Slashdot Mirror
Results of the Commerce Dept's DRM Workshop
al3x's report:
I arrived early, heeding the warnings of first-come, first-served seating. With the small room packed to standing room only, this paid off. In addition to the panelists, listed on the Workshop's site above, notable included Robin Gross, attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation, and journalist and Politech list-founder Declan McCullagh. Lobbying groups distributing materials to the audience included New Yorkers for Fair Use and the American Library Association. Several interns from NIST and a couple of other young folks like myself showed up unaffiliated with any group, and the remainder of the crowd appeared to be typical Washington: lawyers, politicos, journos (professional and college), and think-tankers. A proper press kit was noticeably (and notedly, by said journos) absent.
As the talks began, I was brimming with the enthusiasm and anger of an "activist," overjoyed at shaking hands with the legendary Richard Stallman, thrilled with the turnout of the New Yorkers for Fair Use. My enthusiasm and solidarity, however, was to be short lived. The Workshop's effective chairman and moderator, Chief of Staff and Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology Phillip Bond, offered some opening remarks touching on their previous meeting, held this past December, including noting that piracy has risen, particularly in the music industry. After further welcomes from James Rogan, Under Secretary for Intellectual Property, who acknowledged having worked with many members of the "roundtable." Rogan suggested that there were "no villains present," which drew the first of a number of chortles from the NY Fair Use crowd and their sympathizers. First on the table was a discussion of progress towards standards for Digital Rights Management (DRM henceforth).
This rather dry topic, upon which there appeared to be little consensus or definite progress, was dealt with relatively quickly, sparking only a handful of interesting and notable concerns. Here the clear divide between the tech industry and "content" industry (the movie studios , record industry, etc.) became apparent. Andy Setos of the Fox Entertainment Group called for attention to the "analog hole" in DRM standards, stating "from [the point content reaches analog televisions] it's a freeforall." The sentiment was echoed by several of the other content providers, and reiterated throughout the discussions. Oddly, with a number of opinions bounced around and no coherent conclusion, moderator Bond moved on, blessing the segment of discussion as having been productive.
Moving to discussions of business models, technological viability, and the government's role, the panelists took the gloves off and came out swinging. And as the discussion started to get juicier, so the "activists" got noisier. Comments from the RIAA's Mitch Glazier that there is "balance in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act" (DMCA), drew cries and disgusted laughter from the peanut gallery, who at that point had already been informed that any public comments could be submitted online. Even those in support of Fair Use and similar ideas began to be frustrated with the constant background commentary and ill-conceived outbursts of the New Yorkers for Fair Use and, to my dismay, Richard Stallman, who proved to be as socially awkward as his critics and fans alike report. Perhaps such behavior is entertaining in a Linux User Group meeting or academic debate, but fellow activists hissed at Stallman and the New Yorkers, suggesting that their constant interjections weren't helping.
And indeed, as discussion progressed, I felt that my representatives were not Stallman and NY Fair Use crowd, nor Graham Spencer from DigitalConsumer.org, whose three comments were timid and without impact. No, I found my voice through Rob Reid, Founder and Chairman of Listen.com, whose realistic thinking and positive suggestions were echoed by Johnathan Potter, Executive Director of DiMA, and backed up on the technical front by Tom Patton of Phillips. Reid argued that piracy was simply a reality of the content industry landscape, and that it was the job of content producers and the tech industry to offer consumers something "better than free." "We charge $10 a month for our service, and the competition is beating us by $10 a month. We've got to give customers a better experience than the P2P file-sharing networks," Reid suggested. As the rare individual who gave up piracy when I gave up RIAA music and MPAA movies, opting instead for a legal and consumer-friendly Emusic.com account, I found myself clapping in approval.
Though Jack Valenti proved he could stump with the best good ol' southern gentleman, deriding his intelligence before offering sweeping proclamations, the majority of the discussion was surprisingly consumer-friendly. All in the room, even Valenti, agreed that P2P technology was not inherently bad, but could merely be put to bad uses. Geeks should be happy to know that their voice is being heard by the tech industry: folks from Intel and IBM really seemed to "get it" along with Reid and the aforementioned crowd. There was clear animosity, however, between content providers and the techies. Elizabeth Frazee of AOL Time Warner, for example, was quick to say that "the content industry is looking for government help," and tech industry reps were quick to suggest that we're nowhere near even agreeing on standards or what needs to be enforced, much less imposing legislation. The general sentiment of the tech crowd appeared to be that piracy was a social issue and an everpresent one, and no amount of legislation or technological blocks (your Palladiums and whatnot) would stop it. The solution, the techs seemed to suggest, was competing well in the marketplace and offering consumers a good reason not to pirate content.
The session drew to a close, and a large bearded man in an ill-fitting suit quickly jumped up to say the NY Fair Use people would be giving a press conference of their own out front at 4:30. I followed a reporter from NewsForge to the motley band of activists, who preached largely to their own choir, with the exception of a few youths like myself and the remaining reporters. I confronted Richard Stallman for his thoughts on the "better than free" proposal that Reid had offered, to which he was happy to sermonize on the false construct of intellectual property. I suggested that perhaps artists could, if they so chose, license their music under a GPL-inspired copyleft like the Open Music License, and strike out an independent path, as he did in the software industry. I was informed that musicians needed the record industry for wide exposure, and of the record industry's various artist-related evils. I then inquired about how Stallman felt about downloadable music services like Emusic.com, which place no restrictions on how you use the music you've bought from them, though the music is copyrighted and the artists and labels are compensated. Stallman agreed, after having informed me minutes ago that intellectual property as a concept was bunk, that this sounded pretty reasonable.
I walked away from the afternoon's experiences feeling much more represented by the tech industry, though sympathetic to the activists' desire for more consumer representation in future Workshops. Notably, the EFF was explicitly shut out of this discussion, which is unfortunate; the NY Fair Use crowd, however, never bothered to request a representative, preferring to show up and disrupt the debate on their own terms, and for nobody's good but their egos, it seems. If the tenor of this discussion remains focused towards the marketplace, as the tech industry wants it to, then we as geeks and concerned consumers have little to worry about. However, if the content industry gets its way, we're looking at legislation mandating DRM, which is essentially subsidizing the slowly-failing record and movie industries like we've done with airlines and big steel. Our best hope, I'm surprised at myself to say, is in a Free Market, and not screaming, indignant geeks passing out buttons and shouting down Jack Valenti.
It's nice to know that you're so easily snowed by Jack Valenti. This "consumer friendly" individual you seem so impressed by is the same man who is Congressional testimony in 1982 declared about the VCR: "I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone." (1, 2) I'm confused; when exactly was the last serial murder conviction for a VCR? Or a PVR? DVD burner?
That being said: If every slashdot reader were to write a simple letter to their senators & congressmen about fair use, there'd be no stopping us. So go... right now... and write your letter, I plan to. If you don't, don't bitch about losing your fair use rights when it does happen.
I'll second that. At the VERY least, place a phone call to your US Senators and US Representative. This is a 30-second (literally) process, and is the bare minimum that anyone concerned by this issue should do. It at least gets another tick-mark in the "no" column for DRM issues.
By all means, if you're more motivated, write, fax , email, or even set up a meeting with your rep's local staffer. I did that - it's not bad, and you can usually get a meeting with them within a day or so.
If you need to brush up on talking points, Digital Consumer has a lot of great references, FAQs, etc. Make your points in a calm, logical manner, pointing out that DRM A) won't stop piracy, B) will retard the technological innovation that has pushed our economy in the past 50 years, and C) only serves the interests of a few fat-cat media cartels.
But, please, do something to help stop this. We as a community dropped the ball on the DMCA, and look where it's gotten us. We can't afford to do the same on DRM.
"1886 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Without any explanation for its position, the high court created "corporate personhood," declaring that the 14th Amendment, and hence the Bill of Rights, applied to corporations -- years before most human beings enjoyed its full protection."
This is why people are mad, corporations in effect have more rights than the people.
"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." George HW Bush
I wasn't there, and so cannot say whether the NYC faction was over the line or not, but there was a point to be made by utterly disrupting the roundtable: there were no voices for the consumer there. Why should we allow them to discuss our future without our participation?
No, tech industry reps do not count. They're going to follow the money, pure and simple. If they can make more money by screwing us, they will. That's their responsibility to their shareholders, after all: make money, not good social policy.
Dressing in a suit and playing The Game isn't always effective. It is stacked against the public at large.
While it's important that we all work within the system as well, it is equally important that when the process is completely stacked against consumers (i.e., no voice for consumers at the roundtable) we go ahead and change the rules.
I found the whole event to actually be better than expected, with some notable exceptions.
1) Really, this is not the way to get the message out. Yelling is counter-productive and makes those who do it look bad. I was quite suprised that no one got kicked out, and did not enjoy having a security guard standing next to me because people in front of me could not control themselves! I understand the frustration--hearing inane comments from Valenti et. al. and not being able to respond--but you do yourselves no favors by interuppting and acting like children in a sandbox.
2) Valenti's comments were just plain stupid. Defending his stupid comments circa 1981 of the VCR being like the boston strangler by saying "a little demoguagery never hurt anyone." Man, I need to get that transcript, but here he admits that is what he did best (and should we be suprised, he was a Presidential speechwriter after all). This came on the heels of him saying that it is time to get the inflamed rhetoric out of the debate and the best line of, "well I am the public" (which was reported by the record company execs as well.
He said that VCR piracy was a problem (on the order or $3.5B) and that it could have been fixed originally, though he never wanted to stop the VCR, only have modest copyright royalties. He was quickly corrected by Bob Schwartz, General Counsel for Home Recording Rights Coalition, who said, "I recall the word 'injunction' being used in the lawsuit and the modest royalty of $25-50 per VCR tape. GREAT STUFF!!!
But Valenti did say they want to give the consumer what they want at a price they will pay. When Bond interjected, well it is clear they want P2P, Valenti replied, well I may want a skeleton key that opens every door--bizarre stuff.
3) Rob Ried of Listen.com ROCKED!! Go on, very good stuff. Aside from his unwavering conviction to talk about a safe harbor for all out of print work, that can be rebutted by a take down notice of the original artist (which is a good idea, but he spent too much time on it), he has a great model and presented it clearly. It was what I have always thought, there is a way to beat free, offer something compelling. Once you reach a certain age time == $$ and if I can get my music with little time and portable, I will take that and pay for it. If I do not have that luxery, I will use what is available. He made a great analagy to all the "designer" water out there (although this is a little false, because DC tap water really does suck--then again so does most current music, so maybe I am wrong here).
4) A great argument from Intel to Valenti. "Looks like the only way we can clean up ponrongraphy and violence and drugs in the movies is through a government mandate." That's right, throw it in their face that our industry does not want to be mandated just like theirs doesn't.
5) Again, I reiterate, chose the messenger better. Flame me if you will, but 10 guys looking like the comic book salesman from the simpsons, disrupting a government meeting, does not help. You guys can bitch and moan about secret back room dealings (and I do too), but when you are given the opportunity to attend public meetings, do not show why they prefer to do things in private. It is embarrasing, counter-productive, and will likely lead to the reduction of these meetings (which I did think was highly productive in showing that differing industries come at it differently). Standing up and yelling, "the time for civility has now come to an end" (true quote) does no good!!!!