DRM 'Too Complicated' Says Gates

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."

Comments

No Wonder

[MECC]

From BBC headine: "Gates: Digital locks too complex"

I can see how it must seem that way to him.

From Micro Persuasion:
Q) What did you want to be when you grew up?
A) A lawyer.

That explains a lot. A hell of a lot.

Re:No Wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Q) What did you want to be when you grew up?
A) A lawyer.

That explains a lot. A hell of a lot.

Aaaahhhh, lawyer-hating on slashdot. How... predictable.

Re:No Wonder

[CubicleView]

Well don't keep me in suspense, what does it explain? Does he love watching reruns of Matlock or something?

Windows too?

[fishpick]

Ya think Bill might extend his logic to the WGA tool, the activation process and the Vista license?

"You should buy the media [Windows] and rip it to BitTorrent for others..."

Re:Windows too?

[Anonymous Coward]

His "rip it" comment was obviously for own use, so that comparison is all messed up. :-p

Re:Windows too?

[AmberBlackCat]

In the case of music, other people are potentially losing money to piracy but Zune sales may actually go up if people can easily get the music they want to play on it. In the case of Windows, Microsoft is potentially losing money to piracy. So for music, DRM is bad but for software, DRM is good.

Interesting stance

[ubrgeek]

I think it's an interesting realization for Gates, doubly so as the article points out because of the Draconian measures in place for Vista. I also wonder how long it will be until the RIAA comes out with some sort of press release countering the argument. Full-page WSJ ad, maybe? But the end result is, will MS make any changes to their official policies/practices, and does Bill's opinion really matter when he's stepping out of his policy-setting positions at MS in a few years ...

Re:Interesting stance

[tomhudson]

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:Interesting stance

[uohcicds]

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.

Re:Interesting stance

[ubrgeek]

Excellent points. One part really stands out:

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."

Re:Interesting stance

[Gonarat]

I wonder if Bill even considers WGA to be DRM in his mind. After all, you can copy a Windows XP install disk (I imagine it is the same for Vista) all you want, so the Windows disk is not, in his mind, copy protected. WGA and activation are required to use Windows, but it is not required to install it. In most people's minds, this is DRM, but I could see where Bill Gates might really believe that this is not the case when it comes to Microsoft products since there is no "copy protection" on the actual media.

Re:Interesting stance

[Anonymous Coward]

Right on target. At least he is forthcoming in that way. And its not that MS is the only corporation doing it. I wonder why the Apple Fanbois are conveniently ignoreing iPod/iTunes DRM. Well, even if its not by Apple's choice, its there. And thats exactly what this interview says about Gates and MS - they may not like it, but they don't have a choice.

Re:Interesting stance

[Arwing]

I think Bill is taking an interesting attacking vector on iPod and by extension, ITMS. One of the biggest advantage of iPod is the easy to use/buy functionalities built into ITMS, and if people get away from ITMS and start using un-DRMed/self-ripped format such as mp3 (or God awful WMA), it's actually going to take a major advantage away from iPod therefore giving Zune a fighting chance (slim, but better than none).

Re:Interesting stance

[CastrTroy]

How is this any different than music on iTunes? You can make millions of copies of the iTunes files and distribute them where ever you want to. Getting them to play on an unlicensed computer is another story entirely. I don't see the difference between this and WGA. You can "Install" the music wherever you want, but don't try "using" the song without the activing the iTunes account on that computer.

Re:Interesting stance

[inviolet]

I wonder if Bill even considers WGA to be DRM in his mind. After all, you can copy a Windows XP install disk (I imagine it is the same for Vista) all you want, so the Windows disk is not, in his mind, copy protected. WGA and activation are required to use Windows, but it is not required to install it. In most people's minds, this is DRM, but I could see where Bill Gates might really believe that this is not the case when it comes to Microsoft products since there is no "copy protection" on the actual media.

Interesting. And maybe that's the right way to look at it. People who are smarter than I am, are working on an improved copyright ideology in which it is the experience, rather than the data, that is protected.

In this new ideology, everyone can freely transfer any files to anyone else; information wants to be free, after all. So share your movies with everyone... in the long run, that's what the studios want anyway. You only have to purchase a ticket when it comes time to actually experience the show.

There would presumably be some kind of trusted players which would bill you two cents each time you played a song. Yes, I know that that's an infuriating idea, but what's the alternative? Charging you to own the bytes (as we do today) is equally troublesome, and worse, does not accurately charge you for the actual amount of pleasure you get.

In Bill Gates' mind, then, everyone can download the Windows install disks. WGA comes along later to impose a fee (or whatever) only on the 'experience' of running Windows.

In my mind, I'd rather pay twenty-five cents for each Word document I edit, than to pay $400 for an installation of the software that I might only use twenty-five times. What I really need is pricing granularity, which today's "purchase the file" schemes fail to accomplish. Same for songs, movies, anything. WGA is objectionable and flawed, but at least it is a more granular purchase scheme than charging per distribution disc.

Re:Interesting stance

[NSIM]

I keep hearing this thing about "draconian DRM measures in Vista" and I still can't work out what they are. I've been using VISTA for over a years (installed RTM at the end of November and haven't rebooted since)and have yet to find a non-DRM file that VISTA isn't quite happy playing. I can still decrypt & RIP DVDs, rip CDs to MP3 etc, the only thing that I know that might hurt in the future (if I used a PC to watch DVD) is that you'll need an HDCP compliant graphics card to get full resolution from HD & BluRay disks. So come on, enlighten us, where is all this DRM in VISTA that is so bad?

Re:Interesting stance

[DECS]

Anonymous coward,

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
The Two Faced Monster Inside Zune
The Register's Collapsing iTunes Store Myth

Re:Interesting stance

[DECS]

The difference is that you can't push a button on your PC and dump out a plain, unencumbered disk containing Windows that you can then use on your replacement PC, or to reinstall on your PC after you do a significant upgrade, etc. You have to call India and ask for permission to use your copy of Windows.

With iTunes, there is a barrier to prevent wholesale, effortless dumping of paid music into Napster style sharing bin, but there is little real barrier to using your music in your car CD changer, or getting it on a Sansa, an Xbox, or wherever else you might want it: you burn a CD.

Of course, you knew that.

The Danger of DRM
The Two Faced Monster Inside Zune
The Register's Collapsing iTunes Store Myth

Re:Interesting stance

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple's kind of said that already. iTunes gives the MAFIAA everything they asked for: it is very restrictive and gives the sharks virtually all of the profit. Apple has taken "you can't compete with free" and turned it on it's head: they give away the cartridge and make money on the console. Consequently, none of the other wannabe players can compete and the MAFIAA is stuck holding an acorn in a hole. By submitting, Apple has gained complete control.

Re:Interesting stance

[CastrTroy]

Actually to play the file I actually downloaded on iTunes on another computer I have to install iTunes on said computer, and ask permission(via software) for the file to be playable. It's too bad if you want to play the file under a platform that doesn't support iTunes. Or if you even want to use some other non-memory hogging application to play your music. Sure you can burn it to CD and play that just about anywhere, But what if you don't have a CD burner? What if I buy a new MP3 player, and I want to listen to my iTunes files on it. Sorry, it's not an iPod, and it won't play, so I'd have to burn, rip, and encode to some other format, Losing quality, the metadata, and time in the process, Plus I have to be smart enough to figure out this 3 step process, and have 2 copies of every music file on my computer..

Re:Interesting stance

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

PlaysForSure devices and the Zune require no DRM. The use of DRM Windows Media content from online stores is entirely up to the consumer, who can choose to use their own MP3s, buy CDs and rip, or even just use WMP/Zune to access free podcast content through Urge and other sources.

There are no features on the iPod that demand DRM. Zero.

Unless you count the ability to puchase iTunes Store songs and play them on your iPod. This feature is an iPod exclusive. Is there a DRM-free iPod feature that a typical PlaysForSure device or Zune doesn't have?

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.

Subscription music is just one of two options, the other being virtually identical to FairPlay's system. Do iPod users prefer having fewer options?

The iPod intentionally *can't* delete your content or prevent you from listening to it past the end of the month.

If a PlayForSure/Zune user buys their content a-la-carte (like iTS songs), their device *can't* delete their content or prevent them from listening to it past the end of the month. In contrast, an iPod *can't* play music from a subscription service if the user prefers this method.

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.

Like playing FairPlay songs on iPods, wireless sharing is an optional feature of the Zune. If users don't like the DRM restrictions of this feature, then the Zune is still a usable player with many other features, just like the iPod sans FairPlay. In contrast, if an iPod user finds these restrictions acceptable, they cannot wirelessly share their music with other iPod users.

So you are lying: Microsoft is not at all forthcoming about DRM, it's lying and hiding its unfair DRM manifesto.

By calling that AC a liar, you are using moronic logic. Microsoft might be lying, but it's more reasonable to assume the Anonymous Coward was wrong or incorrect in his/her thinking, not intentionally telling an untruth. You, like Michael Moore, conveniently leave out important facts that show how weak your arguments are. In other words, you might tell the truth, but not the whole truth. That's just as bad as lying.

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 AC didn't vilify the iPod, just Apple fanbois (like you). For example, you tout FairPlay as "the least offensive DRM system" and "an optional side dish," yet you ingore the fact that PlaysForSure devices and the Zune also have this option.

DRM is good fror Microsoft

[MindStalker]

A friend recently had to sit through a sales presentation of Microsoft Corporate DRM (the kind that keeps your documents and other corporate files secure based on a rule set like the music DRM). And came out of it realizing that for the Corporate DRM to work they would have to replace ALL their software with Microsoft software. Lucikly they told MS to get lost with their solutions, but the point is MS sees DRM as a way of locking customers in perpetually to them. If you create a MS DRM document you will never, outside of hacking it, be able to transfer your files away from Microsoft.

Re:DRM is good fror Microsoft

[madcow_bg]

>If you create a MS DRM document you will never, outside of hacking it, be able to transfer your files away from Microsoft.

I don't believe that! Can't you send them with e-mail or decrypt it with some MS-provided tool?
Links, anyone?

Re:DRM is good fror Microsoft

[weave]

There is one nice feature of RMS (if I understand it correctly, have never used it before)...

The idea of being able to time-bomb documents appeals to me! :)

However, I'm betting there is probably a domain-admin key of some sort that can override that, otherwise employees would be time-bombing loads of docs they do.

btw, I wonder what Stallman thinks of Microsoft co-opting his initials for their "rights management server" :)

Re:DRM is good fror Microsoft

[MindStalker]

It depends upon the rule set. If your rules say. "This MUST stay inside the cooperation and can't be emailed or turned into a regular document." Then thats exactly what it will do. But if you allow that, then you aren't really "protecting" your cooperation. The thing is that there are some industry standard DRM schemes that allow you to keep the files locked but work with several vendors. The MS scheme is not compatible with any of these.

Re:DRM is good fror Microsoft

[networkBoy]

we use authentica and love it. excellent security for PDF's
-nb

Re:DRM is good fror Microsoft

[swillden]

excellent security for PDF's

How do you know? I haven't looked specifically at Authentica's products, but I have had the opportunity to attempt to analyze the security of a couple of similar products, with very disappointing results.

The bottom line with these sorts of products is that they cannot be truly secure. All they can do is add layers of obfuscation that make it difficult for non-technical people to bypass their restrictions (well other than by, say, taking digital photos of the screen). Done right, they can make it obscure enough to deter most people. The problem is that there is almost no way to know how good a job they have done without either (a) getting technical details from the vendor which they almost certainly won't provide or (b) actually trying to hack it, which usually means violating an EULA.

The two products I analyzed (neither of which exist any more, this was years ago, before there was a large market for this stuff) both turned out to be rather weak. I couldn't really publish my results, though, because I had to break the EULAs in order to evaluate the security. So although my clients knew to avoid the products, I'm sure plenty of other people didn't.

Re:DRM is good fror Microsoft

[SevenHands]

Time Bombing a document. Like Mission Impossible's self destructing messages. For some nagging reason I don't really see how this could effectively work. There are too many ways to overcome this one. Just setting the system clock back on one's computer, or setting up a tweaked NTP time server if the time bombed document is advanced enough to query the server (which I highly doubt). Accessing the document via alternate application, mounting partition from within another OS, etc...

Whatever type of DRM scheme is used, it's just a matter of time and it'll be compromised...

Re:DRM is good fror Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

I see that you are not familiar with Trusted Computing hardware -- it's long past the time when you should be. All of these are impossible once you are shackled with a TPM in your machine providing DRM in hardware.

Re:DRM is good fror Microsoft

[networkBoy]

Yeah, it's actually better than most. It encrypts the PDF and (depending on settings) requires you to be logged into an authentication server to view the document. Also, clears out the display ram so aside from sniffing the video to the monitor or taking pics you're secure. I'm sure the encryption could be broken, or as we use on most docs, you can check out the document for 72 hours, which is plenty to go off-line and sniff the video or simply photograph your notebook screen at home.

Again the user is usually the weakest link.
Also, AFAIK our IS staff was given access to the source and an in-depth archecture review (with a hell of an NDA of course).
-nB

Re:DRM is good fror Microsoft

[swillden]

Yeah, it's actually better than most.

How do you know? The fact that it encrypts the data doesn't mean a thing, since the decryption keys have to be available. Where are they? How are they protected? Even if it's well done (which is very, very hard to achieve, actually, since it's a fundamentally insoluble problem on a general-purpose computer), how can you possibly *know* that it's well done?

I will continue to recommend against such tools. I think they do more damage than good, because of the false sense of security they create. Not to mention the fact that they're typically fairly expensive, and I think that money is much better spent on educating users.

Exponents?

[Chazmyrr]

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Re:Exponents?

[bilbravo]

That was my first thought... methinks the word desired was "proponents". :-)

Re:Exponents?

[Dunbal]

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

exponent (k-sp'nnt, k'sp'nnt) Pronunciation Key
n. 1. One that expounds or interprets.
      2. One that speaks for, represents, or advocates: Our senator is an exponent of free trade.
      3. Abbr. exp Mathematics A number or symbol, as 3 in (x + y)3, placed to the right of and above another number, symbol, or expression, denoting the power to which that number, symbol, or expression is to be raised. Also called power.

      Your new word for the day. It is used correctly.

Re:Exponents?

[zolaris]

Actually I think it does mean what he thinks it means. I didn't know this, I'll admit I had to look it up but:

exponent (k-sp'nnt, k'sp'nnt)
n.
1. One that expounds or interprets.
2. One that speaks for, represents, or advocates: Our senator is an exponent of free trade.
3. Abbr. exp Mathematics A number or symbol, as 3 in (x + y)3, placed to the right of and above another number, symbol, or expression, denoting the power to which that number, symbol, or expression is to be raised. Also called power. --The American Heritage Dictionary

So Microsoft advocates DRM.

Re:Exponents?

[cascadingstylesheet]

>Your new word for the day. It is used correctly.

Maybe it's more common on that side of the pond? The OP's thought was my first thought too. In speech or writing in the U.S. I always see "proponent".

Now somebody's going to post a bunch of statistics on how it's used all the time here ...

Re:Exponents?

[John Nowak]

I live in the US and it made sense to me. :-)

Re:Exponents?

[thc69]

I was too busy trying to evaluate pow(DRM,Microsoft) to realize that it could possibly mean anything else...

Re:Exponents?

[armb]

Proponent would be more usual in that example in UK English too. Exponent if they were doing the advocating by demonstration, so that sense one of the Chambers definition also applies:
exponent noun 1 someone able to perform some art or activity, especially skilfully. 2 someone who explains and promotes (a theory or belief, etc). 3 math a number that indicates how many times a given quantity, called the base, is to be multiplied by itself, usually denoted by a superscript number or symbol immediately after the quantity concerned, eg 64 = 6 x 6 x 6 x 6. Also called power, index.
cf. proponent noun a supporter or advocate of something; someone who argues in favour of their cause.

erm to be fair

[goldcd]

DRM is Microsoft's problem - not their fault. The fault rests solely with the music industry and their failure to recognize this media-less thing might catch one and their failure to create their own unified DRM standard from the start.

Re:erm to be fair

[CmdrGravy]

With regard to media I agree the *AAs are the ones putting on the pressure.

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.

Re:erm to be fair

[jellomizer]

True. The problem is not as much they want to spend their time programming stuff that their customers hate. But Companies want to expand into digital over the internet media, and the only way they can play is to add DRM to their product. Because the content providers are afraid if there is no DRM Piracy will go out of control.

Re:erm to be fair

[Lonewolf666]

Microsoft is powerful enough that they might be able to get away with refusing to implement DRM. What could the music and film industry do? Not release on PC-compatible media at all??

I think Microsoft might be able to win that one if they tried. Instead, they went the path of least resistance (or so they believe).

Re:erm to be fair

[Don_dumb]

DRM is Microsoft's problem - not their fault.The fault rests solely with the music industry and their failure to recognize this media-less thing might catch one and their failure to create their own unified DRM standard from the start. You might be right with respect to movies & music - leading to the Windows Media Player DRM. However, I dont think the **AA had any influence for Windows Genuine (dis)Advantge, or Windows Activation schemes, only Microsoft themselves could have had any input into those schemes.

Re:erm to be fair

[DrSkwid]

So DRM on Word documents is something to do with the music industry?

Explain that one to me...

Re:erm to be fair

[man_ls]

As a technical service provider, I have to say I rather like WGA -- I work for a large corporation providing end-user support, and when anyone comes in saying "I did the updates on this machine I bought from the shop down the road..." and they have a WGA prompt, it means an easy sale of several hundred dollars to sell them a legit license, with a CoA and that will actually pass validation.

I also like it because it keeps people honest. Nobody has the right to pirate anything -- be it 14 year old kid who wipes XP Home off his computer to put XP Pro on there for no good reason except to say he did, or some real estate broker who did it basically for the same reason. Seeing how all off-the-shelf PCs from major dealers are licensed anyway, and OEM copies are a fraction of that of a retail one if you're a system builder, there is no excuse for people to be pirating Windows at all.

Windows Genuine Advantage and Windows Activation are an attempt to stop enterprise piracy and corrupt dealers from making a profit at Microsoft's expense, with neither remitting anything back to the source. They aren't perfect -- but then again, there isn't really any objective way to say "you got a new computer" versus "you had your motherboard replaced" and things like that are what causes the screwups.

Re:erm to be fair

[Anonymous Coward]

DRM is Microsoft's problem - not their fault.

Fuck you. Microsoft and Intel are the two biggest exponents of DRM. Intel has spent the last ten years designing hardware that works against its owner. About 1998 or so, I remember hearing a talk by an Intel engineer saying that the next big thing in security will be making a computer secure against its owner. Microsoft, Intel and Compaq set out to design PC hardware (the TPMs that are appearing in most PCs today) to do just this... with DRM in mind. Intel also went to work on stuff like HDCP (which will be in all HDTV televisions) and other lock down encryption schemes.

Why did they do this? It sure as hell wasn't just for the movie and TV industries. It was because these technologies allow THEM to control PCs, not the owners. Control over movies and music is just a happy by-product of this for the technology companies. In case anyone hasn't realised it yet... DRM is not about music and video piracy particularly. DRM is about controlling the code that can run and accesses certain data. You provide a means, hardware in the case of TPMs, that allows you to encrypt data (say, music) and only unencrypt it for access by specific pieces of code (say, particular codecs, device drivers and media players)... and then you vet the code of anyone who wants to access that data to ensure that it obeys Rights Management rules.

This, of course, isn't limit to music. It works for pictures, web pages, other software (apps are just data to an operating system)... emails, documents (your computer's hardware works to ensure that ONLY Microsoft approved code can open your .doc files etc)... anything at all. It's also anti-piracy hardware. It also allows code to be executed in secret... meaning you can't put a debugger on a piece of code and find out what it's doing. It's a Microsoft trade secret after all.

This is the reality of DRM... and whatever Gates, Ballmer, Jobs, Intel, IBM and Sun etc say publicly... they all want it very badly.

Re:erm to be fair

[ifrag]

Because the content providers are afraid if there is no DRM Piracy will go out of control.

Hehe, thing is the content providers already claim that's the case. I think their own word for it is "devastated" by online file sharing.

Re:erm to be fair

[soft_guy]

Microsoft is powerful enough that they might be able to get away with refusing to implement DRM. What could the music and film industry do? Not release on PC-compatible media at all??
 
I think Microsoft might be able to win that one if they tried. Instead, they went the path of least resistance (or so they believe). The only way that Microsoft could do what you are saying is if they were to buy all the record companies. They may have the money to do that. I'm not sure if the FTC would approve it, though. Just being "powerful" isn't enough.

Re:erm to be fair

[Don_dumb]

WGA doesn't keep people honest, it just makes pirates use the corporate versions, while those of us that are honest, have to fight against it to use the software we paid for.

WGA like all forms of DRM is a bad thing, it punishes legitimate customers, while pirates are unaffected.

As a technical service provider, I have to say I rather like WGA -- I work for a large corporation providing end-user support, and when anyone comes in saying "I did the updates on this machine I bought from the shop down the road..." and they have a WGA prompt, it means an easy sale of several hundred dollars to sell them a legit license, with a CoA and that will actually pass validation.

How many false positives have you used to fleece 'easy business' out of people, I wonder. I apologise if I am wrong, but your company sounds like a parasite. From what you say, those people paid TWICE for an XP license, if they did get an unlicensed copy then the shop should be prosecuted and the customer should get a replacement legit copy for free (from MS I believe), but that won't help your business, will it?

Re:erm to be fair

[Miamicanes]

... and, of course, is also a source of endless frustration for individuals who bought a new laptop with XP Pro, but were given ONLY a bastardized crapware-infested image on a restore disk... so they CAN'T wipe the drive and do a nice, clean installation of XP Pro without blowing another $140+ for a second copy of an OS they already paid for -- or hunt down an activation-free corporate copy and disable auto-update on the theory that Microsoft's endless nagging about their copy being non-Genuine(TM) is more annoying than buffer overflows and malware. Not good, but a Faustian bargain Microsoft has forced a few million laptop owners into because they neither require OEMs to provide clean, virgin Windows installation CDs nor provide any non-extortionate means of escape.

And of course, there's the whole insanity of Microsoft requiring the purchase of separate Windows licenses for use in a VM. Now, in Microsoft's defense, I suspect they'd be perfectly cool with making the license to Vista Ultimate recursive (ie, allowing you to run Vista Ultimate on as many hosted virtual machines as you want, as long as the real PC itself is running Vista Ultimate), but can't think of any good way to actually make WGA recognize when it's running on a virtual machine hosted on a computer running a Genuine Copy that couldn't be spoofed to enable the same technique to be used on standalone PCs.

Re:erm to be fair

[Lonewolf666]

No, I'm suggesting that Microsoft could say "no (additional, I'd keep DVD playback as it is) DRM will be integrated in our OS". Then the MPAA/RIAA could
a) release new stuff only on standalone players or game consoles (PS3) which support the new format
b) cave in because they don't want to lose customers who have only a PC.
c) try a) and cave in later if the new, DRM'ed formats won't sell.

Personally, I suspect it would come to c). Excessively restrictive protection schemes have failed before, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIVX. And DVD is "good enough" for many people, so the number of enthusiasts who "absolutely need" HDTV and are willing to put up with more DRM might be limited.

Another proponent of DRM is...

[Anonymous Coward]

...the BBC!

Great guns for public service broadcasting and extra special thanks to John Birt. Birt got Armarni suits and the public got shafted.

Wow!

[OurNewOverloard]

He's going to be shocked to find out that Vista is a DRM hell hole. Maybe Steve never told him.

Re:Wow!

[drsmithy]

He's going to be shocked to find out that Vista is a DRM hell hole. Maybe Steve never told him.

Vista's "DRM" isn't any different to XP's (or even 2000's) "DRM". It won't magically DRM-encumber to your currently unencumbered media (unless you tell it to of course).

If you don't want to be restricted by DRM, don't buy DRMed content. Follow that rule, and Vista is no more "DRMed" than any other platform.

Re:Wow!

[MECC]

Maybe Steve never told him.

Maybe they just don't sit down together and talk the way they used to...

Re:Wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they just don't sit down together and talk the way they used to...

Could that be due to a lack of chairs?

Re:Wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe everyone on Microsoft gets to run the special in-house only DRM-free build of windows, you know the one built with -DNO_DRM?

Re:Wow!

[kimvette]

Bill is afraid of having a chair thrown at him. You've seen how big and how psycho Ballmer is, and how scrawny Bill Gates is. Hell, I'd bet I could kick Bill Gate's butt in a fight.

Re:Wow!

[slim-t]

XP has DRM problems too. After weeks of the stupid thing telling me there were updates available, I finally gave the ok to install IE7 (I use Firefox). The installer starts and told me it needed to validate my copy of Windows... sure what the hell, I paid for it... the stupid "Validating Windows" window was on the screen for at least 5 minutes before I decided to close it.

Before anybody recommends Ubuntu.. I will install it, after I'm done with Zelda.

Re:Wow!

[jayloden]

Maybe they just don't sit down together and talk the way they used to... That's because Ballmer's office no longer has any chairs...

Not legal in the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

"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."

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 $?

Re:Not legal in the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, they have copyright on the software. Any country that's a member of the WTO (most nations) had to agree to the TRIPs treaty, a provision of which is that Computer Programs must be treated as literary works under the Berne Convention. What the EULA does is add an additional set of restrictions under _contract law_ (a license), which is entirely distinct. And, as I and many other people feel, an abuse that perverts the purpose of the copyright system.

Re:Not legal in the UK

[RDW]

'The saddest thing about this, is that it's not legal in the UK to rip CDs to MP3.'

This at least may well change quite soon, if the government acts on the Gowers Review:

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/ gowers_review_intellectual_property/gowersreview_i ndex.cfm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6214108.s tm

Re:Not legal in the UK

[eddeye]

You raised two separate issues here:

So if he's in favour of fair use, isn't installing software also fair use (and not copying)...

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.

...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.

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:Not legal in the UK

[TGTilde]

I may be totally wrong about this, but in the United States aren't you paying for a license when you buy the software? I was under the impression that the software maker retains all ownership of the code, you are simply buying the right to install the software following the rules of their license. If anyone can clarify this that would be great.

Re:Not legal in the UK

[Fred Foobar]

"Congress has long recognized that it is necessary to make incidental copies of digital works in order to use them on computers."

See http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise20. html

Basically, installing and running a program are allowed without permission from the copyright owner. This means you don't need to accept an EULA to install the program.

Pot meet the kettle

[peragrin]

Apple's fairplay DRM is consistent. What you can do with one song you can do with all the songs.

Windows Media DRM can vary based on any number of factors but is what the RIAA wants. They want to limit how some songs are played. Some songs can be burned to cd 5 times others never at all. MSFT bowed to the pressure of the RIAA to try and undercut Apple and instead got bitten by consumers who only got confused.

While I don't care for DRM I do see the point. Of course the rights granted by the DRM must follow fair use guidelines. So far no one has done that.

Re:Pot meet the kettle

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Of course the rights granted by the DRM must follow fair use guidelines. So far no one has done that.

What part of Apple's system doesn't? It allows five computers and an unlimited number of iPods. It's easy to write to an audio CD, up to seven CDs of a particular playlist. If you change the playlist by a minute (add a one minute track at the end), or make a new playlist with same tracks, you can get seven more burns. You can even use their program to rip that CD to get an unencrypted (albiet slightly lower quality) file, they've never tried to stop that.

It's not that I like DRM, but I would consider Apple's system to be more lenient than what fair use case law might allow.

Re:Pot meet the kettle

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, this fucker is only complaining 'cause for once he doesn't control the standard.

"But we don't have the right thing here in terms of simplicity or interoperability," he added.

Yeah, like PlaysForSure?

Re:Pot meet the kettle

[MBGMorden]

While I don't care for DRM I do see the point. Of course the rights granted by the DRM must follow fair use guidelines. So far no one has done that. Fair use simply gives a set of uses for which a content provider cannot sue you. They are not required to provide you with a method to exercise fair use.

Imagine the content holder as a huge orange grove owner. The local government sees it as 'fair use' if you pick an orange or two per day to eat (you can't resell them though). You bring in a bucket to fill up and they can sue. That doesn't mean however, that they're not free to put a big electric fence with barbed wire at the top around their grove. You still could take your orange per day if you could get to them . . . . but you can't do so without damaging their fence and getting sued for it.

Of course this analogy only works becuase the law sees IP as the same as physical property. Not something that I agree with, but for the time being it's the law of the land :(.

Re:Pot meet the kettle

[peragrin]

I agree Apple's unified system is a lot better. but what happens when I want to take a song or video to my sister's house for christmas but I already have my home computers authorised?

You can take a cd or dvd with you, drop it into any player and it will work.

That doesn't hold true for digital media. Apple shouldn't be specifying file formats, neither should MSFT. Fairplay at least uses AAC. So with better than WMA in that regard.

It should matter what company I choose to play the media on. That's the limit. Apple should license Fairplay at least to other music companies(real, napster, etc) if not hardware companies as well.

Re:Pot meet the kettle

[Somebody Is Using My]

Please don't tell me you just compared Apple to oranges...

Gates is right, but has an ulterior motive

[Theovon]

If everyone were to switch to buying CDs and ripping them, then people would stop buying from iTunes, and that would be good for Microsoft.

Re:Gates is right, but has an ulterior motive

[Anonymous Coward]

If everyone were to switch to buying CDs and ripping them

I already do, but I'm sure as hell not going to consider anything but FLAC for my master archive. Open source, patent-free, and 100% lossless: FLAC is the only appropriate tool for permanent archiving of music that I am aware of.

Re:Gates is right, but has an ulterior motive

[SnotBob]

I agree. Buying a CD and ripping it to mp3 really isn't that difficult to do. I would contend that it is easier to do that than spend my time trying to figure out how to transfer an iTunes song more than three times.

I use my XM Radio to find new music and if I hear something I like, I buy the CD. Or I rip the digital stream to mp3 using my old RipFlash mp3 player/recorder.

It makes me think that maybe the RIAA wants electronic distribution to be so complicated that people will give up and go back to buying the music in the least protected format.

Copyright holder's blame

[Henriok]

Exactly! It's not Gates or Steve Jobs's fault that we are stuck with DRAm, it's the content owners fault. Apple and Microsoft are doing business largely on the terms stated by the content owners. If it were up to MS or Apple.. there would probably not be any DRM protection in their products. It just complicates matters, stifles innovation and adaptation.. very much an image that Apple and Microsoft strive to get away from, but if they want to commercialize an idea they have to obey the demands of the suppliers.. at least to some extent.

Re:Copyright holder's blame

[PeeAitchPee]

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:Copyright holder's blame

[punkr0x]

Don't kid yourself. Steve Jobs may say, "I didn't want to put DRM into the iTunes store, it's the music industry that forced me to do it." But look at what DRM has done for iTunes and the iPod. The iPod can only play purchased music from iTunes or a independent music source. Noone who own an iPod is ever going to buy (DRM protected) music from Yahoo or Microsoft or other competitors using their own DRM. And only an iPod can play songs from iTunes (unless you burn + rerip it). So people who have bought a bunch of songs from iTunes are going to be reluctant to purchase a player from a different manufacturer. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs both see how this works, and that's why the Zune is not compatible with 'playsforsure.' Microsoft wants their own lock-in. But with companies like emusic and to a certain extent Yahoo moving away from DRM to an open format, as well as consumer unhappiness with DRM, the two CEOs are keeping their options open for the future, as well as keeping up appearances, by saying, "Well we never wanted DRM, it's the record labels." They are betting that the record labels are unwilling to give up DRM, which is true for the moment.

Re:Copyright holder's blame

[Salsaman]

You're kidding right ? Or being sarcastic ? DRM, a.k.a "Trusted Computing", is Microsoft's master plan to kill off the competition.

When Bill says "DRM is too complicated", he doesn't mean he wants to get rid of it. He means he wants Microsoft to make it "simpler for you".

DRM is a wet dream for Microsoft and Apple. It lets them lock up your data in perpetuity, while making it illegal and/or technically impossible for the competition to access that data at all.

Re:Copyright holder's blame

[neoform]

You're able to run OSX on a generic PC, the only reason you can't (easily) is because apple hasn't made generic drivers for them..

You can say that's DRM, but it's more their lack of wanting you to use their products on other machines, they don't go out of their way by having special DRM chips in their hardware that ensure their OS can only be run on a mac..

The real DRM is WGA and windows serial numbers, something OSX doesn't have.

Re:Copyright holder's blame

[Mister Whirly]

"The iPod can only play purchased music from iTunes or a independent music source."
Or any other source if it is a non DRM MP3 - like ripping it yourself, or downloading a ripped version. Not sure if that's what you meant, but it sounded like you were saying that ONLY songs purchased from ITMS would play on the iPod.

Re:Copyright holder's blame

[Anonymous Coward]

Um. You can install OS X on any hardware you choose, but you'll need to write drivers for it.

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.

Re:Copyright holder's blame

[novus ordo]

If it were up to MS or Apple.. there would probably not be any DRM protection in other's products.

There it's fixed.

Re:Copyright holder's blame

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple use DRM hardware (AKA Trusted Computing) for , among other things, locking OSX to their own make of PC.

Re:Copyright holder's blame

[leabre]

Well, to be fair, Microsoft Genuine (Dis)advangate has nothing to do with the content industry, it is their own choice to implement and they happily do so. Product activation does not benefit anyone but MS (not even the content industry if pirates can't use Windows then fewer people use use WMP DRM).

So... Microsoft has not qualms with it. In reality, if MS didn't want to implement DRM for the content industry, they simple could say "no" and what can the media industry do about it? I few tiny iffy DRM producers won't further the content industries agenda if MS doesn't support it but MS is happy to support it because ever since Gate's first open letter to pirates 30 years ago, MS has been against piracy and DRM is at the moment the best way to thwart it.

Thanks,
Leabre

Re:Copyright holder's blame

[LanMan04]

You mean like how I can install OS X on any hardware I choose So you'll be writing all your own device drivers then?

That's not DRM anymore than compiling a binary for PPC and saying it's DRM because it won't run on x86.

Re:Copyright holder's blame

[BillyBlaze]

While you could conceivably argue that Apple isn't at fault for their DRM, that doesn't hold for Microsoft. Microsoft started writing DRM software long before they started selling music.

Boo!

[bazorg]

Most CDs do not have any copy protection and can be copied to a PC and to an MP3 player easily

AFAIK, to be called a "CD", the disk cannot have random protection schemes stuffed in it. Companies should be forbidden from selling such disks as CDs. and pay a fine of EUR0.3 per unit sold. to me.

Re:Boo!

[TheRealFixer]

Actually, they can still call it a CD. They cannot, however, use the "Compact Disc Digital Audio" name and logo, as it does NOT comply with the Philips standard. As I recall, a few years back some media company was forced to stop using the Philips logo on their crippled discs.

Re:Boo!

[Mister Whirly]

If a CD has DRM on it, it must state that on the outside packaging - at least in the USA. And they are not aloowed to use the "Compact Disc" logo, as the previous poster mentioned.

Re:Boo!

[Steve001]

bazorg wrote:

Most CDs do not have any copy protection and can be copied to a PC and to an MP3 player easily

AFAIK, to be called a "CD", the disk cannot have random protection schemes stuffed in it. Companies should be forbidden from selling such disks as CDs. and pay a fine of EUR0.3 per unit sold. to me.

The whole DRM issue is the reason that I prefer to buy my music on Red Book standard CDs. That way, if my player dies (due to damage, old age, wearing out, etc.) I will still have the music itself. I want to only have to buy a song one time, not have to rebuy it everytime the DRM changes.

As far as DRM on CDs, it should be legally mandated that this be clearly disclosed on the CD packaging. Before I buy a CD I want to be sure that it is completely safe to use on all of my players. This should be the function of the official CD logo, but many CDs don't have the logo on them.

I follow the guide that if a CD that has copy protection clearly labeled as such then it is my fault for any damage it does to my system. But if the CD has copy protection but it is not clearly labeled, then it is the fault of the releasing company for any damage that occurs.

One advantage the soft distribution (via on-line) of music has for the record companies that it is much less expensive than the hard distribution (via CDs). It would be in the record companies interest for people to move to soft formats for music. But DRM is a very good reason for people to continue to stay with CDs.

Re:Boo!

[Technician]

Companies should be forbidden from selling such disks as CDs.

Do what I do. Look for the Philips "Compact Disc tm." Logo. Get the staff to help you find it. Without a logo, it might not be a compact disk.

Due to the lack of Compact Disks for sale in the local music shop, I gave up looking about 5 years ago. Good luck.

Don't be fooled...

[Bones3D_mac]

Saying something is "too complicated" doesn't necessarily imply it'll go away. Knowing Microsoft and the **AA groups, DRM may eventually shift to a form where it seems transparent to the end user, but is actually acting against the user's wishes in the background whenever the user attempts to defy the DRM scheme's rule set.

For example, a DRM'ed file may appear to "copy" when the user issues the command to do so. But after the operation is completed, the user will simply get a rude awakening in the form of a message on whatever device or program their using saying that the original file was copy protected with a link to a webpage on Microsoft's website claiming that the copy didn't work because they were either trying to pirate the content or because they failed to use an approved piece of software to handle the copy operation for them.

In short, it will probably be some method that passively harrasses the user into relinquishing control of their computer to Microsoft or some other "approved" company.

Re:Don't be fooled...

[Anonymous Coward]

For example, a DRM'ed file may appear to "copy" when the user issues the command to do so. But after the operation is completed, the user will simply get a rude awakening in the form of a message on whatever device or program their using saying that the original file was copy protected

already happens, a client of mine (a knighted CEO for a UK FTSE10 company) ripped a CD into WMA to put on his MS Mobile2k5 based smartphone but when you tried to play the file in WMP mobile it simply said
"sorry you do not have a license to play this file"
hence he mentioned it to me when i was doing some consulting

so i explained what MS was doing and how the music DRM scam works, then downloaded CDEX , taught him how to use it to rip into mp3, and of course mp3's played perfectly
and so was a happy customer = happy consultant

needless to say MS isnt now on his toplist of chosen partners due to his experience

Re:Don't be fooled...

[Technician]

For example, a DRM'ed file may appear to "copy" when the user issues the command to do so. But after the operation is completed, the user will simply get a rude awakening in the form of a message on whatever device or program their using saying that the original file was copy protected

My kid with an RCA Lyra MP3 player just had that can of worms. He was over at a friends house and copied a directory of WMA files to his player. They were protected and wouldn't play. To add insult to injury, he tried to delete the broken files from his player at home to make room for real MP3's. The folder displayed a lock. It wouldn't delete due to lack of permission. Tried again from a Linux machine. Same result.. Unable to delete due to lack of permission. My kid had to go the the computer where the folder was installed to have the permission to remove the folder and it's WMA junk.

With a little friendly advice, he knows wma files are potential problems. Best stick with MP3's from now on. Not only does he know better, but his friend also knows to rip CD's in MP3 instead of wma to make sure they Play for Sure.

He's just saying that it is too complicated...

[spiritraveller]

..now. He didn't say anything about DRM's inherent evil, which is that it makes your computer work AGAINST you.

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:He's just saying that it is too complicated...

[spellraiser]

Parent speaks the truth.

From Micro Persuasion:

Q) Is digital rights management (DRM) sustainable over the next 10 years?
A) DRM is not where it should be. In the end of the day incentive systems (for artists) make a difference. But we don't have the right thing here in terms of simplicity or interoperability.

I agree with the interpretation that Gates is saying that there's nothing wrong with DRM per se, but that it's just that it could be implemented better and made simpler for consumers.

Perfectly in character...

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Q) Is digital rights management (DRM) sustainable over the next 10 years?
A) DRM is not where it should be. In the end of the day incentive systems (for artists) make a difference. But we don't have the right thing here in terms of simplicity or interoperability.

Nothing else he said was against DRM in any way. All the anti-DRM talk was by other people. If you can't read "We're going to shove it down your throats eventually", then you're not paying attention.

DRM is not too complicated

[Charcharodon]

It's simple, if something is heavily DRM'd and is not copiable, I don't buy it.

It doesn't get much easier than that.

CD > rip yes

Itunes/online music services NO

DVD > rip yes

Online movie crippleware NO

HD/DVD Blueray NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!

Vista for improved software and Dx10 gaming yes

Vista for DRM'ed media content delivery NO

Illegal downloading NO (I prefer mailing 500gb harddrives back and forth with friends)

Re:DRM is not too complicated

[Anonymous Coward]

Illegal downloading NO (I prefer mailing 500gb harddrives back and forth with friends) Next, you'll be saying that you use stone tablets..

I do this often :o/

procure.

Re:DRM is not too complicated

[bahface]

Since I've been a part of audio production in the past, I happen to know that the whole DRM thing, at least as far as music goes is kind of silly. I'm sure I'm not the first person to say that. But the thing is, all it does is theoretically keep people from making digital copies. But I can still play that audio through an analogue audio system. So, it is simple to make a digital copy of the analogue signal. If the source is anywhere near decent the digital copy of the analogue signal will be almost identical to the original. And for nearly everyone, that's close enough. Most people couldn't tell the difference between the original CD and an analogue to digital copy if its done on reasonably good equipment. Don't forget, people used to be ok with making casette tapes via an FM radio signal. That was pretty bad quality but people still did it. An analogue to digital copy is very close to the original. Once a DRM free digital copy is out there it is game over for the DRM stuff. Inevitably, copies can be made, that is, if DRM actually worked, which it doesn't. So, in the end, I don't think DRM can work, so for now it is making some people some money for these so called solutions, and harming consumers. Awesome.

Re:DRM is not too complicated

[Zaatxe]

DVD > rip yes
HD/DVD Blueray NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!

Wasn't DVD unrippable (hey, I might just have made up a word!) at first until an encryption key leaked? Just give hackers some time! ;-)

Re:DRM is not too complicated

[SanityInAnarchy]

Vista for improved software and Dx10 gaming yes

Vista for DRM'ed media content delivery NO

I'm sorry you have to justify your next-get gaming addiction this way... What makes you think Dx10 games won't have even more DRM than media content currently does? SafeDisc, SecuROM and the like seem about as evil and rootkit-ish as anything the music industry has done.

Just don't buy Vista. Buy good, OpenGL games, and when XP starts to show its age, use Linux or OS X. And yes, there are good OpenGL games out there.

Re:DRM is not too complicated

[Charcharodon]

I guess I didn't explain myself properly.

HD/DVD Blue Ray players or compliant, monitors, video cards

I'd like either of them if they just simply came out with a ROM for the computer. Who wouldn't want that much space on a disk. Makes it even easier to mail then a HD.

As for HD content, as soon as someone comes up with a good none DRM player and ripper, I'll be all over that.

If not then the HD baby should be smothered in it's crib before it has a chance to grow up.

"Exponent" in the sense of "advocate."

[leahzero]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=exponent

2. a person or thing that is a representative, advocate, type, or symbol of something

testing the market

[hjf]

I think all the DRM stuff was about testing the market. See how much they could push it without users complaining. And they tried to make it draconian. Didn't work. They found that people don't really like to be told what to do. Or better, what they can and cannot do.

There's only one thing about DRM that I actually liked. You were, finally, buying RIGHTS for something. That means, if you ever lose your files, you could download the songs again at no charge (that was possible on some systems, IIRC). That's not the case with vinyls, tapes and CDs. You lost the vinyl, tape or CD, and you must buy a new one, and pay for the songs again. So there was no clear line of what you were buying: either the physical media, or the songs contained in it. Apparently, it was a Christian approach, kind of "body+soul", there were indivisible. You couldn't even take your scratched CD to the store and pay the price of the CD (the media alone) to get a new one. Also, this meant that you couldn't "upgrade" formats for a small sum (take your tape and pay a few bucks, and go home with a CD).

Re:testing the market

[b0s0z0ku]

There's only one thing about DRM that I actually liked. You were, finally, buying RIGHTS for something. That means, if you ever lose your files, you could download the songs again at no charge

In a non-DRM world with appropriate fair use rights protected by law, it wouldn't be a crime just to re-download the data that you lost. DRM is just an over-complexification of the problem at hand.

-b.

Re:testing the market

[hjf]

Corporations know this. That's why they invented the DMCA. Technically, you have the right (fair use) to copy the data. But it's illegal for you to break (circumvent) the protection schemes (if any) used to protect the data. That's what DRM can, theoretically, help the end user: no need to break the protection scheme in order to get another copy without paying for it. You have bought the rights to listen to that song, whenever and wherever you want. If you lose it, the company must provide you with another copy of the song (because you didn't but the "file", you bought the "song". You can lose a file, but you can't lose a "song". Song, defined as any kind of intellectual property, such as a software program, musical piece, etc).

Basically, you agree to a contract where you buy the right to buy the song, and they agree to provide you with a song, as many times as necessary.

Re:testing the market

[dueyfinster]

You couldn't even take your scratched CD to the store and pay the price of the CD (the media alone) to get a new one
Not in my experience. I had a copy of Shrek 2 which I bought and ended up being scratched by someone (I know who you are!). I brought it back to Virgin to get it replaced, they flat out refused. I looked up the distributor, and fired off an email describing my problem. They replied promptly, told me to send them the disc, they would see what they could do. One week later I got a fresh copy of Shrek 2. I was delighted by the response, and especially as it was free, they waived the fee of the new disc!

Re:Miss formulated question

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they make superior software?

what he is saying...

[oohshiny]

What Gates is saying is not that "DRM is too complex [and therefore we should abolish it]", what he is saying is that "DRM is too complex [but Microsoft will fix that]".

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:what he is saying...

[aadvancedGIR]

Since the Zune can't play MS "Play For Sure" DRMed music, I don't think this new likely scheme will be something we really want.
So maybe what he wanted us to understant is "you bought DRMed music, be prepared to buy it again and again".

Re:what he is saying...

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the Zune can't play MS "Play For Sure" DRMed music, I don't think this new likely scheme will be something we really want.

Since when did "what we want" have anything to do with what Microsoft is selling us?

Re:what he is saying...

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Since the Zune can't play MS "Play For Sure" DRMed music, I don't think this new likely scheme will be something we really want.

Since when did "what we want" have anything to do with what Microsoft is selling us? Easy. Microsoft is in the business of selling new wants to people.

That's rich

[MECC]

The internet has made it difficult to run a regime that runs on secrecy. Government is already benefiting.

Coming from BG, that's a good one...

Not complicated at all

[DaMattster]

DRM is simple, there is nothing complicated at all. DRM is simply the proverbial pain in the ass because, instead of one standard, there are several. Microsoft and Apple each have a format that marries you to their specific platform. This isn't complicated, it is anti-competitive and the consumer actually feels anger and frustration.

Re:Not complicated at all

[Anonymous Coward]

> and the consumer actually feels anger and frustration.

The DRM "solution" solves nothing for the consumer. Music and movies are social things, they are about shared experience. We want to lend media out and transfer it to other formats/devices for convienience.

I think there's a difference there though.

[goldcd]

If you as a company want to introduce DRM to control distribution of your documents, then you are free to choose the system you want. You'll probably go with MS as you've already got Office installed on every desktop. You might regret your decision later on and wish to change, but it's not too hard - you have admin rights, you remove the protection and add protection from your new vendor.
Music DRM is different. You want to listen to a track from one of the big labels, you have to buy the music with DRM installed. If you later wish to swap to another vendor, then.... well you can buy all your music all over again - and kick yourself for not buying CDs.
DRM does benefit hardware makers - the one who got in there early and has most of the market. If you've bought an ipod over the last 5ish years and bought music, if you want to carry on listening to it, you're going to be be buying Apple iPods until the day you die.
So you've bought an ipod, so you had to buy m4p files, so you have to keep on buying ipods, so you keep on buying m4p files....
Only options you have to escape this cycle are to stop buying music, just buy CDs, Pirate your music or wait for the next DRM-removing util to come along and go cold turkey from DRM before it's patched.

Finally He Got IT!!!

[sam0vi]

Now we'll all be free! Forever! Or until he comes up with three new letters ...like SYO /*Screw Yourself Over*/ KEEP THE HOPE!

...and when Steve Ballmer heard...

[Anonymous Coward]

...Bill Gates words, he yelled: "I'll fucking kill him, I'll fucking kill Bill Gates" and a chair was thrown i Bill Gates general direction.
...and when Bill Gates heard of Steve's reaction he whispered: "You too, Steve...?"

Microsoft DirectPlay is a misnomer

[spyrochaete]

The game Guild Wars comes with an offer to download extra music from a DirectPlay-enabled (crippled) host. The music is supposed to be listenable in-game and at the desktop. After downloading some kind of license I can play the songs with Windows Media Player, but they won't play in-game. I go to the Guild Wars audio properties and it informs me of some kind of DirectPlay problem with a clickable error code. I click the code and a web page opens up saying generically "This DirectPlay music cannot be played," and that I should install the latest version of WMP. I do so and I get the same error message, plus I have to re-download licenses for the local files.

As for DRM in general, I've had my share of nightmares. I put a newish CD into my computer the other day and it tried to install a proprietary music player. My girlfriend put a DVD movie (Warner Brothers) into her computer and a similar player began installing without even a prompt. I played Trackmania Nations a while back and, even though it is a completely free game, it installed the infamous and dangerous StarForce copy protection software without prompting me.

I can't trust anyone but pirates anymore, so that's who I'll patronize (for content post-2004). Sorry, big media, you've failed me too many times. Companies are too greedy and DRM is too iffy to chance putting on my computer. My PC is heftier than my television or stereo will ever be and I'm not risking infection so that the MAFIAA can snoop on my private information.

Historically, no one has better understood the needs and frustrations of digital media consumers than pirates. They provide easy-to-install cracks with detailed documentation. Pirate organizations like Razor 1911 and Reloaded provide a free "service" to the public and their only competition is other similar release groups. Why do non-profit organizations provide vastly better service than legitimate for-profit companies?

Look inward, Billy Gates. Your company is guilty of all the things you point your finger at in TFA. It's cute that you urge us to rip CDs instead of buying songs online, but it's patently obvious that you're just taking a pot shot at iTunes. Put up or shut up.

Re:Microsoft DirectPlay is a misnomer

[b0s0z0ku]

As for DRM in general, I've had my share of nightmares. I put a newish CD into my computer the other day and it tried to install a proprietary music player. My girlfriend put a DVD movie (Warner Brothers) into her computer and a similar player began installing without even a prompt.

Hold down the Shift key while inserting the CD. Better yet, permanently turn off Autoplay (I think it's under Folder Options in Windows Exploder).

-b.

Re:Microsoft DirectPlay is a misnomer

[punkr0x]

Historically, no one has better understood the needs and frustrations of digital media consumers than pirates. They provide easy-to-install cracks with detailed documentation. Pirate organizations like Razor 1911 and Reloaded provide a free "service" to the public and their only competition is other similar release groups. Why do non-profit organizations provide vastly better service than legitimate for-profit companies?

There are lots of people out there willing to provide you with free access to protected content, but are they good people? They require anonymity and they have zero accountability. Sure, most of them won't burn you, but some of them do, and unlike when Sony does it, you have no recourse if pirated materials expose you to security risks.

Re:Microsoft DirectPlay is a misnomer

[russotto]

The pirate groups require anonymity because what they do is illegal. They have zero accountability because they're anonymous. Sony Music doesn't require anonymity because it owns the law, and has zero accountability because they own the law. So where's the difference to me again?

Are they good people? The pirate groups, I don't know. Sony Music? Definitely not.

Re:Microsoft DirectPlay is a misnomer

[PitaBred]

Does it bother anyone else that they use the word "authentificate" on that Trackmania site, rather than the more accepted for hundreds of years version "authenticate"?

Re:Microsoft DirectPlay is a misnomer

[JanusFury]

You're thinking of DirectSong, not DirectPlay. DirectPlay is a networking API for game matchmaking and networking. DirectSong is a service run by a third party company that integrates with Guild Wars.

It does use Windows Media DRM, though, so you're about right.

Re:Microsoft DirectPlay is a misnomer

[spyrochaete]

It's actually an amazing game (by any standard, not just vs. free games) that originates from France and is localized, fairly accurately, in about a dozen languages. Save your criticism for the copy protection.

Re:Microsoft DirectPlay is a misnomer

[punkr0x]

But if Sony screws you over, at least you can sue them. You might not get much more than a sorry, but big companies can't afford the PR nightmare of messing up like that too often. Pirates, on the other hand, can do it for fun. By no means am I saying all companies are ethical and all pirates are spreading viruses, but implying that the risk of legitimately purchased 'DRM' content has become more risky than piracy is a bit ridiculous.

Re:Microsoft DirectPlay is a misnomer

[nine-times]

But if Sony screws you over, at least you can sue them

I could also pay a lawyer $50,000 to plant a sign on my forehead, "Sony, please pay your lawyers lots of money to ruin my life!"

... but implying that the risk of legitimately purchased 'DRM' content has become more risky than piracy is a bit ridiculous.

With DRM, there is certainly a bigger risk that I'll lose access to the content I've legitimately purchased. If I download an MP3 and that pirating group decides to disappear off of the face of the earth, it makes no difference to me. If I buy a DRM protected song from iTunes and Apple's servers suddenly disappeared, I won't be able to authorize new computers to play that track.

Re:Microsoft DirectPlay is a misnomer

[punkr0x]

With DRM, there is certainly a bigger risk that I'll lose access to the content I've legitimately purchased. If I download an MP3 and that pirating group decides to disappear off of the face of the earth, it makes no difference to me.

I was referring more to other security holes the software might open in your computer. If Sony decides to give themselves access to your private data, well, that's bad, but if someone finds out about it, there will be a class action lawsuit, and their reputation will get a black mark. If a pirate gets access to your private data, suddenly your credit card starts getting strange charges and you don't know why.. even if you do track it back to the pirates, the best you can do is block them and hope it doesn't happen again. And if your mp3 files become unusable... well, that sucks too, but it's not the end of the world. Also, how much time do you spend trying to find a pirated mp3 that actually works, vs finding it on iTunes?

So....

[styryx]

FTFA:

Bill Gates' short-term advice...

I really dread your long term advice, Bill.

Maybe to some extent

[Itchyeyes]

True, the brunt of the blame for DRM rests on the shoulders of the copyright holders. However, the technology companies aren't blameless here. In some ways, the myriad of DRM schemes out there today hurt consumers just as much as simply having the DRM there in the first place. DRM would cause a lot less headaches if companies like Microsoft and Apple would settle on some standards.

In a perfect world, DRM wouldn't exist at all. But now that it's here, it's probably not going to go away for a long time. The onus is on the technology companies to make it a workable solution with as few headaches as possible for the consumer.

Unfrozen Caveman

[The Monster]

Q) What did you want to be when you grew up? A) A lawyer.

That's interesting. When I saw what Gates said, I immediately thought of the old SNL Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer sketches

Chairman: Go ahead, Mr. G-rock.

G-rock: It's just 'G-rock', Mr. Chairman... Ladies and gentlemen of the Congress, I'm just a caveman. I fell on some ice and later got thawed out by some of your scientists. Your world frightens and confuses me! Sometimes when I'm playing a song on my Zune, I wonder "Are little demons inside playing the music? " I don't know! My primitive mind can't grasp these concepts. But there's one thing I do know - when someone builds a computer without paying for a Windows license, that's piracy, and my company is entitled to no less than two hundred dollars in compensatory damages, and eight hundred in punitive damages. Thank you.

"DRM is not where it should be"

[Quevar]

I agree. From the article: '"DRM is not where it should be," said Mr Gates.' He said that because Bill wants DRM to be in Microsoft's control - he is frustrated because he wants control of it, but can't get it.

Too complicated? No, too useless!

[Opportunist]

DRM offers no value whatsoever for the customer. Worse yet, it reduces the value of the immaterial good because it limits its use. In other words, the customer will, facing the choice between DRMed and non-DRMed good, always choose the DRM free good, provided that the price difference does not outweigh the reduced value.

What the industry fails to see is that DRM does indeed reduce the value of the good. They still try to sell DRMed content at the same price as DRM free content.

Timely article

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been a happy customer of a subscription service for almost a year. The last two days, everything I've downloaded cannot be played back because of licensing issues. The whole russian-roulette game of "will it play or won't it" is ridiculous. I shouldn't have to jump through a million hoops just to listen to a song.

Putting together podcasts, I cant use M4Ps.

[crovira]

So the iTunes store was certainly effective in making sure I stayed with podsafe tunes.

There are times when I'm glad I RIPed my entire collection of MP3s (over 1,200 CDs and disks) but when I'm putting together a show, I'm glad that my iTunes music library's on a different drive. :-)

The RIAA can't claim anything regarding copyright infringement.

Re:Miss formulated question

[Anonymous Coward]

we all like them... they are the prime reason for the money we earn.
Imagine a world where MS never happened and you will imagine a world with just 50% of the IT workforce there is today... UNIX do not need permanent survillance, neither do Netware or OS/400 or VMS or MVS... if MS never happened 50% of us would sit and play with our C64 (or something like that) after a hard day's work at the car factory.
We hate them because of the way they kill everything on their way... and because they are "above the law" due to their size... and because we don't have the time to play with our xBox360 after a hard day's work in the IT-dept...

That's exacly what they 'd do.

[crovira]

When you're stuck making all your money from other people's creativity, because you're so devoid of any yourself, you will fight tooth and nail to protect your smaller pile, because you know there is no way you can survive when everything's open.

Without DRM, the RIAA would sue your computer manufacturer for putting in any audio component, apart from a radio.

They don't care how much the world saves in the efficiencies of integration, it threatens their business models, damn it, and they are lawyers (not musicians!)

Slavery 'Too Complicated'

[Freed]

One of the biggest lies is that DRM is somehow neutral, say the way that knives are neutral. It's a lie because it ignores the overwhelming pressure upon groups that naturally have an interest in controlling others others such as corporations and governments, the kind of pressure that creates laws eroding civil liberties such as DMCA, etc. Control by DRM is in principle much more efficient than control by other means and thus all the more appealing to control freaks such as Gates.

I've seen projections for virtually all PCs to have TC/DRM within five years; of course, given the current overall apathy about it, any widely used OS will support it, and embedded devices will be first. The "economic argument" in which we assume we can always buy the nonstandard system free of control does not wash: nonstandard will be more expensive, and once again only the wealthy few will be able to preserve their freedom. As an alternative to cynicism, check out DefectiveByDesign.org for recent updates on the efforts against DRM.

Re:Slavery 'Too Complicated'

[Sique]

This describes pretty much my greatest concern with DRM. For DRM to work, it has to be completely without holes. To be completely without holes, it has to be of higher priority than anything else, because if DRM conflicts with anything else it has to win, otherwise this would be a potential hole.

Imagine a surveillance camera. A random person in the room with the camera is starting to watch a movie on a portable DVD player or a TV enabled mobile phone or whatever. How should the camera react? According to DRM it has to shut down and not taking any pictures anymore. So for any crooks wanting to rob a bank without being recorded by surveillance cameras, they should just play a movie in the bank, and all surveillance cameras will shut down(*).

Alternatively, if surveillance cameras are excepted from DRM compliance, who will hinder you to buy surveillance equipment to make a copy of DRM protected stuff (and thus getting rid of DRM, for the recordings to make any sense you must be able to replay the recordings anytime)?

(*) Ok, if you tell me that the DRM compliance might only require to black out the part of the picture with the actual movie in it, then I reply: the crooks could just take a beamer and put the movie at the wall and operate within the beam. Same effect.

Yet TRIPS compatible with US fair use

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think TRIPS can be used as the excuse here, since its compatible with US 'fair use'.

It was BSA lobbying and EU Commission that criminalized copyright infringement without adding a fair use clause. That in turn allowed Microsoft to claim that the only way the files could be copied from CD to computer is a copyright license, which in turn permitted their EULAs.

"which is entirely distinct"

Yes their pseudo contracts, but the basis is 'you need to accept this contract because you need a copyright license to install this software','no accept, no right to copy, no right to install'.
So it's not entirely distinct, since it would be fair use for me to install the software and use it, not the EULA license crap it comes with.

bandwidth of stationwagon

[cadience]

Just goes to show you that my networking professor's t-shirt is still valid.

"Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon driving down the freeway".

Ship a bunch of drives physically, and you will get faster (and more reliable and secure) data transfer.

Of course if you lose this packet^wpackage your retransmit latency is....

Re:bandwidth of stationwagon

[Charcharodon]

:D Yep it is sad that ISP's still lag behind station wagons and the US Postal Service in terms of bandwidth. Sure the ping and the latency is hell, but boy do you get to drink from the fire hose once the packet (package) get's there.

It's amazing how many HD you can fit in a Priority Mail flat rate box. $9 to "upload" 5 terabytes of data in three days time. 1 thousand movies or 1 billion songs or just one Blue Ray rip of the Lord of the Rings Trilligy with all the special features. ;)

Complication is not the issue.

[drdanny_orig]

If it was complicated but in the consumers' favor, I'd support it all day long. As Goldwater said "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no sin." But since they put us through all those hoops just so THEY can make a few more dollars, I say fuck 'em. Fuck 'em again. And keep on fucking 'em until they get tired. And when that happens, fuck 'em AGAIN.

That's What I've Been Saying

[eno2001]

I haven't really "bought in" to iTunes mainly because of the goofy jig I have to go through to get around the DRM. (Burn it to CD, then rip it to MP3) I'd rather order a used CD from Amazon which can be cheaper, plus I get the benefit of actually having the real album art in physical form, such as it is with CDs (I still miss the feel of a vinyl album sleeve). Ideally there SHOULD be a free/open album art format that the music industry appends to the music files. That way you have access to the album art, liner notes, etc... but NOT in a DRMed format and usable by ANY media player. The only downloadable music service I have used so far is emusic.com. The selection is mediocre at best, but I'm surprised by what they do have occasionally (I like obscure but world class artists like Ryuichi Sakamoto for instance). But the real key is that they are just unDRMed MP3 files. So I don't have to worry about not being able to use the files on Linux for example or having to go through some ridiculous conversion roller coaster. It looks like the only way I'll be able to use iTunes is either to install a legitimate licensed copy of Windows in a virtual machine, buy a Mac Mini, or bang my head against the wall working on getting Wine to run iTunes 7. And even then, the selection on iTunes, while different from emusic, is still not as big as the CD catalog on Amazon. So, for choice and non-DRM formats, CDs still rule the day. Not to mention, when I rip CDs, I have the option of ripping them to Ogg Vorbis which I prefer immensely to MP3 and which works quite well on my Rio Karma. ;)

But how about this idea..

[fury88]

If everyone were to switch to buying CDs and ripping them, then people would stop buying from iTunes, and that would be good for Microsoft.

If everyone just switched to the eMusic model then we wouldn't have to worry about this issue.

Profit Motive?

[RexRhino]

What is Microsoft's profit motive for promoting DRM? Sure, Microsoft has been pushing DRM, mostly from extreme pressure from the music and movie industry... but clearly, it would be in Microsoft's interests to see DRM fail. Music downloading has sold millions of Windows equipped PCs. People on Slashdot are geeks, so they might not realize that a lot of people purchased computers in the last few years primarily to download music.

Tech companies have everything to gain from free downloadable music on the internet. The people who make the music players, the people who make the PCs, the service providers and the people who provide bandwidth. DRM is only desirable to the people who sell music.

Microsoft has to make an effort with DRM, because the RIAA and media companies are standing by ready to sue. But that is a far cry from imagining that Microsoft is on the forefront of promoting DRM.

Re:Profit Motive?

[crabpeople]

"What is Microsoft's profit motive for promoting DRM?"

Oh i dunno.. DRM'ed text files that dont open in linux or macos?

DRM = vendor lockin. Microsofts weapon of choice.

Microsof$

[a16]

Who's BSA's main client? Begins with M? ends in $? Who the heck are Microsof$? ;)

Re:Microsof$

[Mister Whirly]

"Begins with M? ends in $?"
Mr. Steve Job$???

Re:Microsof$

[Anonymous Coward]

He's talking about a thousand dollars.

No, no, NO!

[Epsillon]

Sorry for the subject, but you really need to understand this: You cannot buy a right. A right is something innate that you have already. It's yours, and woe betide any bastard that tries to pry it from you. It doesn't need managing, digitally or otherwise.

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.

Re:No, no, NO!

[hjf]

Nitpicky, eh? Well, sorry. I think you're wrong.

I think you can buy rights for something. As you stated, I'm not technically buying the rights, but I'm buying a license, which in turns, gives me certain rights. So buying a license, gives me rights. Transitivity law: if a ==> b and b ==> c, then a ==> c. Let a=buy, b=license and c=rights, then "If I can BUY a LICENSE, and LICENSES gives me RIGHTS then i can BUY RIGHTS". There, syntactically and logically correct.

You are confusing terms. When I create a piece of work, I get the "innate" (your word) right to do whatever I want with it. I can sell (for any sum, including 0) licenses, which are basically contracts which specific rights I'm giving you. a subset of my rights. Let R="All of my innate rights", I can give you any subset of R, including the empty set (no soup for you!), a subset, or the whole R set. That is, give you all of my rights. I can even keep my rights. As rights are not physical entities, they can reproduce as quickly as needed. So that means I also have the right for you to give rights.

right..

[k1e0x]

We gotta make fewer options with what you can do with your own media.

( >_> ) hmm

That's not DRM though.

[goldcd]

That's just validation of your OS - and the same with the OSX checks to make sure it's Apple hardware.
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).

Re:That's not DRM though.

[Don_dumb]

I can legally and easily take my copy of Office off one machine and put onto another one.

Oh really, because when I move my copy of office, or even reinstall it on the same box, I have to phone Microsoft and defend myself to the person at the other end of the line, in order to get them to activate it.

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.

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't XP validate against your motherboard and other hardware?

And anyway I see no difference between DRM on media & validation of your OS. To me it is exactly the same principal - annoying the legitimate consumer with validation and arbitrary restrictions, while those who do pirate, don't have these problems.

He didn't say "DRM is too complex" or bad.

[argent]

He said "the current implementations are too complex".

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.

Disingenuous BS

[el cisne]

I think Gates is just trying to dissuade people from buying music from iTMS. Is it coincidence that he would be saying this and Apple have something like 70-80% of digital music downloads?

They are perfectly happy in using DRM in their own software to protect their stuff. Why should he make a point to single out music?

Is it that they don't control that one, and their efforts thusfar have been immune to success?

I've had absolutely no problem with DRM on my music from iTMS. It never gets in the way, I don't even know its there.

Apple iTMS seem to be quite successful at their implementation of the music-company-required DRM with 1.5 billion songs/items sold from their online store.

Seems like Mr Gates is up to his typical tricks. I don't think he would be saying this if their online music download sales were what Apple are generating. He would be saying DRM works just great for music.

Also, is he not just shilling for the music labels here? Don't they prefer people to buy the more expensive packet of CDs rather than a few songs here and there online??

Not simplicity, EXISTENCE of DRM is the problem!

[scottsk]

"It seems he has got the point (DRM is bad for consumers)" - "But we don't have the right thing here in terms of simplicity" - no, he doesn't get it. The problem is not the complexity/simplicity of DRM, but its existence. No one wants it, and they wouldn't want it if it was simple and interoperable. Unless the RIAA can buy every used CD on the planet, it's always going to be better to buy a used CD and rip it. Even if they quit making rippable CDs, they have to deal with two decades of CDs already in existence. Bummer for them, especially because used CDs are usually cheaper per song than any DRM stuff.

This is part of the reason I bought a Gigabeat

[JohnnyComeLately]

I had a Nano for awhile and it grew legs. I guess someone needed it more than I, but I digress. I started looking for a replacement and had 3 viable options: Zune, Gigabeat and iPOD Video.

I liked the Video, but I really missed having an FM tuner. I tried really hard talking myself into ignoring it, but the others had FM and controls I liked better. When my MP3 player is in my pocket, I hate having to reach in and pull it out to do anything. I usually ride my motorcycle with tunes playing, so I'm not going to have it belted to my arm either. Anyway, again I digress.

I ended up getting the Gigabeat because I noticed it comes with everything you need. Zune makes you pay extra for the cradle, AV cable, etc. Seems silly to charge $250 and then nickle and dime me...although the XBOX360 is the same. The other reason I went away from the Zune was M$ DRM. I've pretty much only used iTunes and love it. I started using Media Player 10 to stream to my XBOX360 and that's when the pain began. I had a MP3 refuse to play because, "this was ripped with a CD and the CD is not available". DUH!!! If I wanted to flip in every CD I bought to play, why would I convert them to MP3?? I might as well go buy a 200 disk changer from Sony or Pioneer.

Anyway, it was Microsoft's DRM that drove me away. The irony is I still have to use Media Player with my Gigabeat but at least M$ didn't get my $$$ to perpetuate their draconian ways.

Re:This is part of the reason I bought a Gigabeat

[Technician]

I started using Media Player 10 to stream to my XBOX360 and that's when the pain began. I had a MP3 refuse to play because, "this was ripped with a CD and the CD is not available".

Are you sure it was an MP3? I've heard of problems with DRM and wma files, but not with MP3. Was it ripped with Media Player, or a real MP3 ripper such as CDEX.

Re:This is part of the reason I bought a Gigabeat

[JohnnyComeLately]

Now that you mention it....MP3's don't have DRM do they? (have question, half statement...since I'm not sure). I assumed it was an MP3 because it's just about all I have. I have MP3s from music I've ripped and then the Apple conversion (AAC?). I might have accidentally ripped it as a WMA, but I know I didn't download it (LimeWire) because I don't trust anything from a public source that touches a Microsoft application.

If I ripped it, it would be with Media Player. I'll check out CDEX. Unfortunately, between the Gigabeat and XBOX360, I'm sorta locked into Media Player. Now I really have a new respect for the EU and others who have brought Microsoft to task for bundling everything. Bundling is nice, but if anything in the bundle fails...you're screwed. MP used to stream just fine to my XBOX, but now (after updating last week) it doesnt. The PC sees the XBOX, but the PC isn't seen by the XBOX as providing content.

You brought it on yourselves

[cdrguru]

DRM is the industry answer to rampent "sharing".

It was acknowledged by game developers in the 1980s that you would sell two copies of a game for the Apple platform, one on the East Coast of the US and one on the West Coast. Everyone else would get theirs from BBS systems. This virtually stopped game development for that platform.

While it was "sharing" cassette tapes between friends, there was no problem with "music sharing" and it was all treated as either fair use or just a cost of doing business. Today, I can buy some recording and post it on the Internet for the world to download. I can do this in some cases before mass distribution by the content owner, thereby "beating" them to the sale.

Whatever you think of content ownership and copyright, this isn't going to stand. You cannot have a situation where one group quashes the revenue and business of another group. When this happens between rival criminal gangs, the result is a gang war. When this happens between countries, the result is a war. When this happens between companies or companies and individuals, one of them is going down - and the individuals have all the advantage here.

Yes, if this situation continues the individuals will win out in the end. But it will be rather strange victory - most of what we consider today to be "commercial" and "professional" recorded entertainment will disappear. Will traveling minstrels replace them? Maybe, for the folks that can't do anything else. But no commercial entity will put up money to make a recording again.

We, the Internet using people of the world, have a choice. We can continue to "share" everything possible or we can contain our greed and selfishness and pay for entertainment. Sure, you get to choose what you pay for and you have a right to be angry when you are ripped off. But, you do not get to decide not to pay. At least not if we like the current arrangement. While patronage by the rich and powerful worked for a long time, it was an awful system.

Re:You brought it on yourselves

[PitaBred]

Or, you can stop charging for content that is cheaply, infinitely replicable, and start having artists and others actually work for their pay, rather than feeling entitled to obscene profits in perpetuity from one-off recordings.

Re:You brought it on yourselves

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. It looks like these corporations will actually have to *gasp* innovate, and can't just hold on to old business models and make money based on them forever.

Re:You brought it on yourselves

[pkphilip]

Great points! In all this discussions trashing DRM, a lot of people (especially geeks) seem to forget that if it wasn't for their unwillingness to pay for what they use, DRM wouldn't be needed at all.

If a person thinks the recording label shouldn't be selling their music for $X a CD, then he/she has the right not to purchase and use that music.. but you cannot use the music without purchasing it.

Just because something is possible, it doesn't make it right.

Re:You brought it on yourselves

[Mr2001]

It was acknowledged by game developers in the 1980s that you would sell two copies of a game for the Apple platform, one on the East Coast of the US and one on the West Coast. Everyone else would get theirs from BBS systems. And yet for some reason, they've kept trying to sell copies, instead of selling their work like everyone else. Sorry, no sympathy. You know what they say about trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Whatever you think of content ownership and copyright, this isn't going to stand. You cannot have a situation where one group quashes the revenue and business of another group. I think the buggy whip manufacturers would disagree with you. So would reviewers, actually - a negative review can harm sales just the same as P2P sharing. There is no fundamental right to keep making a profit without having to adapt.

We can continue to "share" everything possible or we can contain our greed and selfishness and pay for entertainment. Likewise, creators can continue trying to sell copies, claiming "intellectual property rights" wherever possible, or they can contain their greed and selfishness and let information flow naturally. No one has a right to milk their past creations forever. If they want to get paid every year, let them write something new every year.

While patronage by the rich and powerful worked for a long time, it was an awful system. There's no reason to think we'd have to resort to that. We've got global communication networks and credit cards now, and the same infrastructure that makes it possible for political candidates to raise millions of dollars from small contributions also makes it possible for artists to work directly for their fans.

Re:You brought it on yourselves

[Mr2001]

If a person thinks the recording label shouldn't be selling their music for $X a CD, then he/she has the right not to purchase and use that music.. but you cannot use the music without purchasing it. Of course you can. Listening to a song doesn't harm anyone or infringe on their natural rights, so you have every moral and ethical right to do it, whether you've paid or not. No one has the right to limit others' communication just to make a buck.

Just because something is possible, it doesn't make it right. Indeed. Sharing is right no matter how easy it is. Sharing CDs with strangers was right even before the internet came along - it just wasn't practical.

Re:You brought it on yourselves

[pkphilip]

>No one has the right to limit others' communication just to make a buck.

Oh really?! why don't you give *ALL* your work away for free because you shouldn't possibly restrict their ability to enjoy the fruits of your labour just to make a buck?

Re:You brought it on yourselves

[Mr2001]

I'm one step ahead of you. I do give code away for free, and I don't try to restrict other people's communication just to make a buck.

Of course, you can still charge for your work without restricting other people's communication to do it. You just have to charge for your work--that is, your time and effort, just like nearly everyone outside the music/film/software industries (and even many people in those industries)--instead of copies that anyone can make on their own.

Three words

[PatPending]

Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.

Cory told him so in 2004

[bgardella]

I guess Bill finally sat down and read this thing. Best anti-DRM manifesto I've ever read:

http://www.changethis.com/4.DRM (pdf)

http://www.craphound.com/msftdrm.txt (plain text)

--b

I bought the third copy, I guess...

[argent]

It was acknowledged by game developers in the 1980s that you would sell two copies of a game for the Apple platform, one on the East Coast of the US and one on the West Coast. Everyone else would get theirs from BBS systems. This virtually stopped game development for that platform.

I think that's more due to the fact that the Macintosh in the 1980s was a marginal game platform at best, and the Apple II was dying a terrible death as the Apple //GS was completely out-performed by the doomed siamese twins of the Commodore Amiga and Atari ST.

During the 1980s I had to get a pirate copy of one Apple game ... Wizardry. that's because after I bought it the copy protection pretty much destroyed it within a few months... so I had a local pirate write a pirate copy over the original disk. I guess my original copy of Wizardry must have been the third sale of that product.

Re:Miss formulated question

[sa1lnr]

"if MS never happened"

iirc MS was not IBM's initial choice. Digital Research was.

Yes, the visionary. Remember 'The Road Ahead' -

[mergy]

I do. Lots of stuff that was wrong. Don't get me wrong, if I told you want was going to happen 10 years from now, I would be wrong too but I don't spew like Bill does.

Great rundown on the 1995 Book from BG

http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/2006/02/08/road_ahead _billgates/

Compact Disc = no copy protection

[noidentity]

Most CDs do not have any copy protection

Even simpler: all Compact Discs do not have any copy protection. Look for the logo and don't accept anything else!

i do know this...

[slyvren]

DRM or not... the moment I find out OSX supports my hardware, im going to go buy it and it will be my OS of choice.

Re:i do know this...

[geekoid]

And as soon as chevy support Ford I'll buy one.

Re:No, WGA is simple and fair

[DECS]

In the same sense that a militarized police state is great unless you're a terrorist or a critic of the government. The two "seem" to go together.

WGA is abusive DRM for your OS: unreasonably stacked in the vendor's favor, subject to change unilaterally, and priced by a monopoly power, not the market.

--

The Danger of DRM

Hypocrite

[Orig_Club_Soda]

Just look what he's done to his OS! Or look how the MS software has always mimiced DRM with with its file types. Its not like

Plus, the DRM hype is BS. Game systems do the same exact thing. ...To users, the DRM is invisible. Most users will stay with one music vendor and hardware. The only people comnplaining are the those who dont actually buy the media. This issue is no different than Coke tasting different from Pepsi.

Besides, to get rid of DRM, just burn an audio CD.

Bill is just trying to make his Zune sound viable because its incompatible with DRM.

Legal or not

[Anonymous Coward]

"No. In the U.S., "fair use" is not a right but a defense to infringement."
Yet its not an infringement if it's fair use. You say tomatoe and I say tomayto. You can claim anything you like, it doesn't mean it's true. Whether its a claimed defense against a false infringement claim or not, its a right in law.

"he has implicitly given you permission by authorizing the creation of the initial copy (on CD or whatever)."
The problem lies in the EULA, they claim you don't have permission except via the EULA. With fair use, you have implicit permission regardless of the EULA.

"A EULA is not necessary but it is enforceable."
Not so, 70% of case law says it's an unenforceable after sales contract.

"he software requires permission to install and use."
Again not so, it's implicit in the purchase that you can use it, and fair use means any copies made during install are not infringing copies.

"The case law is long settled on this. "
No, you have a poor case in New york and some wishful thinking. List the case law you think applies and I'll explain how it doesn't. You may recall the BSA trying to put EULA into a legal framework and losing that one in 2001.

"Yes IAAL student."
Study more.

Or actually all audio content CDs

[Anonymous Coward]

Disabling the CD-ROM auto-play feature on a PC does this. Or did I miss something?

Re:Or actually all audio content CDs

[noidentity]

I think some of these "music discs" contain a large number of intentional errors in the data stream, causing many "ripping" programs to produce unusable output. I remember at some point reports of them crashing Macs due to the OS always extracting audio data and playing it directly, rather than using the mechanism's hardware play.

Hey, Bill, if you're so smart...

[ConceptJunkie]

... how comes everything you say lately is completely wrong?

I thought you promised to eliminate spam over a year ago, or that your operating system would be secure 6 years ago.

Really, does this guy say anything that's even relevant any more? Or not just stating the obvious?

Of course DRM is complicated.

For 60 years we've been trying to make computers work. The whole idea behind DRM is to make them NOT work.

Just think of how much time and energy are being spent making things not work that used to work fine.

Dear Bill,

[slicenglide]

I am pissed I paid five bucks for clash of the titans in HD on xbox live, only to find that the thing expired 24 hrs after the first time I fell asleep to it. I no longer can watch the movie I wasn't aware I was Renting, in some crappy form.

Next time bill, I'll rent it... and you won't get a dime.
-One pissed off mofo.

Too complicated! Please use ours

[HermMunster]

What Billy boy is really after is getting everyone to use his DRM. Period. No matter how much he fibs to cover up that fact, that's what he's after.

Bill knows that data is the key to the computer future. It is consumption of that content that is key. He who holds the DRM keys holds the keys to consumption and distribution. Ultimately that leads to control of what you can do with the content you paid for. It also means that possibly you are at risk of only viewing what they want you to view.

Bill said that computers are now being used primarily to consume content. This is what he's after. He wants to control that content through DRM even if he has to fib a bit to get you to think his way of doing it is right.

It is correct to say that DRM is a mess, but when it comes from Microsoft it means they want you to dump your current DRM and go with theirs. Why else would they infect Vista with such horrendous amounts of DRM and then turn around and tell you that DRM is bad?

DRM is to Data what the OS is to programs. You control program development and computer use through the OS and the API of that OS. You control content, vendors, and everything else by dictating the DRM. Bill wants to do to content creators what Apple has done. It just drives Bill crazy to know that Steve Jobs could dictate to the industry certain aspects of costs of content--the main thing Bill sees as the future of computing.

The best thing for the industry is to remove all DRM and let the content market grow based on the merit of that content.

Re:Anger Management

[wolff000]

How on earth did I get labeled troll for poking fun at Steve Ballmer? That and I seriously want to know if they do. Everyone in my company is required to go to the stupid things every other month. I don't know what good it does since people still seem to fly off the handle regularly but then we have never had anyone throw a chair across the room so maybe it does work. To the person that lableled me troll you bite my ass. Now that is a comment worthy og labeling troll you ass hat.