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.
Depressing glimpses of a bleak future. Corporatism... worse than any previous manifestation of socialism, communism, capitalism, or imperialism. In the future, the people will own nothing, everything will be rented from the new state, i.e. the corporations. The rental agreement terms will only be favorable to the corporation, and you will be prohibited by law from negotiating better terms. The terms can be unilaterally altered at any time by the corporation, however. Violating the rental terms will be the new capital crime, harming the corporation's profits will be the next generation's equivalent to murder.
George Orwell was one helluva an optimist.
I'm happy, however, to at least offer my views and any clarifications readers want. Thanks!
It's imperative that we always remember the importance of the extremists. They broaden our options and force the opposition to reconsider their approach. While I agree that the vocalism of the activists was a poor representation of many reasonable consumers' true concerns, taking a "all or nothing" approach makes sense in light of something as controversial as the DRM. No, I don't think content should be uncopyrighted. Afterall, what comes with free in relation to the internet and television? Advertisements, many of them. We save with our pocketbooks and pay with a decrease in entertainment value. Businesses have to make money, and they will find a way. So why not pay for what entertains you? Whether or not the extremists agree with this reasoning is beside the point. The items on their agenda that they're most likely to acquire ( such as the fair use/single backup copy guarantee to consumers being upheld ) is in-line with what the majority wants. I guess my point, in summary, is that in the face of large companies attempting to create unfair legislation, it helps to have people directly opposing them loudly and rudely.
i had an idea enter my head this morning. campaigns to educate the public on what the entertainment industry wants, and what rights are slowly being eaten away, are not reaching the general public, as it's mostly people online using P2P and the like who are aware of it.
I think groups like the EFF, Digital Consumer, etc. need to pool their resources and start a TV commercial campaign (eg, "paid political announcements") showing the typical American family (eg, mom, dad, 1-4 kids) who downloads maybe 10 songs/day or simply wants to listen to Internet radio.
Have the setting be one where the entertainment industry has full control, and how miserable the life is for this family. eg, getting a knock from police at the door after downloading an mp3.
Maybe not even miserable. Have a little girl that's maybe 4 years old try to do something on a computer, then ask her dad why it's not working. "Sorry sweetie, NSync doesnt want their music played on a computer."
Yes, it's only a 30 second commercial, but it should get the point across of the entertainment industry making the average consumer a criminal. One also needs to target such a campaign. During local evening news shows is good, as are spots on MTV and similar channels.
Dont directly portray Hollywood as evil though (like having Mickey Mouse step on a house, like he did in that recent EFF video), as most people will see that as a turn-off for getting the point across.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
We geeks are our own worst enemies on this matter. When we show up at meetings like this and are disruptive, we reduce our credibility. It is far too easy for the other side to catch us at our worst, and then show that time and time again to discredit us. "They are hooligans and evil hackers, and nothing they say has merit."
Look at what happened with the DeCSS case - because of the tenor of 2600, it was far too easy to attack the man, not the case.
When you show up for these sorts of events, WEAR A SUIT! Yes, it it ananthema to our kind. Yes, many of us don't have to wear suits on a regular basis. BUT THAT'S HOW THE GAME IS PLAYED!
Be polite - let the other side have their say, no matter how BS it may be. Then, when you get a chance to speak, shred them, point by point, politely.
We already have enough minuses on our side - don't act like 3 Charisma morons.
www.eFax.com are spammers
As someone else who was there, they really hurt any chance they had of being heard with their juvenial outbursts. On the flip side, I was pleasently suprised to find that the workshop was much more balanced that I had thought. Its good to that the discussion on DRM includes persons working for a solution that does not place far more power in the hands of copyright holders than they deserve. However, the effects of DRM infrastructure on open source and 3rd party developers were not represented at all. It seems that the open source community would do much better to have the CEO or Red Hat or some other industry figure attend these types of meetings, somebody who would actually participate in the discussion rather than interject with random outbursts.
we can rebuild this sig. we have the technology
This is why I'm against this type of Activism. It makes me cringe, and (if they do it at some conference) I sink in my seat feeling embarrassed for them (and somehow myself). I may agree with their viewpoints, but I know what they _appear_ to be, to the otherside.
They are the Greenpeace nuts on inflatables ramming whaling ships or nuclear powered aircraft carrier off the coast of France.
They may have keen insights, wonderful diatribes on slashdot, and in on-line environments, they may seem on step away from Churchill in how the words flow from their fingertips and rouse us.
But in public, they are Type _G_ geeks. Easily spotable, obviously not comfortable (with themselves or others), and get caught in a moment of passion that they would normally rectify by re-reading and rewriting a flame email/newsgroup post/ slashdot post... but in real world there is no drafts folder.
We need logic, and sound reasoning to combat these RIAA types. We need to show the Dept of Commerce, Congress, the courts, and the public, that we really are this smart, and we can logically show why all or part of DRM is a bad thing.
I give all who attended tremendous credit, and even thanks. Any representation is better than no representation (much like publicity).
And to all the uber-geeks our there, I implore any who have the opportunity again to participate in such an hearing, to think of yourself as Mr. Spock (the star trek one, not the baby doctor). Try not to show emotion, counter the enemies emotion and rants with sound logic. And make sure you have the facts, and never assume. But please, don't try any mind-meld or vulcan sleeper grips.
-malakai
-Malakai
A Dragon Lives in my Garage
and I've been reading about the plans to make it to this DRM round table for the last 2 weeks. While it seems like proper "decorum" was substituted with awkward extremism, what was the alternative? Sitting quietly with a raised hand to speak within the context of the panel? Didn't seem to work for Seth Johnson, of the Information Producers Initiative (see newsforge article). Could all of the "corrections" made by the thoughtful, respectful geeks in the crowd have been made if not for the raucous interruptions of the loud NY Fair Use crowd? Staying within the system usually does not work. Which fair use rep actually got the mic at the round table? Brett Wynkoop who knelt at the table IMPERSONATING a panel member. Although I wasn't there, I don't doubt there was some awkward, extreme heckling taking place. However, NY Fair Use had a single objective on this trip. Get the phrases "We are the Stakeholders!" and "DRM is Theft!" into the public lexicon. The public at large will never know or care about the obnoxious geeks in the crowd, but if those 2 phrases get picked up by the media, they're short, sweet and to the point, then it was a job well done.
Most of you seem confused about why the content industries are so desperate to get rid of fair use. Let me explain. First of all, it is /not/ about backup copies. Right now, you are legally able to distribute clips -- on the net and anywhere else -- of "The Fellowship of the Ring", "Star Wars", "Minority Report" and every other pompous piece of Hollywood flotsam _provided you do so to aid in your critical discussion of the work_. Notice how scary this is for Hollywood.
1) You can put pristine segments their precious garbage on the net legally.
2) You can make fun of it and point out how stupid and crappy it is.
Once your ability to actually capture clips legally (hello DMCA, DVD and Macrovision) has been destroyed what are you going to do? Draw stick figures? Go ahead! All of the fawning coverage people will see on Entertainment Tonight will have glorious, full motion, full color clips of the film and you, the guy shouting that the Emperor has no clothes, will have no way to illustrate your point.
That is what is really at stake with this threat to fair use.
- Night
How important is this fight? In the 60's, people got involved and forced real change. And I'm sure when that process was warming up, many activist group newsletters had articles just like this one: Outlining the fear that "Those embarrassing nuts are going to ruin our only chance at making a difference."
Of course those issues were much more obviously central to human need and survival than these are. It's not (quite) as hard to stand your ground and take a beating to keep your peers from dying. Or to give up personal liberties and face jail time to prevent the oppression of your society.
If people believed in the OSS/DMCA/Fair Use causes enough to step in front of harpoons, to march in force and risk beatings or jail time, I suspect they could force some significant change. There is a limit, after all, to the power of money - even the almost limitless amount that "the other camp" can muster against the causes of liberty...
The only question is: Is this fight important enough? Will it spawn an Abby Hoffman or a group like the Black Panthers? Is it enough to wake up the sheep that are most affected by it?
What's really being taken away from us? What are the chances that we won't be able to take it back?
What are we really fighting here? Is it corporate greed? Covernment control? Public laziness? Is there even a front line to hold here?
If the goal is to turn the MPAA/RIAA from thier current course, there's only one way to do it - get the public to see what they're losing, and make them care.
If the goal is to convince the government to support our freedoms in this issue, again - the decisions will fall to the largest group - get the public, the voters to side with you.
If it's to make the general public aware of what big media and the technology companies are doing to them, and get them to take action - That's what you need a real leader for. RMS is strong on ideals, and that's laudable, but he has no public presence, and without the charisma and drive to back up his ideals, he's only a footsoldier looking for a general. The EFF is stretching thier own wings lately, trying to use subversion as a tool to educate. A fantastic tactic, but once again, thier efforts lack charisma, and as a result, are ineffectual.
History has proven that "Merry Pranksters" are capable of bringing the message to the people, through public ridicule, shocking honesty, and downright ground-trembling spectacle. But they need organization, focus, control, and everyone needs to push behind the same arrowhead.
When unorganized efforts attempt this, they come off as purile whining, which is how the events detailled in this current article sound.
What if we had gotten 5 or 6 hundred people to arrive at this workshop - 400 of them lined up outside, chanting during the proceedings?
What if we had convinced educated, like-minded musicians, actors and directors to show up - would they dare to disallow the very people they claim to be trying to protect the right to speak?
What if we could get enough public awareness to get a 2-day boycott of cds, dvds, tv and movie theaters? Something heavy enough to show on the charts - to make advertisers and broadcasters take notice, and to make people everywhere wake up to the fact that they can take 100% control of this country anytime they really want to, no matter how long they've given thier power to the proxies in office... And then get those newly-empowered masses involved in a two-week boycott. During sweeps, the Superbowl, or the start of July.
How do these things happen? Once, there were people who could produce events like these - where are those people during this situation? Is it impossible for the 2000s to spawn a Martin Luther (King or t'other one), a Thomas Jefferson, or am Abey Hoffman?
Are they all dead, strangled by corporate greed, or are the problems we now face just not important enough to bring them to the forefront?
Witnessing (and having been on the receiving end) of a whole lot of vitriol on your part in various mailing lists and USENET groups, I find you telling people to be more 'low key' an amazing piece of chutzpah. Perhaps you're an entirely different human being in person, but judging from the enormous amount of screed I've seen from you in various linux and DC groups, well, let's just say that the first time I ever meet you, I'm going to punch you directly in the face. I've left various groups just because I could no longer stand any of your constant whining and bitching and 'advocacy'.
Perhaps you've changed in the last few years, but I remember you with nothing but loathing and hate. You are everything that's wrong with Linux advocacy. You've been my poster child for everything that's bad about online communication. I could go on about this, but I have work to do.
If you ever introduce yourself at a gathering and out of nowhere somebody hits you, that will most likely have been me. I'm going to post anonymously because I have no desire to revisit past diatribes, nor do I want to be identified as the culprit if someone else hits you. I know of at least two other people who have found your online rantings to be equally offensive. I'm sure there's more.
Telling people to be more low-key. Really, Serge. Next thing you know you'll stop distributing child pornography. And I know you'd never give that up.
One of your ex-rantee's
P.S. Two clues: You berated me once about using Star Office (not free enough, if I remember your vitriol correctly) and my slashdot number is lower than yours. That should narrow it down for you. Cheers, rage-boy.