[Fsfe-france] Bill gates s'exprime sur les DRM

[tariq KRIM]

Voici une nouvelle  interview qui va faire encore du bruit, l'interview de
Bill Gates par Gizmodo (plus bas)


Ce la m’inspire quelques réflexions que je viens de poster sur mon blog
http://tariqkrim.blog.lemonde.fr/

Je vous laisse le soin de comprendre ce que veux dire ce passage:

"Gizmodo: Okay, so say that's true. Do you think that DRM as a roadblock, or
Microsoft's role in setting up that roadblock, do you think that's helping
artists get paid? Do you think you're helping people protect their money?

Gates: That's what they think."

Donc le DRM serait la volonté des artistes ? En quelque sorte une demande du
marché, en tout cas d’une partie du marché et qu’il faudrait y répondre ?

Il est peut être important de revenir un instant sur la situation actuelle
de l’informatique : qui paie ou va payer cette industrie ? La défense
(reprise des investissements démesurés notamment dans le quantique depuis
9/11) et le consumer (a qui on a vendu des ordinateurs et qui va maintenant
acheter des baladeurs, des ordinateurs de salon et des téléphones 3,4,5G),
un peu l’entreprise qui va surtout restructurer son architecture une
troisième fois ( après le client serveur, l’intranet extranet, on passe aux
web services et au décentralisé)

Revenons un instant sur le consumer electronics 

Le principal problème auquel est confronté MSFT pour les 10 prochaines
années c'est que les nouvelles niches de rentabilités que sont les serveurs
(backoffices, webservices) sont menacé par des concurrents sérieux
(notamment google), et que le marché des devices, pda et autres téléphones
mobiles n'offrent pas d'avantage concurrentiels  pour Microsoft: symbian,
linux, palm, googleos, yahoo d'autres acteurs peuvent encore très bien se
positionner pour fournir en OS ces machines (iriver et archos sont passé
sous linux, d'autres se disent qu'ils vont le faire). 

Le seul moyen pour Microsoft de se renforcer sur ces devices est
d'introduire des DRM et d'obliger les constructeurs qui à les utiliser
(puisqu’il a négocier avec l’ensemble des majors qu’ils utilisent son
format). 

Hors pour installer des DRM, il faut en dessous des systèmes d'exploitations
Windows PMC !

Car la vraie stratégie est celle des OS mobiles. Le DRM est une garantie
pour Microsoft, que les constructeurs ne passeront pas sous
linux/Xvid/MP3/OGG/FLAC/VP6/THEORA  pour la video et l’audio (ce sont les
principaux formats d’échange de la culture dite « libre »). 

Pour Microsoft c'est environ, 5 dollars par système vendu, et 1 dollars pour
la gestion du DRM installé.

Les concurrents de Microsoft pour les DRM que sont Sony, DivX et Apple ne
contrôlent pas l'OS mobile. Si Apple décide de faire un PVP (personal video
player), quel OS mobile va-t-il mettre ? N’est ce pas la raison qui les
pousse à retarder la sortie d’un Ipod vidéo ?

Si DivX installe un DRM, il gagne 1 dollars, si Microsoft en installe un ,
il gagne 6 dollars (le DRM+la licence de l’OS Mobile).

Creative Labs fait les frais de cette stratégie puisqu'il ne peut pas
autoriser la lecture d'un DivX sur son produit en Natif. Qui est assez fou
pour acheter un produit qui ne lit pas le DivX ? Même Sony a du remettre en
urgence le MP3 dans ses baladeurs.

Ce qu’il faut comprendre :

C’est que la problématique des auteurs et des artistes n'est absolument pas
le problème des ingénieurs qui ne souhaitent répondre qu'à une seule
problématique: 

comment contrôler l'OS des appareils mobiles qui remplaceront l'ordinateur
(jeux mobile, téléphonie 4G wifi, mp3, streaming live de MP3 via le WIFI,
vidéo, personal storage, téléphone DECT et GSM) ?

Ces produits qui sont lancé aux CES vont rendre les ventes d’ordinateurs
obsolètes et donc baisser les ventes de licence windows, il faut donc
trouver de nouvelles sources de revenus.

On ne le répète pas assez: l'important c'est le bout de chaîne: celui qui
contrôle le device et l'os du device contrôle la chaîne applicative. Si le
DRM permet de contrôler plus vite les parts de marché des OS mobiles
Microsoft, alors il faut le supporter et le renforcer. Et si possible
utiliser les réserves de cash de la société pour se maintenir.

Cette stratégie en cours est insuffisante. Car l’organisation du Web 3eme
génération (la nouvelle sphère informationel) s’appuie sur des protocoles
très simples, libres et sur le P2P (blogs, RSS, wiki, …)

Pour exister sur le web de demain, il faut avoir une stratégie de captation
de la valeur dans un environnement ouvert. 

Pour Microsoft c’est clé, et il faut quand même saluer sa capacité à
rebondir : Après le coup de génie de DOS, la migration subite sur l'Internet
(du jour au lendemain), la prochaine étape est le passage au modèle open
source. 

Les paroles de Bill Gates n’y feront rien, il a fustigé l’Internet en 93,
switché en 94 et dominé en 2004.

Rappellons quelques avantages de Microsoft sur les autres acteurs :

        La boite peux tenir 5 ans sans vendre aucun produit

        La boite est bien meilleur marketeuse que les boites Linux

        La boite dispose de nombreux projets interne de recherche qui
pourraient enfin trouver des débouchés dans un modèle sources ouvertes.

        Microsoft pourrait alors mettre en place une stratégie inédite dans
le monde: le modele dev-less (plus de développement et de recherche que de
la propriété intellectuelle et de la vente) par analogie au modèle fab-less
(plus d'usine, que du marketing de Nike)

Mais évidement il y a quelques soucis:

Bill Gates est hait par la communauté du libre (en 94 tout le monde disait
qu’il n’avait rien compris à Internet et son bouquin, la route du futur n’a
pas eu le succès de celui de Négroponte, mais en même temps, il avait raison
sur l’explosion a venir de la domotique)

        Il faut qu'il trouve le bon modèle et la bonne licence
d’exploitation  ce qui necessite un choix tactique difficile: 
        
        Adopter et marketer linux en y adaptant ses produits et ses offres
de services ?

        Opensourcer Windows et convertir une partie des développeurs libres
à son environnement et donc permettre à deux visions opensources d’exister
en      parallèle ce qui pourrait être intéressant ;)

Microsoft n'arrive plus à innover, les mauvaises langues disent qu'ils
attendent la prochaine évolution de Mac pour lancer leur prochaine version
de Windows car ils n'arrivent pas à choisir leur interface graphique.


Il y a aussi le problème de la culture d’entreprise : Il n'est pas possible
actuellement pour Microsoft de suivre une tendance, il doit la dominer : Ca
a très bien marché avec l'internet, comment cela va-t-il fonctionner pour
son passage à l'opensource ?

Et il y a un problème de date : il faut que cette migration ait lieu et
réussisse dans les 5 ans !

TK

---
Voici l'interview de gizmodo
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/portable-media/gates-interview-part-four-comm
unists-and-drm-029706.php

This is the final segment of our interview with Microsoft Chairman Bill
Gates, where we discuss why Creative Commons advocates aren't (or are?)
communists, and why Microsoft feels their DRM offers the best of both
worlds.

Gizmodo: When you talked to CNet (I believe that was yesterday), you sort of
ticked off some of the blog world with some of the comments... a specific
comment that was made, about some of the IP advocates—people that are
advocating more... not necessarily open source, but Creative Commons and
things like that. A less restrictive IP environment. You made an analogy and
called them "communist."

Do you feel that's necessarily a fair judgment to make, to call those people
'communists,' as opposed to someone who adopts DRM as maybe... a
'capitalist?' (I don't know what you're thinking the opposite would be).

Gates: 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? Call 'communism' a system where [in] the extreme case you believe
that the idea of the individual getting lots of wealth in return for the
things they do... that that's wrong. If you have no incentive for individual
excellence and it's just sort of, you know, banned. All the way up to an
extreme that nobody would believe in, that there's no redistribution of
wealth and that's there's no expiration of rights and control. So you have
this huge spectrum.

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. The question seemed to be saying that the
whole support for IP and incentive systems was completely falling apart and
didn't I notice that was a big trend, and I said, no, on the contrary. The
idea of capitalistic incentive: there's actually a higher percentage of the
planet—take all of China—that's involved in capitalistic incentive systems
than there have been in the past. That's all.

Now, reasonable people can disagree about it. There are very few people at
either extreme at this point and there's lots of good debate. Take one point
on the spectrum: that there should be no patent system. Another point in the
debate would be that it should be somewhat improved patent system. I was
just saying that the balance was, 'Hey, let's draw out the creativity of all
the smart people in China,' which the communistic system did not. Let's draw
out the creativity of the people in India. Let's have these great university
systems and the internet letting you find buyers and sellers in much better
ways than ever before. And the world is richer for what's gone on.

Gizmodo: Do you think that it's critical to protect IP—software, music,
whatever... Do you think it's critical to protect those things with DRM or
do you think that, or do you feel like you have to provide the DRM so that
the companies that are distributing that stuff will allow it on your
systems?

Gates: Well, ignore DRM for a second. Should an artist that creates a great
song be paid for that song? That's where you have to start. You don't start
with DRM. DRM is just like a speed bump that reminds you whether you're
staying within the scope of rights that you have or you don't. So you don't
start with DRM. That's like saying, 'Do you believe in speed bumps?' You
have to say, 'Should people drive at 80mph in parking lots?' If you think
they should, then of course you don't like speed bumps.

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.

Gizmodo: You don't think that... Well, okay, I guess that's true. There is
definitely a side of...

Gates: Go back to China in 1950 and say, "Hey, I wrote a song! Pay me!
Please, pay me!" And then you can read, it says right there: you will not be
paid. So yes, views about incentive programs run the entire spectrum.

Gizmodo: Okay, so say that's true. Do you think that DRM as a roadblock, or
Microsoft's role in setting up that roadblock, do you think that's helping
artists get paid? Do you think you're helping people protect their money?

Gates: That's what they think.

Gizmodo: That's what the artists think, you're saying?

Gates: Yes. There are artists who want the software to remind people of
rights boundaries. Are those authors wrong or right? That's up to them. We
don't take a position on that. What we want is to have as much content as
possible available. And available in the most convenient, easy-to-use form.

Gizmodo: So if that's the case, why in the Windows video players—the
[Portable] Media Centers that just came out—why do you have to transcode,
let's say a DivX that you might have downloaded or ripped a DVD that you
purchase. Why do you have to transcode that to Windows [Media] Video before
you copy it?

Gates: That has nothing to do with rights management. Not a thing. We don't
have the codec! We just don't happen to have that codec in the Portable
Media Centers. This has nothing to do with rights management. There's a
discussion whether we should put the DivX codec in. Believe it or not—and
you'll find this ironic—we are both a defendant on intellectual property as
well as saying there's some value on intellectual property, so whenever we
put things in our systems, we have to look at what the IP rights are.

That transcoding has nothing to do with rights management. When we see a
format that we don't natively support, the only thing we can do is transcode
it. So if you say, hey, why don't we natively support it, that's a question
of how many codecs should we put in there? I think the DSPs are actually
rich enough to do some additional formats and maybe in future versions we
should put those formats in. There's nothing philosophical about that;
nothing to do with rights management.

We've always supported, in everything we've done, if something doesn't have
a rights envelope on it, we don't sit there and sniff it and say, 'Oh, it
looks like you've got Mickey Mouse here, and we don't see in our files that
you paid for Mickey Mouse.' We never do anything like that. We support... If
there's no envelope, we do everything fantastic with it.

But if there's an envelope that says 'this should only be done with this,'
you're right: in order to get authors to be willing to put an ever broader
range of content on our platform, we have talked through with them. We have
been in a dialogue—with their representatives in most cases and them
directly in some cases—saying, 'Okay, what kind of envelopes do you want?
And what do you expect?' And sometimes they ask for things that just aren't
realistic that would make things inconvenient for the user.

Gizmodo: What seems to me—what hurts my feelings—I feel like I, as a
customer, want Microsoft to be totally on my side. In that, as far as the
people that are producing things, that might want more DRM and might make it
inconvenient, I don't understand what it necessarily benefits you to help
them.

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.' 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.
---

-t
--
Tariq KRIM :address@hidden
L8rmedia
www.generationmp3.com | www.utopeer.com