[Cdn-DMCA] TPM and the End User

From: Jason Young <jyoung _-at-_ lexinformatica.org>
To: No DMCA in Canada <canada-dmca-opponents (at) flora.org>
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 12:18:27 -0500
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0204050002590.8443-100000@calcutta1.flora.ca> <3CADBA81.25467.69B2AAA@localhost> <a05100311b8d3c4a2b07d@[24.226.31.173]> <20020406075553.GS16035@melon.org>

Kris, you're thinking of an independent artist - say a musician - who 
does not have a distribution deal, etc. I would agree with you that 
TPM does not give these people more power than they had or did not 
have before. But most content in the marketplace is created by 
corporations or, if not that, then individuals with distribution 
deals with large corporations.

The problem I have with code-as-law, is not that technology is being 
used, but that the rules are being written without any consultation 
or participation of the affected parties, namely the end users. 
Conversely, the copyright bargain in law is something that has been 
hammered out between all parties over hundreds of years. The current 
consultative process the government is engaging in now is part of 
that. Further, if the law oversteps its bounds, we have recourse to 
the courts or to the legislature. Better yet, not everyone has to go 
to court or lobby their elected representatives for everyone to have 
recourse to those venues. Concerned citizens like Russell could step 
up to the plate for the benefit of others. If code-as-law oversteps 
its bounds, we can boycott the content, but sometimes that's a 
difficult thing to do and sometimes it's just unfair. Further, in 
order for a boycott to be effective, a lot of people have to be 
informed and make that decision; it's much harder to do. I think this 
is the primary qualitative difference between code and law.

Going back to my Peacock quote, she had no compunction about creating 
systems that governed use of content and reported on that use. There 
was no acknowledgement that maybe the end user should be a part of 
decision-making process. Even if she had a agreed, I would not have 
been satisfied. We need a more formal relationship. This is also the 
problem I have with international agreements like WIPO and FTAA where 
governments sign on to a treaty and then argue that their hands are 
tied and they have to ratify it. Were all the affected parties at the 
table? Hardly.

Best,

Jason

At 02:55 -0500 02.04.06, Kristofer Coward wrote:
>On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 08:20:22PM -0500, Jason Young wrote:
>>  More specifically, TPM allows creators/publishers/distributors to
>>  circumvent the bargain by rewriting copyright through technical means
>>  in ways they could not in law. This is 'code-as-law' and it is an
>>  end-run around the democratic process. Criminalizing circumvention
>>  for uses legitimately allowed in law is unconscionable. Here are two
>>  quotes which appropriately capture the latter argument.
>
>You say that TPM gives undue power to creators/publishers/distributors.
>I have to disagree with you on that. TPM gives no additional power
>whatsoever to creators, and even takes power away from them. Let's
>refer to the example of a DVD:
>
>In order to prevent to complete bit-for-bit copying of the entire DVD
>(including region code) recordable DVDs and DVD recording drives are
>divided into 2 classes: those which can write CSS/Region code
>information, and those on which it is already prewritten. The latter
>type of drive costs on the order of tens of thousands of dollars,
>placing it well out of reach of many independent artists. On top of
>that, in order to use such a drive, one needs to obtain keys from the
>DVDCCA, these keys requiring a guarantee against disclosure on the
>order of $100k. This is in stark contrast to the unprotected CD, where
>an independent artist can purchase a fully functional CD-R drive for
>less than $100, and blank media (including cases) for less than $0.75
>each _and these are the only production costs_. Needless to say that
>your art is going nowhere on a DVD unless you sell your soul to a
>distributor. I'd hardly say this is to the creators' benefit.
>
>--
>Kristofer Coward				http://unripe.melon.org/
>GPG Fingerprint: 2BF3 957D 310A FEEC 4733  830E 21A4 05C7 1FEB 12B3
>--
>For (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and
>links to other related sites please see http://www.flora.org/dmca/


-- 
Jason Young
jyoung@lexinformatica.org
613.531.3442
--
For (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and
links to other related sites please see http://www.flora.org/dmca/