[A2k] As a moderator,

Wed May 6 02:58:01 2009

Bea,

If you are suggesting that anyone is proposing that the WBU proposal for
a treaty is promoting DRM you are not reading the proposal itself, or
listening to the people who are working on the treaty.  I would
appreciate it if these type of false and confusing assertions could be
set aside, and ask people to focus on what has been proposed, rather
than some fear mongering twisted version of things.

Do you really think KEI, TACD (which has 80 members), the libraries, the
WBU and EFF would support this effort if it was introducing new global
DRM obligations?  It includes a small section to allows people to
circumvent TPM/DRMs.  That's it for TPM/DRM.  You could certainly
suggest alternative language, as I'm sure country negotiators and NGOs
will do.

The WIPO DRM treaties passed in 1996. Some countries have signed them.
Some have not.  Some may be forced to by trade negotiators.  Everyone
who signs them will have to separately implement them, including those
that implement them in a more restrictive manner than is required by the
treaties themselves.  And even countries that don't sign the WIPO
treaties, or pass special legislation, don't necessarily allow all DRM's
to be hacked, or allow all uses of copyrighted works to be legal.
Canada has not signed the WCT/WPPT, yet.  I hope they never do.  But
even if they don't, in certain contexts, circumvention of a TPM/DRM in
Canada will get you in trouble, under existing copyright laws.

When someone suggests the DMCA is not enforceable in the USA, fine.  Let
them litigate it.  I don't think the ACLU, EFF or other groups think the
DMCA has no legal standing in the US.  Regardless of what people think
about it, it is now part of our domestic reality, and frequently
exported to other countries by USTR.  I am hoping there will be a change
in US law, and a change in US trade policy.  I think people should have
a strategic way to get there.  I don't think some plans I have heard are
realistic.  Copyright owners have legitimate interests, and lots of
influence in parliaments and congresses all over the world.  Consumers
have legitimate interests, and some influence.  Everyone does what they
can to make things better, including for example, the current DMCA
exemption hearings, or people who are organizing to resist the WCT/WPPT
in Canada and other countries today.

I'm pleased in many ways that RMS is actively organizing people to
resist DRMs, and wish him luck and are willing to collaborate in some
areas.  But even if you completely eliminated the WCT/WPPT/ and the
DMCA, and you eliminated DRM/TPM from entire sectors of the economy
(ebooks, software or recorded music, for example), I don't see that TPMs
will disappear everywhere.  It has always been illegal to hack a cable
or satellite system to get broadcasts without paying, or HBO without
paying, even before 1996.  Passwords are used to protect content in all
sorts of areas.  I doubt that all computer games will go DRM/TPM free,
and frankly, I won't campaign for them to do so.  Sometimes these
restricts are not even about copyright, but some theft of service legal
doctrine.

What is wrong with the DMCA is that it gives a form of super protection
to the TPMs/DRMs that have nothing to do with what they are protecting,
or why or how.  A pre-1996 world, like Canada today, is a better
starting point, than the DMCA, that is for sure.

  Jamie

On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 20:58 -0300, Beatriz Busaniche wrote:
> El mar, 05-05-2009 a las 18:09 -0400, James Love escribi=C3=B3:
> > On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 11:57 -0700, Paul Lehto wrote:
> > > on one's knees, as it were.  It disables us all for many reasons, not
> > > the least of which is the implication that remaining DRM regimes are
> > > legal and legitimate.
> >
> >     The US DMCA law is "legal" as far as I can tell.  And its political
> > legitimacy is partly due to the weak political opposition in the US,
> > which is something to think about.
>
>
> That's true Jamie, but the US is not the whole world. Please keep in
> mind that DMCA Style laws are not yet global, and there are many
> countries that don't have them, like Argentina.
>
> In a private e-mail, I've sent Judit some documents in spanish to show
> how bad is this approach in environments where writing and distributing
> DRM circumvention programs is still legal (and we keep fighting to keep
> it that way).
>
> All the good arguments behind the exception here in Argentina are
> followed by a strong legitimation of DRMs, which is really bad here and
> everywhere.  This DRM legitimation is bad for blind people also, and for
> the rest of us as well.
>
> We all want access to knowledge for all, please understand that there
> are different strategies to reach that same goals that we all have
> here.
>
> Regards
> Bea
> http://www.vialibre.org.ar
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
James Love, Director, Knowledge Ecology International
http://www.keionline.org | mailto:james.love at keionline.org
Wk: +1.202.332.2671 | US Mobile +1.202.361.3040 | Geneva Mobile +41.76.413.=
6584