Google can shoot it’s youtube rental store in the foot if it wants. Pirated options will always be available for those who don’t want to jump through hoops just for the privilege of paying for something they could easier get for free.

Wouldn’t a better analogy (especially after the ‘clarification’ of comment 14) be one of a movie theater (or media company) prohibiting you from operating a video camera in a theater while a movie played? (which, of course, may or may not be capturing the content on the screen)

Forget the unhelpful, unnecessary analogies and the wild, ungrounded assertions. This isn’t about copyright at all. This is a *circumvention* of copyright. ‘Do no evil’ is simply specifying and intending to enforce a set of conditions which you need to fulfill in order to use their service.

By all means shun, oppose, condemn, break, spoof. But ‘examin[ing] the theory of copyright’ is barking up the wrong damn tree.

Anyone with the mind to root a phone and intercept the stream would take the path of least resistance and download the DVDrip off usenet.

I really don’t get this objection from content providers; they let us stream to PCs when logged-in as administrator.

Boy, that’d feel dumb and intrusive wouldn’t it?

Er…that is exactly how museums work. You are frequently not allowed to use a flash or a tripod, which is nothing if not “making sure the options are configured a certain way.”

Granted, the docent doesn’t physically handle your camera…but I don’t think anyone is handling your Android either, right?

“…bar people who unlocked their phones…”

I think you may not understand the difference between Unlocking and Rooting.

Unlocking a phone allows you to use your phone on a different carrier than the one you bought it from. There is no baning policy from Google for YouTube users on Unlocked Phones.

Rooting a Phone and installing a third-party kernel, is the actual issue here. Since it is a third-party kernel, there are no assurances (to date) that DRM is properly managed on the phone – hence the issue with YouTube.

You might want to re-read the original article and re-word your posting.

May 31, 2011 – Google and rightsholders bar unlocked Android devices from accessing legal movies online.

Jan 1, 2012 – Report by rightsholders shows that movie piracy on unlocked Android devices is nearly 100%.

Sept 1, 2012 – Rightsholders try to force through legislation that would force Google to police Android devices for pirated content.

Jan 1, 2013 – Google sued in every country except for the USA for violating the privacy of device owners by remotely accessing their deivces to determine what type of data they have stored there.

Jan 1, 2014 – Android sales tank as Google is badmouthed in every corner of the internet; fines from multiple governments make Android division unprofitable; Google announces closing of Android division and online video store.

July 1, 2020 – A scholarly paper notes that the heavy handed tactics in the emerging cell phone market was one of the reasons for the fall of the movie industry, makes a comparison to Napster.

-RTM

Won’t this scenario play out like this:

“Here, I have money, can I rent your movie?

No? You don’t want my money?

Okay, that’s fine, I’ll pirate it instead.”

Certainly not.

Of course they’ll take your money.

You just won’t be able to play the movie.

And as for the movie stuff…well, I’m in the UK, so it’s probably not available to me anyway; but if it’s movies then surely only the principle is at stake. Nobody could possibly want to pay to view films on a 4″ screen.

Bar me from Google books for being rooted, though, and you have a fight.

This is absolutely nothing new. If I want to watch a DVD I need hardware that has been approved by those who hand out the decryption keys. If I want to watch a blu-ray, it’s the same. If I hack the s/w or hardware I have to be clever about it or it ceases to have that particular function. Just ask all the people who were banned from Xbox Live for having hacked consoles – a far more worrying precedent as what happened there was the removal of a pre-existing (and important) service from owners, rather than the inability to gain access to a (relatively unimportant, given that anyone with an Android phone can now use Netflix) new service.

Now, unlike the Xbox issue, there is a way to back out of rooting your device. And, unlike the Xbox issue, you can find alternative services to get access to those films. Stream from Netflix, buy the DVD and convert it, go watch it in the cinema. The copyright holders aren’t forcing you to use *this* channel. There are many others.

I.E. No Flash Photography Allowed.

I’ve been to music venues that allowed cameras, but not Professional SLR cameras. Some checked for video capability, but I think they’ve given that up since it’s become standard.

A Google search for this only finds endless echos of this same article. But this article has no source.

I’m not doubting that Google did make such an announcement, but I bet it would help the discussion if we could see the actual wording.

That’s an abuse too, as those museums use this to monopolize reproductions of PUBLIC DOMAIN works

You could quite possibly not care to take photos of the art, or it could be just around your neck, but how are they supposed to tell?

I think it’s a stupid decision, but it’s something a person who hasn’t been in a coma for the last ten years would expect. Also the whole deal about google being somehow in the wrong for this.. you can root your android device, or you can watch paid movies on youtube, the choice is entirely yours.

But frankly, for me, rooting the phone >>> paying for some crappy hollywood movies.

They don’t want my money.

I don’t want their schlocky entertainment.

No love lost.

Although you’re right – there are countless other good things to see in the Louvre…