Here is an interesting DRM question. Suppose you buy a DRM enabled product and your vendor decides that, well, it didn’t really want to offer that product anymore. That is one of the arguments that have been raised about DRM in the past. It has been dismissed as a silly argument, or FUD. The argument often dismissed as Reductio ad Absurdum. Now it’s not so Absurdum:
After August 15, 2007, you will no longer be able to view your purchased or rented videos.
Yes, as of today, all the DRM-enabled videos you bought from Google are now just convenient ways to reduce excess disk capacity.
One would imagine that Google would offer a refund in this case. After all, you bought a video which they have rendered ineffective. If you thought that was the case you will be disappointed. Instead you will be offered the option to buy more stuff from Google, with a credit for having been so gullible as to trust them in the first place.
Google owes it’s customers a full and unconditional refund. Anything less is inexcusable. And grounds for a class action lawsuit.
Of course DRM systems that do not require active participation of an on-line service can’t be disabled like the Google DRM was. Never the less, this incident serves as a warning when considering buying DRM enabled products. It reminds you that the vendor doesn’t really believe you bought anything. They see it as a rental agreement that can be terminated at their discretion.