[A2k] Proposals for the section in the Paris Accord on Music
performances, June 16, 2006.
Michelle Childs
michelle.childs@cptech.org
Fri Jun 16 13:25:02 2006
there is one change to the short form DRM section:
This section should be changed
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
TO READ:
We oppose 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. Such measures should not be granted legal
protection.
MICHELLE
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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