[A2k] Paris TACD Meeting: Draft 2 on RMI and TPMs

[Nick Ashton-Hart]

Many thanks for the compliment!

With respect to your question on libraries, what I intended with the
language in points a,b,and c is that this DOES include libraries.

Of course, we could make a list of all the limitations and exceptions
we'd see as valid - but would that actually be more valuable in this
context than the more all inclusive language I've chosen?

Once we start on a list we're down a long discussion track with
questions like:

1) Which uses should make the list and why?
2) Is it a closed list or an open one?

To my mind, this isn't a bad discussion to have - but it could well
be a long one, and also contentious. For example, consumer groups
would probably favour an open listing, rather than a closed one;
creators' representatives would rather see a closed list. In the end,
I'm not sure that what we would end up with is any better than the
language I've proposed - but we would probably have spent a long time
talking about it.

Do I think a discussion about L&Es between consumer and creator
representatives is a good discussion to have? Absolutely! It is also
something which could easily take up more than one meeting of 2-3
days. We could do the same with respect to data privacy issues, and
at least that much time again on specific models of royalty
allocation.  My thinking is that we're better taking this opportunity
to agree the basic principles on TPMs and RMI in a one-page format if
possible, then we can if we wish have further discussions to flesh
out particular areas of concern.

If we take that step-by-step approach I think we'll have something
concrete as an output from each stage, which will also I think help
keep people enthused and focussed on continuing to work together.

I hope that all makes sense!

Nick
On 11 Jun 2006, at 12:08, Herv=E9 Le Crosnier wrote:

>
>
> =09Hello Nick,
>
> =09You've done a good job that help clarifying the issues.
>
> =09I have two questions with your text :
>
> =09- why don't you insert something special about libraries.
> =09  I think it's really important because libraries are
> =09  non-commercial intermediaries that need more openess
> =09  to fullfill their mission than any other consumer.
>
> =09- what is the statute of "The Paris Accord" ? Do we have
> =09  to write a long and precise text (but time seems short)
> =09  or do we need to pinpoint some problem and let open
> =09  the conclusions ?
>
> =09That's not only for this part of the text. I really fear that
> =09we only have one week to write it...
>
> =09I'm waiting for the consolidated version of Jamie on thrusday
> =09to translate in French, for the french participants (who
> =09barely read english, that is) can add their onw views...
> =09Who will also do this job ? (Manon, Philippe, Ludovic, Julien ?)
>
> Herv=E9 Le Crosnier
>
>
>
> Nick Ashton-Hart a =E9crit :
>> --
>> [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
>> I hope everyone is having a good weekend!
>> I have pleasure in providing below the second go-round of language on
>> an understanding between consumer and creator representatives on RMI
>> and TPMs. I hope very much that those who made so many positive
>> comments feel that I have incorporated the spirit, and in some cases
>> the actual words, that they have suggested. In other cases, for
>> reasons I have previously mentioned, I had questions as to what was
>> meant and/or worried that using the exact language would in fact
>> actually reduce the scope of the conditions attached to TPM usage.
>> Of course further comments are most welcome, and please let me know
>> if I've gotten anything wrong. I'm forwarding a Word version, which
>> uses Word's revision tracking feature so all the amendments can more
>> easily be seen between versions, to CPTech for posting.
>> ------------------
>> 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, or, for example, as the basis of 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 or the
>> public =96 on the contrary, usually over the strong objections of both.
>> 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, provided:
>> 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 busines=
s
>> 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
>> Prohibit, or limit, access and uses which would be possible and/or
>> permitted 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, or without successfully passing through the
>> testing process referenced below;
>> Fail to interoperate across devices and/or platforms like personal
>> computers, mobile communications devices, and consumer electronics
>> which might reasonably be used by the public. In particular,
>> interoperability must protect:
>>                                                 i.     The ability of
>> the creator to make his works or performances available under any
>> licence terms he or she wishes;
>>                                               ii.     The freedom of
>> software developers to disclose and licence under any terms whatever
>> the source code which helps achieve interoperability;
>> Fail to comply with data protection rules or privacy rights
>> generally, and in specific use registration or other personal
>> information for secondary purposes without first obtaining the
>> individuals' informed and voluntary consent. Failure to grant such
>> consent shall not prevent the individual from using the creative
>> goods in question;
>> 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, both when released and at any further time. This
>> presupposes that retesting would take place in advance of material
>> alterations of the TPM being introduced in the marketplace (i.e.
>> upgrades as technology develops). No TPM which fails to pass through
>> the testing regime should be used in the marketplace; conversely,
>> 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 the TPM is both within the law and =94follows the rules=94;
>> In the instance that, despite the safeguards above, a TPM is used
>> which breaches the above principles, any circumvention for a purpose
>> or in connection with a use allowed by law or which is integral to a
>> use permitted by the principles above-referenced shall be made
>> lawful. Further, an affordable, expeditious, and transparent
>> complaint mechanism must be available for members of the public and
>> the creator community to use against the vendors and/or suppliers
>> which use such TPMs. 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