Topic: Google

Google fights the Hollywood tech veto

Summary: Google may be able to maneuver most tech corporations behind it, but Hollywood's tech veto is based in Washington, and I believe they have not yet begun to fight.

By Dana Blankenhorn for Linux and Open Source | May 20, 2010 -- 05:45 GMT (22:45 PDT)

Follow @ZDNet

Ever since the Web was spun there has been tension between Silicon Valley and Hollywood.

Generally, Hollywood has won.

The passage of laws like the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), and their strict enforcement not just by American cops but by foreign trade representatives, is well-known.

(The Veto Club and Bar is located on Hollywood Road in beautiful Hong Kong. I would love to be seen there one day. This is their logo.)

The content industries have also turned peer-to-peer technology into the "porn" of tech. While it's a more efficient way to distribute files, Hollywood has branded it a natural copyright thief, associated it with all the world's evils, and caused most corporate and school networks to shut it off.

When Hollywood felt threatened by new technology Washington has even, in the past, sought to criminalize "attempted" violations of the DMCA. The whole "net neutrality" debate is really about perceived peer-to-peer threats to copyright.

Over the years Apple and Microsoft made themselves allies of the content industries, enforcing Digital Rights Management (DRM) and accepting the Hollywood Veto over their technology in order to take over distribution channels. The alliance has sometimes been uneasy.

Google's WebM, launched at Google I/O yesterday, is the first direct challenge to the Veto launched by a tech company in a decade. The open source, royalty free codec formerly known as VP8 has been met by a full-on FUD attack, but rather than back down Google has pushed forward.

For Internet advocates this is a matter of principle. W3C standards have always been royalty free, patent rights waived, in order to assure maximum penetration of the global market.

The H.264 codec does not meet this test, but Apple, Microsoft, Adobe and the rest of the industry was prepared to make it part of the HTML5 standard, a proprietary technology controlled by MPEG LA, in the name of maintaining peace with the content industries.

Google has played its cards carefully within the industry. Could WebM lose out to Flash? Adobe supports it. Hasn't Microsoft rejected VP8 in favor of H.264 support in IE9? Microsoft says it's not opposed to WebM.

The problem is this is a political issue, not a corporate issue. Google may be able to maneuver most tech corporations behind it (Apple has been silent so far), but Hollywood's tech veto is based in Washington, and I believe they have not yet begun to fight.

What is at stake, in the end, is control of content. Must that control be embedded in base Web technology? Will the Hollywood Veto be maintained?

Stay tuned.

Topic: Google

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

28 comments

Log in or register to join the discussion

Shouldn't the owners control content?

If I'm reading this right, (and I am [b]against[/b] DRM that stops me from using my purchased content the way I want) Google's stance is that [i]they[/i] want to control other people's content as opposed to those who's content it is?

We [i]know[/i] what Google gets out of it ($$$), but what do the content owners get out of it?

John Zern
20 May, 2010 06:25

Reply Vote
- It isn't content control, but distribution control
 
 @John Zern
 The problem with .264 isn't the ability to control content, but controlling the distribution channel. The licensing involved with .264 creates an artificial barrier to entry for some browser creators, and the like. An open standard for the web should be based on protocols that are freely available to all (not just end users, or those associated with MPEG LA).
 
 I've got no problem with the content providers wanting to publish their content with a royalty-laden protocol, but I believe W3C web standards should be based on totally open protocols. If certain browsers also want to support a proprietary codec that content distributors want to use, that's fine; but a web standard codec should be freely available.
 
 NetAdmin1178
 20 May, 2010 07:11
 
 Reply Vote
 - Got it. I guess it was the way the article was worded
 
 that threw me off a bit.
 
 Thanks!
 
 John Zern
 20 May, 2010 07:25
 
 Reply Vote
 - RE: Google fights the Hollywood tech veto
 
 @NetAdmin1178 Thanks for the explanation. I worked on this a long time but yours is really better than what I came up with.
 
 DanaBlankenhorn
 20 May, 2010 07:32
 
 Reply Vote
 - RE: Google fights the Hollywood tech veto
 
 @NetAdmin1178 Good explanation! Thanks for the clarification.
 
 DataFerret
 20 May, 2010 09:44
 
 Reply Vote
 - RE: Google fights the Hollywood tech veto
 
 @NetAdmin1178
 
 Where does Idaho rank? We have been living in Montana for the past 5 years and I am not supri<a href=http://www.hipersexshop.com.br>sexy shop</a>to find it #3 on the "worst" list. Considering a<a href=http://www.hipersexshop.com.br>sexshop</a>move to Idaho to escapthe high cost of living a low income in MT. There may not be a sales tax here but they get you if you own property!
 
 filhomarques
 15 July, 2011 18:49
 
 Reply Vote
 - RE: Google fights the Hollywood tech veto
 
 peer technology into<a href="http://www.marylandpolitics.us/"> about it</a> is bank that <a href="http://biketriallawyer.com/">website</a> attacked from the <a href="http://originalmexicanfortunecookie.com/">site support</a> from any soldier <a href="http://www.unterm-schleier.com/">site</a> to the light <a href="http://www.usenvy.com/">home page</a> is great
 
 gorians
 2 September, 2011 21:17
 
 Reply Vote
- RE: Google fights the Hollywood tech veto
 
 Google wants to control other people's content, what kind of flawed logic is that? Google only provides a means of distribution of content, maybe you should make that distinction in your logic. What the content "owners?" want is for Google to provide a method for them to control the distribution as part of the "distribution method". Google's position is "net neutrality" (no restrictions on the distribution method) Let society at large determine the "internet" social norms, and not Hollywood or the ISPs. It's actually called "democracy", and not "socialism" as the Hollywood FUD spin would have you believe. But don't think for yourself, let the MSM spoon feed you the the special interests of their owners.
 
 nyyet
 20 May, 2010 11:02
 
 Reply Vote
 - RE: Google fights the Hollywood tech veto
 
 The problem is this is a political issue, not a corporate issue. Google may be able to maneuver most tech corporations behind it (Apple has been silent so far), but Hollywoods tech veto is based in Washington, and I believe they have not yet begun to fight.<a href="http://www.edra41.org/"> a</a><a href="http://www.actioniseloquence.net/"> b</a><a href="http://www.funds-china.com/"> c</a><a href="http://www.isupportbridgewater.com/"> d</a><a href="http://www.cca64.org/"> e</a><a href="http://www.nexumbogazici.com/"> f</a><a href="http://www.h4nholdings.com/"> g</a><a href="http://www.dataseek.info/"> h</a><a href="http://www.pcloshwdb.com/"> i</a><a href="http://www.santaibisnes.com/"> j</a><a href="http://ipadbagblog.com/"> k</a>
 
 zakkiromi
 21 April, 2011 23:22
 
 Reply Vote
- RE: Google fights the Hollywood tech veto
 
 If the patent license states that you can only use it if you do not use it to promote peace, then you violate the patent license. So a patent that covers all possible implementations of a video format essentially restricts your freedom of expression, as long as you use that<a href="http://ipadbagblog.com/"> ipad bag blog</a><a href="http://www.sutudeg.org/"> sutudeg </a><a href="http://wposfv.com/">education news</a> and<a href="http://www.pcloshwdb.com/"> pclos hwdb</a> format.<a href="http://www.sutudeg.org/"> l</a>
 
 edward polling
 3 June, 2011 22:42
 
 Reply Vote
 - RE: Google fights the Hollywood tech veto
 
 @edward polling Google wants to control other people's content, what kind of flawed logic is that? Google only provides a means of distribution of content, maybe you should make that distinction in your logic. What the content "owners?" want is for Google to provide a method for them to control the distribution as part of the "dis</a><a href="http://www.revivalymaske.com/">pembe maske</a> </a><a href="http://www.energybalancebileklik.com/">energy balance</a> </a><a href="http://www.oynaoyunu.com/">oyna oyunu</a> </a><a href="http://www.moliva.web.tr/">moliva</a> </a><a href="http://www.orjinkrem.net/">orjin krem</a> </a><a href="http://www.tutunesun.web.tr/">tutune son</a></a><a href="http://www.nanomatik.gen.tr/">nanomatik</a> </a><a href="http://www.complex41.net/">complex 41</a> </a><a href="http://www.fx15new.com/">new fx15</a>tribution method". Google's position is "net neutrality" (no restrictions on the distribution method) Let society at large determine the "internet" social norms, and not Hollywood or the ISPs. It's actually called "democracy", and not "socialism" as the Hollywood FUD spin would have you believe. But don't think for yourself, let the MSM spoon feed you the the special interests of their owners
 
 gaberdiye03
 21 June, 2011 05:17
 
 Reply Vote
- RE: Google fights the Hollywood tech veto
 
 @John Zern T-mobile's web service is lacking. It is very slow to update and there is infromation you can not get without calling customer service. The term of your contract for example. Luckily there over the phone customer service is passable, much better I found than Sprint and Verizon. So far no one has compared to the old Airtouch Cellular, who had by far the best customer service of any cell service to date <a href="http://www.arabaoyunlarimiz.gen.tr/yaris-oyunlari/arabayla-bina-patlat.html">arabayla bina patlat oyunu</a>
 
 Arabalar
 3 August, 2011 06:29
 
 Reply Vote
No, we don't know what google will get out of the Open Web

But we do know what we can get out of the Open Web, if we get a chance to have one.

Edit: This was meant to have been posted as a reply to John Zern, above.

OS Reload
20 May, 2010 07:13

Reply Vote
W3c forces no one to use Web Standards. Hollywood is free to opt out.

WebM should adopted by the W3c as a HTML 5 standard. If Hollywood or Apple feel H.264 is a better option for them then they are free to opt out of the Open Web.

OS Reload
20 May, 2010 07:22

Reply Vote
- RE: Google fights the Hollywood tech veto
  
  @OS Reload AMEN!!
  
  catcreekjim
  20 May, 2010 12:57
  
  Reply Vote
Hollywood wants to control ALL content ...

Consumer created content posted to YouTube is currently posted with proprietary codecs. Legally speaking, Hollywood in the form of MPEG-LA could swoop down on that at any time. If you look at the licensing that comes with almost ANY video cam on the market these days, it PROHIBITS "commercial use" outright. What is "commercial use"? The consumer is not going to define that. The licensor, MPEG-LA, might well attempt to. And they might see something "commercial" about posting videos on the Internet. IF WebM becomes standardized to HTML-5, you will likely see the appearance of WebM format video cams. That is going to REALLY slap MPEG-LA in the face. This is all about control, and Hollywood is not likely to relinquish that control that extends right into living rooms without a huge fight. I think the good news is that they are going to lose and it is going to change not only the face of the net, but also impact the whole digital video production environment in a very positive way.

George Mitchell
20 May, 2010 08:06

Reply Vote
- Agreed!
  
  @George Mitchell - The notion that RIAA/MPAA wants to "control" (and therefore "own") ALL content is not far off the mark.
  
  "What's mine is mine, and what's thine is mine if I can figure out how to control access to it."
  
  One thing that has NEVER been discussed is that ALL web users, including individuals, have "digital rights" to the content they create. Imagine if the people who accumulate your data had to pay you royalities for its use!
  
  DataFerret
  20 May, 2010 09:48
  
  Reply Vote
  - RE: Google fights the Hollywood tech veto
    
    @DataFerret T-mobile's web service is lacking. It is very slow to update and there is infromation you can not get without calling customer service. The term of your contract for example. Luckily there over the phone customer service is passable, much better I found than Sprint and Verizon. So far no one has compared to the old Airtouch Cellular, who had by far the best customer service of any cell service to date.
    
    Arabalar
    3 August, 2011 06:28
    
    Reply Vote
- RE: Google fights the Hollywood tech veto
  
  @George Mitchell
  Trust me when I say, I want to see this brawl...
  
  IssacS
  20 May, 2010 16:19
  
  Reply Vote
RE: Google fights the Hollywood tech veto

Down with the anti-competitive Hollywood veto.

It's corporate quasi-citizens like this that have taken over our government and we, the real citizens, want it back from them.

Go Google!

Tholian_53
20 May, 2010 09:37

Reply Vote