Lessig seems very naive to me here. The DRM instead of being embedded
is merely transferred to a rights server. Thus the client, although
open-source open-standards blah blah blah can only unlock the
presumably encrypted content using a key linked to the meta-DRM data
in the file. So how is this helping fair-use? How does this guarantee
an 'ecology for creativity'? It just means that DRM can be
implemented on open-source systems unproblematically and opens the
door to truly ubiquitous DRM-everywhere.
If anything this is the killer-app for wide ranging DRM systems as
now even free software/open-source will not stand in the way of DRM
implementation as the kernel of encryption/decryption has been moved
away from the client and placed safely within the boundaries of the
corporation licensing. It just seems to me like a public/private key
encryption system (similar to email) that allows the content industry
to convince open-source developers to get onboard.
I suppose the devil is in the detail, so the question is what stands
in the way of the open-source developers taking the now decrypted
content and just saving it off as an MP3 or whatever? Certainly the
level of invasion of privacy by this system which licenses to the
user identity and continually watches how they 'consume' content is a
bit weird.
I would be very interested to hear what other techies, experts and so
on think about this development.
A Blog That Covers And Collects News Reports And Information On Artificial Intelligence, Robots, And Super Computers.
IPR and DRM
On Tuesday 14th March 2006 I attended the Westminster Media eForum on IPR and DRM and unfortunately it was packed to the gills with silken-voiced lobbyists who drowned a lot of the debate droning on with comments like "I welcome the speaker's contribution to the wide-ranging leadership he has given over the use of Digital Rights Management meta-data distribution MI3P protocols and the MWLI and GRID over the past few years".... Like who actually speaks like that? Weird... Bill Thompson made a good intervention when he pointed this out on a panel at one point..
The news though is starting to leak out (PR out?) and one of the strangest speeches came from Derek Wyatt MP who asked the question "Who could be trusted with the DRM debate?", now I was expecting maybe Parliament, or perhaps a democratic discussion amongst citizens, but he actually recommended the British Library and the Oxford Internet Institute. Neither of which is exactly democratic, nor, let's face it, geared up to holding any form of democratic debate due to the lack of their legitimacy... So I was puzzled as to how when:
(a) The British Library is now talking in a weird Blairite public-private collaboration language (PFI/private partnerships etc etc) and seems pro-copyright.
(b) The OII is pretty much privately funded by non-governmental foundations and corporations (£10 Million from the Shirley Foundation, CISCO, Microsoft et al)
We can expect them to avoid being held to ransom by private interests? Are these really the places to trust to put the citizen before economic logics? I am personally rather sceptical. Although I think that academics and public institutions can have a lot of input into this process, we need to make sure that Parliament is setting the terms of the debate and perhaps a Select Committee is a better home for the inquiry?
Certainly when one sees that the recent Gower inquiry is already assuming a position (i.e. copyright good) it limits the extent to which it can think out of the box. I would like to see Parliament asking whether DRM's should be legally constrained to prevent some of the more extreme activities (such as limiting rights they have no right to limit) and to ensure that we do allow a de facto privatisation of copyright law...
Here is some news about the event..
And here is a great discussion i've been having with Gabriella Coleman, Samir Chopra and Scott Dexter
The news though is starting to leak out (PR out?) and one of the strangest speeches came from Derek Wyatt MP who asked the question "Who could be trusted with the DRM debate?", now I was expecting maybe Parliament, or perhaps a democratic discussion amongst citizens, but he actually recommended the British Library and the Oxford Internet Institute. Neither of which is exactly democratic, nor, let's face it, geared up to holding any form of democratic debate due to the lack of their legitimacy... So I was puzzled as to how when:
(a) The British Library is now talking in a weird Blairite public-private collaboration language (PFI/private partnerships etc etc) and seems pro-copyright.
(b) The OII is pretty much privately funded by non-governmental foundations and corporations (£10 Million from the Shirley Foundation, CISCO, Microsoft et al)
We can expect them to avoid being held to ransom by private interests? Are these really the places to trust to put the citizen before economic logics? I am personally rather sceptical. Although I think that academics and public institutions can have a lot of input into this process, we need to make sure that Parliament is setting the terms of the debate and perhaps a Select Committee is a better home for the inquiry?
Certainly when one sees that the recent Gower inquiry is already assuming a position (i.e. copyright good) it limits the extent to which it can think out of the box. I would like to see Parliament asking whether DRM's should be legally constrained to prevent some of the more extreme activities (such as limiting rights they have no right to limit) and to ensure that we do allow a de facto privatisation of copyright law...
Here is some news about the event..
And here is a great discussion i've been having with Gabriella Coleman, Samir Chopra and Scott Dexter
Performing Rights Society: What do they really think of us?
I was very suprised to read today in the MCPS/PRS magazine, 'M', (circulated to 44000 PRS members and publishers) that Estelle Morris (former Minister for the Arts and Education Secretary) now ennobled as Baroness Morris of Yardley has accepted a job as director the PRS board. It seems strange that one of her last acts as Minister was to authorise officials to engage in discussions with the music industry with a view to setting up a music council... and now she is part of the music industry (Brass 2006: 18).
The article also discusses the Creative Partnerships that are meant to bring education and ideas about creativity into schools:
So how happy are you to know that your children are being incorrectly told that you have to pay for other people's 'ideas' and that the music industry is such a saint in regard to respecting the copyrights of musicians and songwriters... Perhaps the schoolchildren and students would be better off reading Steve Albini when it comes to the 'risk-taking' of the music sector:
The complete PRS board is listed here.
Her bio is here.
References:
Albini, Steve. (1994). The Problem with Music. Retreived 17/03/06 from http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
Brass, Richard. (2006). What do they really think of us?. In M: MCPS/PRS Members Music Magazine. March 2006. Issue 19
The lack of a coherent voice has also meant that the [music] industry's most pressing issue has not always been adequately confronted. While a minister, Lady Morris heard anxious words from within the industry about copyright law, copyright enforcement and about how dramatic changes in the environment weren't being addressed, but people within government were telling her that they had the issue under control (Brass 2006: 21).
The Intellectual Property Rights Forum, which she jointly chaired in 2004, helped alert government to the urgency of the copyright challenge, as well as helping to overcome a climate of mistrust around this crucial issue. There was a lot of fear. People from the industry feared that this body was going to persuade the industry to give up its copyright without the consumer paying... (Brass 2006: 21)
The article also discusses the Creative Partnerships that are meant to bring education and ideas about creativity into schools:
Creative Partnerships have been the greatest success in doing this. If you can bring the wild creativity and risk-taking that there is in the music sector [sic] into schools, kids love it. That's how they'll learn about the music industry, about copyright, to respect someone else's ideas and know they have to pay for them, because they've been working after school or on Saturday mornings or in the holidays with Joe Bloggs who earns his living on the basis of selling his creative ideas (Brass 2006: 21).
So how happy are you to know that your children are being incorrectly told that you have to pay for other people's 'ideas' and that the music industry is such a saint in regard to respecting the copyrights of musicians and songwriters... Perhaps the schoolchildren and students would be better off reading Steve Albini when it comes to the 'risk-taking' of the music sector:
Whenever I talk to a band who are about to sign with a major label, I always end up thinking of them in a particular context. I imagine a trench, about four feet wide and five feet deep, maybe sixty yards long, filled with runny, decaying shit. I imagine these people, some of them good friends, some of them barely acquaintances, at one end of this trench. I also imagine a faceless industry lackey at the other end holding a fountain pen and a contract waiting to be signed (Albini 1994).
The complete PRS board is listed here.
Her bio is here.
References:
Albini, Steve. (1994). The Problem with Music. Retreived 17/03/06 from http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
Brass, Richard. (2006). What do they really think of us?. In M: MCPS/PRS Members Music Magazine. March 2006. Issue 19
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)