You've probably heard of Bill Gates' remarks about free culture advocates and Communism:

No, I'd say that of the world's economies, there's more that believe in intellectual property today than ever. There are fewer communists in the world today than there were. There are some new modern-day sort of communists who want to get rid of the incentive for musicians and moviemakers and software makers under various guises. They don't think that those incentives should exist.

And this debate will always be there. I'd be the first to say that the patent system can always be tuned--including the U.S. patent system. There are some goals to cap some reform elements. But the idea that the United States has led in creating companies, creating jobs, because we've had the best intellectual-property system--there's no doubt about that in my mind, and when people say they want to be the most competitive economy, they've got to have the incentive system. Intellectual property is the incentive system for the products of the future.

He has a point. But is he really even addressing what copyright reform advocates have been saying?

Creative Commons Executive Director Glenn Otis Brown responds:

Well, since I know he can't be talking about Creative Commons, I'd be interested to know whom Gates is talking about, exactly. Is he calling The Economist magazine communist for arguing that copyright terms should last only a few decades, which they did just last year? Does he think that IBM, which makes more than a few bucks from selling Linux-based servers, should be re-nicknamed "Big Red"? Is he saying that economists like Milton Friedman and Ronald Coase, who support limited copyright terms, are the new Marx and Engels?

Copyright reform advocate Lawrence Lessig is virtually speechless:

It's one thing to read this sort of thing from a studio exec, or head of a record label -- surrounded as they are by the sort that surround them. But the people I've met at Microsoft are miles beyond this sort of silliness. Does Mr. Gates not even talk to them?

Ah, but Mr. Gates wanted to clarify is remarks. And so we get Part 4 of Gizmodo's interview with Bill Gates:

Gates: No, I've said it exactly. We have your interests totally in mind, but that includes having... if there's content that can only be there if it's rights protected, we want to be able to have that content available to you. And so all we're doing... in no sense are we hurting you, because if they're willing to make the content available openly, believe me, that's always the most wonderful thing. It's the simplest.

Take, like, putting soundtracks onto movies using our movie editor thing. If you have unprotected music you can take slideshows, put music to it, encapsulate it in the file, mail it around—it works perfectly. If you have rights management, it's actually painful because the people you're mailing it to don't have the certificate and it's kind of painful. But because the artists... some things are only licensed to be in that form, it's hard to put the track on Movie Maker. But hey, we want you, instead of not having that content, to have that content. And in the case that the authors decided it's rights managed, you can decide to stay away from it or to use it. That, again, is your choice.

We're the guys of empowerment. We want these things to be out there everywhere. But it wouldn't serve anyone's interests to go out there and say, 'Hey, by the way, there's no way to remind anyone at any time about any rights boundaries.'

Take medical records: is it your position that rights management for medical records is evil?

Gizmodo: 'Evil' is maybe strong. Do you mean in the sense that medical records shouldn't have any rights management at all?

Gates: Right. We remind people that, like if there's a medical record that has somebody's AIDS status in it, we have software—which is identical software—that says, 'Hey, if you're trying to forward to someone,' that, 'No, this is restricted. You can't forward this to someone. They don't have the right to see this.' It's the notion of 'should there be confidential information?'

Gizmodo: I think that's a different question.

Gates: It's not different. It's identical technology. It's the same bits!

Gizmodo: No, no, no. I think in calling that evil as opposed to whatever, I think that still basically comes down to, 'Do you feel like things should be able to have passwords on them or not?' And of course the answer is 'yes.' I do think that's reasonable. So I don't think anybody is trying to say 'DRM is evil.' [link added -mg] 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.

Gates: The DRM we put into these systems is used to protect medical records, and it's used to protect things people want to protect. And so it's hard for me to say, 'No, because it might be used for media for a way in some people don't like, I won't put it in there for medical records.' This is a platform that people can use in any way that they choose.

Gizmodo: I think that's a little close to, 'Think of the children.' I understand what you're saying, but just because, 'medical records, it's good to have a password on them' doesn't necessarily mean that when it comes to music or the things that I purchase that that's also a good thing. I think it all comes down to what it is you're actually paying for.

Gates: All we're doing is putting it in the platform. So I'm just saying, can you criticize us for having a platform that allows bits—bits, just bits; not music, not movies, not medical records, not tech things—to have any usage restriction for bits. Are we doing a disfavor to the world at large by saying some of our users, when they choose to—maybe for medical records—they can limit the accessibility of those bits?

Gizmodo: I think setting up the platform? No, it's not inherently bad. But I think it does depend on what it is that you're protecting. But I think we just disagree.

Gates: No, I actually don't think we disagree.

....huh?

The interview is fascinating in how someone so smart can be so blind. [Part 1; Part 2; Part 3] It's clear he's living in a different reality. How can one equate a Gwen Sefani song with private medical records? I think I'm beginning to understand why, after some 20 years, Windows still does not communicate with other computers very well.

veridicus puts it into perspective:

He ignores the fact that DRM is mostly pushed by content owners and not the artists themselves. In the world of artists there is a miniscule amount who speak loud of rights management software. Microsoft's backers are the RIAA, MPAA, and others who own the content but don't create it. They're looking out for their own corporate and selfish interests, not that of any artists.

"All we're doing is putting it in the platform. So I'm just saying, can you criticize us for having a platform that allows bits—bits, just bits; not music, not movies, not medical records, not tech things—to have any usage restriction for bits." Of course their not responsible. They're simply letting others control the information on your own computer.

As a very fine example of this, we jump back to Gizmodo's take on the iPod Shuffle:

I'm certainly a big fan of Apple's iTunes software, but I have almost completely stopped buying music from iTunes. I'm in the minority—with 230 million iTunes downloads since the stores have opened, it's clear most people just don't care about the crippling effects of DRM. So to the news that the version of iTunes (4.7.1) that came down with the announcement of the iPod Shuffle disables songs purchased from Real's Harmony store or stripped with Hymn I say: whatever.

Yes, the Windows may be fogged, but the Apple has worms.

About author

media girl also blogs at other places.