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."

No Wonder

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.

Unfrozen Caveman

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.

Windows too?

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..."

Interesting stance

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

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 [roughlydrafted.com]
The Two Faced Monster Inside Zune [roughlydrafted.com]
The Register's Collapsing iTunes Store Myth [roughlydrafted.com]

Re:Interesting stance

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

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."

DRM is good fror Microsoft

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

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.

erm to be fair

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.

Copyright holder's blame

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.

Wow!

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

Re:Wow!

Maybe Steve never told him.

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

Not legal in the UK

"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

'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 [hm-treasury.gov.uk]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6214108.s tm [bbc.co.uk]

Pot meet the kettle

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.

Gates is right, but has an ulterior motive

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.

Boo!

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.

Don't be fooled...

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.

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

..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.

Perfectly in character...

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

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

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.

testing the market

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 he is saying...

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.

That's rich

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

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.

Finally He Got IT!!!

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...

...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

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 [trackmanianations.com] 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.

So....

FTFA:

Bill Gates' short-term advice...

I really dread your long term advice, Bill.

Too complicated? No, too useless!

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.

Slavery 'Too Complicated'

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 [defectivebydesign.org] for recent updates on the efforts against DRM.

Complication is not the issue.

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

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. ;)

Profit Motive?

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.

right..

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

( >_> ) hmm

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

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

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!

"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

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.

You brought it on yourselves

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.

Three words

Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.

Cory told him so in 2004

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

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

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

--b

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

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/ [bit-tech.net]

Compact Disc = no copy protection

Most CDs do not have any copy protection

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

i do know this...

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.

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

... 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,

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

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:Exponents?

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

Re:Exponents?

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:Miss formulated question

"if MS never happened"

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