Re: [Patents] GregNews: copyright shutting down 321 studios

[Russell McOrmond <russell@flora.ca>]

Note: This message is not patent related, but then again, neither was the 
rant from Greg that was forwarded.

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Hartmut Pilch forwarded a note from GregNews:

> I guess a real threat.  The form of IP:
>                                 software copyright

  Typical to Greg, he gets pretty much the whole thing wrong.  I wonder if
he has at this point burned most of the credibility he had in the past
with the recent rantings I have seen.

  Legal protection for DRM is not "software copyright" at all, but a
replacement of copyright where the rules of what you can or cannot do are
no longer written by public policy makers, but by software vendors (the
authors of the DRM).  Legal protection for DRM is anti-copyright in many 
ways, and can be abused in many anti-copyright ways.

Abuses of Digital Rights Management (DRM).
http://www.flora.ca/russell/drafts/drm-abuse.html

Creators being fooled by the media/software monopolies in the DRM debates.
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/discuss/3491


  While Legal protection for DRM is a replacement to copyright, there is a
similarity to Legal protection for DRM and software patents. Each regime
is anti-competitive in that they give a monopoly on a whole class of
compatible programs.  This is quite different than copyright which
deliberately supports re-implementation and only creates a monopoly
against copying/distributing/etc a single implementation.  Software
becomes more competitive (the driver of innovation in software) under
copyright, and less innovative under "Legal protection for DRM" or
information process patent schemes.

  Here is how I recently explained the DRM issue in an email exchange with
a lawyer (Sorry for being lazy and forwarding ;-).  Note for the 
non-Canadians:  Canada has not ratified the WIPO copyright treaties or 
other treaties that seek to introduce legal protection for DRM (the most 
controversial aspects of the USSA's DMCA).

---cut---

  I believe you saw my submission to the competition bureau?
http://www.flora.ca/competition2003/

  This is an issue that very directly affects the entire FLOSS sub-sector
given there is no way to license CSS and remain FLOSS.  Any DVD CCA
licensed player must be non-FLOSS since their non-disclosure (of what? All
the knowledge is publicly distributed) agreement is incompatable with the
definitions of Open Source and Free Software.  Any non-FLOSS licensee must
then conform to the terms of the license agreement, meaning not offering
features to their customers which contradict the business model of the DVD
CCA cartel.  This is exactly the type of thing which the competition act
was authored to stop IMHO.

  I'm assuming you also read the Microsoft Research DRM talk, by Cory
Doctorow <cory@eff.org>, June 17, 2004 http://craphound.com/msftdrm.txt

   The sections on "1. DRM systems don't work" is one of the best
explanations I have seen.  I did a longer presentation for copyright
policy branch that was less technical, but relied on a Q&A session.  Many
similar submissions explaining that DRM can't work were sent in by the
technical community in 2001, and as you know the committee opted to ignore
pretty much all of that input.  That letter from Sarmite Bulte in reply to
your letter was insulting as not only did she reject your input, but she
rejected over 650 of the 700 replies that had been sent in to the initial
consultation.

  If the Doctorow explanation isn't clear, talking about a locked box also
works.  This is what I used in my presentation internally within the
competition bureau and copyright policy branch when explaining DRM. I
always use the DVD case as a real life example given it is something that
most people are aware of.

  a) You put your message in a locked box that is capable of being
     unlocked using any one of a number of keys.

  b) DVD CCA claims that the method of inserting a key into the
     lock is a "trade secret", even though they commercially license
     companies to publicly distribute tools which use this method into
     private homes.  Even without access to one of these tools you can
     figure out the method just by closely examining the locked box.

  c) DVD CCA claims the key is a private key, even though a key is
     also publicly distributed with all the tools that use the claimed
     secret method of unlocking the box.

  There is no secret, and there is no real lock.  This is just a technique
to tie the unlocking of the box to the purchase of a "licensed" unlocking
device.  This looks to me to be a means to get around the "tied selling"
section of the competition act.  This is a technique that should not only
not receive legal protection (Via WIPO treaty ratification) but should be
investigated under the competition act.

-- 
 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> 
 Petition for Users' Rights, Protect Internet creativity and innovation
 Copyright, Patents, Free/Libre and Open Source Software, Open Access
    Where does your MP stand? http://digital-copyright.ca/