[governance] [A2k] Re: [Wsis-pct] IP Justice Comment to IGF on Top PolicyIssuesforAthens
Taran Rampersad
cnd at knowprose.com
Sun Apr 2 23:32:48 EDT 2006
This is my last email in this thread. I could go blue in the face
explaining that not everyone sees things the same, and have it
continuously lost in discussion. I see problems being attacked at the
same level of thinking that created them, and it disturbs me. I won't
lose sleep, though. :-)
And again, this started off about the wording of 'DRM' in a software
license. Instead of using a name which more than likely will change, why
not attack what's wrong with what it does within the license?
Seth Johnson wrote:
>> 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.
>
And thus, one could say that freedoms are being protected by the GPL.
Is freedom a right? Or is it only for a select few people, Seth?
But again, this started off about the wording of 'DRM' in a software
license. Instead of using a name which more than likely will change, why
not attack what's wrong with what it does within the license?
>> 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.
>
OK, Seth, I'll play: What is the use of copyrighted works, and how does
it vary from the use of public domain works? Explain that.
But again, this started off about the wording of 'DRM' in a software
license. Instead of using a name which more than likely will change, why
not attack what's wrong with what it does within the license?
>>>
>>>
>> 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.
>
I think if we got past how this label sticks in people's minds instead
of how it's being incorporated, we might negotiate meaning instead of
arbitrarily defining it by warm fuzzy and cold prickly feelings. You've
been asking for definitions, but it seems your basis is that what other
people name something defines what it does, at least for you. All I've
been asking you and others to do is to take 3 steps away from your own
thoughts and look at the bigger picture when it comes to that phrase.
I'm not here to argue with you or prove a point; instead I am having
something I have feared being proven to me. I shouldn't be surprised.
But again, this started off about the wording of 'DRM' in a software
license. Instead of using a name which more than likely will change, why
not attack what's wrong with what it does within the license?
>>>
>> 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."
>
Would you agree that the instantiation of DRM we see now is nothing more
than evolved 'copy protection'? That's what 'DRM' has been defined as in
your mind, I think. Like religions with sects, there are
fundamentalists, extremists, and so forth. We could call the present
implementation of DRM 'extremist' (complete with suicide CDs), an act of
terrorism, etc... but that doesn't make everything labeled 'DRM' bad, or
I would hope that it wouldn't. I suppose it's the easiest way for people
to handle it, but 'easy' doesn't make something right, even when you
shave with Ockham's razor. Negotiating human meaning is quite different
than dealing with a compiler. But again, this started off about the
wording of 'DRM' in a software license. Instead of using a name which
more than likely will change, why not attack what's wrong with what it
does within the license?
> Hardly anyone thinks "DRM" defends user's rights. They mostly
> think that the "rights" being "managed" are the author's.
>
This is arbitrary. It was folly of me to bring it up, since the point
was moot, but I thought I was having a discussion that would allow me to
get a better feel for what people who are strongly biased against DRM
feel. As Don said so wittily, there is no middle ground between the pro
and anti-DRM. But my point is this: The relevance of the WORDS 'DRM' are
arbitrary. But to you, they have a meaning which (strangely) you are
defending! But again, this started off about the wording of 'DRM' in a
software license. Instead of using a name which more than likely will
change, why not attack what's wrong with what it does within the license?
>> ********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.
>
And Digital Restrictions Management in a software license is as
arbitrary as calling it 'Bob'. The license still doesn't solve the
problem you are quite vehemently against. But again, this started off
about the wording of 'DRM' in a software license. Instead of using a
name which more than likely will change, why not attack what's wrong
with what it does within the license?
> Free Software is what it is. "Octophobia" is not fear of
> octopuses.
>
Ahh. The root of all this is exactly that words and phrases can mean
more than one thing. If you can't see that, much less agree to it, than
further discussion is pointless. But again, this started off about the
wording of 'DRM' in a software license. Instead of using a name which
more than likely will change, why not attack what's wrong with what it
does within the license?
>
>
>>>> 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?
>
Maybe you don't. Brow beating people with other perspectives is a
wonderful tactic, but generally speaking digital rights are about human
rights within a digital framework.But again, this started off about the
wording of 'DRM' in a software license. Instead of using a name which
more than likely will change, why not attack what's wrong with what it
does within the license?
> Give me an example that shows what a "digital right" would be.
>
Sure. The right to write something on the internet and not be shoved in
jail for criticizing the government. If you need more, take a serious
look around. But again, this started off about the wording of 'DRM' in a
software license. Instead of using a name which more than likely will
change, why not attack what's wrong with what it does within the license?
>> 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."
>
But if I use my freedom to curtail the freedom of others, am I not
infringing on the other people's rights? Is freedom a right, or is it
for the select few? If freedom is not for the select few, then it is a
right. But again, this started off about the wording of 'DRM' in a
software license. Instead of using a name which more than likely will
change, why not attack what's wrong with what it does within the license?
>
>
>> 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.
>
You're moving back and forth to try to maintain your vantage, but when
you deny that there are 'digital rights' you've been denying that there
are copyrights. Even the GPL disagrees with that since it's based on
copyright, and is a copyright license. But again, this started off about
the wording of 'DRM' in a software license. Instead of using a name
which more than likely will change, why not attack what's wrong with
what it does within the license?
> When are you going to describe a "digital right?" In particular,
> please describe how "digital rights" would work under copyright.
>
The point is that something has to work. Copy protection - what you call
DRM - doesn't work. Copyrights were much easier to deal with for
publishers prior to the internet because they could control the media
physically. On the internet, they cannot do that so they are trying to
control the systems which connect to the internet. That's bad.
But users should have rights as well, and when used in the context of
the internet or digital media, they could be called digital rights. And
those digital rights, I believe, include fair use which copy protection
schemes do not allow for (not to mention laws). But again, this started
off about the wording of 'DRM' in a software license. Instead of using a
name which more than likely will change, why not attack what's wrong
with what it does within the license?
>
>
>> 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"
>
Yes, I read that. So what do they define Digital Rights as, Seth? Did
you check that?
>
>> 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."
>
Yes, I read that. So does this answer some of your question?
>
>> 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."
>
Yes, I read that. But I notice that you didn't post the title.
>
>> http://www.digitalrights.ie/
>>
>
> "Digital Rights Ireland Ltd is a body devoted to defending Civil,
> Human and Legal rights in a digital age."
>
Very good, Seth, this copy and paste thing is really working.
>
>> 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."
>
Yup, read that too.
>
>> 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.
>
Read above about not being thrown in jail for criticizing the government
on the internet. In the context of the internet, where groups are
focusing on globalization issues related to the internet, the meaning is
not as well defined as you wish for. Perhaps you could start off with
stating what rights you have on the internet that you have? Do you have
no rights when using a computer? A mobile phone? And again, if you claim
that you support freedom but do not establish freedom as a right, what
are you really doing?
>
>
>>> 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.
>
No, Seth, I'm telling you that fire is bad when you stick your hand in
it, but if you use it wisely you can cook your food. Fortunately, the
branch of society that was screaming about the 'evil burning hand flame'
probably died, though perhaps a recessive gene still haunts us.
And again, you're mixing two separate discussions to try to support what
you already believe. You might be surprised that in a lot of ways I
agree with you, but to be truly circumspect I have to go beyond what I
believe and see the larger contexts. I'd hope others would do the same.
Obviously, everyone on the planet doesn't agree on things.
>>>> 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.
>
And I never denied that. But if the problem is copyright, why not
address the problem?
Tell us, Seth, how do you believe all of this should be run in a manner
that allows everyone to pay their bills, create things, and not screw
over users? Maybe something is working for you, or maybe you believe
something will work in the future, but right now there are entire parts
of the world that are trying to do the same and are looking for answers.
Maybe you're in a position where you have all the answers. I don't. And
because I don't have all the answers, I consider it worthwhile to allow
for a future that I do not expect or believe in. Hallelujahs don't feed
people. Someone offlisted me a paper about publicly funded works, which
I like but there are concerns I have about anything that is centrally
controlled. But at least I got something back from them, something of
worth and something that allowed me to consider other options.What
options would you present? How would a poet in Ethiopia, with a computer
connection, be able to make enough money to pay the bills? What's your
answer?
But again, this started off about the wording of 'DRM' in a software
license. Instead of using a name which more than likely will change, why
not attack what's wrong with what it does within the license?
> "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.
Maybe because you've decided that you believe that there are no 'digital
rights' and have been working rather hard to defend your position. I
don't have the luxury of a trench, but outside of trenches, the horizon
on all sides encompasses more surface area.
Again, this started off about the wording of 'DRM' in a software
license. Instead of using a name which more than likely will change, why
not attack what's wrong with what it does within the license?
Spike the ball on your end of the field if you wish, but I wasn't
approaching this as a competition. I was trying to raise a little
awareness. Maybe it worked, maybe it didn't. Time will tell. Maybe
you'll try to define what rights you have when you're on the internet
instead of having someone define those rights for you. And that's a start.
--
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
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
More information about the Governance
mailing list