[A2k] Paris TACD Meeting: Draft 'understanding' on RMI and TPMs
James Love
james.love@cptech.org
Mon Jun 5 14:01:03 2006
Terry Fisher, who is coming to the Paris event, is looking at DRM
systems that are designed to do what Peter Jenner referred to,
helping creative persons and communities get paid for works, without
the types of anti-consumer features that most hollywood/RIAAA DRM
systems have embraced. I think the notion that DRM itself is not the
problem so much as the implementation of DRM schemes, is something
worth considering. This becomes more clear when one considers some
of the proposals that Terry has been proposing. Jamie
On Jun 5, 2006, at 11:01 AM, Philippe Aigrain wrote:
> Dear Peter,
>
> Your message highlights what is a key cause of misunderstandings in
> this
> discussion. DRM, as pushed by both the media and technology supplier
> industries, have nothing to do with managing rights for the sake of
> creators
> or even for their own sake. The "rights management" part (RM) was
> used as a
> convenient enveloppe for something entirely different, that is
> technology-enabled copyright enforcement (control and locks on
> access and
> usage of digital works), what you would call "active DRM". As a
> result there
> are anti-DRM demonstration and no-DRM movements that are conducted
> by people
> (such as myself) who have of course nothing against artists being
> remunerated
> based on observation of usage of their works (what you call
> "passive DRMs").
> The same people stood prominently for existing (radio, blank carriers,
> photocopy, sometimes TV) legal licensing schemes that are based on
> such
> passive observation, and are among the supporters of new forms of
> legal
> licensing schemes such as the French proposal for a global license
> covering
> non-commercial exchanges of music files over the Internet.
>
> I believe that using <DRM> in any positive sense will lead to our
> position
> being instrumentalised by content and technology industry lobbies
> and to
> severe opposition from the anti-DRM movements in France, Germany
> and the US.
> If we want to go a step beyond this Newspeak element and the
> corresponding
> misunderstandings, it is also useful to acknowledge that the "passive
> observation" of Internet-usage calls for observation methods that are
> entirely different from -for instance- broadcast fees. It is no
> longer a
> matter of observation of a few hundred or thousands broadcast
> sources that
> are incorporated organisations, but a world in which everyone is a
> source and
> destination, with all related matters of data privacy. That's why the
> promoters of the Internet global licenses support redistribution
> based on
> network traffic statistics that monitor upload and downloads
> (require schemes
> to prevent faking, but these schemes are certainly not more complex
> than the
> radio and TV monitoring schemes that I saw funded by the EC research
> programmes for years).
>
> So indeed, we should make clear that we support measurement of
> audiences for
> works, as long as it respects user privacy and does not involve any
> control
> on what happens on user machines. There is frequent arguing that
> statistical
> network traffic analysis will be biased or disfavour creators with
> small
> audiences. I believe it will be on the contrary be much more
> favourable to
> them, and certainly it can't be worse than what our present collective
> societies achieve in this respect. When analyzing it, one should
> not only
> consider the redistribution within one given distribution of
> attention, but
> also how the change in the distribution of attention. See:
> http://numenor.lib.uic.edu/fmconference/viewabstract.php?id=3D38
> for a detailed analysis on this respect.
>
> Finally, contrarily to what many state, one can have coexistence
> between
> subscription pay artist communities, download pay (with acces
> control but no
> further DRM usage control) and global licensing for non-commercial
> exchanges.
> Together with direct payment to artists, and fees being paid to
> competitive
> intermediaries as suggested by Jamie Love, they constitute
> important schemes
> to complement global licensing. In this respect see the proposal by
> the
> would-be candidate for presidency S=E9gol=E8ne Royal :
> --------
> http://www.desirsdavenir.org/index.php?da=3D9&proposition=3D66
> Il nous faut sortir du mod=E8le =E9conomique unique, et le r=F4le de
> l=92Etat est de
> conforter la coexistence entre plusieurs modes de r=E9mun=E9ration et de
> financement :
>
> =95 Les revenus directs, la vente de fichiers se substituant
> progressivement =E0
> la vente de CD
>
> =95 Les revenus indirects : les interm=E9diaires (webradios, plates-
> formes de P2P)
> reverseraient une partie de leur chiffre d=92affaires aux titulaires
> de droits
> en contrepartie du droit d=92exploiter commercialement les =9Cuvres. Il
> faudra,
> pour cela, inciter les titulaires de droits =E0 licencier leurs
> catalogues,
> selon des modalit=E9s compatibles avec l=92=E9conomie de nouveaux
> entrants et sans
> les assortir de DRM qui r=E9duisent l=92utilit=E9 pour les utilisateurs.
>
> =95 Des revenus =AB mutualis=E9s =BB, qu=92il s=92agisse de la redevance =
pour
> copie
> priv=E9e, ou de la cr=E9ation, pour les =E9changes gratuits entre
> personnes, d=92un
> syst=E8me de licence globale forfaitaire.
>
> Pour avancer sur cette voie, une concertation approfondie devra
> =EAtre enfin
> engag=E9e, bien s=FBr avec tous les acteurs concern=E9s et les citoyens,
> mais aussi
> avec nos partenaires europ=E9ens, une solution exclusivement
> fran=E7aise =E9tant
> difficile =E0 mettre en =9Cuvre.
> --
>
> Best,
>
> Philippe Aigrain
>
> Le Lundi 5 Juin 2006 15:55, vous avez =E9crit :
>> I find this stuff all very interesting, but without some sort of
>> 'passive'
>> DRM it is hard to see how the creators or the rights holders will
>> get paid
>> for the use of their work. How else are we going to be able to
>> estimate
>> usage of particular works or recordings?
>> Does everyone feel that people who write and perform music should
>> be able
>> to make a living from doing this ?
>> Does everyone object to the idea of the creators and performers
>> getting
>> paid for broadcast usage as they do at the moment? If not can we
>> learn from
>> this example to look at the internet and other digital
>> distribution systems
>> ? In other words what is the real argument about? Is it about the
>> total
>> abolition of copyright, and if so what is the replacement method for
>> payhing the creative community, or don't we care ?
>> I certainly do not dispute the suggestion that the current
>> approach of the
>> corporate music industry is anathema, but what do we want in its
>> place, and
>> how,in practical terms, are we going to get it implemented?
>> This is going to be a challenging , but stimulating conference !
>> Cheers,
>> Peter Jenner
>>
>>> From: Philippe Aigrain <philippe.aigrain@wanadoo.fr>
>>> Organization: Personnel
>>> Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 15:39:21 +0200
>>> To: a2k@lists.essential.org
>>> Cc: nah.maillist@fastmail.net, "Michelle Childs"
>>> <michelle.childs@cptech.org>, "Benoit Machuel"
>>> <benoit.machuel@fim-musicians.com>, "Dominick Luquer"
>>> <dluquer@fia-actors.com>, "Peter Jenner"
>>> <peter.jenner@sinman.co.uk>,
>>> "David Stopps" <davidstopps@fmlmusic.com>, "Philippe Kern"
>>> <pkern@kernnet.com>, "Manon Ress" <manon.ress@cptech.org>, "James
>>> Love"
>>> <james.love@cptech.org>, "Ben Wallis" <bwallis@consint.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [A2k] Paris TACD Meeting: Draft 'understanding' on
>>> RMI and
>>> TPMs
>>>
>>> Further to exchanges betwene Nick and Michelle on this subject. My
>>> impression is that Nick's proposal intention is good, but that it
>>> takes a
>>> too specialised approach, not addressing some major concerns
>>> related to
>>> TPM, DRMs or compulsory RMI. Here is a proposal for a streamlined
>>> set of
>>> points, including one on this last aspect (impact on the freedom
>>> in the
>>> overall information infrastructure) :
>>> ----
>>> 1- Rights information should be the enabler of a freely endorsed
>>> social
>>> contract between creators and users, not a vessel to force TPMs
>>> and DRMs
>>> on them. Thus, there should be no compulsory implementation of
>>> rights
>>> information related checks, and no associated locks on usage.
>>>
>>> 2- TPM systems must be submitted to the a priori check of the
>>> relevant
>>> information security and privacy or data protection authorities,
>>> and can
>>> not be applied to works without the informed consent of their
>>> creators.
>>> Commercial media carriers and services must provide adequate
>>> information
>>> to consumers about usage limitations introduced by TPMs and DRMs.
>>>
>>> 3- Legal usage rights, for instance those expressed as exceptions or
>>> limitations to copyright, should always be immediately effective in
>>> relation to TPMs : any TPM must implement such rights, and TPMs
>>> should
>>> not be protected against circumvention when such circumvention is
>>> needed
>>> to legal or contractually authorised usage.
>>>
>>> 4- The protection of interoperable access to works (accross devices,
>>> accross software platforms) must be such as to guarantee:
>>> - the ability of creators to make their works accessible to the
>>> widest
>>> public including under licenses that grant free access and/or usage
>>> rights, and without losing the benefit of redistribution of fees
>>> collected under legal licensing schemes
>>> - the freedom of software writers to disclose and license under the
>>> license of their choice the source code of software that achieves
>>> this
>>> interoperability. ----
>>> Re the comments of Nick on compatibility with existing legal
>>> treaties and
>>> laws: the only possible problem is with the first part of my
>>> point 3 (TPM
>>> must a priori ...) and EUCD. Leaving aside the fact that we
>>> should never
>>> stop at considering needed changes in treaties and laws, the actual
>>> transpositions for EUCD show that there is a wide margin of
>>> interpretation in
>>> implementation. Ireland has implemented this first part of point
>>> 3, and
>>> several other countries the second part.
>>> --
>>> Philippe Aigrain
>>>
>>> Le Vendredi 2 Juin 2006 18:29, nah.maillist@fastmail.net a =E9crit :
>>>> Firstly thanks very much for such a comprehensive reply and for
>>>> what it
>>>> is worth I think these are all good points.
>>>>
>>>> With respect to point 1, you understand corrrectly.
>>>>
>>>> I do understand that there are many groups which object to RMI,
>>>> TPMs,
>>>> and DRMs completely. Basically the point underlying the first
>>>> draft is
>>>> that it isn't realistic for countries to un-ratify the Internet
>>>> Treaties
>>>> (and certainly many representatives of music constituencies
>>>> would not
>>>> wish for that to happen), and therefore in those countries there
>>>> will be
>>>> protections of RMI and TPMs. The question is whether or not we
>>>> can agree
>>>> some common-sense regime to regulate the use of these
>>>> technologies so
>>>> that the positive outweighs the negative.
>>>>
>>>> 1(a) Of course. The use or non-use of RMI and TPMs is entirely
>>>> separate
>>>> from any other issue. If services want to use them, they'd have to
>>>> 'follow the rules'. If they don't wish to, then they wouldn't. That
>>>> said, RMI is just information and since quite a lot of that
>>>> information
>>>> could - and indeed is - of interest (artist name, composer,
>>>> performers,
>>>> date recorded, etc) providing it is accurate having RMI attached
>>>> to a
>>>> song isn't actually harmful, which leads us to point 1(b)
>>>>
>>>> 1(b) Of course we could put something in to cover the privacy
>>>> issue. It
>>>> may be useful to state that a model which relies upon actual
>>>> usage to
>>>> determine the level of royalties which go to which artists does not
>>>> require information about the individuals who use a song.
>>>> However, I do
>>>> take the point that information on users would be held somewhere
>>>> - and
>>>> the disclosure of that information should be regulated. Could you
>>>> perhaps provide some language that covers this? I know that
>>>> you're far
>>>> more familiar with this area than I am unfortunately.
>>>>
>>>> 1(c) Completely understand what you mean. My language here is
>>>> frankly a
>>>> bit cumbersome anyway. As with 1(b), could I bother you for
>>>> replacement
>>>> language?
>>>>
>>>> 1(d) Personally I agree completely. The question is: would such a
>>>> requirement actually fulfil the legal obligations that WPPT/WCT
>>>> parties
>>>> have to one another? And, in the EU, would the requirement
>>>> breach the
>>>> provisions of Directive 2001/29/EC? If the answer to is
>>>> yes,then we
>>>> cannot ask states to go this extra step. We'd have to come at
>>>> this a
>>>> different way.
>>>>
>>>> 1(e) Sorry to do this to you again, but any chance for a
>>>> sentence that
>>>> would work for you?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original message -----
>>>> From: "Michelle Childs" <michelle.childs@cptech.org>
>>>> To: "Nick Ashton-Hart" <nah.maillist@fastmail.net>
>>>> Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 08:46:06 -0400 (EDT)
>>>> Subject: Re: [A2k] Paris TACD Meeting: Draft 'understanding' on
>>>> RMI and
>>>> TPMs
>>>>
>>>> Nick
>>>> Thanks for this helpful first draft. I have a couple of initial
>>>> comments:
>>>>
>>>> 1) This is intended to be a section in a wider document, but it may
>>>> nonetheless be helpful to put it in context. A number of groups
>>>> are
>>>> opposed to the use of TPMs or RMI's at all. This section, as I
>>>> understand
>>>> it is drafted on the basis that where they are used( and there
>>>> are many
>>>> on
>>>> the market now) , these principles should apply, rather than a
>>>> wholesale
>>>> endorsement of their use?
>>>>
>>>> 2) I think it would be helpful to add a few things to the
>>>> principles you
>>>> set out:
>>>>
>>>> a) A caveat that nothing in these principles would prevent the
>>>> use of
>>>> alternative models. For example some providers are using flat fees.
>>>>
>>>> b)In relation to RMI's the issue may not be restricting access
>>>> but it
>>>> does
>>>> raise quite profound privacy issues. There needs to at least be a
>>>> reference to data protection principles. For more on this see
>>>> the TACD
>>>> resolution on TPMS.( www.tacd.org)
>>>>
>>>> c) you refer to 'Be used to prevent access, or make access
>>>> unreasonably
>>>> difficult, for a use that is covered by an exception or
>>>> limitation to
>>>> copyright in connection with the works and/or performances in
>>>> question
>>>> were they acquired in any non-digital form;' I am concerned that
>>>> using
>>>> as
>>>> a benchmark what is allowed for a non digital form may lock in
>>>> current
>>>> non
>>>> digital usage ( which are already inadequate for some digital uses)
>>>> rather
>>>> than anticipate new uses- this can be dealt with by drafting.
>>>> Either
>>>> remove ref to non- digital form or preferably expand to cover
>>>> broader
>>>> consumer usage. See beuc digital rights campaign for examples
>>>> of what
>>>> some EU cosnumer orgs have been calling for in this area. Or are
>>>> you
>>>> intending this borader usage issue to be covered by the fair use
>>>> principle?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> d) Remedies for breach. I think the current draft misses one of
>>>> the
>>>> most
>>>> important points behind the pre registration regulatory regime
>>>> idea,
>>>> which is that unless the TPM passes this clearance procedure
>>>> they DO NOT
>>>> BENEFIT FROM THE LEGAL PROTECION AGAINST CIRCUMVENTION. The
>>>> draft does
>>>> not
>>>> mention this but instead introduces a new idea that there should
>>>> be a
>>>> trustmark to show that it does comply. Leaving aside whether such a
>>>> trustmark is necessary, such an omission weakens the idea,
>>>> which is to
>>>> both provide a process for review and wide public debate but
>>>> also an
>>>> incentive to comply with public interest and copyright exemptions.
>>>>
>>>> Under the US and EU copyright laws DRMs automatically aquire legal
>>>> protection against circumvention. The regulatory clearance idea
>>>> is that
>>>> instead of provding automatic legal protection to DRM regimes,
>>>> vendors
>>>> of
>>>> DRM regimes or publishers are required to first register their
>>>> systems,
>>>> in order to apply for protection. Only registered systems would
>>>> benefit
>>>> from the anti cirumvention protections under copyright law.
>>>> Regsitration would not be automatic and would involve an
>>>> evaluation of
>>>> the
>>>> system and negotiations over features of the system to protect user
>>>> rights.
>>>>
>>>> For example, Adobe might apply for anti-circumvention protection
>>>> for a
>>>> particular version of its ebook publishing technologies. In
>>>> doing so, it
>>>> could be asked to explain how the DRM regime will respond to
>>>> legitimate
>>>> uses of the works under public (rather than private) standards for
>>>> access.
>>>> The legal protection would not then be forthcoming, until the
>>>> regulator
>>>> was satisfied that the DRM regime did not inappropriately restrict
>>>> access
>>>> to the work
>>>>
>>>> Its therefore important that the link between registration and
>>>> protection
>>>> is restored in the draft.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> e) While I support the call for a simplified and effective adr
>>>> system,
>>>> under the anti-circumvention provisions in EU and US law the
>>>> burden is
>>>> now on users to enforce their rights if a DRM scheme infringes
>>>> them,
>>>> rather than on rights holders to respect exceptions and prove
>>>> breach,
>>>> which is why its important to reverse some of the incentives as
>>>> above.I
>>>> also think that as a last resort, there should be the legal
>>>> right to
>>>> circumvent such drm, to make use of exceptions and limitations .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I hope these comments are helpful.
>>>> Michelle
>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
>>>>> Good morning A2Kers everywhere!
>>>>>
>>>>> For those that do not know me, I'm helping the TACD Secretariat
>>>>> with
>>>>> the
>>>>
>>>> drafting of the Paris Accord for that meeting as it relates to
>>>> music. My
>>>> background is as a music manager, and also the former
>>>>
>>>>> Executive Director of the International Music Managers Forum
>>>>> (which
>>>>
>>>> represents the managers of popular featured artists worldwide);
>>>>
>>>>> during my time at the IMMF - and I'm glad to say that the current
>>>>
>>>> management of the IMMF have continued to work in this area - I
>>>> was a
>>>> strong proponent of the audience - represented by consumer
>>>> groups - and
>>>> the artists - represented by themselves and by those who they have
>>>> charged with protecting their interests - working together for
>>>> their
>>>> mutual interests.
>>>>
>>>>> I believe that consumers and creators are natural allies who
>>>>> should
>>>>> work
>>>>
>>>> together to see that the commercial exploitation of music serves
>>>> the two
>>>> ends of the "product chain" rather than serving those in the
>>>> middle who
>>>> are supposed to make the music of the world as accessible as
>>>> they can.
>>>>
>>>>> In January of this year, I was asked to speak to the Legal Affairs
>>>>
>>>> Committee of the EU Parliament in a debate on the forthcoming
>>>>
>>>>> directive on IP enforcement. The speech that I made was written by
>>>>
>>>> myself but substantial elements were contributed by the
>>>>
>>>>> representatives of audiovisual performers (FIA), independent
>>>>> record
>>>>
>>>> producers (IMPALA) and music managers (IMMF). Part of that
>>>> speech was a
>>>> rather pointed condemnation of the way in which DRMs are being
>>>> used by
>>>> intermediaries not for ends which actually work for anyone, but
>>>> for ends
>>>> which don't really work - and do harm the interests of many.
>>>>
>>>>> Out of that grew an interest by NGOs connected with the music
>>>>> world to
>>>>
>>>> seek a dialogue with consumer representatives on whether we can
>>>> jointly
>>>> agree an approach, politically, in relation to DRM technologies.
>>>>
>>>>> As a part of the drafting work I'm helping with for the TACD
>>>>> Conference, I have prepared the text below as a starting place
>>>>> for that
>>>>
>>>> discussion. The principles behind it come out of the speech I
>>>> mentioned,
>>>> but at this point it is time to see what others think of it.
>>>>
>>>>> It would clearly be a major thing if we could come out of the
>>>>> Paris
>>>>
>>>> meeting with some kind of common understanding of how to deal
>>>> with DRMs,
>>>> and the protection of RMI and TPMs which underpin them. I offer
>>>> the text
>>>> below to you in the hope that it may get us at least part of the
>>>> way
>>>> "there". If we can get something that we can agree on, we can
>>>> of course
>>>> attach this to the Paris Accord, though I would submit that the
>>>> issues
>>>> surrounding these technologies are so contentious and important
>>>> that it
>>>> merits a separate document of this kind as well.
>>>>
>>>>> This text is not sponsored by any NGOs, nor has it been
>>>>> reviewed or
>>>>
>>>> agreed by any of them; It has been drafted by me, though I have
>>>> tried
>>>> to keep in mind the interests and views of both creators and
>>>> consumers
>>>> in drafting it. I'm sure that all will be very happy to tell me
>>>> just
>>>> what they think!
>>>>
>>>>> I'm forwarding the text to CPTech and TACD so that it can be made
>>>>
>>>> available for download since the A2K list doesn't allow
>>>> attachments.
>>>>
>>>>> -------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Rights Management Information (RMI) and Technical Protection
>>>>> Measures
>>>>
>>>> (TPM) when applied to works and performances under copyright are
>>>> increasingly protected by law in countries throughout the world, to
>>>> comply with the provisions of the WIPO Internet Treaties of
>>>> 1996. These
>>>> technologies when used together are most commonly known as Digital
>>>> Rights Management (DRM) and have frequently been implemented in
>>>> ways
>>>> both Consumers and Creators see as harmful to their interests.
>>>>
>>>>> Instead of being used to provide essential information about
>>>>> creative
>>>>
>>>> goods, and provide an interoperable infrastructure for the
>>>>
>>>>> development of new business models to make more flexible access to
>>>>
>>>> cultural goods possible, these technologies are used by
>>>>
>>>>> intermediaries to unreasonably restrict legitimate use by the
>>>>> public
>>>>
>>>> without the consent or involvement of the creators.
>>>>
>>>>> There is a clear failure of the marketplace to provide
>>>>> implementations of these technologies that are constructive,
>>>>> interoperable, reasonable, and equitable. Despite repeated
>>>>> calls for a
>>>>
>>>> rethink of the current uses of these technologies by the consumer
>>>> movement, creators themselves, and even independent phonogram
>>>>
>>>>> producers, the abuse of these technologies continues =96 indeed,
>>>>> in many
>>>>
>>>> countries, the abuses continue to become more serious.
>>>>
>>>>> Creators and Consumers agree on the following principles and
>>>>> believe
>>>>
>>>> that they should be given the force of law in any part of the world
>>>>
>>>> where RMI and TPMs are themselves the subject of legal protection:
>>>>> That the use of RMI to provide information about a work or
>>>>> performance, those who created it, and their rights in their
>>>>> creations, is useful, as long as:
>>>>> The information is accurate, and;
>>>>> The RMI is used to provide information, not as the basis for a
>>>>> TPM.
>>>>> That
>>>>
>>>> RMI be used constructively =96 such as providing the
>>>>
>>>>> =91informational backbone=92 facilitating the development of new
>>>>> business
>>>>
>>>> models that make creative goods available more flexibly, to more
>>>> of the
>>>> public, by helping the development of systems to equitably
>>>>
>>>>> remunerate creators and rights-holders based upon actual uses of
>>>>
>>>> cultural goods in the digital environment equitably and
>>>> transparently.
>>>> That the abusive use of TPMs be prevented by obligating vendors
>>>> of these
>>>>
>>>> technologies to assure that they cannot:
>>>>> Prohibit, or limit, access and/or use which is lawful with
>>>>> respect to
>>>>
>>>> the works and/or performances being protected,
>>>>
>>>>> Be used to prevent access, or make access unreasonably
>>>>> difficult, for a
>>>>
>>>> use that is covered by an exception or limitation to copyright in
>>>> connection with the works and/or performances in question were they
>>>> acquired in any non-digital form;
>>>>
>>>>> Prohibit, or limit, access and uses which would be possible
>>>>> when the
>>>>
>>>> same materials are acquired in physical form,
>>>>
>>>>> Prohibit, or limit, access and uses which would be viewed as
>>>>> =93fair use=94
>>>>
>>>> or =93fair dealing=94 by a reasonable person;
>>>>
>>>>> Be deployed without the active, informed consent of the
>>>>> creators and
>>>>
>>>> relevant rights-holders;
>>>>
>>>>> Fail to interoperate across devices like personal computers,
>>>>> mobile
>>>>
>>>> communications devices, and consumer electronics which might
>>>>
>>>>> reasonably be used by the public;
>>>>> Prevent access and use, or make access and use difficult, to
>>>>> anything
>>>>
>>>> that is in the public domain;
>>>>
>>>>> The extent and nature of any limitations these technologies may
>>>>> impose on the user should be clearly visible on any product or
>>>>> service so that the members of the public may make informed
>>>>> choices;
>>>>>
>>>>> We believe that an essential component of giving legal effect
>>>>> to the
>>>>
>>>> above is the following:
>>>>> A regulatory regime that requires the application for advance
>>>>> registration and testing of new TPMs by an independent agency
>>>>> to ensure
>>>>
>>>> that they comply with the rules governing their use as
>>>>
>>>>> outlined above. Successfully passing the tests should allow the
>>>>> vendor of the TPM to display a mark that makes clear that the
>>>>> TPM has
>>>>
>>>> been approved and certified, giving the public, and the creator
>>>>
>>>>> community, confidence that any restrictions imposed by the TPM
>>>>> are both
>>>>
>>>> within the law and reasonable;
>>>>
>>>>> In the instance that, despite the safeguards above, a TPM is
>>>>> used which
>>>>
>>>> breaches the above principles, an affordable, expeditious, and
>>>> transparent complaint mechanism is available for members of the
>>>>
>>>>> public and the creator community to use. The process should be
>>>>> capable of requiring that breaches of the above principles by
>>>>> vendors
>>>>
>>>> and/or those who make use of infringing TPMs must be remedied,
>>>> and where
>>>> relevant, egregious infringements allow for fines to be levied
>>>> which are
>>>> sufficient to form a deterrent to future infringements.
>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Nick Ashton-Hart
>>>>> PO Box 32160
>>>>> London N4 2XY
>>>>> United Kingdom
>>>>> Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011
>>>>> Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135
>>>>> mobile: +44 (7774) 932798
>>>>> email: nashton@spamcop.net
>>>>> Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com /
>>>>
>>>> Skype: nashtonhart
>>>>
>>>>> Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> A2k mailing list
>>>>> A2k@lists.essential.org
>>>>> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Michelle Childs -Head of European Affairs
>>>> Consumer Project on Technology in London
>>>> 24, Highbury Crescent, London, N5 1RX,UK.
>>>> Tel:+44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252.
>>>> Mob:+44(0)790 386 4642. Fax: +44(0)207 354 0607
>>>> http://www.cptech.org
>>>>
>>>> Consumer Project on Technology in Washington, DC
>>>> 1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20009 USA .Tel.:
>>>> +1.202.332.2670,Fax: +1.202.332.2673
>>>>
>>>> Consumer Project on Technology in Geneva
>>>> 1 Route des Morillons, CP 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland
>>>> Tel: +41 22 791 6727
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> A2k mailing list
>>>> A2k@lists.essential.org
>>>> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> -----
>>>> --- ------------ Orange vous informe que cet e-mail a ete
>>>> controle par
>>>> l'anti-virus mail. Aucun virus connu a ce jour par nos services
>>>> n'a ete
>>>> detecte.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Philippe Aigrain
>>> (message personnel)
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------
>> ------------ Orange vous informe que cet e-mail a ete controle par
>> l'anti-virus mail. Aucun virus connu a ce jour par nos services
>> n'a ete
>> detecte.
>
> --
> This a personal correspondance that does not necessarily
> represent the official position of the Society for
> Public Information Spaces
> _______________________________________________
> A2k mailing list
> A2k@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k
>
---------------------------------
James Love, CPTech / www.cptech.org / mailto:james.love@cptech.org /
tel. +1.202.332.2670 / mobile +1.202.361.3040
"If everyone thinks the same: No one thinks." Bill Walton