[A2k] Proposals for the section in the Paris Accord on Music performances, June 16, 2006.

[Manon Ress]

This is the intro followed by a short and a long on DRM.  I am not
sure if people would want to go for short or long.

Music performances

Authors, composers and performers of musical works, and consumers
agree that we have common interests and new opportunities to
collaborate. Enormous differences in bargaining power currently lead
to unfair outcomes between creative individuals users and the
commercial entities that sell culture and knowledge goods.

We need legal regimes and public and private systems that support the
livelihoods of artists and determine the access to works.   These
legal regimes and systems should:

a. provide protections from censorship or control by governments,
b. provide for a diversity of distribution channels, free from
excessive concentrations of ownership;
c. foster artistic freedom and creative control over works by artists,
d. protect artists from unfair contract between artists and music
publishers;
e. permit artists to benefit from and reinterpret and explore works
of other artists, while giving appropriate credit;
f. allow consumers opportunities to discover new artists and music
genres;
g. lower the amount of money being spend on the distribution of
works, at the expense of artists and consumers;
h. provide access to works that area older, and not necessarily the
best known;
i. provide opportunities for consumers to engage in criticism;
commentary and promotion of works they enjoy, provide measures to
overcome technological or other means that restrict  access that
harms creators, libraries, educational, institutions, archives and
persons with disabilities, and undermine privacy and freedom;
k Permit measures that provide essential information about creative
goods and allow the creator to be identified, provided any data
produced is not linked to individual consumer purchases/access;
l Provide quick and easy means of redress to consumers.

Proposal on DRM

Short form:
The use of digital technology is changing  the production,
distribution, and  use of content  Not only can users access and copy
content ,they can also manipulate works to  create entirely new
products. Creative communities can bypass traditional intermediaries
and have direct contact with the public.

At the same time, in the digital environment it is easier to control
access to content. Encryption methods and other similar techniques
are used to block access or to monitor the use that a person makes of
such content .

We are concerned that  technological and other measures that restrict
access to knowledge goods will harm creators, libraries, educational
institutions, archives and persons with disabilities, and undermine
privacy and freedom

We support measures that provide essential information about creative
goods and allow the artist to be identified, provided any data
produced is not linked to individual consumer purchases/access.

We consider that current redress systems for consumers are inadequate
and  that new approaches are needed  which are  quick and easy  to
use, with meaningful sanctions for wrongdoing.


Long form:

The use of digital technology is changing  the production,
distribution, and  use of content  Not only can users access and copy
content ,they can also manipulate works to  create entirely new
products. Creative communities can bypass traditional intermediaries
and have direct contact with the public.

At the same time, in the digital environment it is easier to control
access to content.  Encryption methods and other similar techniques
are used to block access or to monitor the use that a person makes of
such content In the digital environment.

Rights Management Information (RMI) ( definition: need one which
identifies the artist and can be used to track  usage)  and Technical
Protection Measures (TPM) ( e.g which act as locks and can block
copying or usage on non authorized equipment)  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. For example [ RMI can  be
used constructively , by helping the development of systems to
equitably remunerate creators and rights-holders based upon actual
uses of cultural goods in the digital environment,provided such usage
data is not used to tracj individual s usage. 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.

Artists 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:

1.=09RMI should only be given legal protection only  if:
a. The RMI is used to provide information, not as the basis for a
TPM, that is accurate, and in an anonymous manner

2.   TPM=92s only receive the privilege of legal protection if they
they cannot:

a. Prohibit, or limit, access and/or use which is lawful with respect
to the works and/or performances being protected,
b. Prohibit, or limit, access and uses which would be possible and/or
permitted when the same materials are acquired in physical form,
c. Be deployed without the active, informed consent of the creators
and relevant rights-holders, or without successfully passing through
the testing process referenced below;
d. Fail to  work (interoperate)  on all  devices and/or platforms
like personal computers, mobile communications devices, and consumer
electronics which might reasonably be used by the public.
e. In particular, interoperability must protect:
f. Prevent the creator making his works or performances available
under any licence terms he or she wishes;
g. Restrict the freedom of software developers to disclose and
licence under any terms whatever the source code which helps achieve
interoperability; ]}
h. Fail to comply with data protection rules or privacy rights
generally,
i. Prevent access and use, or make access and use difficult, to
anything that is in the public domain

4.=09The 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:

1. A regulatory regime that requires 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. No TPM which fails to pass
through the testing regime should be used in the marketplace;

2. [ 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 creative communities,
confidence that the TPM is both within the law and =94follows the rules=94;=
]

3. As a safeguard there should be in addition be a legal right to
remove a TPM or circumvent it if  it  it breaches the above principles

4. The public and the creative persons must have access to quick,
cheap and transparent redress systems to use against the vendors and/
or suppliers   of TPMs.,e   to  remedy any breaches of the above
principles. Such systems must also have  the power to impose
sanctions  which are sufficient to form a deterrent to future
infringements.




************************************************
Manon Anne Ress
manon.ress@cptech.org,
www.cptech.org

Consumer Project on Technology
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20009 USA
Tel.:  +1.202.332.2670, Ext 16 Fax: +1.202.332.2673

Consumer Project on Technology
1 Route des  Morillons, CP 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland
Tel: +41 22 791 6727

Consumer Project on Technology
24 Highbury Crescent, London, N5 1RX, UK
Tel: +44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252 Fax: +44(0)207 354 0607