[A2k] DRM (Digital Reformatory Mandates) & Opting Out of Human Rights via Contract

Wed Apr 29 10:46:01 2009

Hi Paul and All

Paul,

DRM - as the acronym has been used in previous discussions on this
list - stands for Digital Rights Management (though "Digital
Restrictions Management" would be more correct), i.e. according to
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management>:
"a generic term that refers to access control technologies that can be
used by hardware manufacturers, publishers, copyright holders and
individuals to impose limitations on the usage of digital content and
devices."

For instance Amazon uses Digital Rights/Restrictions Management tech
to prevent people from transfering themselves files between their
computer and their Kindle, and probably to remove the text-to-speech
feature from already-bought e-books if authors or publishers request
it (see <http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/We-Want-To-Read>).
And in the  WBU proposal of a WIPO treaty for the Blind and
Reading-Disabled, DRM also refers to this Digital Rights/Restrictions
Management tech.

Now your idiolectic  use of DRM to indicate a completely different
thing  ("Digital Reformatory Mandates", itself an idiolectic phrase: I
found no other instance of its use with a search engine) creates
confusion, especially when you refer it to previous discussions on
this list where DRM stood for Digital Rights/restrictions management.

So please, could you find another phrase with a different acronym for
what you mean by "Digital Reformatory Mandates", and avoid mixing  2
different issues?

Thanks

Claude

On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 5:44 AM, Paul Lehto <lehto.paul@gmail.com> wrote:
> Both with DRM (Digital Reformatory Mandates) contracts and with
> elections, governments and corporations are increasingly using
> contracts/compacts/treaties or licensing contracts as an improper
> method of =E2=80=9Copting out=E2=80=9D of constitutional limitations or c=
ore human
> rights enforcement, instead of using the only proper method available:
> actually amending the constitution. =C2=A0Just hours ago, Washington stat=
e
> become the 5th state to pass the =E2=80=9CNational Popular Vote Compact=
=E2=80=9D which
> is en end-around the relatively unpopular Electoral College method of
> electing U.S. Presidents.
> http://www.seattlepi.com/local/6420ap_wa_electoral_college.html?source=3D=
mypi
>
> Now, I myself don=E2=80=99t particularly like the Electoral College, but =
it=E2=80=99s
> even more fundamental that contracts can=E2=80=99t be used to modify core
> rights at all, in most cases, and in any case they certainly don=E2=80=99=
t
> modify the rights of those who haven=E2=80=99t even signed the bloody
> contract, digitally or otherwise.
>
> With Digital Reformatory Mandates it seems to me that, among other
> things, big corporate providers have no intention of following
> constitutional and legal schemes of copyright that require that
> knowledge always (eventually) make it into the public domain. =C2=A0There
> doesn=E2=80=99t appear to be any real intention of making available an
> unrestricted public domain version of the work seventy or more years
> later (or whatever the applicable copyright period happens to be). =C2=A0=
As
> such, these contracts also go above and beyond what fundamental law
> allows. =C2=A0The UDHR recently cited on this list aptly points out that
> that =E2=80=9CIP=E2=80=9D =E2=80=9Crights=E2=80=9D are not on a par with =
core human rights, they are
> privileges handed out at the discretion of governments.
>
> In contrast, inalienable rights consist of things (in the USA at
> least) as simple as the right to file bankruptcy (no contract is valid
> that purports to waive that right) or the right to seek a divorce.
> Similarly, one may not waive one=E2=80=99s right to vote by contract or o=
ther
> core rights.
>
> If the list agrees that knowledge and access thereto is a core human
> right, and if the list agrees that licensing contracts or
> technological structures that put freedom and knowledge in a kind of
> private prison via Digital Reformatory Mandates, then what is called a
> =E2=80=9Cfacial attack=E2=80=9D on the DRM regime is clearly available in=
 various
> forms.
>
> To answer Jamie=E2=80=99s question, because I believe that digital privat=
e
> prisons violate core rights, any statutes or contracts that purport to
> effect a waiver of those rights are void on their face.
>
> This is by no means the only theory of facial challenge to laws, but
> when Jamie, by all accounts an experienced and knowledgeable lawyer,
> claims he=E2=80=99s never heard of anything other than seeking limited
> circumvention exceptions, I have a hard time understanding why he=E2=80=
=99s
> saying that.
>
> If we seek ANY NUMBER of such limitations and exceptions that still
> leaves a large number of people in the digital private prison system.
> Why? =C2=A0How can that fate be justified? =C2=A0Or, alternatively, have =
some on
> this list concluded that DRM is really not so bad?
>
> When you think about it, most prison systems around the world have
> exceptions whereby the seriously ill, the disabled and so forth can
> obtain parole or relief from incarceration based on it being too
> inhumane or expensive to incarcerate such a disabled or seriously ill
> person. =C2=A0Sentences can therefore be commuted, etc.
>
> Is our vision so limited that all we can =E2=80=9Crealistically=E2=80=9D =
shoot for is
> the system of equities already in place in some of the most regressive
> penal systems around the world?
>
> When I speak of facial attacks I=E2=80=99m not theorizing. I personally s=
ued
> to void the contract for purchase of electronic voting machines,
> citing 12 reasons the contract was unconstitutional, void as against
> public policy, etc. =C2=A0The government got rid of the touch screen voti=
ng
> machines and then argued successfully that my case was moot
> essentially because I had won (I disagreed because I wanted a $5
> million taxpayer refund). See
> www.votersunite.org/info/lehtolawsuit.asp
>
> Attacking the contract, in that case, proved extremely effective.
> They have no answer to my question =E2=80=9CHow in the heck can anybody w=
aive
> their inalienable rights and in any case, since I never signed the
> purchase contract in question, how can they eliminate my right to
> observe the vote counts just by digitalizing the process and
> purchasing machines?
>
> Based on this track record of success, it may be worth a consideration
> in other contexts, like the private prison context of Digital
> Reformatory Mandates.
>
> These contracts, in direct effect, =E2=80=9Copt out=E2=80=9D of the Const=
itution and
> then public interest litigators fight, piecemeal, to get the
> Constitution back. =C2=A0Such small claims are what most legal systems an=
d
> lawyers most easily handle/encourage, or even require.
>
> It was sort of a (successful) epiphany for me when I realized =E2=80=9Che=
y,
> wait a second, the only way to change the constitution is to AMEND it,
> not to contract out of it.=E2=80=9D =C2=A0And of course, if the right is
> inalienable, even a constitutional amendment is not, ultimately, a
> valid way to extinguish the right.
>
> So, my position is that I oppose in principle all limitations and
> exceptions/circumvention approaches (at least those that don't
> simultaneously and at all times assert the invalidity of what's being
> circumvented). =C2=A0I wonder if those who successfully achieve such
> exceptions will send care packages to those of us still left in the
> Digital Reformatory doing life without parol [sic, a lawyer's pun]
> because we don't have as good of a story for clemency as do the
> disabled.
>
>
> --
> Paul R Lehto, J.D.
> P.O. Box #1
> Ishpeming, MI =C2=A049849
> lehto.paul@gmail.com
> 906-204-2333
> _______________________________________________
> A2k mailing list
> A2k@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k
>