Slashdot Log In
Woz on Open Source, DRM
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Wed Jul 04, 2007 10:32 AM
from the when-the-man-talks dept.
from the when-the-man-talks dept.
destinyland writes "Steve Wozniak just weighed in on DRM, saying "it doesn't make much sense if these things are going to have DRM forever." In this great new interview, he complains that even now, only six songs on his iTunes playlist are DRM-free. He applauds the Open Source Movement, saying "it's very honorable and it's very good for the customers." He's even considering publishing the hand-written code for the Apple II as a manuscript.
He's also surprisingly non-commital about the iPhone. ("Will word of mouth kill it or make it a hit? Who knows?") He also talks about his favorite pranks, and reveals that "the Secret Service read me my Miranda rights once.""
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Respect (Score:5, Insightful)
Its too bad he isnt more actively involved in the industry these days. Then again, thats probrably a good part of why he is so liked!
Re:Respect (Score:5, Funny)
Nobody except for Fake Steve Jobs, that is. [blogspot.com]
;)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Respect (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Respect (Score:5, Funny)
I've heard rumours that he's very popular with himself.
Parent
Re:Respect (Score:5, Funny)
The schwartz is a powerful force within all of us, one cannot ask whom it is, because it is a powerful base unit of the universe!
You have the ring, and I see your Schwartz is as big as mine. Let's see how well you handle it.Parent
"Market Cap" no measure (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as what Woz contributed: well, first and foremost, he created a floppy drive that could fit in a space smaller than carry-on luggage. In fact, it was smaller than a toaster. And he was able to sell it for less than $1000. You can trace the start of the home computer revolution to his Apple ][ and the small, cheap floppy drive.
I would say Woz was about 10 times more responsible for the computer revolution than Bill Gates, or Microsoft. Gates was a more vicious businessman, and willing to exploit others, even fuck others over; and so his company has a larger market cap.
As far as Gates writing stuff, he was never that great. If you look at the impressive stuff done by Microsoft, Paul Allen was responsible for the heavy lifting up through MS-DOS 3.0. (After he discovered that Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer were trying to figure out how to get his shares back should he die of his cancer, he left. See what I mean about fucking others over?)
As far as jumping into philanthropy, Wozniak has been all about philanthropy since day 1. Gates didn't get into philanthropy until after he got married. Until then, he kept getting slammed in the press for being a stingy fucker. After it started affecting his image, he started giving money away, often in the form of, get this, Microsoft software. So, he gets to improve his image, and spread the disease at the same time.
Wozniak is ten times the man, and ten times the geek, that Gates is. Gates is more comparable to Jobs than Woz. Paul Allen was more the Woz equivalent for Microsoft.
Woz is easy to respect, as he not only was one of the primary forces to kick off the home computer revolution, but he's a nice guy. A bit strange, but nice.
Neither Gates nor Woz is really relevant any more. But Woz was and is the better geek, and the better man.
Parent
Re:"Market Cap" no measure (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:"Market Cap" no measure (Score:5, Insightful)
In an ideal world we wouldn't need communism, because it would be ideal. If you're going to dream, dream big.
Parent
Re:"Market Cap" no measure (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, Gates didn't get into philanthropy until after he got married and Microsoft got indicted for illegal trade practices.
Parent
Re:Gates the philanthropist... (Score:5, Informative)
He lives here in Omaha, NE and is a very frugal, simple man who from time to time can even be seen mowing his own lawn. Buffet always said he was doing to donate the bulk of his wealth and not burden his children with the responsibility it bears. His kids aren't pampered rich kids who ever assumed they would inherit anything. I've met both Peter and Susy Buffet, and not only do they make their own way in the world, they've both been very socially responsible to use their fame to help raise money for charity.
Gates was named Man of the Year and gets all the credit for good deeds he isn't doing.
And for the record, Gates repeatedly said for years he did not believe in charity and refused to donate much of anything. When he was forced to make small donations for tax purposes, he donated Microsoft software and computers to schools, again an act that is self-serving. Even Philly's much-hyped all technology school that Microsoft gets credit for was paid for in full by Philly. Neither Gates nor Microsoft donated a dime.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is true. Paul Allen was the Woz of MicroSoft, for whatever that's worth.
Steve Colbert's best remarks.. (Score:5, Informative)
It's not the Open Source Movement (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, I don't think the Open Source Movement has much contribute to the fight against DRM. Let's not forget that Open Source is just a way of writing software. The Free Software Movement however really fought against DRM, for example the Free Software Foundation launched the campaign DefectiveByDesign.org [defectivebydesign.org].
Re:It's not the Open Source Movement (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't fight DRM, they make the alternative.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But it would have happened.
Not to say I don't respect RMS deeply for his contributions. As it stands, he was the driving force behind it.
Whatever happened to voting with your feet? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sorry, I know Woz is a geek god and all that, but I still don't see why he should be let off this one. If you don't think DRM "makes sense", why on earth have you bought so much DRM-d content and so little DRM-free content?
I'm not sure how many tracks I have (I'm not at home to check) but I think perhaps 60 gig or so (legal, I hasten to add - 99% cd rips), but I do know exactly how many DRM-free tracks I have in my library: all of them. There isn't a DRM'd track on my hard drive. There isn't a user account in my name with any vendor of DRM'd tracks.
It's really not very difficult to simply not buy something you think is a poor product or morally objectionable idea, and I don't half get fed up of seeing people complain about <Apple / MS / Walmart / RIAA / MPAA / Nike / Nestle / etc> and in the next breath telling us all about their latest purchase from said company.
And I know what slashdot is like, so if anyone is thinking of arguing the technicality that Woz didn't decry DRM, only "forever" DRM, perhaps they can be ready with the evidence that ITMS DRM is built to turn itself off any time sooner.
Re:Whatever happened to voting with your feet? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because he's a billionaire...
And Apple only sold DRM music until recently.
"Doesn't make sense" is different than "strongly opposed to." Like I said he is a billionaire, and he probably has lot of other stuff on his mind (like more pranks, apparently.) Just because you think something is a bad idea doesn't mean you equate it to Satan. People have different priorities in their life.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Does not compute; doesn't answer the question at all. That explains how he can buy a lot of <anything>, but not why.
Being a billionaire, he could have bought 97,000 jellyfish-shaped strawberry cheesecakes, but he (presumably) didn't, so "being able to buy something" clearly doesn't in itself explain why he/anyone DID buy something.
Again, completely specious argument I'm afraid, as Apple are not the only vendors of musi
Woz standing in line.... I was there. (Score:5, Interesting)
I ended up 20th or so in line. Funny thing is, I think I was the first one to buy an iphone for myself. Almost everyone in line was buying them in quantity to either sell at a profit via ebay (haven't heard of success at that). However, back to my point of addressing Mr. Wozniak.
I realize many of you would consider him a god around here, but nonetheless his arrival was like this.
He arrived around 4am (note that by this time there was a considerable line) before the Apple store opened, and said "I'm Steve Wozniak, and I'm going to be first in line and buy 8 iPhones." What a dick, I would have thought more of him if he had gotten 'to the back of the line' like the rest of the crowd, just like every other regular joe. It's all good.
However... more importantly, one thing you won't see in the articles/blogs..
While he was in line, a 50something year old woman with a macbook tried to enter the store prior to the doors opening, as she was having battery trouble with it. Woz then proceeded to help her troubleshoot her battery issues. When she walked away I asked her, "Do you know who that is?" She responded "No." I told her, "He co-founded Apple..." She smiled, said "Oh, that's nice," and headed home to try again to fix her laptop with Woz's tips.
I did get a chance to talk to him for a minute, and he agreed with me when I asked him if he thought that when apple launches a major product (iPod/iPhone) that the atmosphere is similar to that of the US Festivals he organized in the early 80s. He agreed but added, "Less heat, less music, but the same comradarie and fun atmosphere."
Thought that was pretty slick, once a nerd always a nerd.
Re:And verily did he troubleshoot the lady's MacBo (Score:5, Funny)
Nanananananananananananana-- WOZMAN!
Yes, that is what goes as "funny" when you're sleep-deprived.
Parent
Woz is the man. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What copyright means, and why DRM doesn't matter. (Score:4, Insightful)
Copyright is fundamentally very simple. It's the right to make a copy.
In practice that's pretty complex, because... what's a copy? If you decide to get really technical, when you read a book or listen to a song, you're making a copy of it. It's low fidelity, unless you've got an unlikely good memory, but by your logic an artist should have the right to sue you if you hum the time or recite the story in public. Oh, I'm sure that you wouldn't go that far... but it's where the logic leads.
Copyright law is complex because copyright law is mostly about defining EXACTLY what a copy is. And when a copy is subject to copyright. There's been licenses on software that are based on the theory that you're making a copy of the software when you install it on your computer, but there's nothing about copyright restrictions preventing you from making a temporary copy of the images in a video when you play it on your TV. Unless you do it in a public place... then it's a performance. And you're allowed to make a personal copy of a movie off your TV if it was broadcast, which is a kind of public performance though your playing it isn't, or even if it's on a DVD... but not if you're playing it from a rented DVD, whether it's a public performance or not, and not if you're seeing it in a movie, which is another kind of public performance.
So, first off, while an artist has a right to use whatever format they want, that doesn't mean you don't have the right to make a recording in another format... for your own use. Apple got attacked for their "RIP, MIX, BURN" advertising campaign... but it turns out that in the US it's legal to "RIP, MIX, BURN". And it's legal to do that even if the music was DRMed to begin with.
So that's the second thing. The main reason for DRM is to try and create new rights. The DMCA is a really useful tool, because it makes it illegal to use "technical means" to bypass DRM. So while the law doesn't say that an artist has the right to prevent you from making a personal copy of an HD DVD, they're *creating* that right by gluing together bits of the law. This kind of thing happens all the time, the law says one thing, someone comes up with a way to make it mean something else, and sometimes the law gets changed to say that the other thing is really in there, or it gets changed to say the other thing was an unintended side effect and it's really OK to eat peanuts on church after all.
This kind of thing also ends up making the definition of a "copy" trickier.
And people aren't stupid. They look at the way things work, and they look at DRM, and they go "you know, you're treating your fans like shit". So they either treat the artists like shit in return, or they decide they don't like the music enough to put up with being treated like shit. So there's actually competition, and market forces, and all that America and Apple Pie stuff, and what it does it makes DRM into something that provides an advantage for the artists who don't use it. Particularly the ones who aren't selling that well, yet... so they put stuff out that's not restricted, and people discover it, and they go "hey, this is good stuff", and they go "hey, this guy is cool", and they buy his stuff. And there's guys who've made it this way.
And these artists aren't signing with EMI. So EMI's not getting their cut, so this gives EMI a reason to go DRM-free... maybe they can sign a few of the hot new internet artists who'd otherwise be going through CDbaby and eMusic and getting earplay through last.fm. Because, you know, the Internet isn't going away.
I hate the "Napster clones". I think Napster should have been slapped down HARD, right off, because their whole business model was deliberately about setting up cutouts so they could get a cut of copyright violati
Parent