http://www.down...os-convert.com/

No matter how you slice it, this is the most evil thing that can be done to a consumer who agrees to download DRM, and far as I know, Google was the first to do it. They broke the cherry. Since Google is so respected in the industry, how many do you think will follow when their services aren’t doing well, citing Google’s as standard practice? It simply doesn’t matter whether I get a full cash refund or not. If you sell me something, you should not have the right to reverse the transaction at a time of your choosing, because I put some resources into completing that transaction on the understanding that it would be final.

This sort of thing should be against the law, if it isn’t already in some technical way. If you run a DRM service and decide to cancel render it inoperative after the fact, the only lawful course of action should be to make software available to remove the DRM from all purchased tracks (rentals not included, obviously).

Nothing else is even remotely fair. And if the content providers refuse to allow it, then the law should go after them as well, as they were party to the agreement.

Google stops Videos for Sale / Rent: A blessing in disguise?

They sould have mentioned from the start the full refund. Oh well…

-Will Richmond

Wire fraud.

Google SOLD videos to people and pocketed the money. Simple as that.

Can you say S.E.C?

Now you own it – now you don’t.  That’s the new Google game.  Videos you you “purchased” will no longer play in three days.  Reimbursement?  Forget it: you get partial and arbitrary credit to spend within 60…

The only good news is that this is an almost perfect situation to illustrate for people the evils of drm. In the future, whenever someone argues that drm isn’t a problem if you aren’t trying to make copies, this episode will provide a perfect response.

Buying something online with drm isn’t buying at all; it’s renting for as long as the company continues to support the drm.

“Thank you for your support, but our XX is going away. You can transfer all your data to our storage service for $1/Gb. cha-ching! For the hassle we give you $1 in Checkout money, which itself will be going away in 6months (and remaining funds in your account will be forfeited to the Jumbo 747 Google mobile for a good cause like global warming. Thanks for using Google and loving our beta products until they die!”

While it is true that sometimes a policy may be simply stupid and not “evil,” once the seed is planted, it is hard to go back again, isn’t it. It is the same with Apple. They are making policy decisions that simply would not have happened in the days of fighting for survival. This past week they were shipping iWork06 packages that arrived on the day the new version was released. As long as the happy consumer does not open it they can exchange if, but it they did not read the paper that day? Tough luck, I guess. As is true of others (like me) who happened to buy it two weeks ago. In the good old days they never would have shipped the old version if a new one was coming out in two days.

And the new tagline: You can’t be too thin. Really? That might be true of a monitor but it has many other meanings to many other people.

Again, not evil, just stupid.

There was a time when Google and Apple did not do stupid.

Yes, you’re missing two things. First is that Goole had two different video deals happening — a rental and an ownership (where they promised the video would be viewable forever). It’s this latter group who are understandably upset — they’ve been ripped off.

Secondly, Google is not, in fact, offering refunds. They are offering store credit to people who bought videos. But even that is theft in disguise: you have spend an amount equal to the “credit” in order to get your credit.

In other words, Google is saying “Sorry we stole from you, but we’ll let you play double-or-nothing!”