Is Google DRM crippling culture as great as it seems?

[geekerati]

Anyone the least bit concerned about DRM (digital rights management) technology would likely have been put off by Google co-founder Larry Page's ho-hum approach to revealing the company's new proprietary media locks. And with good reason. "We have our own DRM that we're using," Page said, during a keynote at CES. "We'll be open to other things, but (creating our own) seemed like the easier thing to do."

Google's DRM will make its first appearance as part of a new video downloading service. Page revealed that customers will be able to buy TV shows from CBS, NBA basketball games and a host of other content with Google serving as the delivery broker for the video. This move mimics other technology companies - most notably Apple - which have struck deals with large media houses to send video over the web for a fee. Along with the service, Google has also released its own, slick video player. None of this is bad or surprising when examined from Google's perspective. The ad broker has every right to push on with new businesses and use its might, prestige and hype to secure prominent partnerships with the likes of CBS. And, heck, if Apple and Microsoft can create DRM systems, then why can't Google?

Neowin

[mondine]

I guess a lot will depend upon how it is implemented.
Being a broker for copyrighted material, and affording its supplier some measure of protection for their proprietary rights doesn't strike me as a particularly bad thing.

As long as it is clearly understood, and not done in the underhanded manner of slipping sneaky software into an unknowing consumer's computer, like Sony's 'rootkit' fiasco.

[intelliot]

I think where Google is different is that they are allowing the individual content publisher to sell their videos too. For example, you and I could create videos and sell them on Google Video, alongside the huge publishers like CBS.