So a clip you legally purchased now auto deletes thanks to the drm.

Originally posted by idiots:

---

but, if you're not doing anything illegal drm is not a problem!

---

but this is just a taste of what's to come with blu-ray drm, called BD+ which uses time stamped, expiring discs, they know that they can make more money by licence renewal so its another consumer screw over!

How much did this service cost? Does a $2 coupon cover the cost of heavy users?

I seriously doubt that $2 covers the cost of what users have spent to purchase this digital media.

If they sold it then by taking it back will surely cause some ire and possible lawsuits.... but I'm sure that tucked away in the EULA is some small print (font=2 lol) that says that the definition of the word buy really means rent lol

I don't claim to know the details of the laws that would govern this ordeal, but I would think that if your service is called "DTO/DTR (download-to-own/download-to-rent)," this to me seems to imply that you actually "own" the product that you have "purchased."

just like when you BUY music it implies that you OWN the music.

The implications of ownership run completely contrary to DRM...except when those pesky little EULA's come into play and then it changes the traditional definition of ownership into something that means the exact opposite.

I don't have any first-hand knowledge of the service's EULA, but I'm sure all they were purchasing was a license to view. Even when you buy a DVD that's primarily what you're paying for. I expect that their terms of service specifically indicate that the licenses can be revoked if their service ceases to exist.

However, as the Blockbuster "No late fees" lawsuit proves, the fine print doesn't always count for that much. If their marketing lead customers to believe they would have permanent licenses, they may still be liable for damages to folks who made purchases based on that assumption.

The word "own" has a specific meaning in the English language. Much like it's inaccurate to call pirates thieves (they're actually trespassers in the legal sense), it's inaccurate to call a ownership of a license ownership of the video. In the case of something like a DVD that they can't revoke the license for, it's alright to call it ownership because the effect is basically the same. In the case of Google's service the effect was very different, and a consumer should be able to reasonably expect Google to make that clear before the purchase.

That's pretty much what I'd expect a lawyer to argue.

:)

People actually buy videos from google?

Originally posted by madman91:

---

:)

People actually buy videos from google?

---

Why do you think they are throwing it out? :)

Google is going to get rid of all the Google video sites and focus on Youtube as their online video site.

Hey, I want to sell you this car. But next month, I'm taking it back & giving you a coupon so you can buy something else from me (which I'll take back later).

This and other posts where it is identified that "Google" is filtering search results sure asks questions about the integrity and credibility of "Google".

Sell your "Google" stock.

As "Google" keeps track of searches, everyone should search for the following--Google + fraud.

As Google spent Billions to aquire youtube, they should provide each and every customer with a coupon to be redeemed at their local video store for a dvd of that title.

We the public also have one more resource open to us--boycot any and all advertisers on google.