[d@DCC] Working on ACTA petition

From: Russell McOrmond <russell _-at-_ flora.ca>
To: "General Copyright Discussions (questions, organizing, etc)" <discuss (at) list.digital-copyright.ca>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:31:31 -0500

   With some feedback from Mike Richardson I'm working on the petition 
text.  Easiest was some formatting changes.  Current version is posted 
to http://www.digital-copyright.ca/petition/acta  (I dropped the Google 
Docs reference, and have an ODF and PDF version).

   The "THAT ACTA is being negotiated in secret" was broken into two 
lines, and the various "THEREFORE" sentences were also separated into 
their own lines.   This format change means there will be room for 10 
rather than 15 signatures per page, but readability is important.

   We're now working on the two sentences that deal with the two locks 
of DRM:

"THAT digital locks applied to technology without the owner holding the 
keys should be understood as an attack on the basic property rights of 
technology owners;

THAT audiences of digital content should be able to access content with 
the technology of their choice, and that Canada should not create the 
anti-competitive harm to our economy by enabling copyright holders to 
tie the access and use of digital content to devices "authorised" by the 
copyright holder;"


   Maybe the word "digital" should be removed from the first part, as it 
might weaken the statement.

   I want it to read like "Locks applied to homes without the owner 
holding the keys should be understood as an attack on the basic property 
right of home owners", with the substitution of home for technology.

   I want no reference to content here, as I don't agree that these 
locks have anything to do with content or copyright -- and yet there is 
an attempt to legally protect these foreign lock under 
copyright/broadcast flags/etc laws.

   Content is in the second bullet.

Would the following look better?

"THAT audiences of digital content should be able to access content with 
the technology of their choice. Canada should not embrace 
anti-competitive practises by legalising or legally protecting copyright 
holders imposing technology choices on audiences;"


   Part of the problem is that so many of the less technical people 
involved in this debate think that questions like whether you can use 
the content on 3 or 4 devices (IE: the contractual details that the DRM 
is enforcing) actually matter.   I'm hoping to avoid all that 
distraction, acknowledging that a majority of what most of what both the 
proponents and opponents to DRM are focused on is being called a 
distraction.


   I'm wondering if there are people able to work on a French 
translation?  I would like some feedback here as well, as sometimes 
during translation we end up figuring out better language for the 
English as well.

-- 
  Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
  Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property
  rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition!
  http://www.digital-copyright.ca/petition/ict/

  "The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware
   manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or
   portable media player from my cold dead hands!"
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@list.digital-copyright.ca
http://list.digital-copyright.ca/mailman/listinfo/discuss