twitter's Journal: Creative and the true nature of non free software.

Every now and then something happens that reveals the full contempt non free software owners have for their customers. In this case, Creative has gone the distance to make sure their drivers won't work in the future even if others can fix them. The letter they wrote to a man who did this is worth preserving as a warning. They continued the arrogant abuse when partially reversing themselves.

Creative may be a victim here but it's a situation they got themselves into. Microsoft eliminated Creative's sound architecture from Vista chasing DRM snake oil and further dominance of the industry. This has made problems for others too and Microsoft is the biggest jerk of all for intentionally ending all XP driver support right before Vista launched. Just the same, some would say Creative has always been more about marketing than tech. That would not be surprising because monopolies often reward flunkies and eliminate real competence. Now for the more outrageous parts of the letter:

We are aware that you have been assisting owners of our Creative sound cards for some time now, by providing unofficial driver packages for Vista that deliver more of the original functionality that was found in the equivalent XP packages for those sound cards. In principle we don't have a problem with you helping users in this way, so long as they understand that any driver packages you supply are not supported by Creative. Where we do have a problem is when technology and IP owned by Creative or other companies that Creative has licensed from, are made to run on other products for which they are not intended. We took action to remove your thread because, like you, Creative and its technology partners think it is only fair to be compensated for goods and services. The difference in this case is that we own the rights to the materials that you are distributing. By enabling our technology and IP to run on sound cards for which it was not originally offered or intended, you are in effect, stealing our goods. When you solicit donations for providing packages like this, you are profiting from something that you do not own. If we choose to develop and provide host-based processing features with certain sound cards and not others, that is a business decision that only we have the right to make.

... [more threats]

Phil O'Shaughnessy
VP Corporate Communications
Creative Labs Inc.

I would reproduce the whole letter but the kind of people who would write such a stupid thing would probably turn around and claim copyright on it to prevent criticism. As it is, it's already hard to tell what really happened because they eliminated the evidence. They now claim to have restored that evidence but can we trust them given all of their other practices?

Some things are clear. No one was profiting from sharing driver binaries other than to have their sound cards work. If they were, they would not have been doing things through the Creative forums. The other thing that's clear is that Creative intentionally cripples its hardware and considers this a business decision. This is the real purpose of non free software to extract money from divided and helpless users.

Free software might be better for Creative. It's possible Creative was strong armed by M$ or some other company that has licensed something to them. If this is the case, they should abandon the non free software that forces them to abuse their customers. It should not be hard for creative to improve existing free software drivers and use them instead. If they don't it's because they believe in a restricted future and should be shunned the way David did:

The Register asked him if he would accept a job if offered by Creative. "No."

Right now, that's solid reasoning.