[A2k] L&E and DRM/ TPMs

[Janet Hawtin]

On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 5:18 PM, James Love <james.love@keionline.org> wrot=
e:
> There are several areas where the exclusive rights of authors are subject=
 to limitations and exceptions. To benefit from such L&Es, you may have to =
circumvent TPM regimes. =A0Policy makers are being asked to address this, i=
n several different areas, including but certainly not limited to disabilit=
ies. =A0These are normally cases where the freedom to circumvent is limited=
 and not general. =A0So far there are few areas where circumvention is allo=
wed and feasible. =A0While we all await the day when DRM/TPMs are gone, =A0=
we are inclined to push for expanded areas to circumvent to enable people t=
o benefit from public policies regarding access to works. =A0We are not inc=
lined to wait for all or nothing.

Greets
OK so if we have a blind person and a DRM media item to effect access we ne=
ed

- a copyright law which includes a useful limitation and exception for
the intended use and user
- a treaty which permits circumvention of the DRM for that type of user and=
 use

In Australia it is illegal to circumvent a TPM, it is also a felony to
develop tools which do so or to distribute those tools.
If the user is not able to engineer circumvention themselves, we would also=
 need
- the right to delegate that exemption to a possibly sighted
engineer/organisation
- the right to delegate the permission to develop a tool/means of
circumvention to a possibly sighted engineer organisation
- the right to delegate a permission to distribute or share the tool
and/or the resulting accessible media back to the user.
- there may be cost issues associated with sourcing this kind of
expertise which might be difficult to afford for individual users
and so it is likely that some wider sharing of either the media or the
tools would still be needed to make the material accessible in a cost
effective and a timely manner.

If we have users who are deaf, who use a mouthstick, or who work with
other kinds of accessibility issues then each of those groups would
need to be able to
source engineering and distribution to suit the kinds of issues they
face with the media which are of issue to them.

Education users are likely to require means to make access for
multiple users so media which uses a TPM to stop that kind of use
would be an issue.
Archivists and libraries are likely to need means to keep content
available after technology envelopes become out of date and non-viable
when either the media, the envelope, or the legal rights around either
become a problem or alternately if the material becomes public domain.

What kind of approach should be taken to make it possible for these
acts of engineering, distribution and use to occur on behalf of the
blind user by a third party?
Similar question for engineering, distribution on behalf of other
accessibility purposes.
Similar question for engineering, distribution on behalf of education,
library, health and other civic uses which could easily impact a blind
user as well.
I guess I am concerned that this feels like a legal Barrier Reef.

In Australia there are laws about providing goods and services in an
accessible manner.
A user successfully sued the Olympic Games for a website which did not
make it possible to purchase tickets in an accessible manner.
Is it possible to use that kind of approach to ensure that media is
provided in an accessible way and that circumvention and distribution
for a legal use
or on behalf of users who require access to means of circumvention is
a safe thing to participate in for all those in the supply chain.