Slashdot Mirror

Read the article at http://flora.ca/own. I am not talking about DRM on content which only limits interoperability to "authorised" devices. I do not own the copyrighted work simply because I purchase a copy.

What I'm talking about the DRM on the authorised device, which is something I do own.

You may also want to check out: The Two Locks of DRM:

When I am explaining DRM to politicians, I feel like I am Ralph Nader back in 1965. He explained that with an automobile accident there are two collisions: the car hits something, and the passenger hits the car. While automobile safety up to that point concentrated only on the first collision, it was quickly understood that safety features should concentrate on the second collision. This gave us dashboards that weren't made out of metal, seatbelts, air bags, and other such second-collision safety features. We have the same problem with DRM where policy makers think there is only one "digital lock" being discussed, when in fact there are two and it is the lock they are less aware of that is the source of most of the controversy.

Here is why I'm likely to boycott Lulu, and recommend against them whenever asked. I've already cleaned up my storefront to only indicate this removal of support.

First I offer http://www.flora.ca/own for what I consider DRM to be, given there isn't a universal meaning for this acronym. It is also an explanation for less technical people about how DRM works, rather than the unscientific "magic" that some people believe it to be.

I believe that authors imposing technology brands on audiences (DRM on content) is even less legitimate/moral than audiences imposing prices on authors (IE: copyright infringement). I don't condone either, but consider DRM to be worse.

I consider the activity of locking technology such that the owner does not have the key (DRM on hardware/software) to be a direct attack on property rights. I consider this a form of "theft" that should be made clearly illegal -- not encouraged (through locks on content), legalised or legally protected.

In the case of Lulu the blog article was clearly encouraging authors to put DRM on their content, making false (but common) claims that DRM would reduce infringement. DRM on content then imposes/encourages specific brands of technology, specifically technology that is locked down against the interests of their owners.

Lulu is and should also be held to a higher standard. This is a company founded by Bob Young who knows better when it comes to the harms of DRM. If this were an old-economy publisher adding DRM-free digital distribution to an existing DRM-only system, this would be seen as a step in a positive direction. In this case this is a theoretically new-economy publisher adding and promoting DRM in addition to a long-standing DRM-free system, clearly a step in a negative direction.

Before we can dream of software such as you describe, we need to have our property rights fully protected for our hardware. This means that it must be our choice, not any third party, what software is installed on our hardware.

Recognized "BadWare" is not the largest problem, with many governments creating laws that ensure that the owners of computers aren't allowed to decide what software runs on their hardware.

Protecting property rights in a digital world
http://www.flora.ca/documents/digital-ownership.ht ml

I reckon the libertarian party is a lot more likely to eliminate unnecessary expansions of government than the greens or any "left wing" group.

Not when it comes to intellectual property. Go to their webpage (or the the Cato Institute) and look up their position. Remember that idiotic Rand Institute article on the subject? I realize that Libertarians are different from Randians are different from the Rand Institute, but it's only an exaggerated case. They are so obsessed with the sanctity of property that they can't see that IP is 100% a government invention. (And that's ok, but it's counter to most other Libertarian ideals.)

Many Libertarians don't feel that way, I'm sure. But it's not the party line.

But I see no reason to expect that the Greens are better. Most Americans fought over who had an idea first in kindergarten, and have never grown out of it. Everyone I speak to about the issue thinks of things almost like the French system: Artists have moral rights over their works, and it is wrong to infringe on them.

Google isn't bearing easy fruit, so I don't know what the Green position is. I see this, which is promising. Iduno. That's a reason to think that maybe the Greens are better.

I did a report for Industry Canada on A Review of Software Patent Issues.

There are also discussions of patents on the Digital Copyright Canada forum.

The Digital Copyright Canada forum and the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) are working to make Internet, Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) and digital copyright issues during the current election.

In 2001, with the help of the EFF, we were able to generate approximately 650 of the 700 written replies that the government received to their consultation. Our replies all opposed the DMCA being brought into Canada. Unfortunately parliament is not listening to us, and recent reports from parliamentary committees have directed government to immediately ratify the WIPO treaties that were implemented as the DMCA in the USA.

Rather than reacting, Canadians should be proactive and ensure that their candidates know where they stand on these issues. Both CIPPIC and the Digital Copyright Canada forum have questions for Candidates which can help you find out where they stand.

If you are one of those 40% of Canadians that don't vote, please consider protecting the Internet and FLOSS from bad government policy to be an important reason to get involved.

If the music is put onto a blank CD, then it is not infringement. If the music is left on a computer hard-disk, it is currently considered infringement.