[A2k] Paris TACD Meeting: Draft 'understanding' on RMI and TPMs

[John Howkins]

James et al

I hope that Terry's view and other ideas behind the Paris Accord will be
represented at the Finnish EU Presidency conference on 12-14 July.

My own view is that DRM itself is not the core problem; the core problem is
the way in which distribution is arranged and restricted, whether according
to private contract stuff like passwords, money, etc, or for exclusive
copyright-based rights or for any other reason.  Some of the DRM issues are
replays of arguments we had over gateways and analogue rights management
when rights-owners and tech people started to introduce those.  If we speak
to regulators in those terms (about standards of consumer protection) it
might be worthwhile.

John


On 5/6/06 6:36 PM, "James Love" <james.love@cptech.org> wrote:

> 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=B9Etat est de
>> conforter la coexistence entre plusieurs modes de r=E9mun=E9ration et de
>> financement :
>>
>> =80 Les revenus directs, la vente de fichiers se substituant
>> progressivement =E0
>> la vente de CD
>>
>> =80 Les revenus indirects : les interm=E9diaires (webradios, plates-
>> formes de P2P)
>> reverseraient une partie de leur chiffre d=B9affaires aux titulaires
>> de droits
>> en contrepartie du droit d=B9exploiter commercialement les =A6uvres. Il
>> faudra,
>> pour cela, inciter les titulaires de droits =E0 licencier leurs
>> catalogues,
>> selon des modalit=E9s compatibles avec l=B9=E9conomie de nouveaux
>> entrants et sans
>> les assortir de DRM qui r=E9duisent l=B9utilit=E9 pour les utilisateurs.
>>
>> =80 Des revenus =AB mutualis=E9s =BB, qu=B9il s=B9agisse de la redevance=
 pour
>> copie
>> priv=E9e, ou de la cr=E9ation, pour les =E9changes gratuits entre
>> personnes, d=B9un
>> 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 =A6uvre.
>> --
>>
>> 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 =AD 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 =AD such as providing the
>>>>>
>>>>>> =8Cinformational backbone=B9 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
>>>>>> =B3fair use=B2
>>>>>
>>>>> or =B3fair dealing=B2 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> A2k mailing list
> A2k@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k