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.
So now if I want to build a personal library of legally-purchased digital video, I have to decide whether to buy them in iTunes, Windows Media, or Google formats. Whichever company I choose, I can only play my videos on that company’s proprietary products. If I choose iTunes, then I can’t play it on a PSP, and I’m subject to the whims of Steve Jobs. If I choose Google or Windows Media, I can’t play videos on my Mac or my iPod. None of them will work with Linux. And if I ever decide I’m fed up with Apple, Microsoft, or Google, and want to switch to a different platform, that’s tough: I can’t take my videos with me.
This is progress?
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.
Comments on this entry are closed.