Slashdot Mirror
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."
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..."
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 ...
Bark less. Wag more.
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.
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.
"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 $?
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.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
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.
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.
- Henrik
- when the Shadows descend -
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
..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.
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.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
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).
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.
Maybe Steve never told him.
Maybe they just don't sit down together and talk the way they used to...
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Resistance is futile. Reactance buggers it up.
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 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.
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.
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.
//GS was completely out-performed by the doomed siamese twins of the Commodore Amiga and Atari ST.
... 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.
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
During the 1980s I had to get a pirate copy of one Apple game