Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Gates Nose-Dives at CES

Posted by michael on Thu Jan 06, 2005 08:50 AM
from the look-out-below dept.
Lots of submissions this morning about Bill Gates' performance at the Las Vegas Consumer Electronics Show. His Media Center PC presentation crashed. (The presentation is online.) He also gave an interview to CNET, where he described anyone who doesn't support ever-increasing intellectual property laws as "communists". Boingboing has some commentary on that interview as well.
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived.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.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by beeglebug (767468) * on Thursday January 06 2005, @08:52AM (#11274523)
    Fly the flag with pride comrades!
    boingboing.net/images/copyleftcommie.gif [boingboing.net]
    • Eh? (Score:5, Funny)

      by hey! (33014) on Thursday January 06 2005, @09:15AM (#11274710) Homepage Journal
      Shows you what you know. Flags are for fat old aparachnik fogies. All the cool revolutionaries know you wave bloody shirts.


      To the barricades!

    • That should be a patent-unencumbered PNG! Where is your sense of decency, comrade? :)
    • "Fly the [boing!boing! USSR/Copyleft] flag with pride comrades!"

      NONONONONO!!! I know you're trying to be funny, but I'm not laughing... The last thing free software proponents need is to associate themselves with a failed economic ideology that has resulted in tens of millions of unnecessary deaths worldwide. Free Software has nothing to do with statist communism and everything to do with individual freedom of association and collaboration. When Bill Gates frames the debate between the capitalists on his side and communists on the other, the last thing to do is embrace the presuppositions of his frame! Down that road evokes an ideological wasteland of failure! Do copyleft supporters want to associate themnselves with that? --M
        • by rho (6063) on Thursday January 06 2005, @10:45AM (#11275827) Homepage Journal
          Ah, yes, this is a old chestnut: "Communism is a good system run by bad people."

          The problem with communism/socialism is not the people who are running it, it's people. We just don't work that way in groups larger than a high school study group, and that's why it fails every time.

    • by caluml (551744) <slashdot&spamgoeshere,calum,org> on Thursday January 06 2005, @10:30AM (#11275611) Homepage
      A better picture [umtstrial.co.uk].
      • by finkployd (12902) on Thursday January 06 2005, @09:05AM (#11274633) Homepage
        I find it offensive to associate the GPL with a form of government that's responsible for killing many millions of people.

        Are you aware of a major form of government that is NOT responsible for killing millions of people?

        Finkployd
        • by Lifewish (724999) on Thursday January 06 2005, @09:11AM (#11274689) Homepage Journal
          I can't think of a single anarchist government that's killed millions of people.
          • by Catbeller (118204) on Thursday January 06 2005, @09:28AM (#11274867) Homepage
            "Anarchist government" is an oxymoron. True anarchy arises from lack of order spontaneously, and a lot of scores get settled with blood. Everyone: the US killed over 300,000 Filipinos alone in the Spanish-American war. We've killed 12,000-100,000 in Iraq; the exact number is classified. "Communism" didn't kill anyone any more than our "democracy" has. Nothing about the theories demand you murder people. The ideologies don't kill. People kill. Stalin and Lenin killed millions for political and economic advantage, and we are killing for the same reasons now. And the Russians thought they were defending their motherland and freedom as well. And were as deluded as we are now, for the exact same reasons.
            • by nbert (785663) on Thursday January 06 2005, @10:00AM (#11275183) Homepage Journal
              Whilst making a valid point in your post, this statement is highly misleading:
              "Communism" didn't kill anyone any more than our "democracy" has.
              You should really read this article about Democide in the Soviet Union [freedomsnest.com] before you make such a statement. I really hate to bring death tolls into such discussions, but in this case there is a completely different dimension in numbers *and* course of action.
              • by Junior J. Junior III (192702) on Thursday January 06 2005, @10:20AM (#11275469) Homepage
                That's very true, and I'd mod you up if I werent responding to your comment.

                BUT, you have to acknowledge that Soviet-style Communism isn't really Communism, it's totalitarianism. USA-style democracy isn't really democracy, either, but that's another matter...
      • by eno2001 (527078) on Thursday January 06 2005, @09:15AM (#11274711) Homepage Journal
        To paraphrase the NRA member logic: Governments don't kill people, people kill people. The communist form of government had little to do with killing people. It ultimately fell victim to a human trait called greed. The people in power in the former soviet states felt that they were more equal than others. If you ask me, I will tell you that our capitalist republic is failing in the same exact way. The only difference is that with capitalism, the PR machine has better beads and trinkets. Now before anyone jumps on me to tell me that capitalism is an economic model and communism is a political model, don't forget that in communism, the economic model is defined by the political model. Here in the U.S. the economic model is also defined by the political model, but the balance is different. Here the economic model has more power than the political model. And those people who would have been high ranking politicos in the U.S.S.R. are instead CEOs in our corporations. Very effective way of attempting to take over the world without letting things like politics and ethics get in the way.
          • by bheerssen (534014) <bheerssen@gmail.com> on Thursday January 06 2005, @11:52AM (#11276901) Homepage
            One key difference between Communism and Capitalism is the existence of a middle class in Capitalism.

            Let's keep it that way. The middle class is currently shrinking in a dramatic way. The upper class is not growing appreciably, but they are making more money. The poor class, on the other hand, is growing. This suggests a shift of power away from the middle class to the upper class. This is not a good thing. As the powerful amass more power, they will abuse it to the detriment of everybody else. That is why power should reside in the largest segment of the population as possible -- to help ensure that as few people as possible face abuse from the rest of society.

        • by arkanes (521690) <arkanes.gmail@com> on Thursday January 06 2005, @10:13AM (#11275358) Homepage
          Communism is a method of government, what we're talking about here is socialism, the economic theory. So with that out of the way, lets go on: Copyright is a violation of "pure" economic principles, because it's a market control to create an artificial scarcity. However, nobody with any brains actually wants a market totally free of any controls, even so-called free-marketers. There's some other considerations, like that copyright creates a market where there otherwise wouldn't be one.

          However, anti-copyright is not socialist, because socialism is ENFORCED public sharing/ownership. The absence of copyright means that there's no legal protection for works, not that you're required to share them. (As an aside: patents as well as registered copyrights require disclosure["sharing"] as a requirement).

          The RIAA is an industry organization made up of record labels. It doesn't directly interact with artists in any way, but people (at least on Slashdot) will refer to "the RIAA" when they mean "record labels and/or the music industry as a whole", as well as the RIAA per se. Any artist with any signifigant amount of distribution (ie, outside their home county) will have to sign with an RIAA member, because record labels control access to all the major means of distribution - you won't get your album into stores and you won't get radio play without a record deal with a major label. One more note: despite there being a whole shit-ton of record labels, they're mostly subsidaries or imprints of each other. There's a fairly small set of people who control the music industry and while they compete with each other to a degree, they mostly collude.

          In summary: Grandparent is wrong to call copyrights communist (or socialist), but your rebuttal is equally wrong pretty much everywhere.

          • by AviLazar (741826) on Thursday January 06 2005, @11:13AM (#11276280) Journal
            But whose choice is that to make? Your choice (or the peoples)? What gives you the right to decide how much Brittney Spears and her organizations want to charge for their own creation? Or should we let the gov't choose the price?
            With available tech people steal the material. If people are legally allowed to steal the material (now it is not stealing, it is just taking for free) - they will do so. In all honesty - how many people are going to pay for something, when they can get it for free legally? Hell how many people out there pay for something when they can take it illegally with little risk of capture?
            It is not our property - we did not make it, we have ZERO say. It is like if I knit a sweater. I can charge nothing for it(give it away), I can charge 5 bucks or I can charge 5,000 bucks. My choice. Your choice is to pay or not pay for it. If i see that people are not buying my sweaters I can either reduce the price or leave it as is. Again I have a choice to sell at the price that I want to sell, you have the choice to buy it or not. I can't see why this concept is so hard to grasp?

            Please note I am not trying to incite you to anger, I am just trying to figure out why people have a problem with someone setting a price that they want on their property.
  • by bitswapper (805265) * on Thursday January 06 2005, @08:53AM (#11274530)
    Never show up at an event hosted by a comedian.
    Using Windows.
  • by millennial (830897) on Thursday January 06 2005, @08:53AM (#11274537) Journal
    I always knew Gates was a robot. Now they installed SP2 on him, and LOOK WHAT HAPPENS! Increased security, my foot!
  • by Sottilde (836088) on Thursday January 06 2005, @08:54AM (#11274541)
    I wish they'd stop developing new, useless BS out at Microsoft and get to work on bug fixes.
    • by Asprin (545477) <{moc.oohay} {ta} {dlonrasg}> on Thursday January 06 2005, @09:06AM (#11274638) Homepage Journal

      Agreed - the last paragraph of that sfgate piece really sez it all:

      "While Microsoft's goal is to turn the PC into a superhub that does everything -- plays music, works as a cell phone, stores your photos -- they're running up against the fact that most people buy discreet components that do particular things."

      Personally, I kinda like having seams of one sort or another. They are boundries around systems that restrict their awareness and let me take control of them again when I need to.
      • by Twanfox (185252) on Thursday January 06 2005, @09:25AM (#11274840)
        To heck with taking control of them, I just want the devices discreet and seperate so that, god forbid, my DVD player take a dump on me, I can still watch TV, watch a VHS tape, play a game on a console, or look up my email on my computer. The 'One Box Does It All' mentality may simplify what you have to carry or buy, but it also represents a single point of failure for a large number of services. Getting it repaired, especially if it's out of warrenty, can be a major pain in the ass.

        (Only one device I've ever really had repaired was my Minidisc player, twice, and that was under CircuitCity's own extended warrenty. Took weeks to get it back, though thankfully it did come back fixed, or at least with an explaination as to a point of failure like the power adaptor. TV, Microwave, my Clie.. it's almost cheaper to just buy a new one since it is generally designed to just barely outlive it's warrenty)
  • by G-Licious! (822746) on Thursday January 06 2005, @08:54AM (#11274542) Homepage
    I'm going to accuse them of being modern day capitalists.
    Sounds just as bad to me.
    • by Lifewish (724999) on Thursday January 06 2005, @09:05AM (#11274630) Homepage Journal
      a) Calling free culture advocates commies shows a... slight misunderstanding of the two ideologies. At its best, Communism was never particularly concerned with the individual (possibly why it is so successful in the Confucian environment of China).

      b) Arguing that "Communist" is not a pejorative is likely to go down like a lead balloon in much of America. The McCarthy witchhunts were ludicrous but they happened for a reason. Communists *were* the enemy - defending them carries the same overtones as defending Naziism to the French.
    • by mindaktiviti (630001) on Thursday January 06 2005, @09:15AM (#11274720)
      I'm not going to defend capitalism (granted I think it's much better than communism), but communism itself is pretty bad.

      I myself have fairly left-wing views (I'm from Canada and completely agree with universal healthcare, etc), but communism doesn't seem to take one thing into consideration: Humans are greedy, and this includes the ones controlling the government of a communist country. Much like the very purpose of an incorporation (Check out this movie [thecorporation.tv]), there's an underlyting wrongness about communism that doesn't have enough checks and balances (at least not in my country of origin).

      Anyway, Bill should grow up and know better than to call people commies. It's unprofessional.
  • by PDXNerd (654900) on Thursday January 06 2005, @08:56AM (#11274553)
    It sounds like Bill Gates may be infested with SpyWare, a typical memetic programming that took place in the 1950's in which everyone who was not a right-wing-christian-gun-loving-American was a communist. It sounds like it's causing his PR ability to crash. Should we help him out and format him and put linux on him? (Wait.. Put linux on him, linux is Tux, the mental image that is coming to mind is... DISTURBING!!!! ACK REBOOT REBOOT!)
  • Out of touch.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jsimon12 (207119) <slashdotNO@SPAMxemu.org> on Thursday January 06 2005, @08:56AM (#11274559) Homepage
    Is it me or does Gates seem to be very out of touch with what is going on in the real world and mostly seems to be getting his current information from his "Human Search Engines". Not to mention the fact he is constantly doing little more then plugging Micro$oft products.

    Just remember: If you don't buy from Micro$oft you are a Communist!
  • also... (Score:5, Funny)

    by millennial (830897) on Thursday January 06 2005, @08:56AM (#11274561) Journal
    When I read that he nose-dived, I was hoping for a video of him tripping and flying off a stage or something. I am sorely disappointed!
  • by nudnikmeow (846945) on Thursday January 06 2005, @08:57AM (#11274562)
    Gen. Jack D. Ripper: I can no longer sit back and allow communist infiltration, communist indoctrination, communist subversion, and the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
  • Search. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by saintlupus (227599) on Thursday January 06 2005, @08:57AM (#11274565) Homepage
    From the interview, on the topic of search engines:

    Oh, sure, everybody is working on those things, but just take the idea of finding your local pizza place and doing that right; search doesn't do that well today.

    Sounds like someone needs to clue Bill in to using Sherlock under OS X -- that's exactly what I used it for yesterday.

    --saint
  • by JohnHegarty (453016) on Thursday January 06 2005, @08:58AM (#11274569) Homepage
    Worlds largest blue screen of death here [infoworld.com]

    • by YetAnotherDave (159442) on Thursday January 06 2005, @10:55AM (#11275981)
      I saw a funny thing on my way to vegas recently - not quite as big a BSOD, but the same one on dozens of machines in US customs. I tried to take a picture and nearly had my camera confiscated...

  • by thewiz (24994) * on Thursday January 06 2005, @09:00AM (#11274590)
    I, for one, welcome our new copyleft communist masters (and logo).

    [rant]
    Seriously, Bill Gate and Co. continue to try and paint anyone who doesn't agree with their stance on IP as un-American. Who died and made him J. Edgar Hoover, Jr.?

    America was NOT founded on the principles of IP but on freedom of choice (religious and otherwise) and the idea that everyone is supposed to contribute to the public good. The recent push to IP, patent, and copyright every little "innovation" (think one-click)is what is hurting our ability to produce something new and better without having to wade through a morass of legalities.

    I will continue to support copyleft, OSS, and any other program that contributes to the dissemination of knowledge and ideas.
    [/rant]
      • by Garwulf (708651) on Thursday January 06 2005, @09:40AM (#11275001) Homepage
        "Rather, America was founded on the idea that each person could retain control over what they had created/built/earned/believed without someone "more deserving" taking that control away from them.

        People chose to contribute to the common effort because they believed in it, not because they had to."

        Very well said.

        One of the things that constantly bugs me are the extremists. I'm an author - intellectual rights are very important to me, as a large part of my living right now depends on how they are used in regards to my work. Quite frankly, if I spend a year and a half writing a book, that book is mine, to do with as I please. That's the letter and spirit of the law.

        But then you have the extremists on both sides, who abuse the spirit and/or letter of intellectual property law. Companies like Microsoft use it as a weapon to stifle others from innovating, essentially by trying to take their ideas away from them and claim them as their own. The extremists on the other side react by wanting to strip away intellectual property rights entirely, and make any new creation into part of the public domain.

        When you think about it, both are theft. To use the chair example, the first group of extremists come to you after you've made a chair and demand that you give it to them and not make any more because they made it first. The second group of extremists come to you after you've made a chair and demand that you give it to them so that it can be contributed to the public good. Neither is terribly respectful to the person who made the chair in the first place, and who should be allowed to sell it if they want, give it away if they want, or just sit in it if they want.
  • by Transcendent (204992) on Thursday January 06 2005, @09:00AM (#11274598)
    he described anyone who doesn't support ever-increasing intellectual property laws as "communists".

    But... doesn't sharing mean caring? At least that's what my parents always said.

    In all seriousness, there's nothing wrong with a communial society, it's just really really hard to pull off because of human nature.
  • by Titusdot Groan (468949) on Thursday January 06 2005, @09:02AM (#11274613) Journal
    "Bill Gates is a Persian cat and a monocle away from being a villain in a James Bond movie."
    -- Dennis Miller
  • Bill bet the farm (Score:5, Interesting)

    by maskatron (7560) on Thursday January 06 2005, @09:15AM (#11274718) Homepage
    He has to say this sort of thing since he's bet the MS farm on DRM and the like. When you hear people making these kind of references though, you know they are concerned. That tells me the DRM plan isn't going as well as they thought it would.
  • by KiloByte (825081) on Thursday January 06 2005, @09:25AM (#11274828)
    Note that capitalism is not about monopolies. In fact, capitalism relies on free market, and you can't have free market if one of the players controls a majority of it.

    The basic ideas of capitalism work just insanely effective. When we had communism in Poland, most shops had empty shelves -- and within just months after the communism's fall any shortages were just gone, as if by a wave of a magic wand.

    On the other hand, communism is based on monopoly. It's supposed to be a monopoly of the "working class", but in reality in all cases it turned out to be a monopoly of the Party. And then, if you can buy the Party's blessing -- you can have a monopoly in your sector, too!
    Whatever you say, you can't ignore the fact that all real-life implementations of communism were based on the control the Party had on the citizens. In fact, it's the control what the communism is about.
    So... we have a company who tries to gain the sole control of a sector of industry -- and it's them who dare to call their enemies communists.
  • Ok, so I'm going to go a little bit off topic here, but gates implies that if you support free software, then you are a communist, the thing of it is, I'm not sure how exactly this is a bad thing.
    Capitalism and Communism are each at opposite ends of a scale of scarcity- that is to say, Capitalism works great when there is a limited amount of stuff to go around, relative to the population size. It encourages effeciency and results in a population as a whole getting the most of what it wants from a limited pool of resources. Communism on the other hand is ideal for a world where, relative to the population size, resources are unlimited, or at least nearly unlimited. In the perfect theoreticaly communist society, the only limit to how much of something that can be made is the number of people available to make it.
    Socialism is basically just the name given to the middle ground.
    Now, capitalism is great for a lot of things, because as a society/country/planet today in many areas our resources are still finite. For many aspects of our world, capitalism is still the best thing we've come up with to deal with the limited resources we have, relative to the world population.
    In the world of software however, we have a situation which is more closely related to the communist ideal world. Once a program is written it can be copied over and over again essentially for free. In this case, the only limit to the software that can be developed is the amount of skilled people who are able to work on it.
    Looking at it like that, what I see when gates says people who support free software are communists is really his admission that we are using a superior philosophy for our little section of reality.
  • by NotoriousGIB (44865) on Thursday January 06 2005, @09:39AM (#11274994) Homepage
    The irony of Bill Gates' anti-communist rhetoric in the wake of his recent crash and burn presentation on Windows Media Center is that Microsoft itself resembles a creaky Soviet-era state-run monopoly much more than a lean, mean emblem of free-trade capitalism.

    In my opinion Microsoft is essentially a state-sponsored monopoly and, as such, represents, little more than a tweaked version of the classic communist state entity.

    The rational for this position is the simple fact that although Microsoft has been found guilty of being a monopolistic barrier to free-trade in the software industry it was given tacit state sanction to operate as such when the courts and the DOJ failed to press for meaningful controls on their business practices.

    From an objective perspective this is no more than a refined version of the classic communist state monopoly. Like Soviet era monopolies Microsoft must compete in the international market as a representative of the State economy while at home it is given tacit control of the market in exchange for loyalty to the political leadership. Also like Soviet era monopolies, state pressure for reform of business practices amounted to little reform but a large increase in the amount of money passed on to corrupt politicians. Take a look at Microsoft's political contributions post-trial and I think you'll see this pattern is quite obvious.

    What's worse is that this "tweaked" form of state control can be conducted legally through Political Action Committees with little need to resort to passing money under the table as occurred in the old Soviet Union.

    That's right folks, Microsoft's brand of communism is conducted right under your noses while real innovation and competition in the software industry is systematically squashed through monopolistic trade practices tacitly sanctioned by the state. It's high time that all you Democrats and Republicans out there swallow the blue pill and see things as they are, not how you want them to be. Either we believe in free trade or not and no matter how you dice it monopolies are antithetical to free trade. Those who acquire them will always attempt to redefine competition so that the rules don't apply to them. Ooogedy boogedy people! Look-out! International competition means we have to stick together and support our local monopoly. Oh no! Look over there people, those communist are trying to wreck our good capitalist monopoly. It's total nonsense if you just step back and take a look at it for what it really is.
  • by nysus (162232) on Thursday January 06 2005, @09:50AM (#11275080)
    Communists? Come on, Bill, you can do better than that! Who cares about Communists anymore? Just look at all the business we're doing with Communist China these days. The word "Communism" has definitely lost its cache.

    Here's some advice for your public relations folks: We're not communists, we're "software terrorists", Bill, and we're out to kill little babies and children in the name of FOSS. We hate freedom and the American way of life and we're out to destroy it.

    Now, if you can get that message across and paint that picture to the American public, you'd kill FOSS forever. Hell, you could probably get the FBI to start raiding the homes of Linux users.

    Good luck in your future endeavors, you Capitalist Pig.
  • Seriously, a fair bit of what he says really sits uncomfortably. For one thing what he says about IE and Firefox is, although perfectly true, not quite as clear-cut as he seems to be making it sound.

    So when people say Firefox is being downloaded onto people's systems, that's true, but IE is also on those systems.

    That's not exactly by choice in all cases. I am confident that were IE trivially uninstallable from a Windows setup then that point would be less valid.
    I don't necessarily think that every FF user would uninstall IE if it were easily doable but I do think that in many of the cases where "IE is also on those systems" it's only because there's no simple way of remiving it.

    As for his stance on IP rights then I think he hasn't got a clue.
    However what I will say is that I'm no businessman and he runs a very successful business. So I freely admit that as much as I disagree with his points of view they obviously work in business. In fact I'd be pretty surprised if he didn't have views like that - many businesses seem to share the "IP Rights are Good" mentality.

    Having said that I do think that what's good for business isn't always good for innovation and incentive. And that's why I personally think that the concept of "Intellectual Property" needs a major overhaul. Patents and non-terminating copyrights simply have too many drawbacks.
    Like the main incentive for Patents that companies seem to have is that if they have a great idea then not only should they benefit from selling it but they shoudl benefit from anyone improving on it - as they'll have to pay to license it. Great from a business perspective but from a technical perspective this is dreadful because if someone's got great dieas to extend something but no money or Patents to bargain with then the new idea will be lost.

    From a BBC News article [bbc.co.uk] about the speech:

    Mr Gates said the PC, like Microsoft's Media Centre, had a central role to play in how people would be making the most out of audio, video and images but it would not be the only device.

    "It is the way all these devices work together which will make the difference," he said.

    Obviously I find it a bit odd when Bill Gates (or anyone Microsoft spokeperson) talks about things "working together". Unless they're having a complete turnaround in their policies he probably means that when "devices work together" they will always be working via Windows.
    Obviously this makes a great quote as he goes down as saying that interoperability is important - or something like that - but it just falls flat as more often than not he isn't tlaking about devices talking with non-Microsoft devices.

  • by MoronGames (632186) <cam@henlin.gmail@com> on Thursday January 06 2005, @10:18AM (#11275417) Journal
    We're not having the Red Scare anymore. Why didn't he label them terrorists? That's today's thing.
  • by TheMediaWrangler (817300) on Thursday January 06 2005, @10:49AM (#11275882)
    About 33 minutes in and just after the second crash, Conan provides some filler and gives my favorite quote in the presentation:

    "Last night ... I got so drunk, I woke up with a hooker. Bill got so drunk, he woke up with an Apple computer."
      • Re:Bzzt (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Speare (84249) on Thursday January 06 2005, @09:50AM (#11275077) Homepage
        Okay, so (1) how is a video game able to tear down the entire operating system? and (2) how does this blame-shifting actually help the users?

        Sure, a few game buyers might return their game, but they'll still have an operating system with lurking landmine bugs that will crash in exactly the same way for some other product next week.

      • by AthenianGadfly (798721) on Thursday January 06 2005, @09:51AM (#11275104)

        But I'll just add one more comment, trying to deconstruct what Gates says about communism and IP:

        1. Communism is generally considered to be a negative adjective in the US, no matter how you slice it. Also, I would argue that most communist governments have done quite a bit of damage by being communist (note that we're talking about communism not socialism, which is something different altogether.
        2. He is also, largely, fighting a straw man: very few people (that I know of, anyway) are actually in favor of abolishing all intellectual property. Rather, most seem to advocate more moderate limits.
        3. He maintains that the purpose of IP laws are to provide an incentives for those who create content. I agree that this was the original intent of the laws - whether that is still their function is debatable. However, I have a hard time imagining a musician (or any other content creator) sitting down to write a song (or any other content for that matter) but deciding not to because it would only remain protected until 75 years after their death (the current laws protect it for 95 years, I believe). I understand wanting to leave something to one's heirs, but 95 years is several generations - is this really a factor in whether people create new content?
    • by revscat (35618) on Thursday January 06 2005, @10:33AM (#11275670) Homepage Journal
      News Flash: Slashdot is not unbiased towards Microsoft. This seems to shock you. And the thing is, they (we!) understand that MS is pure crapola and borderline-to-outright evil, and so for /. to do what you suggest they would have to approach the situation dishonestly, pretending that MS's history of security problems, bad software, and monopolistic characteristics just don't exist. Gates making vapid proclamations about the future direction of MS is neither newsworthy nor interesting; that happens every single year, and they usually turn out to be almost completely wrong.

      What *is* interesting is the so-called "world's greatest software company" has a demo crash on their most public figure, and that he resorts to anachronistic political labels for buttressing his argument.