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

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

[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

[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

[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

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.

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

[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.

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.

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

[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.

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.

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.

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: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.

"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.

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.

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).

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.

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:Pot meet the kettle

[Somebody Is Using My]

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