Microsoft Licensing Fee Intended To Reduce Hobbyists 355
BokLM writes "Microsoft's Amir Majidimehr, Corporate VP of the Windows Digital Media Division, explained at a DRM conference in London why they require a license fee from device makers." From the article: "According to Amir, the fee is not intended to recoup the expenses Microsoft incurred in developing their DRM, or to turn a profit. The intention is to reduce the number of licensees to a manageable level, to lock out 'hobbyists' and other entities that Microsoft doesn't want to have to trouble itself with."
Monopoly? (Score:2, Insightful)
BoingBoing? (Score:2, Insightful)
Surprised? (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? I thought that everybody -- especially Slashdot -- had this impression.
Re:Things haven't changed since 1976... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sweet Zombie Jesus (Score:4, Insightful)
The intention is to reduce the number of licensors to a manageable level, to lock out "hobbyists" and other entities that Microsoft doesn't want to have to trouble itself with.
Is it just me, or does anyone else think that Microsoft has the resources to "manage" nearly any number of "hobbyists"? I mean, laziness is one thing, but sheesh...
I wonder if there are any backroom deals being made here?
Re:Surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
Big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
If it turns out that hobbyists are a bad thing, then the market will demonstrate that. There's no need to act as if your rights are being suppressed.
Sometimes hobbyists are phenomenal for a platform (the Apple II platform, Linux). Sometimes they don't seem to provide enough benefit to be essential. Game consoles are effectively closed to hobbyists and despite the degree of amateur work, Flash was never really a free platform to seriously develop for.
The only area in which I can think of that this isn't true is when monopolies exist (such as the cell phone market, where cell providers can force the platform closed by requiring that anyone that uses their services provide only a closed platform).
Anyone can sit down and provide something an an encoded audio and video format. There are a lot more MPEG-based players out there than anything else, and it's not as if hobbyists can't produce content for these. Microsoft's chosen their market (at least in the short term). Let them play with the idea and see whether it pans out.
Biting the hand that feeds it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I don't understand this behavior because it is so damaging in the long term - students (who can also be thought of as "hobbyists") will not be able to easily work on Microsoft products and will naturally gravitate towards more open solutions...
I've never understood why Microsoft wasn't more supportive of the student, hobbyist and small business marketplace. I can understand that they do not want products propagating that use obsolute interfaces/methodologies but there should be some halfway point, not freezing out those of us that want to experiment with PC applications and don't have deep pocket sponsors.
myke
Not limited to Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of that stuff is FREE to corporate customers, companies will voluntarily lose money just to get people to try to use their product. However for people on the street, or companies too small to be "real", they will charge thousands upon thousands of dollars for these materials, if they will let you have them at all.
On one hand they're right, true hobbyists often have day jobs that are not in the industry (since those in the industry often gank this stuff from work) and can generate a lot of cost by a multitude of questions and misunderstandings. On the other hand, one persons hobby could turn into a good business, if their idea or project becomes interesting. By discouraging this, they are effectively discouraging innovation in anything less than a rather well funded start-up.
Damage is Done (Score:2, Insightful)
I recently bought (and returned) a Philips mp3 player to use for audiobooks. Not only can the thing not display track time > 1 hr., but there is no mid-track resume feature. Some of the WM licensed players may have this, but some don't. Unfortuantely, this strict control of licensing (or lack thereof) is why the iPod works so well. Well, that and the software on the back-end, but that's a whole different argument.
Re:BoingBoing? (Score:2, Insightful)
If something is submitted and its accepted does it really matter where it coems from?
Besides in this case, boingboing has a decent enough rep and Cory was actually at the discussed conference so I think its best to use his link.
Bad move (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not the smartest thing Microsoft has ever done...
Wasn't the OSS movement a "bunch of hobbyists"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What effect? (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless Big Business puts enough money into the government to legislate it out of existence.
Xbox points to the future (Score:5, Insightful)
But they are starting the long slow trend that ends with Xbox bow. They still want developers, but only large ones. Because in the end the goal is to turn the PC into an Xbox. All applications are signed by Microsoft and they collect a piece of the action in exchange for it. It solves most of their security problems, lets them tap vast new revenue streams to show investors some growth and allows them the total freedom to screw each developer in turn by introducing their own replacement and deciding the 3rd party app no longer 'meets our strategic vision' and refusing to continue signing.
Re:Things haven't changed since 1976... (Score:4, Insightful)
What BG is particularily upset about is that the shared dev. tools are used to create competitive software. Whats more, this is done using software that was never going to make a profit anyway. So BG is upset about a faulty business plan. If he didn't sell dev. tools he would be alright and he could complain about people stealing his OS's (kinda like he did at the start with DOS - he payed much less for it that it was worth, kinda like people that steal windows because they feel that a windows license isnt $500).
Bottom line: Hobbyists will push their software and hardware. Hobbyists create worms and virii for all we know. Hobbyists are bad. Im a hobbyist. A+B != C always.
Piracy allows Gates to squash would be competitors (Score:3, Insightful)
And for those of you that hate reading the word of Gates, I'll paraphrase the above for you in fewer words:
Actually a better introduction would be: "for those of you that do not see the things I am imagining, I'll distort the above for you."
Remember, don't you dare try to write your own software. Leave that to me. Then buy it from me
He does not write that. He is complaining about the widespread use of pirated software, an entirely legitimate complaint. If it is OK to violate his copyright and his license, wouldn't it also be OK to violate the copyright and license of authors who choose to release software under the GPL?
Software piracy does hurt the software industry. Products and technologies fail not due to technical shortcomings but rather the shallow pockets of the developers. Piracy destroys the little guy, not the guy with the deep pockets like Bill Gates.
Irony (Score:3, Insightful)
Statement taken out of context (Score:3, Insightful)
Whatever you may feel about DRM, Microsoft's position on the potential use of DRM is pretty clear - they believe, right or wrong, that consumers can have access to the best content if and only if that content can be protected.
Honestly, what would hobbyists do with a truly open DRM SDK for devices? The secure path audio only applies to media sources LEAVING the PC, not input sources, so it doesn't affect microphones, instruments and the types of devices that casual users might actually be developing. Hobbyists won't have the substantial financial backing to produce their own playback device. Any small company who has the desire and financial resources is going to have the cash to spend on this liscensing scheme, especially considering that Microsoft has always employed hefty discounts for small ISVs. This doesn't prevent hobbyists from working with DRM'd media streams on devices they purchased - if the device manufacturer liscensed the DRM from Microsoft (which it would have to, or you couldn't enjoy media on the device), then you can still use a healthy amount of the Windows Media SDK to work with media stream, limitted to some extent by the secure path, but that's a different gripe.
Given the financial difficulty of building a full device capable of full media playback, what would hobbyists do with an SDK that allowed raw access to protected content - most of them would write software the emulates a virtual device to circumvent the DRM. That's exactly what Microsoft is attempting to prevent.
Re:Standard Business Practice (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't news, nor is it some grand conspiracy.
Actually, it is. A monopolist has partnered with two cartels and all three of them have been convicted of illegally abusing their market positions. They are partnering to build an artificial barrier to entry in the convergence of their markets and to leverage their existing position to gain an advantage in new markets. This is most definitely a conspiracy and it is news. Here's a hint. It is illegal to use a monopoly to gain an advantage in other markets or to build barriers to entry to those markets. MS has partnered to do just that, implementing software restrictions to provide some parties with a market advantage using their monopoly on desktop OSs.
When pricing a product, you typically want to set a minimum price specifically for the purpose of eliminating the deadbeat/hobbyist factor.
Since when is an artificial restriction on use a "product?"
If the majority of your customers are businesses, they won't blink at a couple-hundred bucks for a product.
And you think that makes it ok or something? MS has a monopoly and they are using that monopoly to collect an additional toll from developers in the separate software application market. That is illegal.
Linux didn't really advance computing ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux didn't really advance computing, Linux is yet another reimplementation of Unix. AT&T advanced computing by developing Unix. I'm open to the idea of giving UC Berekeley some credit too, but we have the reimplementation issue as well. However Berkeley does deserve credit for it's open license, Linux's GPL license being a reimplementation of the the open distribution idea. Please don't misunderstand, I am not slamming Linux or minimizing the enormous efforts that went into it's development. Linux is an outstanding technical achievement, but it does not offer original ideas, it merely offers original source code.
The Pot and the Kettle (Score:1, Insightful)
In any event, Gates old rant about stolen software sounds to me like the pot calling the kettle black.
Re:Statement taken out of context (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Linux didn't really advance computing ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Hobby computing is not merely limited to Linux.
Re:Read his entire letter... (Score:1, Insightful)
He says hobbyists cannot write good software:
What hobbyist can put 3-man years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free?
No, he does not. He says a hobbiest (as in, "1") cannot invest three-man years into a project and distribute it for free. It is an economic argument from a time that predates communications that facilitate a collaborative environment.
He says he's the best at doing it:
The fact is, no one besides us has invested a lot of money in hobby software. We have written 6800 BASIC, and are writing 8080 APL and 6800 APL, but there is very little incentive to make this software available to hobbyists.
Who wrote a better Altair BASIC in 1976? Who invested more money/time/effort (individually, hence "no one") in 1976? I'm sorry, the statement was not prospective, it was made in the present tense.
He says that if you sell software written by yourself, you're just distributing bugs. So that implies that only software written by his company should be distributed because only he has the resources to make it immaculate.
Not even a quote this time. You say the sun is really just a giant Florida orange placed in the sky by aliens 10,000 years ago. Clearly, you're a nut!
Free software is bad because he can't make money:
Nothing would please me more than being able to hire ten programmers and deluge the hobby market with good software.
No, stealing software that he wrote without paying for it is bad because he can't make money.
The letter summarizes as "I wrote it, it cost me money, I want money for it. If you don't want to pay for it, then write something as good or better for less, but stop stealing my stuff."
You are reading things into the letter that are not there, and claiming that Gates actually said them. It's a lie of your own invention. Knock it off.
Re:BoingBoing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Linux didn't really advance computing ... (Score:4, Insightful)
You seem to ignore the fact that FreeBSD was also available to the PC masses, with source code for the hobbyists to tinker with. It was no ivory tower demo. FreeBSD was used to host major sites long before Linux was ready for such duties, many a Linux distribution was downloaded from a site hosted by FreeBSD. To use your analogy, there was more than one Petri dish. Again, Linux is an outstanding achievement, but original, first, or irreplacable it is not. Irreplacable in a technical sense, certainly not in a political sense.
Remember the Microchannel? (Score:5, Insightful)
It was good. Unlike the DRM junk, this was REALLY good. It only had one single flaw:
IBM threatened to execute patent rights. And the card manufacturers were afraid they couldn't actually make a buck with MCA cards after paying royalties to IBM for the patents.
So most of them, besides a few big players, went down the conservative road and decided it would be better to stick with ISA. It's slower, yes, it's limited, yes, but at least we can actually make a buck there.
Customers split up. Those who decided to stick with ISA, to be compatible with their old hardware, hardware they needed and was not available on MCA, and those who stood true to IBM and trusted them to create new line of hardware. The first group saw that they could get cheaper hardware, not only add-on cards but even the "main machine" from 3rd party vendors that are still compatible with their old ISA cards.
The other group went after the first when IBM decided to dump the Microchannel Architecture in the early 90s, leaving their customers with big investments that led into a dead end, forcing them to buy completely new hardware altogether as well. And understandably, they did not want to sink more money into IBM...
And the MCA, which was a great design, went away before it even started to fly. And marked one of the cornerstones of IBMs decline from THE computer company to ONE computer company today.
Let's hope DRM will be the same for MS.
Re:Big deal (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't like Bill G, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
The quotes you offer are nowhere near "smoking guns". Does he dislike hobbyists? Well, I think it's fairly clear he strongly dislikes the 'hobbyists' who are stealing his software. But then you twist that and put words into his mouth, such as "hobbyists cannot write good software". Correction: what he SAID was that he doesn't see how programmers can spend 3 years on their 'hobby' without making any money from it and still put out a quality product, with quality assurance, documentation and all. It's worth noting, too, that this was from a long time ago. Free software models did not exist then, and there weren't people willing to fund/sponsor hobbyist projects.
"He says he's the best at doing it:"
Sorry, the quote you give does not support that conclusion at all. He's just saying he invested a lot of money into it, and then many hobbyists take the fruit of that labor without paying the piper, as they say. I don't believe it'd be fair to sell software someone gave away for free without their permission, and conversely, I don't believe it's fair to give away software someone sells without their permission. Those who stole his software were not fair and respectful to Bill Gates, and he is justifiably (in my opinion) upset about that.
"Free software is bad because he can't make money:"
Again, spinning around and around. He said he wants to sell a product, and hire developers to make his product much better. However, his plan is somewhat hindered by the fact that most people are stealing, rather than purchasing, his software.
You know, I don't think Bill Gates is some great guy or anything, in fact, I do consider he's more about making the sale than providing a quality product; but at the same time I don't like to see people putting words in someone's mouth, which you most certainly are doing. Criticize him for what he actually did, or actually said, but not for what you think he meant to say.
If you truly feel it's fair to do this, then that is because you're the one on the giving end, not receiving. When someone puts words in YOUR mouth, I can assure you, you will not think it is very fair to you for someone to do so.
Stupid on top of stupid and doomed to fail. (Score:3, Insightful)
Whatever you may feel about DRM, Microsoft's position on the potential use of DRM is pretty clear - they believe, right or wrong, that consumers can have access to the best content if and only if that content can be protected.
By protection, you must mean lock out all but a few publishers. Why else limit who can make a player? This is an "our way or the highway" kind of admission. Yes, trying to control popular culture through outdated laws and bogus technology is wrong.
Given the financial difficulty of building a full device capable of full media playback, what would hobbyists do with an SDK that allowed raw access to protected content - most of them would write software the emulates a virtual device to circumvent the DRM. That's exactly what Microsoft is attempting to prevent.
Oh yeah, piracy is the only reason people would ever want to watch a movie. No it's not.
This is about a foolish attempt to control. People are going to make and distribute players for M$'s crappy formats with or without an SDK to help them. This issue will come to a head and hopefully overturn the dumber restrictions of the DMCA, which was passed before most people understood it's implications. More importantly, people are going to publish in alternative formats and economic forces will pull the whole scheme under.
The harder they push, the faster they lose. The "Works for Sure" devices are miserable. WM formats are also second rate and the adoption of both is just not going to happen.
What Hobbyist wants DRM? (Score:2, Insightful)
Just replace 'hobbyists' with... (Score:3, Insightful)
Uhmm... pay Microsoft to write software?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft wants companies to pay them if they plan on writing software that works on Windows. If they don't pay, they don't get a "certificate" from microsoft, and they intend for Windows to refuse to execute any software that doesn't have this special "certificate"?
This sounds conspicuously like "pay us a 'protection' fee so nothing 'bad' will happen".
Re:Linux didn't really advance computing ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Things haven't changed since 1976... (Score:4, Insightful)
Please do not perpetuate the myth of IP. RMS is dead right on this one, ceeding the enemy control of the language will lose us the war. Yes I do respect Copyright, patent and Trademarks.... at least most of the time.
> Violating a shrink-wrap EULA is just as egregious as violating the GPL.
No it isn't. A shrink wrap EULA is meaningless unless you live in Virgina and perhaps not even there. A contract requires two parties and if I refuse to accept the EULA I'm still allowed to use the software by virtue of having purchased a copy of it. I don't believe allowing software publishers to impose one sided "contracts' you can't even read until you no longer have a right to get your money back is something worthy of even considering submitting to. To compare it to the GPL shows your ignorance of the difference between the two.
You are not required to accept the GPL either, btw. If you refuse it you may still use the copy you aquired in any way that is acceptable under the Copyright laws of your jurisdictiom. By accepting it you gain permission to redistribute the work subject to the terms and conditions of the GPL. Notice the difference between this and any EULA. All EULAs attempt to subtract rights otherwise granted under Copyright law.
Re:Linux didn't really advance computing ... (Score:3, Insightful)
What Linux is is different from whether it advanced computing or not. Your two sentences I quoted are not connected.
Whether Linux is a re-implementation of Unix is unrelated to whether it advanced computing.
You also make an implicit assumption that advance computing must necessarily mean that it has some amazingly innovative new technical feature.
The fact that I can download and install a free, high quality OS, with lots of software, that runs on less than fire-breathing hardware certainly seems like an advance to me. Linux did advance computing. (So did a lot of other free/Free software.)
Another advance, which seems like a Linux first, is an OS that runs on computers from wristwatches, PDA's, $25 Linksys plastic boxes, desktops, and million dollar mainframes.
Another advance, which is really unrelated to the actual software itself, is the speed of development made possible by the licensing model. Something that draws together major industry giants and smaller companies to contribute effort into a common goal which benefits everyone seems like an advance to me, albeit not a computer science advance.
/. just doesn't get it, again (Score:1, Insightful)
Hobbyists aren't building devices to sell, so there's no point in dealing with them because they're not going to sell anything that generates revenue for MS. Apple doesn't bother. Why should Microsoft. Apple has the biggest DRM monopoly around, and no one's complaining that fairplay is completely closed.
Re:Driving the wedge deeper (Score:3, Insightful)
Mmmm, I'd say more likely Windows users will just wait until the game comes out on Windows. Because it will.
Precisely (Score:4, Insightful)
The current generation of teens/(very) young adults is taking a step backwards as far as the amount of functional knowledge. Generation X will be looked upon by history as the high point of digital innovation. Gen X will be to network-driven innovation what the Apple II/C64 generation was to computer hardware development: the initial blossoming of innovation before the chilling onset of a corporate homogenization of methods and implementations (an ice age, if you will).
So many people honestly believe that they aren't complete morons for paying a dollar (or more) for a fucking ringtone! (And a ringtone that has terrible sound quality at that.) The current young generation's attitude towards learning is far more apathetic than gen X's. The prevailing attitude is, "Why should I learn about something when I can just google it on demand?"
What I think is really going to define the social dynamics of the Gen Y job market and society is a new kind of digital divide. Not the 'digital divide' that refers to some people not having access to technology. The real digital divide will be between those people who have made technology their masters (by refusing to actually learn anything - relegating knowledge to the machines - and elites), and those who instill in their children the importance of being the masters of technology. That will be the real digital divide.
This is the very same education ethic you refered to when you said Why buy your kid a game when you can buy him something that gets him to college? The difference will be that getting the access to the physical hardware isn't the barrier to success. It's going to be the inquisitive epiphany that "I should pull that compliance chip off my motherboard and figure out what's happening inside that $30 computer? After all, if the hardware's so cheap, what is it about computers that makes them the key to making a lot of money in the (idustrialized) world?"
And that epiphany is going to become something that is less and less spontaneous as companies like MS, Apple, Google, etc. start pumping more and more of their advertising budgets into building a "just use it - don't worry about how it works" culture.