CE-Oh no he didn't! Part IX - Gates watches pirated videos

We fell hard so in love with all these wonderful execu-quotes, we're giving them a series here on Engadget, ala Keepin' it real fake, etc. We doubt there's nary a person in our millions-large audience who hasn't occasionally partaken in a copyright-infringing YouTube clip (must we mention Lazy Sunday?), or a even a bad no-no Torrented film; we certainly couldn't dodge the accusation ourselves. But you've kind of got to hand it to the world's richest man -- someone known for his fine-tipped views on intellectual property and piracy -- admitting to, then backing out of, then copping to watching pirated video content. Peep this tidbit from Mr. Gates to Mossberg and Kara Swisher in a recent WSJ interview:

Mossberg: Talk about YouTube. What do you think about that? Why aren't you doing something like that?
Gates: If we did YouTube, we'd be in a lot of trouble. First of all, people would say, "How do you make money?" Second, they'd say, what about all that copyright violation taking place up there. It's a neat site. I saw a bunch of old Harlem Globetrotters movies up there the other night, it's great.
Swisher: You watch physics lectures and Harlem Globetrotters?
Gates: This social-networking thing takes you to crazy places.
Swisher: But those were stolen, correct?
Gates: Stolen's a strong word. It's copyrighted content that the owner wasn't paid for. So yes.

Look, we aren't here to point fingers, and we do think they kind of backed him into a corner there. But call us crazy, maybe it's just time to face the fact that legal attacks to this and that video sharing site for short clips just ain't the way to get people to pay a hundred some-odd bucks for crappy cable service, y'know? Gates, we salute your candor, hypocritical though it may seem.

[Via The Raw Feed]

[greenfly360 @ Jun 22nd 2006 8:16AM]

Oh come on. lol Leave him alone its not that bad.

[Luke @ Jun 22nd 2006 8:20AM]

In defense of MS (if that's allowed) they seem to have always taken a similiar stance to apple on matters of pirated media. They say they don't like it and develope DRM to appease big media, but when it really comes down to it, why would they care? They only loose money because of pirated media if media companies think they're not fighting piracy. Of course, MS's view on pirated software is completely different.

[sketchguy @ Jun 22nd 2006 8:25AM]

You guys are blowing this WAY out of proportion. He admitted to _watching_ video content that just happenes to be (currently) freely available. He did not hack into a database, nor rip a DVD to watch said content.

Engadget - Making Mountains out of Mole Hills.

[Bullet @ Jun 22nd 2006 8:52AM]

Im a huge apple fan (and don't have great feelings for MS) but it is kind of rediculous to cast any blame at Bill for this. He needs to know what is available on the net and where the market. It is a good sign that he is fully aware of YouTube and it's functionality (and has even watched video on it). It's not like he went out looking for a way to watch the Harlem Globetrotters and avoid spending money on it. This has nothing to do with avoiding DRM, just his way of keeping up with the market.

[Session @ Jun 22nd 2006 8:58AM]

@sketchguy

So it's ok to download every new film that's released on BitTorrent because it's "(currently) freely available."?

[jgs9455 @ Jun 22nd 2006 9:00AM]

Microsoft: Your copy of Windows XP is stolen, correct?
Me: Stolen's a strong word. It's copyrighted content that the owner wasn't paid for. So yes and no. If Bill Gates can do it to others, it must be ok for me to do it to him.

[Andre @ Jun 22nd 2006 9:08AM]

I wonder how that torrent market is doing, lets see...

[sketchguy @ Jun 22nd 2006 9:10AM]

@Session

That's besides the point. Gates was specifically asked about YouTube. He didn't download anything! I just don't see how that's labeled as "hypocritical." Perhaps I should have phrased it "currently freely accessible, albeit illegal (depending on whether or not it's in the public domain) content."

[Drew @ Jun 22nd 2006 9:11AM]

Didn't he just watch them on YouTube? I don't recall anyone mentioning he downloaded them from BitTorrent. It really isn't that big of a deal. If you're going to be upset over this, you might as well never go to YouTube again or you're guilty as well.

[KCap @ Jun 22nd 2006 9:19AM]

@1

BS. This quote doesn't suggest that people will never buy things they can get for free -- it suggests that people are interested in convenience, and that convenience is being provided currently by copyright infringers, not copyright holders.

Bill didn't sit down and think, "Hey, I could buy this old movie for $20 or I could get it for free -- free it is!" -- he thought something more like "Hey, there's this neat video available instantly at my fingertips, and it would take lots of time and effort to find a legal version (if one is even available today), so I'm going to use the more convenient option."

[AC @ Jun 22nd 2006 9:23AM]

It's really more of something you don't think about. Your buddy sends you a link, you click play, and voila!

It's about convenience.

[Clay @ Jun 22nd 2006 9:31AM]

I don't blame him. The intraweb does it to us all. Before we know it, we have a terrabyte of porn and 15 versions of every Adobe product...

[Josh Einstein @ Jun 22nd 2006 9:39AM]

There's a big difference between someone who would pay for content (and you know he would) and someone who won't pay for content. My ex girlfriend used to download movies so that she didn't have to buy them.

On the other hand, while I absolultely hate piracy, I sometimes play emulated Nintendo games on my computer. It's not that I wouldn't pay for them because I would. In fact, many of them are games I used to own. (and some of them I own the re-releases for GBA) But since Nintendo doesn't see the value in selling classic ROMs, I don't have a choice.

[Andy S. @ Jun 22nd 2006 10:34AM]

Hypocritical, yes, but only by the modern, incorrect interpretation of "copyright". Just because the copyright owner is not paid each and every time their video is played on YouTube, this is not a violation of copyright, by its intended definition.

No, if YouTube was *charging* people to watch each video, and not paying the copyright owner, *that* would be a copyright violation. Last I checked, I didn't have to pay jack squat to watch a video on YouTube.

[vectorbug @ Jun 22nd 2006 10:48AM]

Arrest the harlot! Arrest him, hang him! Call the FBI immediately! He is the reason I have to sit through english/french FBI warnings at the start of DVDs! He just admitted it, make him a scapegoat!

Well actually, if I were him I would admit it too. I would admit that I drive my 959 on us streets too. Fuck em.

[Wii Forums @ Jun 22nd 2006 11:19AM]

The government really doesn't have business on the internet. Most of the material that's stolen could be acquired legitimately if legitimate media peddlers could catch up on the whole W2.0 thing.

And why not just make money off of advertising? Youtube certainly stays well above water under the strain, so can media publishers.

[master_of_fm @ Jun 22nd 2006 1:11PM]

is it me or does he look like a creepy geeky Nick Fury in that picture?

[M. Berger @ Jun 22nd 2006 1:20PM]

YouTube is a much like a public library. They acquire the content and provide it free of charge to the general public. Andy S. was correct when he implied that copyrights are designed to protect writers, filmakers, musicians, artists, etc., from not getting their share of royalties on what people are charged to acquire their work. If providing the content free of charge is a copyright violation, then what the heck is the deal with public libraries?

[Mo @ Jun 22nd 2006 1:46PM]

"Gates: Stolen's a strong word. It's copyrighted content that the owner wasn't paid for. So yes."
Bill Gates wins the internet with that quote.

[Jeff Foster @ Jun 22nd 2006 1:51PM]

er... Lazy Sunday?

that was released by SNL as a FREE download on the iTMS.

what they hell kind of reference is that? Engadget, u = dum.

cute quote, i like it, and he handled himself pretty well... but it's really nothing. If he were admitting to copying netflix DVDs or something, that might be more interesting. He's just periodically using a service that is incredibly popular right now.

sounds like entrapment to me... or at least leading the witness.

[annie @ Jun 22nd 2006 2:08PM]

wow, jeff...guess you don't know the history of that clip. it started out on youtube and gained so much popularity that nbc caught wind of it and sent youtube a cease and desist. *then* they put it up on their site and set it up to be downloaded on itunes.

[Howard @ Jun 22nd 2006 2:45PM]

At least Gates told the truth. He does what most people does on a daily bases. Well, not denying, I watch "copyrighted content that the owner wasn't paid for" once in a while on youtube and use "backuped" stuffs once in a while too.

[Chris @ Jun 22nd 2006 3:30PM]

Now did he say that he actually watched the "stolen" content, or did he say that he saw it up on the site, and was watching content? It doesn't appear that he actually said that he watched anything illegal.

[Jeffrey M Foster @ Jun 22nd 2006 5:09PM]

annie: That's the Sun OS argument.

the fact remains that it's free, and i know a huge amount of people who never heard of it until iTunes.

[Jeffrey M Foster @ Jun 22nd 2006 5:12PM]

i guess it's no longer free... comment retracted. :

[zadrages @ Jun 22nd 2006 5:37PM]

steve i really don't know how big it is i just hold it up and it comes back around to hit the other side

[Tux @ Jun 23rd 2006 12:17AM]

It is not new for Mr. Gates. After all how much did he pay to Xerox for the X-Windows concept?

[wonderbread @ Jun 23rd 2006 2:04PM]

WSJ takes the wrong approach to Gates, as the presumed pioneer and warden of modern copyright enforcement. He owns a software company, clearly he doesn't want that software stolen when it could be purchased (and thus make him the ritchest man in the world) but he's not the poster boy/geek for anti-piracy. He's just not. Microsoft products are widely prolific, so there's a lot of enforcing of that copyright, his own. But catching Gates in a "slip" where he adminits to seeing some content from the 80's on YourTube isn't much news. Gates will continue to protect HIS interests. Don't forget his actions in the the past which lead up to Microsoft's success have never shown him to be a 100% principle man who never stole an idea or took part in questionable business activity. He invented questionable business practices in the computer era! Perhaps the news of Gates moving twords a leadership role at the Foundation is making people believe he is more saintly, but he's still good ole Gates.

[James @ Jun 26th 2006 4:01AM]

oh no, he watches youtube videos! what is the world coming too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
you guys are pathetic.

[James @ Jun 26th 2006 4:04AM]

btw, Tux, you're a moron. go back to your horrible OS that's so great because it's free. if something goes wrong, that's just too bad since there's no support for it.

[JM @ Jun 28th 2006 9:42AM]

I think you guys who are claiming "OH NOES it's just YouTube, not bittorrent, therefore == no big whoop, therefore engadget, you == teh suck" are kind of missing the point. If the copyright holders did not give YouTube explicit permission to host the videos, it is in fact JUST AS BAD in the eyes of the law as downloading the full dvd from mininova. It doesn't matter if the clip was 10 minutes or 10 hours long. Its still copyright infringement, period. Does that make BillG a colossal A-hole for pirating stuff? IMO, no of course it does not.

I think a better way of looking at this post is as an excellent illustration of how screwed up copyright law is in the US. Here is a guy who clearly can do whatever it takes to acquire this media legally, yet he still ends up breaking the law to get it because the convenience of breaking the law far far outweighs the risk of being caught and the damages caused are MINIMAL to non-existant (just talking about YouTube here. Damages may be greater in other copyright infringement cases, YMMV). That should tell a reasonable person that the law is broken.

And finally, to close with a car analogy, when the speed limit becomes inconvenient and car and road technology allows cars to go faster, safer, the law is eventually reviewed and found to be inadequate and changed. Why can't the same be done for copyright law? If I had to guess, I would say its because there's too many fingers in the bad-copyright-law pie, and that is a shame.

PS. YouTube sucks anyway. No FM radio. No ogg support. blahblahblah. Apple is teh devil. 20th post w00t.

[John @ Jun 29th 2006 7:59AM]

JM, FINALLY, thank you, for being the only person in here with a BRAIN as to why this is relevant.

The entire POINT of the post is that even someone like Gates will be BREAKING THE LAW because the LAWS ARE STUPID TO BEGIN WITH.

[Rohit Kapur @ Mar 1st 2007 12:42PM]

You'd think with some 50 odd billion dollars, he'd be able to BUY whatever he wants. But hey, when you're getting something for free, why pay? Even Bill follows that philosophy, apparently. Can't say I blame him.

[Mark @ Mar 1st 2007 9:54PM]

2004:
http://features.engadget.com/2004/06/09/turn-your-pc-into-a-mac/

I had been trying to do this for a while. Macs just look so much better, at least give a little love to pcs and let them try to be like you

2005:
http://www.engadget.com/2005/08/22/engadget-1985/

I love taking a look back and remembering the cool gadgets when I was young. Man, NES was the coolest.

2006:
http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/22/ce-oh-no-he-didnt-part-ix-gates-watches-pirated-videos

I love reading about technology icons being real and having a sense of humor. This photo was great and I enjoyed reading gates responses. “Stolen is a strong word….. Yes.” Haha.