Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

795 comments

Here it is (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11363562)

"No, no, no. I didn't say those people were 'communists.' I did say that they're... 'dirty Marxist pinko communist reds that should be herded into camps and executed en masse.' I hate being misquoted and hope this clears up any misunderstanding."

Re:Here it is (5, Funny)

proxy_avatar (849738) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363605)

I have a boot if he wants something to put in his mouth.

Re:Here it is (4, Insightful)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363754)

He sounds like he's chewing on one already in many parts of that interview.

He wants to justify using DRM in music because its used for medical technologies. He's screwing up the point on purpose -- just because the OS knows about DRM for medical records doesn't mean MS has to acknowledge those "same bits" on music files at all.

If the laws in my country (Canada) allow me to make copies of the file, Windows had better let me.

Let me expound on that -- I work with a church [kawarthachurch.com] that frequently uses short video clips to back up or emphasize a point; several clips were used from Shrek when discussing relationships, etc.

Under CCLI rules, we're allowed to use those clips without specific permission, during service time. However, to rip those clips, we need to use software that falls on the "hey, that's bad" side of Copyright regulations. Luckily, we don't have a DMCA in Canada.

Re:Here it is (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11363625)

So, he's talking about Michael?

Re:Here it is (1)

berbo (671598) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363919)

What he did say is:
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.
(source: http://news.com.com/Gates+taking+a+seat+in+your+de n/2008-1041_3-5514121.html )

In other words, yes, he is calling some people communist.

Communists? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11363570)

Hrm...

Open Source Communism! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11363574)

First Glorious Post of the People!

Gentoo?? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11363586)

I use Gentoo; how does this affect me?

Use teh mandrakes (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11363658)

It has teh rPMs for yuo so it makes it ez for noobies likes us.

Re:Gentoo?? (2, Funny)

doublem (118724) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363674)

It means you print the Communist Manifesto on paper you made yourself before reading it, instead of buying it in a book store like all the other commies.

Re:Gentoo?? (2, Funny)

Otter (3800) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363821)

I use Gentoo; how does this affect me?

It means the new Five Year Plan will only take you 4.96 years. Or it would, if emerge'ing KDE 3.4 weren't tying up your CPU.

haha (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11363589)

FIRST AC POST!

So what is he? (2, Insightful)

digitalgimpus (468277) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363593)

A totalitarian dictator of intelectual property?

Boy does that make an interesting job title.

?Tzar of Intelectual Property?

Re:So what is he? (2, Insightful)

agraupe (769778) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363648)

Since when does communist equate with totalitarian dictator? Granted, it more often then not turns out this way, sadly, the communist==dictator relationship is Western Cold War propaganda.

Re:So what is he? (2, Informative)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363762)

Um, no less than Marx himself said that there would have to be a period of dictatorship. I'm afraid totalatarianism was always very much a part of Communism, and it was just the Western agents of Cominterm that used to try to disguise that reality.

Re:So what is he? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11363910)

BULLSHIT.

Re:So what is he? (1)

arose (644256) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363767)

No, grandparent post was asking what Gates himself is. Totalitarian dictator of "intelectual property" sounds right.

Communist? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11363599)

Fscking moron.

How late? (1)

Pants75 (708191) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363600)

I'm quite surprised it took the PR department this long to come up with a justification for his comments.

I for one... (5, Funny)

Kjuib (584451) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363613)

I for one Welcome our Communist Free Culture Overlords...

And now the joke can die in peace. (4, Funny)

doublem (118724) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363714)

And now, the long running attempt at a joke has FINALLY achieved humor value.

No use of it after today will ever be as fit, amusing or appropriate. Anyone else who uses the joke will remind readers of this instance of it, and they'll think "Yea, but it's still lame and stale compared to Kjuib's masterful use of the gag."

Re:I for one... (1)

saintp (595331) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363790)

Why has this comment not yet been modded "+5: Fucking awesome"?

Re:I for one... (1)

IthnkImParanoid (410494) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363806)

Because it's not funny?

RE: Required response. (4, Insightful)

fshalor (133678) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363616)

He's actually kind of right. IN a comunist/socialist systme, the people own the code. (Since the people own everything.)

This is a refreshing contrast to the fascist model, where the state owns the code. In this case, the writers own the code.

If he says Linus is Stallin/lennin/marx, then he's Hitler by the same set of parameters.

Re: Required response. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11363696)

I wasn't aware that Gates also was in control of our government. Your analogy dies because Gates cannot send out his men to murder those that try to oppose him; all he can do is try to make his product better (or market it better, or shove it down everyone's throats and hope we swallow).

Re: Required response. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11363783)

Well, he can kill your corporation by sending out the BSA. And if you think he doesn't control our government, then how come he still hasn't been punished for anti-trust issues? His fines were comperable to me being fined a dime. Microsoft needed a mult-Billion dollar fine, and that should have been distributed to the share holders of the companies that he put out of business with his anti-trust activities.

No (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11363702)

This is a refreshing contrast to the fascist model, where the state owns the code. In this case, the writers own the code.

In the 'same set of parameters', the US government would own his code. Since they don't that's not even an issue worth discussing. The comparison would be perhaps Ayn Rand or other like-minded individualists.

Re:No (1)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363740)

Look up fascism on Wikipedia, and compare it with socialism.

Re:No (1)

fshalor (133678) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363769)

he wasn't talking about the governemt being communist, netierh was I. I was refering specifically to his applicatin of the term "communist" to free source software. I'm applying the term "fascist" to code practices.

Re: Required response. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11363741)

You're providing a textbook example of confusing stupidity with cleverness...

Also, you don't know what "parameter" means.

Re: Required response. (1)

lowe0 (136140) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363842)

Microsoft, as a group of individuals, own the code they write. Sure, the code is also owned by the people who paid for it to be written (shareholders), but MS owns the code they wrote. And since it was their effort that created that code, they should control who owns it (unless you advocate that someone should be forced to give something they create to the public - that's certainly a valid concept, with pros and cons, though I personally object to depriving creators of the right to control their work).

Re: Required response. (1)

Kaa (21510) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363960)

IN a comunist/socialist systme, the people own the code. (Since the people own everything.)

Sigh. No. In a communist/socialist system the state owns everything and just claims to do it in the name of the people.

This is a refreshing contrast to the fascist model, where the state owns the code.

Fascism has to do with totalitarianism and suppression of rights, not with property. The canonical fascist country (Nazi Germany) was capitalist.

So no again -- under the fascist model the programmer owns the code, it's just that the state makes sure he doesn't do anything "unpatriotic" with it.

If he says Linus is Stallin/lennin/marx, then he's Hitler by the same set of parameters.

LOL. And that was modded insightful...?

Important Slashdot Question: +1, Informative (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11363622)

Why does Slashdot pay attention to the hegemonic Microslop [microsoft.com] administration?

Microsoft is 100% unreliable.

Thank you and have Cheney-Rumsfeld-free day [whitehouse.org]

As always,
K. Trout, CTO

Artists should be paid (2, Insightful)

superpulpsicle (533373) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363653)

The problem with all these DRM issues is that no one ever brings up what happen if the artist is deceased. The record company still owns the song and making a killing.

Rule of thumb, if the artist is deceased the songs should be automatically free. None of this 2pac-after-death-release bullshit. He's dead how does he make music?!

Gates and these millionaires never talk enough about these things. They mention artists should be paid. Blah, now back to DRM.

Re:Artists should be paid (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11363738)

The problem is that you are an idiot.

Talk to Courtney Love, or any one of the beneficiaries of a famous artist about what happens after the artist dies.

dumbass

Re:Artists should be paid (1)

worst_name_ever (633374) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363770)

w00t! Even more reason to off the Backstreet Boys!

Re:Artists should be paid (1)

IthnkImParanoid (410494) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363774)

That's not a problem with DRM, that's a problem with artists signing over their copyright on the (books/music/pretty much anything else) to the people who publish their work. Since every major publisher requires that they get the copyright for work they publish, artists don't have much of a choice.

Also, even if the dead artist didn't sign over their copyright, it would still not be free. The copyright would belong to their estate, which is where it should be for the duration of the copyright.....although it should be for a much shorter time than the life + 70 years it is now.

In short, this has nothing to do with DRM.

What? (1)

glrotate (300695) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363791)

Ususally these post mortem releases are done by family members to cash in. Their unrealesed work is like any other thing the artist owns, when they die it goes to whoever gets their stuff, spouses, kids etc.

If you're asking what incentive does dead 1Pac have in making music, then I'm guessing you're circa 15 and wouldn't understand that old people sometimes consider the interests of their dependants.

Recording contracts take a variety of forms depending on the leverage help by the artists. Often the writer of the song "owns the song", and the publisher owns the recording.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11363937)

...what incentive does dead 1Pac have in making music...

In my opinion, 1Pac should have no incentive to make music. He's half the man 2Pac was.

Re:Artists should be paid (1)

worm eater (697149) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363800)

If the artist has died, the copyrights are transfered to whomever controls his/her estate. In most cases, this will be the family of the artist. It is treated as an inheritance. That's just how copyright law works. If the company owns the copyright to the intellectual property in question while the artist is still alive, then they own it after the artist dies. But copyrights aren't transfered from the artist to the label after death. It is, I believe, 75 years after the artist dies that the work goes into the public domain. Then it becomes free. This is a rediculous state of affairs, but that's how our wise leaders have set it up.

The above discussion only applies to US copyright law. Every country has a different set of rules.

Re:Artists should be paid (1)

sevinkey (448480) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363825)

You gotta change the copyright law to change that. It used to have nothing to do with when an artists dies, it was something like 14 years for a copyright.

Changes to the law within our lifetime has made copyrights last until death + 99 years.

And although the record company will continue to make money, who ever inherits 2pac's estate should be getting the royalties from his work, unless he signed some bad contracts that would automatically release all of his work to his label in the event of his death.

I don't think that happened because 2pac could have at least afforded a bad attorney, and I'd be looking into a few leads at his label during his murder investigation if that was the case.

Re:Artists should be paid (2, Interesting)

lukewarmfusion (726141) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363826)

So old people have less incentive to create? And publishers have less incentive to accept IP works from the elderly because the copyright protections go away as soon as the person dies... I wouldn't be surprised if a publisher started acting like a health/life insurance provider in doing background checks before accepting a creative work.

On the whole, I agree with you... the protections should be shorter - maybe (artist's life + 20) or 50 years (whichever comes first). I would also like to see shorter periods for certain types of IP - software especially.

Re:Artists should be paid (1)

Feynman (170746) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363887)

Rule of thumb, if the artist is deceased the songs should be automatically free.

A very interesting point of discussion. In the US, copyright currently extends to life-of-the-author-plus-something. This gives an author's estate (his spouse, for example) exclusive control over his work (including the right to profit from it) after his death.

After I die, can my wife continue to derive income from the work I did for my employer while living? No. (Of course, this was work under the employ of another, so the analogy breaks down . . .)

Other thoughts?

this doesn't make sence... (1)

froggero1 (848930) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363657)

communists societies are controlled by an elite few (M$), whereas freemarket societies aren't really controlled by anyone, and it's kinda jsut a free for all...

this might be a little off topic, but i just never really understood the whole "linux is communist" statement. it seems that a microsoft is communist saying would make more sence.

they use the media to twist their news into glowing media coverage. they can totally annihalate a company and no-one seems to care, after all, if everything is controlled by one person, it's better. good thing we have a good leader, karl balmer.

sure he took back his comments, but what would of made him think that in the first place? you'd think for a "programmer" (i use that phase _very_ loosely here) he'd have more logical reasoning skills.

Re:this doesn't make sence... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11363860)

Please:
  1. Inform yourself about communism [wikipedia.org] before commenting on it.
  2. Leern to spall!!!1!
Thank you.

Re:this doesn't make sence... (1)

plumby (179557) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363866)

Real communist societies would not be controlled by 'an elite few. The idea of communism is that everything is owned by 'the community' for the common good.

People really do get fooled by branding. Just because the Soviet Union was run by something called the Communist Party did not mean that they were actually following communism theory, any more than the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) promoted Democracy.

Gates' Elaboration (5, Funny)

one9nine (526521) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363667)

"I really meant to say Nazis. My bad."

Wanting to get paid for work you did (5, Insightful)

travisco_nabisco (817002) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363682)

I like the example Bill gave of song writers who want to get paid for their work. I agree that they should get paid for their work, as long as they are alive. What I don't agree with is the record labels that are making money off of bands that haven't produced a song in 20+ years, and where all the members are dead.

Wouldn't it be a bit more reasonable to put a time limiting factor on the copyright of songs ... after 20 years the song goes to the public domain, so that everyone can enjoy that music.

Re:Wanting to get paid for work you did (5, Informative)

TheRealFixer (552803) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363759)

Actually, there already *were* limits, very much like you mentioned, in place. Unfortunatly, Congress under pressure from big media companies, have continued to extend the expiration time of copyrights, so essentially there are no more copyright limitations. Add in to that, that corporations don't die and are treated like people, and you've got infinate copyrights, in direct opposition to the original intent of copyright law.

Re:Wanting to get paid for work you did (3, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363797)

> Wouldn't it be a bit more reasonable to put a time limiting factor
> on the copyright of songs ... after 20 years the song goes to the public
> domain, so that everyone can enjoy that music.

Um, that's how copyrights were supposed to work, but since the US Congress decided to essentially violate the Constitution by simply extending copyrights indefinitely to protect Mickey Mouse, and no court has seen fit to call them on it, that notion of a limited protection is now apparently extinct.

Re:Wanting to get paid for work you did (1)

eander315 (448340) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363941)

Why shouldn't the artist's family members benefit from their work and creativity? The problem isn't that someone is getting paid well after the band breaks up and the artists are dead, it's that the record labels are getting paid. The current system is bad because the artists are more or less forced to sign over the rights to their work to the labels, who then profit considerably while hurting the consumer in both the pocket book and in selection of music.

Re:Wanting to get paid for work you did (1)

Yaa 101 (664725) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363947)

Bullshit... they should only be paid by each performance just like all of us...
People that think they have the right to take my money and put it into their noses just because they made a nice music number once in their life and expecting always to be rewarded...
To those people I say: screw you! I hope you die without a penny into your own vomit...

Re:Wanting to get paid for work you did (3, Informative)

Quixote (154172) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363957)

That was the intention behind the original copyright laws: death of copyright-holder + 20 years.

And then Disney came along. Walt died a long time ago, and as per the old laws, Mickey, Goofy and Minnie would have been in the public domain in 1986 (20 years after Walt died). But the Disney company has gotten the laws extended time and again, so that they are death + 70years now.

grain of salt (3, Informative)

ashot (599110) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363690)

"No, no, no. I didn't say those people were 'communists.' I did say that they're... The question is: what incentive systems should exist in the world?"

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 aroundit works perfectly.

Why he's a regular guy next door!

Is it just me or is there something a little fishy [nickdenton.org] about this interview? ;)

Musicians in China (4, Insightful)

Jonathan (5011) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363694)

Part of Gates' argument is that in China prior to market reform, musicians were not paid. That's simply stupid. Anyone who knows anything about "Communist" regimes knows that all the ones that have existed, including China, still had money, and people got paid for their work (usually by the government). Now, you can certainly argue that musicians may not have been paid as *much* as they would have been in a market economy, but that's a different issue.

Re:Musicians in China (1)

Peyna (14792) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363823)

It is my understanding that prior to market reform, any music that was produced was (in most cases) handed over to the government, which rehashed it in some way and then it was given to all of the public to use as it saw fit. (A musician could keep it to himself if he desired).

Perhaps a more accurate statement would be that the creators of the music were not compensated for their work; however, performers may have been.

(This is based on a very short historical review of Chinese music and could be way off base, but at least I tried).

Re:Musicians in China (1)

Peyna (14792) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363880)

Expanding on this a little; assuming my interpretation is correct, Gates' analogy fits a little better. With most open source projects, the creators of the source code are not the ones that profit; it the users of the source code that profit; or in the case of many distributions, those that take that source code and repackage it for others.

If you allow the musicians to retain control over his work, then the person who wrote it will be the one who controls who profits from it.

(See parent comment for general disclaimer).

Re:Musicians in China (1)

Ironsides (739422) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363851)

I think what he meant by that was that the musicians didn't get paid for writing music. Not that they didn't get paid for performing.

Open Source in fact more capitalistic (5, Insightful)

Ars-Fartsica (166957) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363695)

In open source projects the tendency is for nearly 100% of the capital available (often a very small amoutn) is dedicated to creating value.

In a regular corporation, much of the capital becomes wealth distributed to executives who put it into their yacht fund, which in essence is punishing shareholders who are better served by reinvestment in the firm.

The same can be said for many industries. I think Americans underestimate, for example, how much of their healthcare spending goes into executive compensation, which is worse in that industry than most others. It makes you wonder how efficient capitalism really is in the endgame when most competitors have been washed out and locked out of the market.

Re:Open Source in fact more capitalistic (1)

Luyseyal (3154) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363921)

In a regular corporation, much of the capital becomes wealth distributed to executives who put it into their yacht fund, which in essence is punishing shareholders who are better served by reinvestment in the firm.

AGREED. Just imagine...

We offer extensive, discount CEO services -- with moneyback guarantee! No golden parachutes, no ridiculous number manipulation, no yachts! Just quality leadership at a reasonable price. You can't afford NOT to call.

/me tries to figure out how to work in an 800 number and something about 19.95 plus shipping and handling...

The future of shareholder rights is outsourcing management.

-l

Let me get this straight... (3, Funny)

dteichman2 (841599) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363704)

Gates is essentially calling Mozilla.org, a group with a 501c3 form... comunist. Wow. Doesn't get any more whacked out than that, I guess. Microsoft seems to be getting more desperate as the days go on, probably due to the declining browser share.

This also attacks Linux communities as well. Not to mention anything at SourceForge.net... They are launching another verbal/media assault on open-source software because open-source is dangerous to closed-source software.

With the wealth of open-source software out there, not even great, free democracies (like Microsoft) can stop the spread of communist open-source software Mwahahahaha!

Re:Let me get this straight... (1)

dteichman2 (841599) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363745)

Also note that this DOES relate to the article because open-source has no IP protection (GNU GPL or similar doesn't count).

Please defend that (1)

Nugget (7382) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363945)

How on earth does the GPL "not count" as IP protection. It is a license on IP which dictates exactly what you can and cannot do with the IP.

The GPL is fundamentally no different than any other license or EULA in that it makes demands on the user in exchange for giving access to the information. Perhaps you find those demands more agreeable than, say, closed-source commercial software licensing. That's valid, but it doesn't change the fact that the GPL relies on IP protection to enforce its terms.

If there were no IP protection laws, the GPL could not exist.

And believe me, if there were no IP protection the GPL would have just as much reason to exist as it does now. Anyone who was involved in software in the late '70s and early '80s has first hand knowledge of what the software world would be like without solid and well-understood IP law backing it. Before the law caught up with the software age, we lived in a world of dongles and sales contracts and heinous hardware protection schemes. They all sought to fill the vacuum left in the absence of strong IP protection.

No IP protection leads to secrecy and contracts, not to a world of sharing where programmers live off nuts and berries and give away the product of their labor.

Why would he do this? (3, Insightful)

Otter (3800) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363705)

What the hell is Gates thinking? His underlying position (that IP protection encourages innovation and that technological measures are part of that protection) is unremarkable enough, but why would he carry on an extended debate about "communism", over inflammatory words whose meaning he doesn't really understand? He's smarter than that.

And to Gizmodo? I'm surprised he even bothers to answer their phone calls at all!

Is he "smarter than that"? (4, Interesting)

Ars-Fartsica (166957) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363788)

Gates isn't smart, he's desperate. MSFT has barely nudged +/- $3 over the past four years while the rest of the tech market has taken off (particularly old rival AAPL). They're getting desperate in their smear campaign because its all about $$$...its become practically impossible to make MSFT rise with straight financials or new products, so they are trying mudslinging.

Re:Why would he do this? (1)

ashot (599110) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363917)

I posted this in another comment too, but it seems this explains why [nickdenton.org] .

Huh? LINK PLEASE! (0)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363706)

Did you link the right article?

I couldn't find the word communist on any one of those pages.

I saw a talk about Office on the Mac, the XBox, some vague talk about software of the future, but that's it.

Mod article -1 Flamebait.

Re:Huh? LINK PLEASE! (1)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363812)

NM, I read parts one, two and three, not four.

It is upto the artists (1)

sriram_2001 (670877) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363708)

If the artist feels that they should be paid, who are we to say no and download music without their permission? After all, they created it - they have the moral right to decide how people get it. If you don't like this, don't listen to their music. With Bittorrent, Kazaa, eDonkey,etc,etc, how many Slashdotters have gone out and bought CDs? If you feel most of the music is crap and it isn't worth listening to, then don't download that one particular single. If you against the artist's wishes, then it's stealing. Don't be so sure that the artists want to free up their music and only the RIAA's members are standing in their way. If that is the case, explain Metallica (and numerous others) filing suits. Benefiting from somebody's creation without their approval is theft. Pure and simple

creative work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11363713)

All I was saying is that the number of people who are at this extreme who believe there should be no incentive systems for creative work,...

he, considers stealing/markteing/expoilting others ideas and riding current tecnology waves 'creative work'? creative work is creating somehing you believe in, for the LOVE of it,... and the service is provides to all, getting paid, is the side effect,...

there's actually less of those people.
maybe, but they write some kickass software!

Xbox love? (3, Funny)

ajutla (720182) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363722)

From the article:

"Obviously, we'll connect Xbox Love up to what we do with Messenger"

I am intrigued.

Re:Xbox love? (1)

saintp (595331) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363845)

So is the porn industry.

Now you can buy "Backdoor Sluts 9: The Video Game." Although I hear it's not much more than tapping 'A' a lot as quickly as you can.

The problem with Communism... (5, Insightful)

Doverite (720459) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363732)

is what everybody thinks it is, as opposed to what it actually is. The ideas behind communism and democracy are very, very similar. Amish are communists in the purest sense of the word. It's just that COMMUNISM as we know is tied to Stalinist Russia, and modern China which have very little to do with the ideas of marxist communism.

Re:The problem with Communism... (0, Troll)

Banshee99 (416307) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363876)

Mod parent up for actually understanding what communism is.

He's using the term communist not as an insult, but as an example. The term communism has be twisted around by our (the US) goverment during the world wars to actually be totalitarianism/Marxism. Those two ideas have nothing to do with communism.

Now people get off your M$ bashing high horses and get back to class. Try to learn something.

Wow, what utter load of ... Gates (4, Insightful)

TheMeuge (645043) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363746)

Bill Gates is undoubtedly a smart guy, but in this interview he seems to have decided to follow the example of the current political administration - change the topic and pretend it is relevant. "The DRM we put into these systems is used to protect medical records, and it's used to protect things people want to protect." What a load of crap! I guess people are passing medical records around over bittorrent. That answer so far offtopic it's appalling, it's stupid, it's... bush-like. Oh, and he still calls open-source advocates communists.

Gates View of OpenSource (2, Interesting)

micromuncher (171881) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363752)

Its unfortunate that this smart man (though University drop out) does nots see fundamental attraction of OpenSource... that is the ENABLEMENT TO WORK without worrying about hidden APIs, proprietary formats, or hidden costs. He equates it all to OpenSourceSoftware means some ubercorp doesn't get its coin 'cause profit of the few is baaad.

If he had a few more neurons, perhaps he would equate OpenSource to political Anarchy, because that's what it really is. Grass roots freedom of DEVELOPERS to code without blockers.

C'mon Bill. OpenSource is about making money off consulting anyway - in a world market where global economics can castrate anyone whose dollar isn't worth as much as their neighbour.

Re:Gates View of OpenSource (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11363892)

Bill Gates has plenty of neurons. He's not interested in describing Open Source accurately. The only thing he is interested in is getting more money. Red Baiting is a time proven method for scaring the shit out of people and getting them to do what you want.

"Buy Microsoft or you're a commie" Who wants to be a commie? I'd better buy Microsoft!

Game ON!!! (1)

Smilin (840286) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363764)

Let the out of context quotes and subsequent bashing of M$ begin!!!! :)

Should artists be paid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11363795)

Gizmodo: I think that's sort of disingenuous. Obviously people think that artists, or you know, whoever creates software should be paid... Gates: No, no, no. That's not true! Many people don't believe that. Absolutely don't believe that. --> He means us.

Gates The Spinner (5, Insightful)

gorbachev (512743) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363804)

That part 4 interview is a perfect specimen of a spin artist in full spin mode.

The thing that stood out to me in the article was how billie seems to think people have no other incentive in innovating than profit. True innovators innovate for the challenge and because that's just what they LIKE doing. Profiting from it is just a side effect.

The part 3 interview, which is about XBox and everything evolving around that, has a bit of unintended humor in the first answer where Bill Gates appears to be championing for user choice and competition between vendors. Wow!

Is it me? (1)

twistedcubic (577194) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363805)

Or does the linked site crash everyone else's browser as well?

Re:Is it me? (1)

ashot (599110) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363867)

its you, go here first [opera.com] . ;)

Just bits, huh? (5, Insightful)

Ghoser777 (113623) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363819)

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?

Ah, but here is lies the classic folly. Currently, people have to decide if what they are doing is within the realms of fair use, such as copying a page from a book so they can cut out a favorite paragraph from the book and read it at presentation. DRM says that a machine has to decide if what I'm doing constitutes fair use. What happens when the computer doesn't understand my situation? Like with smart guns, if I'm wrestling with a criminal for their weapon and I manage to get it away from them, I won't be able to use it to defend myself! It's not just managing bits anymore Bill, it's managing our lives.

Re:Just bits, huh? (-1, Flamebait)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363856)

Nope, it's the content author who gets to decide what you do with his work. That's the law, if you don't like it, tough shit.

Boo hoo my life is ruined beccaues the new bertnay speers video has dee arr em!

An obligatory RTFA excerpt (1)

evilmeow (839786) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363831)

Gizmodo: [...] Do you think you're helping people protect their money?

Gates: That's what they think.

So whats wrong with a communist (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11363839)

Why is the word communist a deragatory term now a days.

People have no clue what it means and use it as a slam. Guess 50 years of govt brainwashing worked.

Ok... (1, Flamebait)

KontinMonet (737319) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363854)

Gates originally said [theregister.co.uk] (amongst other things):
"... 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."

In the part 4 above, he says:
"All I was saying is that the number of people who are at this extreme who believe there should be no incentive systems for creative work--there's actually less of those people."

By 'belief in incentive systems', he actually means (or perhaps even sincerely believes) that there exists no incentive for writing software for public/GPL/Copyleft (or whatever) usage. With his 'logic', you have to be paid (and, in some cases, well paid) to want to write software. Perhaps he's a closet Creationist too?

Is there a need... (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363857)

to actually RTFA?
I want to have a nice friday, so I'll skip this. :) It's FRIDAY! :D

Rationale for DRM (2, Funny)

jtosburn (63943) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363858)

Bill Gate's rationale for DRM:

\$$$$$$$$$$/
\$$$$$$$$/
\$$$$$$/
\$$$$/
\$$/
| |

MicroSoft

Can be summed with: Cha-Ching!

And now to blather on to satisfy the lameness filter, and get /. to stop bitching about too much whitespace in this freakin' comment. Such as it is, of course.

ANSWER THE QUESTION MR. TORVALDS!!! (5, Funny)

Dr Reducto (665121) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363874)

Have you or have not you ever contributed code to the communist operating system, Linux?

Gates Misses the Point (4, Insightful)

MojoRilla (591502) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363879)

He says that money is the only insentive for individual excellence, or a step further, that DRM is the only way to reward creativity.

I believe many artists make art to add beauty to the world, and that they desire an audience, not money.

I believe that there are many artists willing to share their creative work for free, and they are compensated by the attention they get. I believe that the market is starting to demand this art. One of the great thing about this art, as with free software, is that it can be extended, collaborated with, and changed far beyond the scope of the original art. Perhaps this art isn't as good as commercial art, or as polished, but it has great advantages, the biggest one being that it is free.

Finally, having been a successful shareware author, I can say that people are very generous if you ask them for support. I could have never distributed my software through traditional channels, and would have never made any money even if I could have, but was quite successful freely distributing my work, and only asking for payment in the about box.

It is ironic that Bill Gates doesn't understand this. His operating system has started this revolution, that has removed the cost of distribution. What we are seeing now is a natural evolution of the personal computer.

It's not about artists getting paid (2, Interesting)

realmolo (574068) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363888)

Artists already get paid. Some of them are millionaires.

What it's about is squeezing a few extra bucks out of everyone by removing their ability to listen/read/watch ANYTHING without paying for it. Because the media companies just can't STAND it when someone "uses" their product without giving them money.

The whole plan boils down to this: No information will be free, ever. The libraries know this, as they've already been fighting for survival in the new world of "intellectual property" and "digital rights".

Speedbumps? Roadblocks? (2, Funny)

NardofDoom (821951) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363902)

Let's see them put that into their ad campaign: "Microsoft: Setting up roadblocks since 2004."

How many work on Linux, how many are getting paid (0)

KalvinB (205500) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363923)

With Open Source the vast majority of the work is done by unpaid volunteers while the people at the top of the project get all the money. This is the way it is with communism. Those in charge get all the money/power while all the actual work is done by the masses for little to no pay.

With commercial software, those at the top make the most money but all those who work on it get paid a livable wage. This is how it is with captialism. There is no minimum wage for Open Source work. It can even cost people money out of their own pocket (negative income) to contribute. With closed source, the rich people at the top take the risk with the money, not the workers. With open source, it's the people on the bottom that take the risk.

This is one of the reasons why people consider Open Source communism. Whether or not it's a bad thing is up to those involved.

If you want to spend your own money to support an open source project and risk not getting it back, that's your business. If you want to work for no pay on a project that's valued at billions of dollars, that's your business.

Priceless quote (1)

retinaburn (218226) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363928)

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.

I can't tell if its spin by Gates, or spin by Gizmodo, or just looks like spin because its transcribed. But it made me spit coke out on my laptop.

Well, let's see here. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11363934)

Gates works for a situation where the path of all of computing is determined and controlled by one small elite body.

That certainly sounds like Marxism to me.

The Open Source movement meanwhile is firmly about competition and consumer choice. It creates a marketplace of ideas in which people choose the projects that best fit their needs and in exchange give back their own improvements to those projects.

I don't really see how you could get more capitalist than that.

Microsoft nazis? Mor like MPAA and RIAA Nazis (1)

Samek (512341) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363942)

I think people are getting confused as to who the real bad guys are here. I would say Microsoft is more of a Volkswagon in this analogy.

They are providing a technology. Technology in itself is not bad. Its how it is being used, or exploited. We have to remember that it is the entertainment industry that is creating the actual rights of use, not Microsoft. I think this is what ol' Bill was getting at.

Piss on the entertainment industry. I'm right there with you, but dont piss on DRM. It has very legitimate uses, medical records being a great example.

Corporate Communism (1)

SunFan (845761) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363943)


Bill Gates is a corporate communist. Microsoft wants to own your computer, your data, and your lifestyle.

Are we in agreement? (1)

DarthStrydre (685032) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363944)

Best part of the article...

Gizmodo: ... But I think we just disagree.

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

Cannot possibly be communism! (3, Interesting)

deacon (40533) | more than 9 years ago | (#11363956)

Compare and contrast:

OSS encourages individuals to trade directly with each other. VS Communism makes person to person trade a crime against the state, and labels it economic sabotage.

OSS actually works, and the technically best software gets the most users. VS Communism gives you products like the Trabant and makes you wait 12 years for delivery.

OSS is a choice, you are free to reject it without penalty. VS Communism is enforced by the barrel of a gun, dissidents get killed.

OSS has not caused the death of anyone. VS 100 million people have been killed by Communist regimes.

Some will argue that this is not "real, genuine" communism. Bullshit. Every case of communism in practice has been a poverty-laden murder-fest. Whining about how this is not "real" communism is astroturfing of the most foul sort.

Did communism get the first dog into space? Yes!

Did the dog ever make it back alive? You Capitalist pig dog traitor! How dare you even ask the question! (Actual answer is no. They didn't care about the life of the dog, they cared about the glory of Communism.)

If anything represents the output of Communism in the real software world, it is Windows. Poor quality, trade in it between individuals is forbiden, product is forced on the user by the OEM.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...