RSSVideos Purchased from Google to Self-Destruct Wednesday
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published August 13, 2007, 9:45 AM
In a move that may have some wondering whether the proverbial left hand knows what the other left hand is doing, Google issued a notice to its Google Video customers last week informing them that it is discontinuing its video sales business on Wednesday. But that wasn't all: The notice explicitly says that videos purchased or rented, and then downloaded to customers' PCs will no longer be viewable on or after August 15.
In other words, if you were to use this page to search for a video within a specific price range today, regardless of what you pay for it, due to DRM restrictions it will not play after Wednesday.
As a way of compensating for customers' grievances, the company is offering them coupons good toward purchases through other online retailers that use Google Checkout. Based on early reports, the value of the coupons is roughly equivalent to the amount of their purchases. However, in order for customers to redeem them, they must make purchases of the same amount or more, and they must do so within 60 days of August 15.
The move comes just after Universal Music Group indicated its intention to sell MP3 tracks without DRM through Google and perhaps others, though not iTunes.
Google's official explanation, as cited by the Associated Press, is that the company believes more in the compensating power of advertising support alongside video than in charging users directly.
"The current change is a reaffirmation of our commitment to building out our ad-supported...models for video," the AP report quotes Google spokesperson Gabriel Strickler as saying.
There is some data to back Strickler up. According to a comScore Media Metrix report last month, Google accounted for 21.5% of the US' streaming media traffic, with Fox Interactive's sites (mostly MySpace) a distant second at 8.1%. That's streams, such as the embedded kind that appears in Web pages, not VOD or direct downloads. If the money in video is to be made in exploiting audience size for advertising, some might rightfully ask how come audio doesn't work the same way.
Of course, all this diverts from what could be the major question in customers' minds: Weren't their video purchases supposed to be permanent? Strickler's comments appear only to be addressing shareholders' concerns, not customers.
One of those customers is Boing Boing's Cory Doctorow, who wrote last Friday, "This is a giant, flaming middle finger, sent by Google and the studios to the customers who were dumb trusting enough to buy DRM videos. How many of these people will trust the next DRM play from Google (no doubt coming soon from YouTube) or the studios?"
Apparently not every customer is so worried. A member of the Broadband Reports forum who invested $17.12 on replay videos of NBA basketball games, wrote on Saturday, "I'm being reimbursed for $20 so I actually come out ahead. Losing that video is no big deal anyway."
I doubt it would cost google that much $$$ to keep the service online which authenticates the purchase. For good will they should leave it so if you purchased it you can access your content.
Whatever happened to CUSTOMER SATISFACTION & SERVICE?
Score: 0
|funny you are all flipping out about this.. swim downloaded 600 DVD's and 50 Blueray for free off servers on the internet so like what is DRM pfft
Score: 0
|so like what is DRM pfft
In this case? The natural result of some moron downloading 600 DVD's and 50 Blueray for free.
Duh?
Score: 0
|I actually bought a music video from Google about a year ago. What sucked after the fact was I realized you need an internet to watch the video--it validates your purchase every time.
The bad business about this discontinuation is that your refund expires. The $2.00 I spent is probably going to rot in a Google Shopping Cart.
Score: 0
|This sounds like the beginning of a Google self-destruct.
Score: 0
|Why do I expect books to come out printed with ink that would have an absolute life time of no more than a year? After all, who cares since the book will be sitting on a dusty book shelf, right? Of how about SD cards that auto destruct? Or maybe hard drives that, well you get the picture. Wasn't there a time that when you bought something it was yours for ever???
When WeezulDK said that DRM stands for restriction he was absolutely right. From now on I will rate any beta coming from Google with only a ONE. That will be my way of protesting for what they did.
Score: 0
|Definitly second that !!!
Score: 0
|So do I. But I also remember it is the OS the instrument. OMG! Thanks, Pc_Tool
Score: 0
|*laughs*
Yeah, Vista is the root cause of all DRM.
mmmmkay....
We'll all just smile and slowly back away now. If you get a visit soon from guys in white coats, be nice to them, they're just trying to help...
Score: 0
|Sorry if anybody feels offended, I only say that IMHO it wouldn't have been possible using Windows 98 SE. I am not a judge, and this is only an opinion. As far as I know I have the right to express freely my own thoughts, even if I am wrong. Or maybe not?
Score: 0
|Uhh...
Few things:
An opinion is not a statement of or assumption of fact.
it wouldn't have been possible using Windows 98 SE.
Is an assumption of fact.
Not only, that, an incorrect one. Google could have DRM'd their videos even if we'd never risen up from the days of DOS.
Even so, you have the right to spread misinformation. So long as you respect my right to counter it with, ya know, the actual facts.
Score: 0
|It is not my wish to misinform anybody, maybe I am misinformed myself. I don't feel to be infalible at all. I welcome your opinion anyway. It is commonly said "Four eyes see more than two".
Score: 0
|This is the future that Microsoft previews for us all: your computer remains under their surveillance, anything in your hard drive may be erased if you don't comply with the manufacturer or program provider requirements, in this case of Goggle. Your insecurity means big business. This behavior of Goggle is a notice because it is exceptional and even gentle, but with Vista and Microsoft previsions such things will be common. The new "improvements" of the company do improve security of course....but not yours! But.. WHO is setting itself in a danger of bankrupcy?
Score: 0
|Yahoo! is very happy today...
And DRM is one step closer to death (hopefully...)
Score: 0
|serves 'em right for downloading DRM content. LOL
Score: 0
|I've never liked Google anyway. This is just one more reason to hate Google for me.
Score: 0
|Let this be a lesson that anyone purchasing media with DRM risks losing their purchased data forever.
Score: 0
|From the comments, it doesn't sound like anyone reading this purchased anything through Google.I completely agree, anyone "smart" enough to purchase anything with DRM deserves this.
Score: 0
|Unless that Wednesday never comes in your pc ;)
Set your pc to some day before wed and you could watch your video some more times.
Does the video itself connect to the internet and retriev official date/time??
Score: 0
|I believe so. Validates the license.
Score: 0
|WOW and so it begins,Google starts screwing their customer over.
It was just a matter of time.
Score: 0
|Show me one place where they *promised* the content would be usable forever, and I'll change my vote for Google from "Good" to "Evil".
Score: 0
|Google should at least offer a 50-75% refund on the purchase. The only reason I say not a 100% refund is because you can watch the video and it will be used.
I suppose the customer is happy as long as they have something they want to purchased with this time-limited credit.
I also agree that this is a huge with DRM which is why I try to avoid it.
Score: 0
|At least they are reimbursing them and not leaving them out in the cold.
Score: 0
|Evil.
Score: 0
|This is a prime reason (If not #1 in the list, followed by interoperability between devices at #2) why people are up in arms over Digital Restrictions Management.
Yes, I used "Restrictions" instead of "Rights", because that's what DRM is, restrictions on the user.
This is why DRM by all companies have to be changed: If you are going to purchase something with DRM embedded into it, it *has* to have provisions for the company ceasing business and not leaving you with a worthless file.
I would go as far as to say that if a company *DOES* do what Google's doing, that it should be a legal requirement that they provide the consumer with either a) an alternative that isn't restricted, or b) legal immunity from prosecution using the DMCA if the user circumvents the DRM in order to use said paid-for product.
Score: 0
|Yes, from everything I have heard DRM is moving more to wards restrictions versus rights. I know Apple and a few other media retailers have pushed for DRM free music. The great thing about this push is things like this can't happen. Ever think maybe Google might have done this while their service was small versus what a Company could do later. If the Record Company fails such as smaller recording labels they can cancel your legal copies and hand the ownership to a new company requiring you to purchase new copies from the NEW label. Whats to stop larger corporations from making small labels, getting big names at their beginnings to go with small labels forcing their label out of business then requiring you to buy all that popular artists music under the new label. Sounds like an okay money maker. Just shady.
Score: 0
|I can't say this will make Google any friends.
If the video 'self-distructs' prematurely (from the original purchase date), that in itself is a breach of the agreement and the user should be refunded in full.
These 'google money' != real money... and consumers should be given the right to have their accounts re-credited.
A limitation on the period that these can be redeemed is also dubious at best.
Score: 0
|Agreed poor customer service. Everyone should get their money back. The money they would spend to do this, I beleive they would see as a benifit in the future. The company I work for does stuff like that when bad stuff happens.
Score: 0
|This is not bad stuff, but bad manners. When you are the owner of anything that you have bought legally, it is only yours and nobody has the right in America to deprive you of your private property without your consent or against your will.
Score: 0
|