digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

The need for DRM circumvention | Google selleth then taketh away

arstechnica.com — Google just demonstrated how completely bizarre and anti-consumer DRM technology can be. Most importantly, by pulling the plug on its service, Google just proved why consumers have to be allowed to circumvent copy controls.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • alakev, on 10/10/2007, -31/+24***** the RIAA!!!
    • wbagdon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+32more like "***** DRM!" but you got the point across
      • tubeblender, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2He's on a roll.... -Animal House
    • ascotan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6The RIAA is the pressure behind stuff like DRM.
      • wholly2b, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2So is the MPAA, and, thanks to lobbyists, the US government is too. Money talks.
    • mookiemookie, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Well, to be honest, he was whoring for diggs anyways
    • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Not the RIAA now. It's Google, and they tried to atone for it by giving the victims $2 Google Checkout coupons. Because $2 is so much money and there are things worth buying on Google Checkout. What we really need to do is set up a merchant where you could "spend" your $2 coupon and the merchant would take all of the money he got and donate it to the EFF in the name of the "Google Video victims of DRM". What do you think of that idea? Would anyone be willing to set it up?
  • 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.
    • Error601, on 10/10/2007, -21/+4If you rented a car...do you think they'll just let you keep it if the business was liquidated?
      • 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!
      • 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.
      • 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.
      • Error601, on 10/10/2007, -14/+2I think you'll find the agreement is far more like a rental than an ownership. If you don't read the agreement, it's your own stupid fault. Just go down the street and buy the damn DVD.
        • PjsPjs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Restrictions such as whether the program will be available for online viewing only, a defined rental period, or permanent purchase will be left up to the content creators. That's why CBS programs will be rental only and NBA games can be stored and viewed indefinitely. As to the question of DRM, again, it is at the content creator's discretion, with Page claiming that Google has no control over that end of the game. He did say that the DRM is a Google product—so throw another DRM system into digital media ring.

          http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060106-5924.html
      • 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)
        • MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"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"?" Putting aside DRM for a moment, do you realize that pretty much the same restrictions apply to physical media as well? CDs, DVDs, computer program disks have much of the same legal restrictions you point out. The difference being that all three are on physical media that they (the content copyright holders) can't actually keep from reselling.

          If you have purchased audio/video content from a legal online store, make sure you can back it up onto media that can be played in something other than your computer. Audio files should be backed up to CDs that will play anywhere, video should be backed up to DVDs that can be played anywhere. If the service you use doesn't allow that, don't use that service. With iTunes I can transcode audio content to AIFF or MP3 files I can on almost anything so I have no problem with downloading audio content from them. Video is a different story as you can't take those files and put them on a standard blank DVD and play it in almost any DVD player. Therefore I don't download movies from iTunes and won't until I can.
    • 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....
    • tubeblender, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1If you rent a movie, but never get to watch it, then they disable your ability, at least refund the rental fee.
    • 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 *****.
      • 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.
        • 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."
        • frostieDude, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Book publishers are actively trying to get libraries shut down.
        • Nitrodist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1COPY.
  • 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.
    • 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.
    • norman619, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4You don't understand how people get moptivated to fix crap like this. Your answer really only amounts to sweeping it under the rug not laying the blame where it firmly belongs.
    • Hello1024, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2On the tech side, I see no reason google can't just carry on giving out decryption keys to those who've bought the files - it's not like it's a lot of bandwidth or server resources - one server sitting in the corner of the office somewhere with the master keys on ought to do, since the users already have the actual data downloaded.

      The real reason they aren't doiung this might actually be to make a point about DRM, like other digg users speculate.
  • meshman, on 10/10/2007, -9/+15Oh just download the damned crack for it.
    • sacherjj, on 10/10/2007, -1/+31Yes, and be a criminal to legally view the content you OWN. What a messed up world.
      • Jugalator, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3The problem is actually that you don't own the content. You don't own your music you bought at iTunes either. Apple has granted you a license to listen to it under certain circumstances.
        • MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4If you ever bothered to read the fine print of most CDs or DVD's, you don't own those either. But I understand your point. I don't have a problem with iTunes as far as audio content goes since I can easily make a CD or back it up to whatever media I want. Apple's video however is a whole different story. You can't make a DVD of the content you bought that is playable on a standard DVD player and that is wrong. I won't buy movies from iTunes for that very reason. I do on occasion buy episodic TV for the ones I missed if it's available, but I won't buy movies from Apple until I can back it up as playable on something other than my computer.
          • 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.
    • Error601, on 10/10/2007, -22/+1Or just buy the stupid DVD tight wad.
      • 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.
      • 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, *****?
    • 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.
  • 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.
    • cbreaker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Google can't repay the customers.. You know, Cristal ain't free.
  • DavidtheDuke, 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.
    • ScionAltera, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Yeah... whatever happened to "do no evil"? I think this qualifies.
      • frostieDude, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I thought that was cleared up when they decided to help run the propaganda machine for the Chinese government.
    • cbreaker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Or else!
  • 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.
    • Error601, on 10/10/2007, -9/+1It's like UFO people. Always come up with some odd explanation why facts actually do fit their preconception.
    • 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.
    • gregmo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1i really do hope lessig makes a point of this on his blog, despite moving on to new things.
  • 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.
    • 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.
  • Craga89, on 10/10/2007, -2/+34It seems the "good guy" mentality Google was once known for is dying a slow death
    • tubeblender, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9"Slow" ?

      I think they are doing a great [fast] job at losing the "good guy" image.
      • daridave, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I always thought of Google as a girl. /sarcasm

        Seriously though, I've been seeing this coming for months now. I'm certainly not the only one... I mean, Google is great and all, but as soon as the papers and warnings start getting in the office, you sort of bend over... sooner or later... everybody does.
  • griz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+23Reminds me of the Circuit City/DivX disaster.
    • Error601, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Good comparison. I would think they were have learned from the first time around but I guess they figured slapping "on the Internet" made it a new product idea.

  • 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?
    • tubeblender, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4I don't know why you are being dugg down. [dugg up] as you make some good points.
      • 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.
    • Pinhedd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3It also takes a smart hacker only a few minutes to rip the content and upload it for everyone to use whenever they want.
    • daridave, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Uh, you forgot:

      - Your file is bigger
      - In some cases, such as MP3's, you are limited to crappy quality (128kbps was ~OK~ 10 years ago...)
      - In some other cases where your hardware breaks, since some companies decide to store the purchase info on your own drive, you lose everything you PAID for.

      Indeed, I wonder why we hate it ...
      • BHSPitMonkey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'll never understand why audiophiles continue to operate under the assumption that everybody else is as scrutinizing as they are. I have a better ear for music than most anyone off the street, but 128kbps sounds fine to me.

        Granted, I -DO- always rip to FLAC, and I think purchased music should be in the highest quality possible (or requested).
  • tubeblender, on 10/10/2007, -16/+9What's the problem? This is just Google doing what it does best.

    1. Nothing
    2. Profit

  • griz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Isn't there a circumvention clause in the DMCA for obsolete copy protection? I seem to recall reading something. Or was this just a proposal?
    • 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.
    • rebotfc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Read the article, that exception was rejected by the Library of Congress.
    • 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."
      "
      • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Your misquote absolutely destroys the idea of the quote.
  • MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3This is why if you MUST include DRM to satisfy the content copyright holders specifications, the content should be allowed to play on your authorized devices regardless of the status of the store you purchased it from. Both Apple with iTunes and Microsoft with the Zune Marketplace and Plays4Sure seem to understand this as the content you bought (except for subscription services from Microsoft branded stores) will still play even if those stores go away.

    DRM sucks in whatever form it takes, but to just not allow content you've purchased for your own use legally to play goes beyond any kind of justification for DRM.
    • 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.
      • MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2You're taking what I said and twisting it (and not mentioning the same problem with Microsoft's DRM schemes which shows your bias). As long as I have a version of iTunes that works I can play it. Failing that, If I was bright enough to make a CD/DVD copy of it as a standard AIFF file, then it will play in any CD player available. Or even as MP3s, it will play in ANY device that is so capable. Since iTunes also allows you to play the same content in any one of 5 authorized computers, it would take all 5 computers going awol at the same time, all my various backups also failing, and the destruction of every device capable of playing either AIFF or MP3 files at the same time for me not to have access to the material.

        I don't purchase videos (except for some episodes of favorite TV shows I might miss) from iTunes for this very reason. And I won't until I can make a copy that will play outside of the environment (my computers) I received it in. I'm not holding up Apple as some shining light of greatness as far as DRM goes. It sucks that it's this way and hopefully the content copyright holders will eventual understand that they will make a lot MORE money once DRM goes away. Apple and Microsoft have no choice in this at this time, therefore I don't blame them for DRM, but I DO blame the copyright holders as it's THEIR choice whether or not to allow legal downloads without it.
        • NicP, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If apple goes away, you could never re-authorize itunes. So you could never get a new computer, do a fresh install of the OS, reinstall itunes etc. Having 5 computers authorized is irrelevant if you buy a new computer and can't play your music on it. As you mentioned you would have to burn all your stuff to disk, and then reimport it, screw that for a joke!
      • PjsPjs, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3You're saying that backing up your stuff won't help?
        • MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3More like he doesn't understand how iTunes works. iTunes is not a subscription service. With a subscription service if you drop the service or it goes away, you lose (eventually) everything you downloaded as part of that subscription. Since with iTunes, most non-subscriber Plays4Sure, and non-subscriber Zune Marketplace audio content (video is whole different animal since none of these services allow you to make a back-up playable in anything other than the devices they say) can be transcoded either into a playable file in some other device, you can easily keep and use those files even if the service goes away.

          Actually that's how iTunes works. can anyone verify that Plays4Sure or the Zune Marketplace works the same way? I'm not trying to start a flamewar here, I honestly don't know.
  • 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.
    • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It doesn't take a tinfoil hat to realize that there will eventually be a DRM scheme that will render content unplayable when the company that backed it folds.
  • IgnatzMouse, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Didn't anybody else download their videos (as MP4 files) when they bought them??
    • Hello1024, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If you didn't, you still can - you've got another 2 days until the site closes.
  • protogenxl, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Any one up for a Class-Action Suit?
  • anchorman, 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.
    • mikedoth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Unfortunately people are not as bright as you'd think they are.
      • BHSPitMonkey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's not a matter of intellect, it's a matter of hype. Nobody knows the first thing about anything the media teaches them to oppose. Shoot, just look at how easily everyone turned anti-Vista, after a little negative press surfaced.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Depthfunction, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11BitTorrent FTW!
  • fani, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5Yay, since its Google, lets all sing the Google can do no wrong song here like mindless sheep. Shocked arstechnica did this.
    Google should be ashamed of themselves for sticking it to the folks who supported them by being early adopters. ( paying $2 back as a coupon is a slap in the face )
    ***** google on this.
  • rabidmonkey1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I do believe (and correct me if I'm wrong here) Google video content is just a modified .avi file. These files are playable directly in Linux (I'm running Ubuntu Studio) without the need for proprietary Google Video Software. Because if is just an AVI file at the core, you should be able to convert it into something more easily accessible. I can't verify this myself but I hear http://mediacoder.sourceforge.net/ works for this.
    • ScionAltera, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yes, but it's illegal to do that because of the DMCA. The issue at hand here is that since you paid for the content in the first place, you shouldn't have to break a law to continue to use it after the store gets shut down. If Google had simply allowed you to download files without DRM in the first place, there wouldn't be any need to crack them, convert them to another format or to use a DRM-ignorant media player to get around the protection.

      The real issue is that DRM makes any attempt to circumvent a copy protection illegal, even if market conditions have rendered the product you purchased unusable. It's absurd.
  • bridow, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6just a ploy to get me to use google checkout :(
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • ThinkFr33ly, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4How does this prove the need for DRM circumvention? Isn't that a bit like saying that a Bentley proves the need for car thieves, since Bentleys are far too expensive for most people to afford?

    What this "proves" is that consumers need to make educated choices when they're buying a product or a service.

    As somebody mentioned, would you buy a TV from somebody who reserved the right to take that TV back at a later date? Maybe not. But would you "rent" that TV? Maybe. In either case, you wouldn't be justified to stealing the TV.
    • shredswithpiks, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3and if it were reasonably priced to "rent" media (movies, mp3s, whatever) then I wouldn't have an issue. but at $1/song this is hardly the case...
  • 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.
  • unrealmp3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5DefectiveByDesign will surely get into this, or at least I hope.
    • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1These are the guys who are protesting the BBC and who wear Hazmat suits outside Apple stores. OF course, they'll get into this.
  • 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?
  • DivisibleByZero, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Couldn't they just license their DRM to some other company? For anybody competing with Apple, it would be worth it, since they'd get some instant customers.

    Or they could just come up with a tool to convert their DRM to somebody else's.
  • 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.
  • haggie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Buying DRM content guarantees that you will eventually get screwed. Either your dollars will pay for more DRM in the future or the company will elect to screw you over like this example. Either way, you vote with your dollars. Vote AGAINST DRM.
  • Scheissen, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2You people that bought DRM'ed video from Google deserve it. DRM would fail if no one bought it. It is all about making the consumer spend more money for the same thing you just bought and once that business plan fails you can't keep what you paid for.
  • Fhwqhgads, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4That'll teach these idiots to not buy any digital files online.

    The Pirate Bay just gained more clout.
  • andrewrocks, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think GOB Bluth would find a way to cirsumvent the DRM with no problem.
  • tubeblender, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1***** the RIA... GOOGLE.
  • greenmountain, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Google just proved why consumers shoudln't trust Google.
  • hordak, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I know people clamor over Steam, but this is why I'm hesitant to invest in it --- I only use it when required. Having Google's video service go away shows that even the big dogs can pack up their service at any time.
  • vastrightwing, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2DRM is good, because American's have too many distractions. DRM finally solves this problem. No more distractions. Now we can go back to playing sports outdoors, talking to neighbors, playing cards, drinking, etc. Yea, DRM is great!
  • realnebby, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1At least the are handling it the right way, by refunding all the money they have ever collected from the service.

    If this was a smaller company that was going out of business, they wouldn't have the fund to give refunds and there would really be a problem.
  • Hormelinator, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1yes they do refund
    http://video.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=74495&topic=11489http://video.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=74495&topic=11489
  • biggerdigger69, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Brilliant post, thanks. And thanks to Google for bringing the issue to light! (possibly even on purpose...?)
  • amitku, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1@biggerdigger69: Oh come on! Giving credit to Google for helping us out by bringing this to light? Are you kidding? If Microsoft did this, we'd be saying how they ***** customers yet again.
    • biggerdigger69, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0You're reading the wrong sentiment into it. Not "thanks" in the "you guys are great, we love you!!" sense. "Thanks" as in, "thanks for paving the way for the end of DRM." Heck, if they did do it on purpose (which I doubt, though they certainly have the money to burn), then it would in fact be gratitude.
  • mojibake, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I hope the furniture store doesn't close, the sofa may disappear! :o
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.