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

[Nick Ashton-Hart]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
Well the current language and further developments could be limited
to 'cultural goods' as the wording addresses - or the important
points about access to policy documents etc could perhaps be
incorporated through additional provisions. Of course if the
consensus is to limit the effort for the present time anyway to
entertainment, in order to gain an agreement in good time for the
upcoming meeting, that would of course be completely valid (IMHO).
--
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







On 11 Jun 2006, at 13:32, James Love wrote:

> I have a general concern about RMI, outside of entertainment goods
> like music performances, movies and computer games.  It seems to me
> that the tracking of access to works, as well as copying and
> forwarding of works, presents one set of public policy/social
> issues in the area of entertainment goods, and other in the context
> of other literary works like fiction, memorandums about the Iraq
> war, EC/Pharma position statements on the medical R&D treaty,
> Pfizer's internal strategy memos, US State Department cables to
> Thailand, educational materials about HIV, and a million other
> areas where it is quite dangerous for society to introduce (as we
> are) technologies to track the movement of knowledge goods, not to
> mention the impact of such technologies on Berne/TRIPS three step
> tests in terms of pushing pay for use paradigms.
>
> Isn't this a big problem?   If we want to push one approach in
> music, do we end up with something that we don't want outside of
> music, that is far more important?  How can we express or deal with
> this issue?
>
> Jamie
>
> On Jun 11, 2006, at 7:44 AM, Ludovic P=E9net wrote:
>
>> Le dimanche 11 juin 2006 =E0 13:08 +0200, Herv=E9 Le Crosnier a =E9crit =
:
>>>
>>> =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
>> I also think that you did a great job.
>>
>> Just one more point.
>>
>> I have been sensibilized to issues for people with disabilities
>> during
>> the examination of the DADVSI law at the french congress. I think
>> that
>> they are both very important and very hard to oppose. For instance,
>> young blind people explained me last wednesday how new DRM are
>> blocking
>> their specific tools, excluding them even more from the information
>> society.
>>
>> So, I propose to add a very generic statement such as :
>> =AB RMI design should take in account issues specific to people with
>> disabilities. It should not block in any way their legimitame
>> access to
>> content. =BB
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Ludovic
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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
>
>