DRM, content producers should be able to distribute their content in whatever mechanisim, with whatever limitations they like. Similarly, the playing field should be level, and consumers must be free to manipulate their purchased content however they like without fear of prosecution under the DMCA.
I'm not saying that consumers should be able to violate fundamental copyright tenents and re-distribute their cracked media, but if you purchase a movie or a song or game, it should be within your rights to circumvent whatever asinine DRM is on that material so that you can use that purchase under all aspects of fair use. - FullMetalMonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0As long as there is no rootkit installed I'm perfectly fine with DRM.
- shade73, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0the problem with DRM is that i own the content. I own the right to enjoy that content in any way I please. I should not have to crack their DRM (which is illegal) to watch the movie I bought on DVD on my PSP. This needs to die, quickly. If people adopt this as "acceptable" then we're all doomed. People who say "they are just protecting their content" should look at what VHS did. It was *really* easy to dub VHS and cassette tapes and that's were both of these big bastards came from, so if they can grow that much without DRM back then, they can damn well do the same thing now. The diference is now they're getting greedy and pitting the consumer against them. The problem is their betting they will beat the consumer into submission, and it looks as if they did for some of you people... shame.
- docmanhattan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0no digg, btw for linking a blog instead of the original article.
- mikedoth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm all for Free and whatnot. But last time I checked, Google was a company, and they are around to make a profit (someones got to pay the employees). I'm not sure why everyone is pissed, all of their free services are great, just be happy they aren't charging for it. Who knows what will happen though.
- DiGiTaLFX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0BOOO Google!!!
- scutter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0To the guy who said "there is nothing wrong with DRM":
The problem with DRM is that each company seems to be rolling their own version of it. As a consequence, you are extremely limited in where you can use your DRM-limited purchases. For example, I have a number of songs that I have purchased from iTunes. Because of Apple's proprietary DRM, I can not play any of this content on my Tivo. I would love to be able to listen to music on my Tivo in the morning while I prepare for my day, but Apple's ***** DRM prevents that.
To the guy who said "DRM is easy to crack":
Oh yeah? Than why hasn't someone cracked the DRM in the latest version of iTunes Music Store? - jpick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Google really, really wants to do video. They want to index all information. Most of the video that people are going to want to spend their time watching is going to come from professional studios, which will cost money and require DRM. Not all information in the world is available for free. I can see why they are going this route.
That said, DRM actively works to prevent you from performing certain actions that you could otherwise do. It's technology that distrusts you. It's sort of sad to see Google cross this threshold. - hawk_eye, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0EVIL Empire 2.0
Shame on You !!! - settsu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Right now there is absolutely no fair use in digital content, and the creator can stick any restriction they desire on it. And nothing you can do about it."
That's exactly what I said. Except my point was if you don't like it, don't buy it. Ten thousand whiners doesn't overcome a million paying customers.
I still buy DVDs because the imposed "restrictions" don't (currently) stop me from doing what I want to do with 99.99% of my movies: put them in my DVD player and watch them on my big screen.
However, I did stop buying music through iTunes since I couldn't play them on my MP3 player, without jumping through hoops, illegal or not. I buy CDs which don't (yet) restrict my usage. AND I subscribe to Yahoo's Y! Unlimited, which is packed to the gills with DRM. Because for less than the price of a CD (I signed up early on) I can download as much music as I want and listen to it wherever I would CDs.
I would love to NOT buy gas at the current US price, but until people stop buying damned SUVs and trucks for no good reason, which would facilitate the existence of reasonably priced hybrids (or better), guess what? - geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Gee, I don't know... How about selling stuff people want to buy? I have over 400 DRM-free CDs on my shelf. CDs I bought from legitimate sources, not pirates. Now how could they possibly have gotten my money without DRM?"
If you bought them from the RIAA you're being foolish; the DRM is there, it was just so weak that it was broken by even the earliest generation of CD replicators and rippers.
If you've ever bought a video game, the DRM is there.
If you've ever bought a dvd, the DRM is there.
I'm not going to say that Google shouldn't use DRM since it's an unreasonable proposition for content providers. I just hope that it'll be very weak DRM like Apple's. DRM isn't evil people, it's annoying. We've already proven it doesn't work, but as long as corporations go on believing that it does, all the better for us. Google's smart enough to know DRM doesn't work, and I'm sure they'll design their DRM scheme around that.
Everyone's looking for a reason to say Google is evil to spite them, but I have to say this isn't really one of them. There are a plenty other reasons to hate Google, but don't hate them because they need to make money. And they'd rather make money selling you video than advertising exclusively, and I have to say that's a noble thought. - docmanhattan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that a number of the commenters that are lamenting the notion of Google DRM are people that weren't planning on "purchasing" videos anyway.
Pick any RIAA or MPAA digg and you'll see a slew of "Why would I buy it, when I can D/L it for free?" The same goes for Google Video. Honest users will buy something that has value for them whereas those that steal will continue to do so.
iTunes has DRM and it seems to have gone over okay with the public. Some might say it's successful. If Google can create a balance of usability and security, I suspect that it'll be somewhat successful as well. - wilf_brim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0First, stop friggin linking to blogs!!!! Link to the gorram story!!! I am going to start reporting every post that does this as spam. I don't want to have to click thorough your blog to get to the real new, hosted at WSJ, or the Inquirer.co.uk or wherever. Stop it, stop it, stop it!!
IRT The story:
Yes, this may be Google jumping the shark, but it does depend upon how draconian the DRM is. They could go completely to the dark side, and put Blu-Ray level DRM on the video; no transfers, no burns, it is where it is, and if your hdd goes ***** up, tfb, buy it again. I'm hoping they don't do that. They may restrict copying and such. The problem is that the content creators (MPAA) are going to insist on as restrictive DRM as possible, and given that there is no siginficant counter to them, they get it.
Of course, the more restrictive the DRM, the more likely folks are to pirate the content. (Example: cigarette prices. As taxes get higher and higher the payoff for sumggling gets better and better, and buyers are more and more likely to buy illegal cigarettes) Reasonable DRM will keep the vast majority of folks on the reservation. BluRay level (brick the player) DRM drives anybody with a brain into piracy. - Metal_Hurlant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Apparently, it's hard to get content providers to trust you to distribute their content if you don't use DRM.
The only way out of that is to educate content providers that DRM doesn't protect content and is little more than an hinderance on fair uses.
More practically, it means the longer a particular DRM system stays uncracked, the more convinced content providers will be that DRM is the Right Thing to Do. - midgetbus87, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Wow, this is like the end of episode 3, lol.
- sowusupb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Sigh.. They could have taken down Microsoft. SAY IT AINT SO GOOGLE
- Pizpump, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0You will soon become a very powerful Sith. Henceforth, you shall be known as Darth....Google.
- NoNom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0From what I read from the article that spiderland provided it does not seem like the DRM would effect the current videos on Google. Therefore, I couldn't care less. The newer DRM content will be videos from the major networks . It may act like the videos on iTunes. As long as can still watch the videos currently on Google for free, I do not care. The DRMed content will be programming that I a) see for free b) pay to see (DirectTV)
Now what worries me the most w/ Google is their inclusion of RealMedia in their software bundle. - dhammond, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i figured out how to break the DRM in about 2 minutes. plus, most of the videos are available as .mp4 downloads...and it's rather simple to grab the .avi or .flv. no digg, bitches.
- shade73, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@docmanhattan - you could go out on that limb, but you'd be wrong. I will buy content when they make it so that I can do whatever I want to with it, easily. First off, they should be making it *easier* to convert content, not harder. They should be selling converters built into boxes that will convert into any format you want, (psp, video ipod, straight mpeg etc). They should want me to watch it in every medium possible that way they can get their adverts out. B/c the reality is, everytime I play that movie in a public place, I'm advertising for them. Everytime I watch it on my laptop, it makes someone else want to watch it. However, they are doing the exact opposite b/c their spoiled brats. I've already boycotted, so should you :P.
I owned a bunch of CD's off iTunes, and then I wanted to stream them over my media center... oops...so now I will never buy another iTunes song again, b/c again of DRM.
They'll keep playing chess until one of us is check-mated, don't let it be the consumer; play to win. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Microsoft Apple and now google, they are all money loving, free world hating corporations. Can we do anything about it? NO." and to all the other Google is evil now bunch of people.
Ooooo Noessss, they won't give me THEIR stuff in the way the I want. Waaaaa, waaaaaa, mommie. Make you're own damn TV shows. Then you can do whatever you want with it. -
Show 51 - 72 of 72 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is