Your browser may have trouble rendering this page. See supported browsers for more information.

This page shows the source for this entry, with WebCore formatting language tags and attributes highlighted.

Title

Bill Gates Talks About DRM

Description

Anyone who can remember the anti-trust case brought by the U.S. Justice Department against Microsoft (and I know that, since nothing really came of it, we can forget that it ever happened or that Microsoft was actually convicted of anti-trust and illegally obtaining and abusing their monopoly) will recognize the Bill Gates we see in a pair of interviews he gave recently. <a href="http://news.com.com/Gates+taking+a+seat+in+your+den/2008-1041_3-5514121.html?part=rss&tag=5514121&subj=news.1041.5" source="News.com">Gates taking a seat in your den</a> is a longer one (four pages), in which he shows off his unique interviewing style in which a directly-posed question hardly ever gets a directly-stated answer. Simply getting a response that has a passing connection to the question is considered unusually good. Most answers start off with a marketing plug for a Microsoft product that is within the domain of the question's premise. For example, when asked <iq>Do you see yourself becoming, let's say, more of a seller of content?</iq>, he answers (Rumsfeld-style), with: <bq>And so is Microsoft a content company? Well, I'd say "Master and Commander" is good---people have talked about how the story made them cry---that's content, but it's also software.</bq> Am I the only one somewhat thrown by the abrupt shift of topic here? Did Microsoft make "Master and Commander"? Does Gates have a Russell Crowe fetish? Is he saying that Microsoft won't consider itself a content provider because there are other good content providers and Microsoft doesn't do well in markets in which they don't have a monopoly (see the cellular phone market for an example). Hell, if he's going to give such wacky answers, then I'm free to make up my own reasons why. The next question, about blogging, after a year that saw several open-source, automatic publishing systems hit the market, saw portions of journalistic responsibility in the U.S. replaced by bloggers and what is Gates' response to the question of what he thinks about the liberation of publishing for the masses? <bq>Well, actually I think the biggest blogging statistic I know, which really blew me away, is that we've got close to a million people setting up blogs (Web logs) with the Spaces capability that's connected up to Messenger.</bq> If you guessed that he would plug a Microsoft product (that's still in <i>beta</i>, I'd like to add), you'd be right. I mean, as a salesperson, he's spot on; as a predictor of technology, he's got nothing. Even the discussion about browsers ends with him saying that <iq>no one invests more in security of their browser than what we do on IE</iq>, which, while technically correct (as most good lies are), seems to ignore the fact that Firefox is open source (read: no budget) and that Opera is about 1000 times smaller than Microsoft. It also misses the point that IE is still one of the more vulnerable browsers out there that causes big problems for a lot of their customers. He ends by threatening that <iq>people who underestimated us ... in the past lived to regret[it]</iq>. Now he's doing Tony Soprano impressions? I'm not sure if he's drunk with power here, or if he simply doesn't know how to associate issues at a more holistic level, but answering that <iq>[t]here are fewer communists in the world today than there were.</iq> when asked about intellectual property rights is just plain bizarre. He goes on to claim (in true-blue American "it's black or it's white" fashion) that you're either for intellectual property or you're communist because <iq>[i]ntellectual property is the incentive system for the products of the future.</iq> There is no other way, got it? There are no other incentives that drive people to create. None. Why? Because capitalism says so and capitalism is never wrong. Because money and consumption are the sum of all human desire. <a href="http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/portable-media/gates-interview-part-four-communists-and-drm-029706.php" source="Gizmodo">Gates Interview Part Four: Communists and DRM</a> continues the discussion about intellectual property and its ugly stepchild: DRM. Here, Gates starts off normally enough, noting, quite reasonably, that <iq>...the number of people who ... believe there should be no incentive systems for creative work---there's actually less of those people.</iq> So far, so good. Don't judge an issue by its extremists. Very good advice. I wish more people gave it and followed it. At this point, he does his thing where he merges sentences from four different conversations to make it sound like an answer. Somthing about that whether or not there's <iq>no patent system</iq> or a <iq>somewhat improved patent system</iq> doesn't matter because we need to <iq>draw out the creativity of all the smart people in China</iq>. I'd like to see a debate between him and Ross Perot. The interviewer wisely leaves that point where it lays and moves on to meatier IP and DRM issues. Bill drops back to the old <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man" source="Wikipedia">straw man</a> argument by comparing DRM to <iq>speed bumps</iq>, even though one saves lives and the other simply protects IP rights, which have not (yet) been recognized as citizens of the U.S. Now here's the interesting part, when the interviewer responds that <iq>[o]bviously people think that artists, or you know, whoever creates software should be paid</iq>, Gates responds with: <bq>No, no, no. That's not true! Many people don't believe that.</bq> Now wait a second, Bill. You just astutely pointed out above that the extremists in an issue are few and far between (on exactly this issue actually) and now you turn right around and claim that <iq><b>[m]any people</b></iq> think people shouldn't get paid for stuff they create. That's a pretty extreme viewpoint for many people to have, isn't it? Which is it, Bill? Do we have reasoned debate or extremists everywhere? Then, where does Bill go for an example of this extremism? China! In 1950! He goes on to claim that Microsoft is such a strong DRM proponent because <i>the artists</i> want it. Microsoft is actually politically neutral on the topic. Fascinating. Bill proceeds to spill paragraphs of drivel explaining why DivX, one of the most popular formats available is not supported on the Windows Media Center (if you guessed that he actually admitted it's because it's not a DRM format, you'd be wrong). He follows up strong with an argument that Microsoft's gung-ho approach to DRM is simply an overarching desire to <i>serve</i> the customer by making the most <iq>content available to you</iq>. The old straw man having worked so well once, Bill trundles it out again to lump all data protection issues together with <iq>is it your position that rights management for medical records is evil?</iq> This is the type of argument that typically ends with "well, then, you must also be for [insert distantly related issue here]". This interviewer, as opposed to the softball interviewing style on CNet, begs off by saying that <iq>that's a different question</iq> to which Bill responds triumphantly responds <iq>It's not different. It's identical technology. It's the same bits!</iq> Oh, well-struck, Bill! Check-freaking-mate, Gizmodo! The interviewer makes one more attempt at reasoned debate with <iq>I think what people are trying to say is that DRM, as sanctioned by the big players, may be holding back culture as a whole.</iq> Bill, unfortunately doesn't take the bait and get involved in a <i>philosophical</i> discussion, defends Microsoft's right to <iq>set... up the [DRM] platform</iq> and ends with a petulant <iq>I think we just disagree</iq>. So many people respect Mr. Gates for his business and technical acumen and his intelligence. Why then, does he need to resort to the "I do not agree with what you say, therefore I will reject your ideas without bothering to refute them and treat them as your opinions" form of debate when interviewed by a guy from a site called Gizmodo?