What is Digg?116 Comments
- aservin, on 10/10/2007, -2/+99The best thing in the article is the question?
"Would you buy a TV, a car, a book, or anything if the guy who sold it to you could take it back at any moment so long as he offered you a coupon? "
Probably I would changed to "Would you buy a book, a movie, a TV, a car or a song knowing that if the store where you bought it closes you have to give back your purchase and lose your money?"
This is just insane. - gotamd, on 10/10/2007, -1/+63I actually bought two videos through Google Video and now I won't be able to view them at all. But hey, I've got a $5 coupon that I can use to buy something that costs >$5 before taxes and shipping on a Google Checkout-approved site! WTF, Google. You could at least return the funds directly to my bank account! Better yet, un-DRM my videos and let me keep what I purchased.
- austin63, on 10/10/2007, -4/+52Google really needs to man up here and fix this. Sticking it to the early adopters is not the way to go in this business.
- ascotan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+47DRM makes law abiding consumers into criminals.
- You can't make more than X number of copies
- You can't play your [insert media here] on more than X number of computers
- You can't view/listen to your [insert media here] without connecting to a DRM server
Now add to the list:
- You can't watch/listen to [insert media here] after PAYING for them once the DRM server the company you bought the [insert media here] goes broke and shuts down.
You wonder why people don't like DRM? - Ub3rg33k, on 10/10/2007, -4/+45I wonder if Google is doing this on purpose. They've always had an anti-DRM slant (they've had Lessig speak at their offices a number of times, they have an antiDRM article published 6/6/07 on ZDNet), perhaps they're setting this up as a case study. "Oh, Mr. Big Corporate Media Exec, we'd love to work with you on this media distribution thing, but we tried DRM back in the day and it didn't work. We'll just have to ditch it".
Meh, one can dream. - Craga89, on 10/10/2007, -2/+34It seems the "good guy" mentality Google was once known for is dying a slow death
- wbagdon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+32more like "***** DRM!" but you got the point across
- sacherjj, on 10/10/2007, -1/+31Yes, and be a criminal to legally view the content you OWN. What a messed up world.
- sacherjj, on 10/10/2007, -2/+30Actually I hope they don't. If this is what it takes to make people understand the problems of DRM, then I welcome it.
- griz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+23Reminds me of the Circuit City/DivX disaster.
- yunus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+22Its more like you bought the car but must keep the only set of keys at the dealership, which just closed down. You still own the car, you just cant drive it.
- tizz66, on 10/10/2007, -0/+20This is one of those situations where consumers should take the difficult road, rather than the easy road. The easy road is to get a crack and carry on watching. The difficult road is standing up for your basic consumer rights and forcing a change. If everyone cracks it and says nothing, MediaCorp execs will just be able to say 'look, no-one's complaining so we're fine' and nothing will ever change.
If you bought something from Google and now can't watch it, make sure EVERYONE possible gets to hear about it. - sacherjj, on 10/10/2007, -0/+19That wouldn't make me any less a criminal. After all, to watch DVD on my computer (Linux), I have to break the law.
- tizz66, on 10/10/2007, -0/+18Something Ars doesn't pick up but makes the situation *even worse*: the Checkout credits expire after 60 days. Wonderful.
- shadowarts, on 10/10/2007, -0/+17Some of the movies were purchased to own according to the article. Seems like own is being used in a very roundabout way here....
- ArchAngel21x, on 10/10/2007, -4/+20Perhaps Google's plan was to prove that DRM is a bad thing? Yes, it makes people mad at google, but wow this is proof of concept.
- JSager, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15This is hardly the first solid example of this problem.
I was an AOL Music Now customer, and when they sold their service to Napster, I lost the ability to play a large chunk of my library... and those songs were part of the reason I chose AOL Music Now and paid them the money that I did.
This needs to be addressed. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17Google better either refund or de-DRMmunize, otherwise they're giving Checkout coupons to make sure they keep their damn money from a failed service.
- wholly2b, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14Thought experiment: pretend that the US doesn't have a public library system, and someone in 2007 realizes what a great idea it would be to start one. In this current climate, do you think there's any chance that the (book publishing, in this case) corporations would let it happen? Americans are the product, not the consumer. It's so *****.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15The more DRM mess... the better. Pretty soon consumers will learn not to purchase DRM crap. Then this whole DRM problem will be just a bad memory.
- sacherjj, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14You were not renting this content. There was no due date. You purchased this content. You just can't use it any more.
- sacherjj, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14How will Apple still play when the store goes away? When your computer crashes and you need to reload iTunes, it will not validate with the online DRM server and you won't get to play ANYTHING. ITUNES WILL NOT PLAY IF APPLE GOES AWAY. Period.
- Xanium4332, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14If you bought a car...do you think they'll just let you keep it if the business was liquidated?
YES! - gquaglia, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13In this case, DRM has functioned exactly as media companies had envisioned. Now all those screwed customers will have to shell out more money, if they want to view those movies again. Pay, pay and pay again was the real reason behind DRM, the whole piracy thing was nothing but a smoke screen.
- ScionAltera, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Yeah... whatever happened to "do no evil"? I think this qualifies.
- Depthfunction, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11BitTorrent FTW!
- Arctirus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11I've never been dumb enough to buy drm'd content. If everyone did this same this would be a non-issue because a boycott would certainly end it FAST.
- tubeblender, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9"Slow" ?
I think they are doing a great [fast] job at losing the "good guy" image. - mookiemookie, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Well, to be honest, he was whoring for diggs anyways
- mikedoth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Unfortunately people are not as bright as you'd think they are.
- dusingaz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9wait til Napster shuts down. There is a case study just waiting to happen, running at a hard loss with no hope in sight, its coming.
- RobN, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11Of course they'd "let" it happen, because libraries don't violate COPYright law. You don't COPY a book when you check it out of the library, you take the single COPY that they purchased, and borrow it. When you return your COPY, then somebody else can check out that particular COPY. See how it works?
The issue with digital media is that there is no cost or limitation on making a perfect COPY, thus the inherent COPYright issues. If your idea of a library would be to have huge Xerox machines sitting by the door, so when someone chooses their book they go and photocopy all the pages and take home a ream of paper, THEN you'd be in trouble.
I agree the DCMA needs to be overhauled, but people also need to understand that "sharing" your music library with a few million strangers is not the same as checking out a book from the library, or even the same as making a mix tape for a friend. If you're not willing to admit that there's a legitimate business reason to oppose such "sharing," then you're not facing reality and you can't be part of any meaningful solution. - bdbr, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9This is similar to the Sony rootkit issue: it benefits consumers in the long-term when a bad technology crashes & burns. As soon as the rootkit brouhaha occurred, "copy-protected" CDs became a lot less common.
It will be even better if a class-action lawsuit is taken against Google - businesses need to see that DRM is risky not just for the consumer, but for the seller as well. - bdbr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8The biggest problem with DRM is that people are still fooled into believing they "own" that content. This is why you're getting dugg down for saying its really a lease (even though you're correct).
As long as the content provider has control over your music, you don't "own" it. You can only legally use it how they tell you to use it. You can't sell it...you can't even give it away! Does that sound like "ownership"?
Generally you give away your rights before you buy DRM content. Example (from the iTunes terms of service): "APPLE DOES NOT GUARANTEE, REPRESENT, OR WARRANT THAT YOUR USE OF THE SERVICE WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR-FREE, AND YOU AGREE THAT FROM TIME TO TIME APPLE MAY REMOVE THE SERVICE FOR INDEFINITE PERIODS OF TIME, OR CANCEL THE SERVICE AT ANY TIME, WITHOUT NOTICE TO YOU."
(Note: the capitalization is theirs, not mine) - IgnatzMouse, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Didn't anybody else download their videos (as MP4 files) when they bought them??
- cooppw02, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7The headline and many of the comments here are slightly off, as DRM isn't exactly the technological issue here. The Google Video Store was a streaming video service, therefore this is akin to paying to see a Youtube clip, then subsequently having Youtube pull it.
That said, it is similar to a large pitfall of DRM: paying for content, then losing access to the content due to someone else's failed business model. - sacherjj, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7I own a license to view the content. They are taking away that capability, which makes the contract void and I deserve a refund.
- protogenxl, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Any one up for a Class-Action Suit?
- gotamd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Neither of the two videos I bought from Google Video are available on DVD. What do you you suggest now, *****?
- meshman, on 10/10/2007, -9/+15Oh just download the damned crack for it.
- Jugalator, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6This is the kind of reports that need to reach those who the work of reviewing laws. I really hope the story will gain some traction in news and media coverage because the anti-consumer practice here is abysmal. Of course, tinfoil hatters have always seen this day coming, but now it's at least clear that it happens in reality too. Which company will be next? We can still play records from 20 years ago, but will iTunes even be available in 20 years? In the digital landscape, that long ago, the web was merely a sketch drawing on a piece of paper. At least as much will have changed by then, because technological advances are even accelerating.
- ScionAltera, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6It's a nice thought, but they shouldn't be trying to prove a point at their customers' expense.
- unrealmp3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5DefectiveByDesign will surely get into this, or at least I hope.
- Jugalator, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6If that's why, the Google execs are more stupid than I thought. There are so many at least as useful ways to protest against it and raise a debate than harming your reputation in the process. Also, if Microsoft will discontinue the Zune Marketplace, the reaction won't be as forgiving as yours. ;) It's funny how people looked up to the hip MS like they do now with Google once upon a time.
- griz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Maybe this is what I was thinking about...
http://www.daledietrich.com/gaming/2006/11/29/librarian-of-congress-exempts-abandonware-drm-circumvention-for-preservation-from-dmca-liability/
In any case, (and although I am not a lawyer)I would see this as enough of a precedent that anyone wishing to circumvent Google video DRM would be justified. - bridow, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6just a ploy to get me to use google checkout :(
- DivisibleByZero, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Never say "I don't know why you're being dugg down" within minutes of the other guy's post. It just makes you look silly an hour later when the guy's at +18.
- wholly2b, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5You're right on the comparison, but I believe there would still be massive opposition to the idea. "If people can read the book for free, why would they go to the store and pay for it? This will destroy the publishing industry and goes against the principles of a free market."
- RobertBogley, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Not sure what it would cost them, but in a corporation with so many billions in cash, why deosnt google say "forget the profit" and just refund the whole customer base everything they spent ? That appears to be the "do no evil" way to go does it not?
- ramriot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4You could make a case under Exeption 2 i.e. : "A format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace."
Where 'format' could be said to me the company specific DRM and 'machine or system' could be said to be the DRM server that unlocks it because it is definitely no longer available in the commercial marketplace. Its a real stretch, but go for it because misquoting Voltare: "I may not agree with you but, I will defend you right to do and say as you think fit to the very last drop of YOUR blood."
" -
Show 51 - 100 of 116 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is