Slashdot Mirror
Bill Gates Speaks Out Against Next-Gen DVDs
jZnat writes "Although we all know that Microsoft hates Blu-Ray, Bill Gates doesn't seem to like HD-DVD either. Primarily, it seems, because Mr. Gates believes media storage on hard drives is likely to be the default standard sooner rather than later. From the interview: 'Well, the key issue here is that the protection scheme under Blu-Ray is very anti-consumer and there's not much visibility of that. The inconvenience is that the [MPAA] got too much protection at the expense of consumers and it won't work well on PCs. You won't be able to play movies and do software in a flexible way.'"
Is an interesting idea, but, for it too work there has to be a distorbution system in place, that means high bandwidth. I think disks will be around a lot longer then mr. Gates thinks.
I hate to admit it but, I actually agree w/ Billy on this one...
While Bill Gates talks about how content should be hard drive based, The ITMS actually lets you buy epsisodes of lost for $2.
If you are going to make a format irrelevant, provide a viable alternative Bill.
It should be noted that every decision at MS is not necessarily Billy Boy's decision. Bill Gates is a public figure, the public knows him. But companies are not just one man shows, especially ones as large as MS.
~X~
~X~
It is true that organizations are looking at blu-ray only to hedge their bets. Blu-ray can easily prevent people from properly using the format - it is loaded with an unprecidented amount of "control" technology that can be used to target or knock out particular hardware or software products. If I were a hardware or software vendor, I'd be very concerned about blu-ray. As a consumer, I'd be only more concerned - what if the disc I buy rejects my player or computer or software package? Instead of one simple standard like the classic CD, suddenly there are thousands of incompatibilities, all with the name "blu-ray". Crazy! I can foresee the side panel of blu-ray box, with a technology compatibility list 100 lines long. This is not what we need.
As a system that is loaded with patents and license agreements, you can bet that blu-ray will be well supported by industry licensees until the key patents start to expire. Then you can expect a mass-exodus to a new, yet unnamed "standard" that has more patent protection. Given the most of the patents involved are 3-10 years old, give Blu-Ray a 10 year life.
Funny how he was riding the HD-DVD parade all the way up until Warner Bros jumped ship this week, spelling pretty much the death of the format. Now, he's all about direct digital distribution? Sure optical media is going the way of the dodo, but Gates is very much flop-flopping here.
Too expensive.
Let's face it: For distributable media, people don't care about RW capabilities.
That's where next-gen recordable media comes in.
Of course the scheme is anti-consumer -- on that I agree with Gates. However, the HD-DVD is also anti-consumer, only marginally less so. The fact is *both* of these new standards are anti-consumer and both make sure that the players are never truly out of the control of the manufacturers... they are never really "owned" by the people who pay for them.
Gates' problem with Blu-ray is that it is controlled by Sony, the big dog in the console world where Microsoft wants to play. His "anti-consumer" argument is pure hypocrisy. Nevertheless, his outburst will hopefully highlight the issue and shine a light on the bullshit in both the HD-DVD camp and Blu-Ray and get some much needed publicity. Sadly, I don't expect mant journalists to either understand it, or investigate it properly -- they'll just let Gates frame the argument as HD-DVD = the consumer's friend, Blu-Ray = consumer's enemy.
He is right in his view that the MPAA will back blue ray because of the anticonsumer copy protection in the format.
He is also right when he says that people is increasingly storing stuff in hard drives because they are competitive on the price per dollar side and they are much more reliable than the easily scratched current recordable DVDs.
He is mostly wrong about a lot of other stuff, but I have to give him this one.
When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
Its DRM is Java-based.
What the hell .. we are going to like DRM because Bill Gates says it's wrong?
How stupid.
Anyone who realizes this cult mentality can use it against us. What if he's really pro DRM and saying he isn't? LOL!
Most of the postings on here are actually supporting DRM !! WTF??
Has their seething hatred of Bill Gates caused people to blindly lose their sense of reason??
Isn't it possible to hate without losing a sense of reason?
The conceptualization of a "disk" where you can read and write frequently at relative high speed doesn't change whether it's HD based, flash based, internet based or hologram based. I'm sure Gates still wants a file to be DRM'ed to death, he must make sure that MS are the gatekeepers.
Still. Cryptographic locks are potentially very interesting features for securing content, assessing authorship. Paraphrasing Linus: "_real_ men just upload their important stuff encrypted on ftp, and let the rest of the world mirror it". You're not really putting up stuff on ftp, but who knows what can be accessed without your explicit approval/knowledge. Preemptively act as if that was the case. Contrary to material properties, information is very resilient and durable. The only downsides are that it can be lost in an instant (hence the need for redundancy and backups) and can be disclosed in an innoportune fashion (hence the need for cryptographic protection).
As we embark (on the inevitable) road to making information a full-fledged property, we need to make sure all the usual ingredients of a property are present. Some will say that instead of trying to fit information in the usual definition of (material) property, we should instead enlarge and refine the definition of property. Sure, that doesn't invalidate the fact that we want to be able to protect and lock down information properties. What I guess I'm saying is that a property has attributes that are requisite for trade and that since our civilization is mostly built on that (and some form of democracy), any new property will have to incorporate those attributes we have come to rely upon.
Bill Gates doesn't care that Blu-Ray and HD-DVD use restrictive, anti-customer technologies. After all, Gates is that one who's letting Hollywood studios design the high-powered DRM in Windows Vista. He's the one crippling media playback on non-approved PC peripherals.
What Gates mostly cares about, I'll bet, is that Blu-Ray and HD-DVD keep your data chained to another vendor's disc. Microsoft could have a few problems with this; after all, the inability to back up or rip discs will make Windows look like a second-rate OS, while Linux will undoubtedly end up with open source DRM-cracking tools. Gates would rather keep your data locked into your Windows installation. That way, Microsoft-approved devices like the Xbox will work with it, but non-approved devices like the iPod won't.
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
Every time something he doesn't like (for whatever reason) starts to gain prominence, he makes comments like this in an attempt to freeze the market and play the White Knight with an alternative that is really, REALLY bad for consumers, but much better for him.
Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
"'Well, the key issue here is that the protection scheme under Blu-Ray is very anti-consumer and there's not much visibility of that. The inconvenience is that the [MPAA] got too much protection at the expense of consumers and it won't work well on PCs. You won't be able to play movies and do software in a flexible way.'"
Translation: ANY version of DRM where WE don't hold the keys? That will not do!
--MAB
Bill is not happy.
However, he has WMV9, DRM and high bandwidth broadband connections to play with. If he launches a solution that will enable you to encode and replay HD content via your PC - with say a movie at 720p in 10-15Gb then he can say to content providers "sell your content with my DRM, in my store, to replay on this system". They will say no, but he doesn't care, he just waits for the hackers to create a system to extract and replay Blu-Ray content via the new system. They can distribute it in the same way they distribute DVDs - at the same time fixing the existing holes that RIAA exploit.
People then have a choice of paying lots for a new system, and new content - or just a HD capable PC and the file sharing that people are already happy with. Cue movie industry meltdown.
This looks to be very much "play nice or I'll get nasty". He can make it so that the easiest HD solution is one based on file sharing. Expect to see secure download to your PC as part of an updated Blu-Ray and HD-DVD spec.
I think MS can just see the real implications of Blu-Ray and they know it's a danger to them (and consumers in general). I don't think MS is being altruistic here, it's just that this time the general good happens to coincide with their goals. I've talked to a few people involved in DRM work at MS. They say that MS is only supporting DRM to appease content providers. From their point of view it limits their capabilities and doesn't really buy them anything. However DRM is the only way to get content providers to play ball.
Now the real danger in the whole Blu-Ray issue is this. The DRM model for Blu-Ray is extremely restrictive and especially wouldn't play nice in a PC type environment. Also, Blu-Ray is a closed spec that must be licensed, so any deviation from this DRM model risks legal action by Sony. The content providers like this because it's a model with legal and/or technical barriers at every link in the chain. However if Blu-Ray really becomes the preferred format for HD media we risk a situation where Sony gets final say in all HD content distribution because they own this heavily restricted standard. So in the end Blu-Ray would become a monopoly coup for Sony and fair use would be seriously crippled in the HD world.
So I'd prefer HD-DVD mostly because it's an open spec that is by nature more consumer friendly. Of course, it also helps that HD-DVD will be significantly less expensive and available for large-scale production in the near term.
If the technology is so user-unfriendly, then it'll be defeated by the users, sorry, the customers. The customers already have a technology that works, called DVD. It works good enough for most of them, so you have to give them reasons to upgrade (Bill should know a thing or two about it, from a certain product he has, called Office). If you don't, you won't sell a Blue-Ray player ever.
Well, the studios could refuse to release the films in DVD format, but, you know, that's kind of difficult till you have a big customer base. After all, it's your main revenue source, you don't play with that. And then there is piracy. No amount of protection is going to protect the content, as you will always have at least the analog output to recode, and most likely a tweaked Blue-Ray player to play with.
So I don't particularly care one way or the other. If they protect too much, they'll never win market share, and hard disks are not the only competitor that they will find. Think cheap memory cards, for example. I personally think that these standards are a bit early in the day, driven more by the desire of selling us again the same old films in the shiny new format, than by any customer desire. If they really cared about the customer they would quit displaying stupid screens at the beginning of the DVDs that you cannot skip. I regularly copy my DVDs and you know what, the copies are more used by my family than the originals, because you simply pop the disk and the film starts, no menus, no nothing. So that's a customer desire (my family being fairly typical), and it's not even being considered.
Note to the studios: Do you want to end piracy? Sell DVDs at 3$ from the same day of the first screening, and you are done. You'll even win probably more money than now, as people will buy the cheap DVDs before their friend tell them that the film is no good (what happens with most films nowadays, which was the last film that left you Wow! ? For me it was the Matrix, and that's some years away).
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
Another post early on explained it in a great way. Gates may not necessarily care about consumer rights from a humanitarian perspective, but he certainly does from a business perspective.
Basically, he wants Windows to become the complete center of the digital home universe. Everything from TV, music, movies, home automation, personal management, purchases, etc will be done on and controlled by the computer. Problem is, Big Media doesn't want it's content accessible to computers unless they can be guaranteed people won't make copies and/or distribute their copyrighted works. Gates himself has nothing to gain, rather, everything to lose by caving in to high level DRM such as with Blu-Ray. He wants the computer/Windows to be the complete media management solution where people can do essentially anything with media, including stream/copy media to any computer in the house for playback. But again, the media conglomerates see that as an encroachment of their copyright, even if it falls under the category of fair-use.
Anything considered fair-use (in terms of media) is a good thing for Gates, because it means people are free to use his platform to do whatever they want with media they purchase.
I've talked to a few people involved in DRM work at MS. They say that MS is only supporting DRM to appease content providers. From their point of view it limits their capabilities and doesn't really buy them anything.
I would say it is a double edged sword, but it is definately not nothing. On one hand, you have the lock-in to Windows systems protected by hard DRM, on the other side, the infamous Star Wars quote. The last thing Microsoft wants is to create a world where people choose Linux because it is full of DRM workarounds (illegal as they might be), while Windows is stuck with a ton of restrictions. If people understand that "Trusted computing" means "Protected from the user", there will be trouble.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I've talked to a few people involved in DRM work at MS. They say that MS is only supporting DRM to appease content providers.
Chicken or the egg? MS is offering to the media providers, a method that MS will be part of from begining to end and can license and control to ensure it will only work on a PC loaded with some type of MS licensed software that someone somewhere paid for on your viewing end. Appeasing the content providers yes but the motivation is for their own benefit.
If there is going to be a flow of data from a content provider to you, MS wants to be a part of the action and extract fees from it. Of course everyone else wants a piece as well. The reason there no one "standard" now is playing out as the extractors battle it out for the method that will get them the most money. The better technology and a happy consumer are not even considered at this point. This scenario plays out for every new standard from memory subsystems, 56k modem protocols, HDTV encoding, to system buses and interfaces.
In the history of the world, no medium has been killed because folks couldn't afford to produce for it. Do you know how much it costs to run a symphony orchestra for a year? Yet much new symphonic music is written every year, and performed by the hundreds of symphony orchestras all over the world. This for a medium in which only a tiny fraction of the population is willing to listen at all. Note that ticket prices pay for only a fraction of the cost; the rest is made up in other ways.
If we can keep producing symphonies, I say movies aren't going anywhere, regardless of shifts in their profit model.