[WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [A2k] Re: [Wsis-pct] IP Justice Comment to IGF on Top Policy Issues forAthens

[Seth Johnson]

I would oppose anything that speaks of "managing" "rights."

Just so you know.

It really is a sick concept, in the very phrasing.

Consider this: what if the phrase were "exclusive rights
management?"

Obviously that's about restrictions; obviously that's really what
the motivation is; obviously that's a more correct term than
"rights" alone; obviously there's no reason to come up with
"digital" rights as such, right?

I'm not endorsing this terminology -- just presenting it as an
illustrative example, to show that this would be more honest and
true to the nature of the issue than the phrase "digital rights
management" tends to convey.  Though I would find it just as
abhorrent, I think that supporters would recognize phrase
"exclusive rights management" as an appropriate, felicitous,
"neutral-sounding" phrasing.  And at the same time I would have
much more confidence that the discourse about exactly what the
concept implies would be accurate and honest and truthful.  And
by extension, eventually everybody would recognize that they
don't really want it.

Let me reiterate:  You do not and will not find me using the
phrase "exclusive rights management."  I just present it for
those who need an example that they might find more "neutral."

Now, if you want security and privacy and anonymity -- I strongly
urge you to cease putting these notions under the terminology of
"DRM."  These are not about copyright, and "DRM" is a term
intended to convey bogus premises about copyright, as well as, to
be sure, to confuse copyright with private interest areas.

As a further illustration, let me say that my general line on
TCPA and Palladiation basically comes down to that I will oppose
it as long as there is a failure to distinguish that sort of
functionality from copyright.

And that is what we all have to do.  We must oppose the
misapplication of copyright to attack our fundamental liberties. 
"DRM" is all about that.


Seth


Taran Rampersad wrote:
> 
> Dr. Francis MUGUET wrote:
> >
> > Dear Taran
> >> Isn't the problem then with the German Law rather than the document?
> > the recent German law ( transcription of the European directive )
> > is even more repressive than the French one, and does not
> > include DRM interoperability.
> > I don(t know the legislative status of this law.
> > Any info from Germany ?
> >
> > It would be good that all Europeans unite their efforts
> > against those laws/
> And yet, Europe is not the center of the world. At least, not outside of
> Europe. :-)
> >>
> >> I think it's dangerous to dismiss DRM the concept.
> > It is the reverse, the DRM concept is dangerous, because
> > it limits Freedom and would extend to digital objects what
> > is valid for material things.
> > Digital objects are in nature different from material objects in
> > the sense that they cannot be replicated, and "consuming" them
> > does not destroy them.
> > Therefore to simply extend concepts originating from category
> > of objects to another is just not waranted.
> > It is a question of semantic and basic philosophy.
> >
> > then
> > First, a obvious danger is that
> > DRMs are going to lead into a police state.
> Whoa. Hold on a minute. DRM is a name. It's an acronym. It's the
> implementation that is dangerous, not the name. Attack the disease not
> the symptoms. Digital Rights Management, as a concept, is not a bad
> thing. Digital Rights Management, as it is being used, is a bad thing.
> 
> Think of fruit. Sometimes you get sweet oranges. Sometimes you get sour
> oranges. Do not damn the sweet oranges with the sour oranges because
> some people are selling sour oranges.
> >
> > Second, there is a belief that in order to be financially
> > compensated you need DRMs, this is *wrong*.
> I know that this is wrong right *now*, but I don't believe in burning
> bridges in the future. I believe that utilizing the phrase 'Digital
> Rights Management' in such negative connotations may get the short term
> attention that people are seeking, but the long term impacts do not
> necessarily fall under 'good'. In fact, I think it sucks as much as DRM
> itself. We cannot attack the problem at the same level of thinking which
> created it, to paraphrase Albert Einstein. Change levels.
> > Imagination must spent towards exploring non-DRM based
> > schemes instead of trying to implement DRMs that are going
> > to be one day or another cracked.
> Again, people are stuck on sour oranges. The GPL itself could be called
> DRM. What the criticism is against is *how* Digital Rights are managed.
> To take into account that future generations are going to have to deal
> with what we screw up, as those before us have done, we need to make
> sure we don't write ourselves into corners. In 100 years, DRM could be
> implemented in a much different way. We desperately need to take a long
> view here; there is a danger of intellectual incest if we go around
> saying that the name of a thing is bad when the actions of the thing in
> question are really what is bad.
> > One non-DRM based is the "Global Patronage" scheme,
> > that has been described on this list, but they might be others,
> > as I hinted in other posts ( Artic Monkeys, etc... )
> Which is, in fact, a form of Digital Rights Management. It's just not
> invasive, and is generally a better term. We're talking now about
> documents that I believe that everyone wishes to last. Don't talk about
> DRM (Geez, I'm sounding a little like RMS here), talk about what the
> implementations of DRM do. If freedom is really the issue here - and I
> believe it is - then the document should be human-centric, not
> acronym-centric. We call this the PCT caucus because we don't like the
> phrase 'intellectual property'.
> 
> How odd it is to use another ambiguous term so carelessly. How odd that
> when we make issue of the differences between Patents, Copyrights and
> Trademarks that we forget that there ARE Digital Rights, that this isn't
> just about software licensing, and that there are human beings involved
> who deserve their Digital Rights defended... It is not their fault that
> the present implementation of what is called DRM is a sour orange. Shall
> we chop down the tree? I say NO! I say tell them that the fruit from
> that tree is sour, and show them a sweeter tree. Or shall we stamp
> 'orange' and DRM out of their vocabulary like language nazis?
> 
> This is not about Europe. This is not about Korea. This is about the
> world, but it's not about the world, it's about people. It's about
> rights. It is about Digital Rights. It's about the right to manage our
> own digital rights as we see fit. No matter how hard one tries, DRM as a
> concept cannot be destroyed only because there is a semblance of
> something good in it that people see. So attack what is wrong with it.
> 
> This shouldn't be too difficult for people to grasp, I think. To
> clarify, I disagree with DRM in the present instantiation, but I agree
> with DRM such as GPL and Creative Commons Licenses. If you're stuck in
> the rut of thinking that DRM can only be one thing, then you can be
> assured that DRM will change it's name and come back another time, and
> we'll get to have this conversation all over again over EIEIO. The name
> is a symptom. Attack the disease, don't use the name. We may have use
> for that name yet.
> 
> --
> Taran Rampersad
> Presently in: San Fernando, Trinidad and Tobago
> cnd at knowprose.com
> 
> Looking for contracts/work!
> http://www.knowprose.com/node/9786
> 
> New!: http://www.OpenDepth.com
> http://www.knowprose.com
> http://www.digitaldivide.net/profile/Taran
> 
> Pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/knowprose/
> 
> "Criticize by creating." — Michelangelo
> 
> _______________________________________________
> A2k mailing list
> A2k at lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k

-- 

RIAA is the RISK!  Our NET is P2P!
http://www.nyfairuse.org/action/ftc

DRM is Theft!  We are the Stakeholders!

New Yorkers for Fair Use
http://www.nyfairuse.org

[CC] Counter-copyright: http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc

I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or
distribution of this incidentally recorded communication. 
Original authorship should be attributed reasonably, but only so
far as such an expectation might hold for usual practice in
ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of
exclusive rights.