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

Sun Apr 2 21:05:41 BST 2006

Taran Rampersad wrote:
> 
> There are links within that demonstrate that the phrase 'digital rights'
> is not something that are read only one way.
> 
> Seth Johnson wrote:
> >>>
> >> Rights which are related to digital things. The creator's rights and the
> >> user's rights. The problem is that they are imbalanced right now, I
> >> think that we can all agree. Yet we cannot deny that the creator has
> >> rights, and we cannot deny that the user has rights. There is a contract
> >> between the creator or user, with the exception of public domain (which
> >> is that thing dwindling off in the distance, a little past Sonny
> >> Bono...). It used to be physical handshakes, now it's electronic
> >> handshakes.
> >>
> >
> >
> > There are no rights related to digital things.
> >
> Then why are there software licenses in the first place?

Because there are no rights related to digital things.  Whether
you mean free licenses or proprietary -- free licenses assure
freedom in a world that's trying to misapply copyright to digital
things, and proprietary licenses are bogus attempts to create
rights that don't exist.

> Clearly,
> proprietary licenses work - in my opinion solely -in the interest of a
> copyright holder's rights. And FLOS licenses try to allow for more
> rights with the user.

EULAs work because our courts are corrupt.  Period.

> Some people call these 'rights' 'freedoms', as in the GPL.

If you take "rights" in the "as numerous as the sands on the
beach" view of human rights, the view that held that enumerating
rights by adding the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution would
not limit our rights to those alone, then maybe.  The GPL is an
instrument for assuring some freedoms that are not enumerated in
law -- specific freedoms we should have in code.  I would agree
that these are rights, but that's not the world we're living in,
so we approximate it with the GPL.

> > Copyright is not a contract between authors and the recipients of
> > their works.
> >
> The use of copyrighted works is a contract. So I was unclear. I'm sorry.

Nope.  The use of copyrighted works is not a contract.

> >>> Now, this is one of the things I knew were being packed into the
> >>> phrase "digital rights management" -- it could be parsed as
> >>> either "rights management" that is "digital" or as "management"
> >>> of "digital rights."
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Exactly. It was phrased that way to make it nice, friendly and something
> >> people wouldn't complain too much about because they think - they
> >> believe - that the present implementation defends the user's rights.
> >
> > Hardly anyone thinks that.  They mostly think that the "rights"
> > being "managed" are the author's.  Only the author doesn't
> > actually have the rights that "digital rights management" tries
> > to give them.
> >
> Well, there's the author and there's the person who owns the copyright.
> The creator isn't necessarily the person or entity who owns the copyright.

The copyright holder doesn't actually have the rights that
"digital rights management" tries to give them.  "Digital rights
management" just makes stuff up.

> > And you're avoiding the point.  People aren't stupid enough when
> > they read the phrase "digital rights management" to think they
> > have "digital rights" -- they mostly have incorrect notions of
> > the "rights" they have as authors; they don't think they have
> > "digital rights" because they think either statutory or other
> > kinds of "rights" in themselves apply in the first place -- they
> > think that "digital rights management" lets them "manage" their
> > "rights" in the "digital" domain; they don't jump to the
> > conclusion that they have something called "digital rights" just
> > as a matter of reading comprehension.
> >
> Umm. I think you misunderstood, or I was not clear. I didn't say that
> people would think that they do have rights because of all of that.

You said that people think the present implementation defends the
user's rights.  You said that by way of introducing your "user
digital rights/author digital rights" motif, in response to my
pointing out that "digital rights management" could be read two
ways, neither of which is normally regarded as about "user
rights."

Hardly anyone thinks "DRM" defends user's rights.  They mostly
think that the "rights" being "managed" are the author's.

> ********And honestly, everyone is sidestepping the main point that
> started this: Next year, people who advocate DRM may be calling it Bob.
> Attacking DRM in a software license might work next year, but shall we
> draft everything all over again when they call it Bob? Labeling it DRM
> and forgetting about it won't work. It will be back. It's got a nice tag
> now for what is undoubtedly
> 

A valid generic term and definition would suffice.  "Digital
restrictions management" would pretty much cover it.

> > You're the first one I've found to try to argue for "digital
> > rights" per se on no other basis than the existence of this
> > neologism.
> >
> I didn't create a new word, and I certainly didn't create the phrase.
> And I'm not arguing for or against it. I'm saying that it could exist.
> In some ways, it does exist.
> 
> However, the phrase can be interpreted many ways. What I have been
> trying to point out is exactly that. 'Free Software' is much the same.
> Some people think that it means no cost, some don't. Not everyone
> understands the difference.

Free Software is what it is.  "Octophobia" is not fear of
octopuses.

> >> Perception is a powerful thing. The phrase is not broken out by either
> >> side - the people who are for or against. What really are the Digital
> >> Rights of people? Of creators? Of users?
> >
> > There are no valid "digital rights."
> So, people don't deserve to be treated equally on the internet? What
> about security? The ability to discuss things openly without being
> persecuted? The right to freedom of speech? All within a subset of
> computers, this could be seen as 'digital rights'.

Why do we need "digital" rights?

Give me an example that shows what a "digital right" would be.

> What is digital activism? What is the Digital Divide? Why not Digital
> Rights? Or would people be more comfortable with Digital Freedoms? Come
> to think of it, they might call what is being implemented as DRM as
> Digital Freedom Management next year after DRM is clad in the GPL v3.

Anything that speaks of "managing" "freedom" would be
"restrictions management."

> And then people will say, "wow, we never saw that coming!"
> >   Describe a "digital right"
> > -- in particular, describe how "digital rights" would work under
> > copyright.
> >
> Why does it have to be just copyright for you?

Because copyright is the problem.  If digital restrictions
management is used for copyright, it's wrong.

When are you going to describe a "digital right?"  In particular,
please describe how "digital rights" would work under copyright.

> Why can't digital rights
> be 'freedoms'? I'm not telling you what digital rights are And bear in
> mind, that the context of the original discussion was related to the GPL
> v3 as related to the Internet Governance Forum, which certainly has a
> broader context than the tendril of this discussion about a 'basis of
> neologism'.
> >> What is a digital signature? That's much easier, and sheds some light on
> >> things. Signature is not confusing to people. 'Rights' is because not
> >> only does the average person stutter when questioned what their rights
> >> are, they also tend to think of rights as centered around themselves.
> >>
> >> When I think of digital rights, I think of my rights in a digital world.
> >>
> >>> You represent the first empirical instance I have encountered of
> >>> someone who actually expressed a belief in such a thing.
> >>>
> Maybe not. I decided to Google
> 
> http://www.digitalrights.dk/

"Digital Rights is a non-profit civil organisation aimed at
raising awareness of rights in the digital world"

> http://ukcdr.org/

"The Campaign for Digital Rights campaigns for fair and balanced
laws for the information society.

"We support:

    * freedom of speech online
    * positive fair use rights for copyrighted material
    * narrowing anti-circumvention laws
    * honest labelling of copy-protected CDs
    * the BBC's Creative Archive

"We are a group of citizens who are concerned about control over
digital media. In particular, we are worried about proposed laws,
regulations and technological systems that will make digital
media more expensive, less useful, less diverse and less
democratic."

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4617176.stm

"The National Consumer Council (NCC) said anti-piracy efforts
were eroding established rights to digital media."

> http://www.digitalrights.ie/

"Digital Rights Ireland Ltd is a body devoted to defending Civil,
Human and Legal rights in a digital age."

> http://www.digital-rights.net/

"Human Rights in the Digital Age"

No one specific quote summarizes it well, though it is a
compilation of essays about applying human rights in the digital
age, and I see none espousing "digital rights."

> http://www.edri.org

"European Digital Rights was founded in June 2002. Currently 21
privacy and civil rights organisations from 14 different
countries in Europe have EDRI membership. Members of European
Digital Rights have joined forces to defend civil rights in the
information society. The need for cooperation among European
organizations is increasing as more regulation regarding the
internet, copyright and privacy is originating from the European
Union."

> There's 5. If you really decide to look, you'll find that the phrase
> 'digital rights' shows up a lot and has different meanings to different
> people.

I added one more.  They all appeal to applying recognized human
rights in the digital age.  None espouse "digital rights" --
though ukcdr might be read as aiming that way, yet still I doubt
they would argue for "digital rights" so much as protecting
recognized rights in the face of certain policymaking activities.

You're the one talking about "digital rights" like they ought to
be something on their own.

I still haven't heard what a "digital right" would be.

> > No.  Simply cease encouraging people to confuse these areas,
> > using terms that are explicitly designed to get people to confuse
> > these areas.
> >
> I didn't start the fire, Seth. I'm just telling everyone that there is a
> fire.

No, *I'm* telling *you* there's a fire.  You see smoke, and you
say let's work with the fire that must be over there, or work
around it, rather than go and put it out, and prevent it from
happening again.

> >> The right to be treated
> >> equally. The right to be allowed to use what you have as you wish, as
> >> long as it doesn't adversely affect others. So on, so forth.
> >
> > I can use copyrighted works in ways that might be disadvantageous
> > to the author.  The author only has a few rights.  None of them
> > "digital rights."
> >
> Oh, enough about copyright already. Copyright isn't the only part of
> this, as the links should demonstrate to you.

"The right to be allowed to use what you have as you wish, as
long as it doesn't adversely affect others" is inappropriate for
copyright.  All of the links you point at highlight the fact that
copyright is fundamental to the problems we're confronting in the
digital age.

> >>> So, go ahead: tell me what a "digital right" is, and try to make
> >>> it palatable, okay?
> >>>
> >>>
> >> I tried.
> >>
> >
> >
> > No you didn't.  You haven't described a "digital right."
> >
> Actually, I did. I suppose the links will help you understand better,
> and perhaps understanding the context related to IGF might help as well.
> Civil Society isn't just a bunch of geeks with compilers and software
> licenses.

"Rights which are related to digital things."

"The creator's rights and the user's rights."

"What is a digital signature? That's much easier, and sheds some
light on things. Signature is not confusing to people. 'Rights'
is because not only does the average person stutter when
questioned what their rights are, they also tend to think of
rights as centered around themselves."

"When I think of digital rights, I think of my rights in a
digital world."

"[. . .] the reason that I've brought [DRM] up is because I
believe that people do have rights, we are having discussions on
the digital world, and also because like any other thing it could
be used sensibly or not. So instead of attacking this from a
technical center, let's toss in human rights to the mix. Not just
copyright and patent and software. Rights. The right to be
treated equally. The right to be allowed to use what you have as
you wish, as long as it doesn't adversely affect others. So on,
so forth."

Nothing stating what a "digital right" would be.

> >> I'll keep trying.
> >
> > Please do.
> 
> >> At the end of the day, we use 'free' for Free
> >> Software even though the word has been and continues to be abused by
> >> marketers ('free of what? Lice?'). but we're willing to toss a phrase on
> >> the bonfire because it's ambiguous. Meanwhile, 'Open Source' has become
> >> about as ambiguous.
> >
> > "Free software" has only had one ambiguity, under the English
> > vernacular, for the unacquainted.  "Open Source" started out
> > ambiguous in innumerable ways, and is not necessarily any more
> > ambiguous now than it was from the beginning.
> >
> >
> That's an opinion, just like mine that you're refuting. We'll go nowhere
> down that path. Check those links and consider the larger context.
> People don't always think like we do. It would have been a lot easier
> for me to not have even started this discussion, and le everything
> slide, but here I am... saying that not everyone sees the world the
> same, uses words in the same way, or uses phrases in the same way.
> English doesn't have standards, or an agency that looks after the
> language ('The Language Instinct', Stephen Pinker). The French have that
> beaten. On a global level, there are different cultures, different ways
> of looking at things, and if we really want stuff to work outside of a
> context of a relatively small subset of the planet's population, we
> should describe what we are against instead of what it is called.

Digital restrictions management.

> A simple thing like, "any software that infringes the rights of the
> user, or forces them to use a computer in *insert manner here*" says a
> lot more than a clause on DRM. Sure, the WTO might have TRIPs agreements
> with everyone, but that doesn't mean that all laws and word definitions
> are the same. For example, by the copyright act in Trinidad and Tobago,
> a database is copyright the owner. Thus DRM as implemented could have
> very nasty implications for users...
> and this is just one country. While, in the context of copyright (where
> this conversation has been fixated, though it is a larger topic) DRM has
> become a catchprase for something people love or hate, 'Digital Rights'
> is something a lot of nations could be said to be working toward. And
> that's not even the point that I started off with.

I proposed to start from brass tacks.  You still seem to like to
speak of "digital rights," though you haven't described them
yet.  There are no "digital rights."  Evidently this isn't going
anywhere.

> In a software license, just calling it DRM means next year when they
> call it Bob or Sally, it will no longer cover what it is that the GPLv3
> doesn't want to support. So why not define exactly what it is about
> DRM's implementation that the GPLv3 will not support and be done with it?
> 
> And, in a broader context, many people are working on things that could
> be considered 'digital rights', even within the U.S. itself. Not
> everyone has access to a computer. Not everyone has access to the
> internet. And perhaps because they don't have these things, you don't
> hear about them... in my circles, I do.

The digital divide.  The right to access the digital world. 
That's a "digital right?"

O-kay.  Then tell me: what does "digital rights management" have
to do with that, except to restrict it?

Seth

> --
> 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

-- 

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.