[A2k] As a moderator,

Wed May 6 07:26:01 2009

Hi,=0D
=0D
Just sending my question again as no one responded to it before. What happe=
ned to the A2K Treaty, which was being discussed a few years ago. A lot of =
effort went into the first draft and it certainly had potential for a good =
Treaty for all users of information.  Surely this should be promoted at WiP=
O? The Treaty would have provisions for all users, including blind and deaf=
 persons? Would this not solve all these issues? Why is a separate Treaty b=
eing considered for the Blind (I do not have anything against this though) =
when an A2K Treaty could be promoted at WIPO?=0D
=0D
Thanks=0D
Denise Nicholson=0D
=0D
=0D
-----Original Message-----=0D
From: a2k-admin@lists.essential.org [mailto:a2k-admin@lists.essential.org] =
On Behalf Of James Love=0D
Sent: 06 May 2009 08:43 AM=0D
To: bea@vialibre.org.ar=0D
Cc: Paul Lehto; Manon Ress; a2k discuss list; Richard M Stallman=0D
Subject: Re: [A2k] As a moderator,=0D
=0D
Bea,=0D
=0D
If you are suggesting that anyone is proposing that the WBU proposal for=0D
a treaty is promoting DRM you are not reading the proposal itself, or=0D
listening to the people who are working on the treaty.  I would=0D
appreciate it if these type of false and confusing assertions could be=0D
set aside, and ask people to focus on what has been proposed, rather=0D
than some fear mongering twisted version of things.=0D
=0D
Do you really think KEI, TACD (which has 80 members), the libraries, the=0D
WBU and EFF would support this effort if it was introducing new global=0D
DRM obligations?  It includes a small section to allows people to=0D
circumvent TPM/DRMs.  That's it for TPM/DRM.  You could certainly=0D
suggest alternative language, as I'm sure country negotiators and NGOs=0D
will do.=0D
=0D
The WIPO DRM treaties passed in 1996. Some countries have signed them.=0D
Some have not.  Some may be forced to by trade negotiators.  Everyone=0D
who signs them will have to separately implement them, including those=0D
that implement them in a more restrictive manner than is required by the=0D
treaties themselves.  And even countries that don't sign the WIPO=0D
treaties, or pass special legislation, don't necessarily allow all DRM's=0D
to be hacked, or allow all uses of copyrighted works to be legal.=0D
Canada has not signed the WCT/WPPT, yet.  I hope they never do.  But=0D
even if they don't, in certain contexts, circumvention of a TPM/DRM in=0D
Canada will get you in trouble, under existing copyright laws.=0D
=0D
When someone suggests the DMCA is not enforceable in the USA, fine.  Let=0D
them litigate it.  I don't think the ACLU, EFF or other groups think the=0D
DMCA has no legal standing in the US.  Regardless of what people think=0D
about it, it is now part of our domestic reality, and frequently=0D
exported to other countries by USTR.  I am hoping there will be a change=0D
in US law, and a change in US trade policy.  I think people should have=0D
a strategic way to get there.  I don't think some plans I have heard are=0D
realistic.  Copyright owners have legitimate interests, and lots of=0D
influence in parliaments and congresses all over the world.  Consumers=0D
have legitimate interests, and some influence.  Everyone does what they=0D
can to make things better, including for example, the current DMCA=0D
exemption hearings, or people who are organizing to resist the WCT/WPPT=0D
in Canada and other countries today.=0D
=0D
I'm pleased in many ways that RMS is actively organizing people to=0D
resist DRMs, and wish him luck and are willing to collaborate in some=0D
areas.  But even if you completely eliminated the WCT/WPPT/ and the=0D
DMCA, and you eliminated DRM/TPM from entire sectors of the economy=0D
(ebooks, software or recorded music, for example), I don't see that TPMs=0D
will disappear everywhere.  It has always been illegal to hack a cable=0D
or satellite system to get broadcasts without paying, or HBO without=0D
paying, even before 1996.  Passwords are used to protect content in all=0D
sorts of areas.  I doubt that all computer games will go DRM/TPM free,=0D
and frankly, I won't campaign for them to do so.  Sometimes these=0D
restricts are not even about copyright, but some theft of service legal=0D
doctrine.=0D
=0D
What is wrong with the DMCA is that it gives a form of super protection=0D
to the TPMs/DRMs that have nothing to do with what they are protecting,=0D
or why or how.  A pre-1996 world, like Canada today, is a better=0D
starting point, than the DMCA, that is for sure.=0D
=0D
  Jamie=0D
=0D
=0D
On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 20:58 -0300, Beatriz Busaniche wrote:=0D
> El mar, 05-05-2009 a las 18:09 -0400, James Love escribi=C3=B3:=0D
> > On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 11:57 -0700, Paul Lehto wrote:=0D
> > > on one's knees, as it were.  It disables us all for many reasons, not=
=0D
> > > the least of which is the implication that remaining DRM regimes are=
=0D
> > > legal and legitimate.=0D
> >=0D
> >     The US DMCA law is "legal" as far as I can tell.  And its political=
=0D
> > legitimacy is partly due to the weak political opposition in the US,=0D
> > which is something to think about.=0D
>=0D
>=0D
> That's true Jamie, but the US is not the whole world. Please keep in=0D
> mind that DMCA Style laws are not yet global, and there are many=0D
> countries that don't have them, like Argentina.=0D
>=0D
> In a private e-mail, I've sent Judit some documents in spanish to show=0D
> how bad is this approach in environments where writing and distributing=
=0D
> DRM circumvention programs is still legal (and we keep fighting to keep=
=0D
> it that way).=0D
>=0D
> All the good arguments behind the exception here in Argentina are=0D
> followed by a strong legitimation of DRMs, which is really bad here and=
=0D
> everywhere.  This DRM legitimation is bad for blind people also, and for=
=0D
> the rest of us as well.=0D
>=0D
> We all want access to knowledge for all, please understand that there=0D
> are different strategies to reach that same goals that we all have=0D
> here.=0D
>=0D
> Regards=0D
> Bea=0D
> http://www.vialibre.org.ar=0D
>=0D
>=0D
>=0D
>=0D
>=0D
>=0D
--=0D
James Love, Director, Knowledge Ecology International=0D
http://www.keionline.org | mailto:james.love at keionline.org=0D
Wk: +1.202.332.2671 | US Mobile +1.202.361.3040 | Geneva Mobile +41.76.413.=
6584=0D
=0D
_______________________________________________=0D
A2k mailing list=0D
A2k@lists.essential.org=0D
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k=0D
=0D
<html><p><font face =3D "verdana" size =3D "0.8" color =3D "navy">This comm=
unication is intended for the addressee only. It is confidential. If you ha=
ve received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and d=
estroy the original message. You may not copy or disseminate this communica=
tion without the permission of the University. Only authorized signatories =
are competent to enter into agreements on behalf of the University and reci=
pients are thus advised that the content of this message may not be legally=
 binding on the University and may contain the personal views and opinions =
of the author, which are not necessarily the views and opinions of The Univ=
ersity of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. All agreements between the Unive=
rsity and outsiders are subject to South African Law unless the University =
agrees in writing to the contrary.</font></p></html>