DRM 'Too Complicated' Says Gates 196
arbirk writes "BBC News is reporting on comments made by Bill Gates concerning DRM.. It seems he has got the point (DRM is bad for consumers), but that opinion differs widely from the approach taken by Microsoft on Zune and their other music related products. The comments were originally posted on Micro Persuasion. The article also has a take on Apple's DRM." From the BBC article: "Microsoft is one of the biggest exponents of DRM, which is used to protect music and video files on lots of different online services, including Napster and the Zune store. Blogger Michael Arrington, of Techcrunch.com, said Bill Gates' short-term advice for people wanting to transfer songs from one system to another was to 'buy a CD and rip it'. Most CDs do not have any copy protection and can be copied to a PC and to an MP3 player easily and, in the United States at least, legally."
Interesting stance (Score:5, Insightful)
erm to be fair (Score:5, Insightful)
Not legal in the UK (Score:5, Insightful)
So if he's in favour of fair use, isn't installing software also fair use (and not copying) and so trying to force people to accept an EULA when installing software (by claiming it's necessary to obtain a copyright license for the copying made during installation) is baseless.
They're exercising their fair use by installing software they bought, hence they don't need a license to do that, hence you can't force an EULA on them under guise of copyright license, because they don't need one.
The saddest thing about this, is that it's not legal in the UK to rip CDs to MP3.
It was in the past, when it was a civil offense and since it had no damages (no lost sales), there were no damages to sue for. Hence they had fair use in the UK, well sort of anyway. That was lost when copyright infringement was moved to criminal law. That was done due to a treaty in the EU lobbied by the BSA, in which they decided it didn't need a fair use clause.
Who's BSA's main client? Begins with M? ends in $?
Gates is right, but has an ulterior motive (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright holder's blame (Score:5, Insightful)
He's just saying that it is too complicated... (Score:4, Insightful)
I am sure Gates has a fabulous scheme to make DRM simpler in the long term. But he's not going to reveal to a bunch of bloggers in a room.
This is not a mea culpa or a reversal by Gates or Microsoft. He's merely acknowledging that it's a pain in the ass for consumers... in the short term.
Re:Interesting stance (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no contradiction between Gates saying DRM is bad for consumers and Microsoft espousing DRM - since when did Gates do anything that benefited consumers without first being dragged through a courtroom?
Re:erm to be fair (Score:3, Insightful)
However I think MS is also pushing DRM as a method for businesses to control the distribution and usage of their internal documents which would have happened regardless of the media corporations simply because it helps lock people in to the MS product line so for Bill to say he is against DRM is somewhat disingenous to say the least.
what he is saying... (Score:5, Insightful)
He is being characteristically vague, but you can bet that he is either implying that Microsoft's DRM is already better than everybody else, or he is laying the groundwork for announcing some new Microsoft DRM scheme somewhere down the road.
Re:Interesting stance (Score:5, Insightful)
I would say it's a realisation at all. I suspect he has, like many of us, known this to be the case pretty much from the outset. Whatever many may say about Bill, dumb he most certainly is not, so you can bet that most of the arguments swarming around about DRM will be ones he not only aware of, but has mentally rehearsed many times in his own head before talking about it to meetings.
However, he is at the head of an enormous corporation, with assets to protect and the need to maintain revenues. The decisions are clear: with the MS market model and lock-ins to their software and systems, DRM is a desirable (and possibly even necessary) by-product. It may not be ultimately best for consumers (at least in our eyes), but it is useful for his company. That's his business, you can't blame him for that. His reponsibility is to his shareholders (that's a whole other issue).
That we have a mass marketplace that accepts all of this is more of a worry, but that is the thing that is in our hands. A single dominant vendor or platform is bad for innovation and growth, whether that would be Microsoft, Apple or any other (like a dominant Linux distro). The modern computing world is necessarily heterogeneous and those who accept and evolve in that way will find themselves equipped to deal with the future. And I think Bill Gates is keenly aware of that fact, whatever we may think and however we think Micsrosoft are behaving.
I rather suspect DRM is struggling, but that people like Gates have a great deal invested in preserving at least some of that structure. He may be sitting on the fence just a little to see how things shake out. Not a stupid move in his position, it has to be said.
Not complicated at all (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:DRM is not too complicated (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Copyright holder's blame (Score:3, Insightful)
If it were up to MS or Apple.. there would probably not be any DRM protection in their products.
Really? You mean like how I can install OS X on any hardware I choose, or how I can easily install and uninstall Windows from PC to PC? Don't kid yourself -- Apple and Microsoft own billions in IP and already control how and where you can use their products. If that's not Digital Rights Management, I don't know what is.
Re:Interesting stance (Score:5, Insightful)
he is at the head of an enormous corporation, with assets to protect and the need to maintain revenues
Those assests obviously include the partnerships with the media that provides the content MS so obviously needs (as does, of course Apple and, growingly, cellphone provides.) So short of MS, Apple and all the others collectively saying, "You know what RIAA, MPAA, etc. Bite me. Our consumers drive our success, and the artists successes drive your warchests and we're not going to play anymore," I just don't see there being an end to increasingly complex, PITA DRM."
"DRM is not where it should be" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Interesting stance (Score:1, Insightful)
No, no, NO! (Score:3, Insightful)
An all-too familiar example: I have the right to take free software code and do whatever I like with it for my own use. That's a right because I don't have to pay anyone, ask anyone or even let anyone know I'm doing it. It is a pre-established fact that people can do this, so it is a right. Thank whatever deity is in vogue this week that I don't exercise it very often, because my coding skills are unique: They both suck and blow all at the same time.
When you have to give up something (in the case of recorded art, money) to allow you to do certain things, it's called a licence (license, for the Leftpondians). That's where the GPL kicks in. I don't have the right to distribute free software unless I agree to the GPL, which places certain restrictions upon me. That then becomes a licence, as I have agreed to supply full source under the same licence in return for the ability to distribute derivative code. What I have given up is the ability to licence my own bits of code under any other licence if I wish to use the GPL code as a base. A licence simply gives you the ability to do something you have no innate right to do.
Over in Leftpondia, you have the right to format-shift (but again, like the GPL, not to distribute the results of that format shift) recorded arts for personal use. It's a statutory right, in fact, assumed to apply regardless of licence covering the recording. DRM *removes* that right from you, which is why it's viewed as a heinous application of technology. We have few enough rights as it is, without the corporations eroding them even further. DRM might even be illegal, although I admit to not understanding US law at all. Over here in the UK, things are a little different and we have no right to format-shift whatsoever. Even making a bit-by-bit backup of a CD is technically illegal.
Disclaimer: Dastardly Rights Modification, not Direct Rendering Manager, which is the nice version of the acronym.
That's not DRM though. (Score:3, Insightful)
If I buy a copy of XP and install it. Then buy a copy of Office and install it. The two pieces of software aren't locked together. I can legally and easily take my copy of Office off one machine and put onto another one.
Evil DRM ridden future will be where my Office validates and locks against my copy of XP. Maybe the argument would be between windows and OSX versions of software. I can't just buy 'office' - I buy office for OSX or office for XP.
Somebody who has bought the product for XP and wants to switch to OSX (or vica versa) might be put off by having to re-buy the software they've already got just to allow it to run on a new platform (buch like rebuying the same tune to play it on Zune instead of their ipod).
He didn't say "DRM is too complex" or bad. (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't at odds with Microsoft's position, which is that making DRM an integral part of the OS is the best way to implement it. If you trust Microsoft, they will make DRM simple. And that will make it good.
Re:Interesting stance (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Copyright holder's blame (Score:1, Insightful)
Apple doesn't have any serial number to install their OS. You can buy one copy and install it on 10 computers that are networked together in your home.
In conclusion, you're a moron. It's not Apple's responsibility to make their OS run on every piece of hardware available.
Stop crying about how you can't dual boot OS X alongside your homebrew linux os that you've been developing on the $100 PC you have in your moms garage. If you want to use OS X, then go support the development of it by buying a Mac.
The parents post is not insightful. Apple is forced to implement DRM by the media cartels. It's so easy to break, there's no reason to waste time implementing it or updating it except to appease the fucktards who are bankrolling britney spears.
No, WGA is simple and fair (Score:-1, Insightful)
Re:You brought it on yourselves (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pot meet the kettle (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Not legal in the UK (Score:3, Insightful)
You raised two separate issues here:
No. In the U.S., "fair use" is not a right but a defense to infringement. Infringement is performing an act exclusively reserved to the copyright holder without permission — namely, copying, distributing, preparing a derivative, or publicly performing the work (17 U.S.C. 106). Normally these acts make you liable. "Fair use" says "Yes I did one of these things without permission, but it's ok because X allows me to" where X is a judicially recognized exception like research, commentary, criticism, education, parody, etc (it's an open-ended category).
Installing software is not fair use. Fair use depends on context: the same action can be fair use in one instance but not in another. It's more of an implied license. Installing software from (say) CD onto your hard disk creates another copy of it, as does loading it into RAM for execution. Creating copies is an exclusive right. Since the copyright holder knows (and in fact intends) that you make these copies to use his software, he has implicitly given you permission by authorizing the creation of the initial copy (on CD or whatever).
Yes copyright law is hopelessly obsessed with individual "copies". When you bolt pre-industrial artistic protections onto a functional digital medium, dumb things are bound to happen. Personally I can't wait for software to be distributed on a device (perhaps flash-based) which gets executed in situ (i.e. no additional copies made). That's just gonna blow some courts mind.
A EULA is not necessary but it is enforceable. As I said, the software requires permission to install and use. In the default state (no EULA) this permission is implied. A EULA is just a set of terms supplementing the default, implied contract. Post-sale term additions to any contract are perfectly valid within certain guidelines (reasonable notice, opportunity to reject, nothing unconscionable, etc). The case law is long settled on this. So in summary, you are right that a EULA is not required for copyright purposes, but they are perfectly justified under contract law.
Yes IAAL student.
Re:Interesting stance (Score:5, Insightful)
No, there is a choice. The iPod requires no DRM. The use of DRM FairPlay content from the iTunes Store is entirely up to the consumer, who can choose to use their own MP3s, buy CDs and rip, or even just use iTunes to access free Podcast content through iTunes and other sources.
There are no features on the iPod that demand DRM. Zero.
Microsoft's PlaysForSure and the competing Zune are based on DRM. The centerpiece of PFS is subscription music, which requires complex DRM on the player. The iPod intentionally *can't* delete your content or prevent you from listening to it past the end of the month. The highly touted feature of Zune is wireless sharing, which is similarly encrusted with DRM restrictions. Even if the device does not re-encode the files, it does quarantine them to prevent second hand sharing and terminates them before others can use them. It's DRM.
So you are lying: Microsoft is not at all forthcoming about DRM, it's lying and hiding its unfair DRM manifesto. Windows and Office are now both crippled by invasive and draconian DRM "activation" that is unfair and abusive, as is their Janus / WMA media player technology and products based upon it. Microsoft invented Palladium, remember?
WMA and WGA are abusive DRM for your media and OS: unreasonably stacked in the vendor's favor, subject to change unilaterally, and priced by a monopoly power, not the market.
For you to ignore all that and turn around and try to vilify the iPod--which provides the least offensive DRM system as an optional side dish--makes it clear who the "fanboi" really is.
The Danger of DRM [roughlydrafted.com]
The Two Faced Monster Inside Zune [roughlydrafted.com]
The Register's Collapsing iTunes Store Myth [roughlydrafted.com]