Comments in response to a Microsoft employee's defense
of Norway's choice of Microsoft to be the sole supplier of 
video technology for use with its national video archive.

By Cory Doctorow 
doctorow@craphound.com

17 October 2005

Original blog post:
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/10/16/norways_public_broad.html

Microsoft employee's response:
http://spaces.msn.com/members/cortopolis/Blog/cns!1p1MgskJM906Us-MkR14rZ0Q!349.entry

Thank you for your extensive comments on my remarks, Cort. I have
inserted some further remarks in response, below:

: You can't name one restriction unless you contort the concept
: freedom into: free to trash somebody else's stuff.  Media Center
: plays a broad range of content.  It doesn't restrict you from
: playing unrestricted content.  It also attempts to honor a
: content owner's expressed wishes.  If a content owner says "i
: don't want you to copy" then Media Center tries not to.  This is
: only a restriction of freedom if you a) don't believe in IP or b)
: unciviliy (sic) wish to do something an IP owner would prefer you
: not to.  But Cory, an author, believes in some form of IP.  He's
: not very charitable with any definition other than those he
: prefers.

Well, if you believe that copyright gives the company that
releases records the right to design record-players, then you're
right, it would be illegal or unethical to move your lawfully
acquired media from one device to another without permission.
Lucky for Microsoft, you and me, this isn't the law, anywhere. A
rightsholder who sells or otherwise provides you with a work has
no right to command you to limit your playback to a  universe of
approved devices. If it did, you'd never have been able to ship
WMP, with its CD-ripping feature built in.

Media Center contains at least one irrefutable restriction that 
has nothing to do with what copyright protects: Media Center
prevents you from moving your own media to your own devices
without implicit or explicit rightsholder permission. I can't
make a transcoder that can extract the video from my own Media
Center to my own devices, and neither can any company provide me
with this service. Doing so would be unlawful because of
anti-circumvention provisions in the EUCD/DMCA/WCT.

: I also know that it's a pain in the bottom to not be able to do
: everything you want with somebody else's property.  It's nice to
: be unrestricted.  I think it may be non-optimal to put punishing
: restrictions onto good customers.  It certainly isn't how I wish
: to be treated.

You know, for someone concerned with honesty and quick to toss
around accusations of falsehoods, you're awfully free with loaded
terms like "property." Copyright isn't property. That's not
rhetoric, it's the official position of  the US Congress, WIPO
and the WTO. Copyright is a limited, governmentally granted
monopoly that allows rightsholders to control some aspects of the
use of the works they create or  commission. You know this or you
should. To quote you: "I think Cor[t] is smart and knows what
he's talking about.  If I am right, then Cor[t] is a liar."

: I'm sure there is some sort of low rent duplicate in Linux.  But
: my linux skills, like those of most Norwegians, are below the
: script-kiddie level.  Media Center is an auto I know how to
: drive.  Cool!  (of course it's one that I have to freaking reboot
: but we'll continue to "fumble towards excellence" (tm) on that
: front.

Have a look at Promise.TV for a "low-rent duplicate" and see just
how good an unrestricted and free market can be. This is what
capitalism is: the freedom to compete.

: No they haven't.  Did you know that we license WM codecs to
: Linux?  To Mac?   Do you know that, as a part of the DVD Forum's
: ratification process, we had to give up control, source code and
: price variability for the natural life of the codec?  Did you
: know that our prices and price caps are about half that of
: MPEG's?

The pricing of the codec is one (important) issue. A much more
important issue is the freedom to create competing products. The
release of 20,000 video clips can either serve as the stimulus
for competition to produce more-capable, more-innovative video
devices, or it can serve to enrich a single company with the sole
authority to veto or green-light innovation with those clips.

Regarding licensing "to Linux." No you don't. You license the
codec to a vendor that makes a proprietary, non-open-source
player that runs on some GNU/Linux systems. There is  no entity
"Linux" to whom you could offer such a license. Importantly, what
you have not done is license your codec for implementation in
Free/Open Source Software.

: Box canyon Cory.  You are either ignorant of this or you aren't
: and are trying to scare through lying.  Or lying-ish.  In any
: case you are not a fair voice.  Hating us is ok but it's eating
: you up and making you stupid.  Cut it out.  Mean people suck.

I won't dignify this with a response except to note that ad
hominem does not a rebuttal make, nor is it consistent with your
averred concern over "civility."

: Theoretically truie. (sic)  Microsoft could even shut itself down
: and take it's video codec ball home and stop everyone from
: playing.  But Cory is hiding the fact (potentially
: non-intentionally but i doub (sic) it, or maybe he's fooling
: himself too) that in reality of variety of platforms that play
: WMV is h u uuuuge.  and growing.  We are a mandatory codec for
: all next-gen DVD players.  Yes that includes Blu-ray.  Why? 
: Because we are great at what we do.  Oh, and we provide DRM. 
: Which artists, content owners and governments have a right to
: use.

On the terms set out by MSFT, which include a blanket ban on Free
and Open Source implementations, which means that businesses
built on these principles are shut out of the market. As to
intellectual honesty: if you were being honest here, you'd stop
attacking straw men ("Microsoft could even shut itself down and
take it's video codec ball home and stop everyone from playing")
and instead address the real point: that Microsoft can
discriminate against its *competitors* through withholding or
conditioning codec licensing.

: The world would descend into chaos without dependency on the
: American empire.  The last sentence is more than anti-Microsoft,
: it is anti-Capitalistic (read: anti-freedom).  Yes, now that I
: have a SAAB my dealer can charge whatever they want for service
: and Gillette me to death with bait and switch pricing.  Maybe
: they are and service is super profitable for them?  humm.  It
: seems ok so far.  Last time I went in they fixed for free while i
: waited.  Wonder why?  If I were Cory would I be living in fear of
: their evil Capitalist leverage?  Sucks to be you man.

You need to read some Keynes. Or Friedman. Or any other
capitalist economist. Free markets rely on competition, which is
undermined by monopolies. If the public money is to be spent in
the public interest, it is irresponsible to spend it in such a
way that it gives a marketplace advantage to a single foreign
company.

: Not sure it's a hundred hoops you exaggerating falsehood spreader.

Again, for someone so quick to jump to accusations of lying and
incivility, you need to brush up on what is a falsehood and what
is rhetoric or hyperbole.

: To you we are a monopolistic (not definable in non-subjective
: law) and eeeeeviilll corporation who should spend our treasure on
: every potential competitive format because we've lost the right
: to our platform because everybody chose to use it er,...
: succumbed to our gun to their head and was forced into
: 'softitude.

So your argument is that we have nothing to fear from Microsoft
because they freely license their technologies to their
competitors, except that  it is unreasonable to expect Microsoft
to enable its users to employ competing products?

: : Many people have a hard time downloading new software, but
: : every single P2P user (likely also to be the leading users
: : for this service) has already demonstrated her willingness to
: : download and install new apps.
: 
: ...and most have demonstrated a willingness to steal IP. 
: That being said, P2P is GREAT and Microsoft is the biggest
: and only great platform for consumer P2P as a product of our
: market share and the network effects of P2P.  Oh, and our
: great network stack.  But I doubt you believe that.  Wait
: until you see the IPV6 goodness we are shipping in Vista.  It
: is unparalleled.  Don't hate us because we are beautiful. 
: And filthy filthy rich.

Another straw man. No one cast aspersions on the quality of the
software. The criticism here is that the choice of MSFT's
proprietary technology undermines competition, raises costs and
punishes domestic technology companies.

Regarding P2P users -- is it your belief that you will tempt
users away from using the P2P services they've demonstrated their
allegiance to by offering them an alternative that provides a
proprietary file-format whose players are more restrictive than
their own players? Good luck.

: : And if it's hard now to get people to download and install
: : non-Microsoft technology that would provide a level playing field
: 
: LPF is a big ol commie term.  Cory is a creative commie, so it's
: appropriate.  This graph is strange in that it contains insults
: from me that I expect Cory to take as compliments.  Can't we all
: just get along?

Red-baiting is ugly and cheap. If you have a rebuttal, try and
choke it out without resorting to semantically null, visibly
inaccurate slurs. How is it "communistic" to assert the right of
domestic software companies to compete in a free market? Why is
it capitalistic for you to lobby for an indirect subsidy from
government in the form of a monopoly grant of license to playback
the video that was commissioned at public expense? There's only
one of us calling for governmental intervention in the market
here, and it's not me.
   
: You know, Cory has some strange nationaistic (sic) thing going
: on.  Microsoft is an american company, true.  We are also a
: global company.

I'm a Canadian who used to live in Central America and the USA
and now resides in Europe. How much more global would you like me
to be? Oh, and I also work at the UN and spend a fair bit of time
in Asia, Africa and South America talking with ministers,
activists and entrepreneurs about copyright. What element of my
outlook is insufficiently international for your taste?

: Cory I invite you, on behalf of the EXCELLENT Microsoft employees
: in Norway, to become more sophisticated in your global outlook. 
: The people of Norway that work for us (many) love us.  The
: government of Norway wants us there.  The people of Norway, by
: and large, want us there.  The tech companies,... some compete,
: some innovate on top, some love us, some probably hate us.  But
: Microsoft is not the enemy of the people of Norway by product of
: our Redmond home office address.  This trend will only increase! 
: We typically double our presence in India year over year.  We are
: growing in China.  We are growing in Ireland.  We are growing
: worldwide, ~10K employees a year.  YES!  And we will hopefully
: add enough value to Norway to allow us to grow there too. 
: Wherever we offer an addition Cory only sees a subtraction.  But
: many people love our software and are more alive and productive
: through using it.  I'm sure if everybody learned Linux instead of
: doing the things they have chosen to do instead or if they all
: paid a premium for Macs instead of saving on a cheap Dell, it
: would be a different world.  Does Cory believe that would be a
: better one?  Don't be a player hater.
: Interesting rhetorical path, blind to Microsoft.  Either we are
: partially subsidized by Norway (doubt it but is possible) and are
: among those companies Norway tries to help help them, OR we are
: able to add value to Norway without subsidy, which is pretty darn
: cool.

It's most certainly a subsidy to be granted sole-supplier status
for software that is used in connection with publicly funded
video.

: This is Soviet thinking.  God forbid you drive a car manufactured
: elsewhere or use technology from overseas.  It takes a villiage
: (sic) Cory.  A global village.  Yugoslavs should only drive
: Yugos, and to not do so is unpatriotic.  Forget about buying the
: product best adapted to your needs.  Everyone use technology from
: your own country.  Unless you are in the states and that
: technology is Microsoft.

More straw-men. No one is talking about the freedom of Norwegians
to choose to consume foreign goods. We're talking about a
government granted monopoly on supplying infrastructure for the
use of public goods. To use your car analogy: what if the law was
that Norwegian highways could only be driven with American cars?
Or that all cars in Norway could only run on American petrol?

Your guilty conscience is showing: your employer has secured a
special favor of great economic value from the public coffers of
Norway, a grant that locks out competition from Norwegian firms
and foreign firms. That is just how the old Stalinist central
"economies" functioned. It is a disastrous way to run a market.

: Darknet darknet blah blah.  Except it does work.  Back alleys
: have fake Rolexes too, but the majority of business for Rolex
: looking watches goes to,... Rolex.  For all the conventional
: wisdom that the Darknet is omnipotent, it simply is not.  DRM +
: lawsuits,... works!  Duh.

Saying it doesn't make it so. Downloads are up, despite lawsuits.
Lawsuits are up -- 1 in 50 lawsuits in the federal docket in the
US is said to be a record industry suit against a fan. This
massive denial of service attack on the American judicial system
doesn't stop downloading, or pay artists.

If you want to incentivize customers to choose iTunes over Kazaa,
first start by making the iTunes product as attractive as the
Kazaa product. No one buys an iTune because she's looking for
some more DRM in her life.

Oh, and "blah blah blah" isn't an argument, it's glossolalia.

: To represent the situation realistically, I would insert "a
: insignificant number of" in there somewhere.  We are growing our
: state government business by leaps and bounds.  Norway doesn't
: have to apologize for using us, were just the best solution.

The rate of growth in governmental prohibition of Microsoft
products is  a lot higher than the rate of growth of Microsoft
sales to governments.

You've once again attacked a straw-man. Norway could have picked
H.264 or another open standard for delivery of this video and
allowed Microsoft and all its competitors to compete in the
marketplace. Instead, they've delivered sole-vendor status to
Microsoft. You don't want a market where the winner emerges
through competition: you want a "market" where the winner is
chosen by the government.

eof