DRM

Digital "Rights" Management, Digital Restrictions Management, Dishonest Relationship Misinformation

This is a generic acronym used to describe a system of software, often including technical measures, used by copyright holders who "claim" that this stops or reduces copyright infringement. DRM in fact does not affect those engaged in unlawful activities, and can only impose hidden digitally encoded contract terms on law abiding citizens.

Please see: Alphabet soup of acronyms: TPM, DRM, TCPA, RMS, RMI, Protecting property rights in a digital world.

Not so special 301 report

The yearly joke from the USTR of their so-called "Special 301 report" came out yesterday. Not surprisingly, they kept Canada on their Priority Watch List in order to keep up their special interest lobbying efforts.

Does this mean Canada is a "piracy haven"? Not in the slightest.

It only means that the USTR continues to echo the unfounded lobbying rhetoric from the IIPA which isn't as interested in promoting the rights and interests of creators and innovators as they are protecting their members from legitimate competition.

Why aren't we protecting the rights of cell phone owners?

I have sent in my comments to the CRTC on the development of a national code for wireless services. My submission is focused on the rights of cell phone owners.

Available as: PDF, Google Doc.

Technological measures in a land of myth and a time of magic

In a land of myth, and a time of magic, a young technology journalist conducts an interview on digital locks. His name… Jesse Brown.

The person he is interviewing is Financial Post editor Terence Corcoran. Mr. Corcoran, admitting he doesn't understand technology, speaks of magical incantations that can be done over digitally encoded copyrighted works.

While Jesse and I both normally focus on discussing science and technology, I thought it might be interesting to explore what my views would be if I lived in the land of young Merlin or with the magic of Harry Potter.

The double-standard: technology property rights infringement vs. copyright infringement.

Last week I had a letter to the Hill Times editor published which discussed the anti-competitive nature of the technological measures aspects of bill C-11.

I received the following question via twitter:

Read your letter in HillTimes. You really think Netflix should have no say how they want their content distributed?

My short twitter-length answer was:

There are infringing and non-infringing ways to do that http://c11.ca/brief - Businesses built on infringement not legit

Openmedia blog: The beginnings of the Internet Lockdown


by Russell McOrmond

I'm just a technical guy. I make my living as a systems administrator, software author and Internet consultant. After watching failures of the legislative process in the USA that lead to them passing laws that attacked the rights of technology owners and the interests of software authors, I decided I must get involved in Canada's political process. I participated in the consultation in the summer of 2001, and have been very active since. This includes sitting in on nearly all of the Bill C-32 and Bill C-11 committee meetings in-person, and being a witness in front of a Bill C-32 committee on March 8, 2011. I have been live tweeting and writing articles for each of these meetings. Now that committee work ended on March 13, the next steps will be a third reading in the House of Commons and then on to the Senate for whatever study they decide to do.

Read full article on OpenMedia.ca >>

C-11 on The Matt Holmes Show (CHML Hamilton)

On the Matt Holmes Show at around 20:00 EST an interview I did with Mr. Holmes will air. We were speaking about the Bill C-11 committee, and some of the fun I've been watching for the past few weeks (and will be in the next few weeks).

I of course spoke about the most controversial thing in the bill (TPMs) and the most controversial thing that some of the more extreme witnesses want added to the bill (ISP liability + secondary liability/"enabler").

We spoke more generally than using the Copyright geek language. We chatted about who gets to decide who drives your car, and about violence in music, movies and video games. Listen to the show to see what that has to do with TPMs and SOPA.

Audio archives of the show are available (Look for March 8 Hour 2). I'm looking for feedback on one of the analogies used.

Digital Locks have nothing to do with Copyright

I was interviewed by Jesse Brown for TVO Search Engine on Friday, and the MP3 of that interview is now available.

Note: Apologies for the sound quality at my end. I was at my workplace and we ended up using the microphone built into my tablet, which offered better sound than the external mic I use with my phone. Seems I need to buy a better microphone if I plan use VOIP on this tablet in the future.

An Open Letter to Chris Dodd from Eric S. Raymond

I don't always agree with Eric S. Raymond, but believe his open letter to Chris Dodd is right on the mark.

In my words: The technology community has drawn lines in the sand. Your right to protect your copyright ends at our computers and our Internet. We will help if you want to create an honest way to make a living that doesn't cross those lines, but if you want to attack what we consider to be fundamental rights we will defend ourselves and those rights from people we consider to be "liars and thieves".

Theme emerging at the C-11 legislative committee

I have noticed a theme emerging at the C-11 committee.  Copyright law impacts other areas of policy, including cultural policy and with the type of Paracopyright policy in C-11 we see impacts on property, contract, eComerce and other areas of (primarily provincial) law.

While the governing Conservatives have the copyright policy right, they have the non-copyright policy wrong.  The official opposition NDP have the non-copyright policy right, but have the copyright policy wrong.   The lonely Liberal is just doing what he can to get a question or comment in from time to time.

C-11 committee day 2 minutes available: initial witness list

The minutes from the in-camera meeting held on February 16, 2012, and it contains a list of organizations and individuals that will appear before the Bill C-11 committee. (Update: Notice of meeting 3)

As I look over the list I see many more of the familiar apologists for laws that will legalize and legally protect infringements of IT property rights such as James Gannon from law firm McCarthy Tetrault. What I hope to see are people who will defend against this lack of respect for property rights, with the obvious name that stuck out being law professor Jeremy F. deBeer.

Syndicate content