[A2k] Proposal on Music followed by DRM short and long (June 16) Version 2 (change on short form)

[Manon Ress]

I added changes suggested by Michelle in short form on DRM.  Instead
of "concerned" we are opposed.
Manon


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. Creators 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 oppose technological and other measures that restrict access to
knowledge goods, harm creators, libraries, educational institutions,
archives and persons with disabilities, and undermine privacy and
freedom. Such measures should not be granted legal protection.

We support 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.

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. Creators 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 enviroment
Rights Management Information (RMI) ( definition: need one e.g but
ask Nick! 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 authourised 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
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:

1.=09:
a. RMI should only be given legal protection only  if: The RMI is
used to provide information, not as the basis for a TPM,is accurate ,
and  anonymised ( don=92t know how to spell this!)b.=09.
2.=093.=09 TPM=92s only receive the privilege of legal protection if they
they cannot:

a.=09Prohibit, or limit, access and/or use which is lawful with respect
to the works and/or performances being protected,
b.
c.=09Prohibit, or limit, access and uses which would be possible and/or
permitted when the same materials are acquired in physical form,
d.=09;
e.=09Be deployed without the active, informed consent of the creators
and relevant rights-holders, or without successfully passing through
the testing process referenced below;
f.=09Fail 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.
g.=09 In particular, interoperability must protect:
i.=09Prevent the creator making his works or performances available
under any licence terms he or she wishes;
ii.[ too detailed?=09Restrict the freedom of software developers to
disclose and licence under any terms whatever the source code which
helps achieve interoperability; ]}
g.=09Fail to comply with data protection rules or privacy rights
generally, h.=09Prevent 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.=09A 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.=09[ Keep in brackets  but don=92t remove- I just don=92t like this idea
but others might! 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;]}

2.=09 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, d

The public and the creator community 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