Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DRM 'Too Complicated' Says Gates

Posted by Zonk on from the comments-good-for-three-days-or-three-plays dept.

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."

10 of 196 comments (clear)

  1. DRM is good fror Microsoft by MindStalker · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:DRM is good fror Microsoft by MindStalker · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:DRM is good fror Microsoft by networkBoy · · Score: 2, Informative

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

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
  2. Don't be fooled... by Bones3D_mac · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --


    8==8 Bones 8==8
  3. Re:Not legal in the UK by RDW · · Score: 3, Informative

    '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

  4. Re:erm to be fair by man_ls · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  5. Slavery 'Too Complicated' by Freed · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  6. Re:That's not DRM though. by Don_dumb · · Score: 2, Informative
    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.
    --
    If this were really happening, what would you think?
  7. Re:Interesting stance by NSIM · · Score: 2, Informative

    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?

  8. Re:Interesting stance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    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.