|
|
| APIG Releases Their Report on DRM - It Will Surprise You |
 |
|
Monday, June 05 2006 @ 02:24 PM EDT
|
The
All Party Parliamentary Internet Group (APIG) in the UK has just
released its report [PDF] on its study of DRM. The purpose of the study was to figure out to what degree protection is needed for both copyright holders and consumers. I think you'll be surprised at their conclusions. So will Sony and imitators. One recommendation is this: A recommendation that OFCOM publish guidance to make it clear that companies distributing Technical Protection Measures systems in the UK would, if they have features such as those in Sony-BMG’s MediaMax and XCP systems, run a significant risk of being prosecuted for criminal actions. That's refreshing, don't you think?
For earlier coverage of the study, if you are new to the story, see this article and this one.
From the APIG web site, all the key points of the report
in executive summary are:
* A recommendation that the Office of Fair
Trading (OFT) bring forward appropriate
labelling regulations so that it will
become crystal clear to consumers what they will
and will not be able to do with digital content that
they purchase.
* A recommendation that OFCOM publish guidance to make
it clear that companies distributing Technical
Protection Measures systems in the UK would, if they
have features such as those in Sony-BMG’s MediaMax
and XCP systems, run a significant risk of
being prosecuted for criminal actions.
* A recommendation that the Department of Trade and
Industry investigate the single-market issues that
were raised during the Inquiry, with a view to
addressing the issue at the European level.
* A recommendation that the government do not
legislate to make DRM systems mandatory.
* A recommendation that the Department for Culture,
Media and Sport review the level of funding for
pilot projects that address access to eBooks by
those with visual disabilities and that action is
taken if they are failing to achieve positive results.
* A recommendation that the Department of Trade and
Industry revisit the results of their review into
their moribund “IP Advisory Committee” and
reconstitute it as several more focused forums.
One of these should be a “UK Stakeholders Group” to be
chaired by the British Library.
* A recommendation that the Government consider
granting a much wider-ranging exemption to the
anti-circumvention measures in the 1988
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act for genuine
academic research.
* A recommendation that having taken advice from the
Legal Deposit Advisory Panel, the Department for
Culture, Media and Sport hold a formal public
consultation, not only on the technical details,
but also on the general principles that have been
established. I note from the study itself this point: 36. Another way of looking at the trade-offs inherent in the copyright legislation is that in return for a general monopoly, some specific exemptions must be granted. These include the fair dealing exemption, the special privileges libraries enjoy, and the rights to make otherwise infringing copies to permit the disabled to access the work. Surprised to see a discussion of DRM and fair dealing in the same sentence? Me, too. But fair use, in the US, and fair dealing, in the UK, are part of copyright law, just as much as the prohibitions on what folks can do with copyrighted works, and if we are going to be scrupulous about the law, let's be scrupulous about it in its entirety, by all means. That is a fundamental issue with current DRM schemes, that they enforce terms that go beyond what is legally the copyright holders' legal right to enforce.
That's the point Suw Charman, executive director of the Open Rights Group, made to the BBC reporter: For instance, she said, UK law allows people to make copies of parts of copyrighted works for the purposes of critiquing or reviewing them.
"That's an exemption thwarted by DRM systems," she said. "The technologies are extending beyond the law they are supposed to uphold."
Amen. It's good to see it discussed, so a proper balance can be found before we start seeing widespread litigation over this issue, which otherwise I am sure we will.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: perpetual_newbie on Monday, June 05 2006 @ 02:59 PM EDT |
| If Needed [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: perpetual_newbie on Monday, June 05 2006 @ 03:00 PM EDT |
| You Know the Rules [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- A PIG RELEASES THEIR REPORT ON DRM - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 05 2006 @ 03:29 PM EDT
- Assume I don't - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 05 2006 @ 04:02 PM EDT
- Off Topic - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 05 2006 @ 05:10 PM EDT
- "Lawmakers took millions in free trips: study" - Authored by: Brian S. on Monday, June 05 2006 @ 06:09 PM EDT
- "Lenovo denies ditching Linux" - CRN got it wrong. - Authored by: Brian S. on Monday, June 05 2006 @ 08:22 PM EDT
- "Google spreadsheet in the works" - Authored by: Brian S. on Monday, June 05 2006 @ 08:33 PM EDT
- "Finjan Sues Webwasher for Patent Infringement" - Authored by: Brian S. on Monday, June 05 2006 @ 09:26 PM EDT
- "Unisys Announces Open Source “Oasis” in Enterprise Computing Landscape" - Authored by: Brian S. on Monday, June 05 2006 @ 10:04 PM EDT
- Open Source in Bahrain - "IT first for ministry" - Authored by: Brian S. on Monday, June 05 2006 @ 10:17 PM EDT
- "VIA Chipsets Not Windows Compatible?" - Authored by: Brian S. on Tuesday, June 06 2006 @ 12:02 AM EDT
- CNN reporter illustrates ignorance of trademarks, patents, et. al. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 06 2006 @ 12:38 AM EDT
- Off Topic? SIRA - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 06 2006 @ 01:58 AM EDT
- Off Topic? SIRA - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 06 2006 @ 10:20 PM EDT
- IBM releases JFS for Linux 1.1.1 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 06 2006 @ 05:05 AM EDT
- Gnumeric vs Excel - Authored by: IMANAL on Tuesday, June 06 2006 @ 05:41 AM EDT
- "I am convinced AMD will buy ATI" - Charlie Demerjian - Authored by: Brian S. on Tuesday, June 06 2006 @ 05:47 AM EDT
- "IBM has announced plans to invest nearly $6bn (£3.2bn) in India over three years" - Authored by: Brian S. on Tuesday, June 06 2006 @ 06:30 AM EDT
- Off Topic - Authored by: iabervon on Tuesday, June 06 2006 @ 01:00 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Glyn on Monday, June 05 2006 @ 03:40 PM EDT |
For more comments by Suw see the Open Rights Group (think UK
EFF).
Some of the
submissions that went into producing the APIG DRM report.
I am
slightly amazed but very happy to see an official document produced by MPs with
a quote that sounds like it comes directly from Cory Doctorow. I thought it
would take a few more years before I saw that.
Historically,
new technologies have been opposed by those with a vested interest in the status
quo. In the early 1980s the musicians union wanted a ban on synthesisers and
would not permit the players (operators) of drum machines to join. VCRs were
opposed by the film industry until they realised how much money could be made
from renting and selling films and television shows on
tape.
They grasped the problem with DRM preventing works from
entering the public domain and the recommendation that I have not seen any one
pick up on yet but could be the most interesting was the market distorting
effects of drm, especialy in relation to DVD and on-line music sales. Where
different prices where being charged in different countries.
We
recommend that the Department of Trade and Industry investigate the singlemarket
issues that have been raised with us, with a view to addressing the issue at the
European level. We accept the argument that other industries may soon find their
markets distorted by DRM systems and so we recommend rapid development of the
principles by which the single market can continue to operate
effectively.
They also did not seem to keen on IPRED2 from
the comments they received. This will help the cause of people campaigning
against software patents as the worry was if IPRED2 passed, wilfully infringing
on a patent could have resulted in a prison sentence. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 05 2006 @ 03:54 PM EDT |
I wonder about the possibility of adding provisions into DRM laws to make the
holders of DRM'd works responsible for maintaining and/or paying for maintaining
the works in a form that can and will be released to the public after the period
of the copyright/drm expires.
We have lost alot of works that in some way helped build our culture. Movies
decaying in vaults, books turning to dust the the shelves.
"Popular" works might survive. But lesser works might be destroyed
simply by the neglect created by the fact that publishers and producers can't
make a "return" on translatiing and maintaining old works in new
forms.
If they what to play the DRM card, they should pay for the deck.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 05 2006 @ 03:55 PM EDT |
Looking at the full report, the committee adamant that if the content providers
are going to restrict useage (especially via DRM) they have to fully disclose on
the packaging what restrictions there are.
This is an astounding outbreak of sanity!
101. Furthermore, from the evidence we received, it is likely that a
full-disclosure label will also need to say “this CD may not play in all
devices”. It will often have to go on to say, “if your current player device
breaks or is stolen this content may become inaccessible” and “moving this
content to a new device will not be possible if we cease supporting this
platform or go out of business”.
102. For some types of content the labelling will need to warn the user, “you
cannot access some parts of this DVD without a working Internet connection to
enable us to record your identity”, or “your playing of this song may be
recorded in marketing databases in foreign countries”. We note that these data
protection issues are a matter of concern to the ‘Article 29 Working Group’ of
European Data Protection officials, who consider this data transfer to be
excessive when there is no evidence of any likely wrongdoing.
105.*bold*We recommend that the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) bring forward
appropriate labelling regulations so that it will become crystal clear to
consumers what they will and will not be able to do with digital content that
they purchase.*bold* In the long run, ‘media literacy’ will ensure that
consumers understand what they are purchasing and what they might reasonably
expect to be able to do with digital content. In the meantime, the evidence we
received suggests that extensive labelling is essential.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pfusco on Monday, June 05 2006 @ 04:23 PM EDT |
Thats great for the UK, but... do you think that anything like that will ever
ever happen here in the US? I doubt it.
---
only the soul matters in the end[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kawabago on Monday, June 05 2006 @ 04:55 PM EDT |
I love the last line of the CNN article, "consumers have the expectation
that once they buy something it stays bought."
It's diametrically opposed to what Microsoft and the culture vultures in RIAA
want to do!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 05 2006 @ 04:55 PM EDT |
It's a bit like the considerations of the future of energy supply in the UK. I
have to either commit my time learning how to design nuclear reactors; or how to
optimise the genetic engineering of elephant grass. I don't really care which,
but I wish they would make their minds up ![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ALAN SWINDELLS on Monday, June 05 2006 @ 05:00 PM EDT |
... by which I mean that this is only a recommendation, by a small (but
hopefully representative) group of MPs. To pass into law the recommendation will
need either significant cross-party support or be backed by the government. Even
if it has the former a government hostile to the proposals could easily suppress
it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 05 2006 @ 06:56 PM EDT |
someone please explain what the big deal is here? they're not saying anything
that should have been common sense before all this began and that people here
haven't been correctly saying for years. furthermore, they're specifically
citing Sony as an example of what should be criminal behavior, but they're not
doing anything about it. "Significant risk" - big deal. Sony took that
risk and all they had to do was replace the CDs. Cost them virtually nothing.
And did they ever track down the two companies that were writing this virulent
software (upon whom Sony was dumping the blame) and prosecute them? Nope! and if
I recall correctly, one of them was even based in the UK. It's nice to see that
they have pulled their heads out, but they don't appear to really be doing
anything besides politicking about it. Is it an election year in the UK too?
I'm not seeing anything here to celebrate - not even close.
"recommend" this, "recommend" that... big deal. W3C
standards are generally recommendations too and not even groklaw follows them.
:(
don't get me wrong - if even half of these made it to being laws in the UK (and
then hopefully the rest of the world), that would be great... but these are the
same recommendations that everyone in the world (except for the music deep
pockets) have been saying forever. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Rudisaurus on Monday, June 05 2006 @ 07:06 PM EDT |
A recommendation that OFCOM publish guidance to make it clear
that companies distributing Technical Protection Measures systems in the UK
would, if they have features such as those in Sony-BMG’s MediaMax and XCP
systems, run a significant risk of being prosecuted for criminal
actions.
That's refreshing, don't you think?
That
is indeed refreshing. But I'll really be impressed when a violator is
actually charged, convicted, and penalized in a real and significant way as a
result.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 06 2006 @ 01:14 PM EDT |
| Wh
at the nerds think about this story. In brown and grey - giafly [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 06 2006 @ 01:27 PM EDT |
Perhaps this issue has already been discussed elsewhere, or it is a question
with an obvious / stupid answer, but I'm quite new to this whole DRM stuff (and
English isn't my mother tongue either), so please bear with me :
It is my understanding, that current copyright laws grant protection for the
creators of work basically limited in time, albeit this time period has been
extended in several countries several times (at least, that's the impression I
got by reading books like "free culture" by Lawrence Lessig).
My question is : Will I be able to get DRM "protection" schemes
legally removed (I'm an European resident, btw.) if the work they are applied on
has passed into the public domain ?
To illustrate the background of my question : If I'm not out of touch with the
news (or, more simple : plain wrong), current European copyright legislation
grants protection for original works for the lifetime of the creator + 70 years
(or something like this) and for performances something like 50 years. With this
timeframe, some performances of the early sixties / late fifties are nowadays
within reach of leaving copyright protection, promtly last year, there were
several news items about media industry lobbiest trying to get this timespan
extended.
I have the fear, that it might be possible to circumvent this "50
years" term by releasing works in a DRM'ed form (for instance in the form
of anthology cd's or concert recordings).
Thanks in advance for your time and effort in reading /answering my question
Regards[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Simon G Best on Tuesday, June 06 2006 @ 02:09 PM EDT |
* A recommendation that the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) bring
forward appropriate labelling regulations so that it will become crystal clear
to consumers what they will and will not be able to do with digital content that
they purchase.
That would nicely kill PlaysForSure, wouldn't it? :-)
---
NO
SOFTWARE PATENTS - AT ALL! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Fredric on Tuesday, June 06 2006 @ 05:17 PM EDT |
| Everybody!
When Britain first at Heav'n's command
Arose from out
the azure main;
This was the charter of the land,
And guardian angels
sang this strain;
Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the
waves:
Britons never will be slaves.
The nations not so blest as
thee,
Shall in their turns to tyrants fall;
While thou shalt flourish
great and free,
The dread and envy of them all.
Rule, Britannia!
Britannia, rule the waves:
Britons never will be slaves.
Still mor
majestic shalt thou rise,
More dreadful from each foreign stroke;
As the
loud blast that tears the skies,
Serves but to root thy native
oak.
Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves:
Britons never will
be slaves.
Thee haughty tyrants ne'er shall tame,
All their attempts
to bend thee down
Will but arouse thy generous flame;
But work their
woe, and thy renown.
Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the
waves:
Britons never will be slaves.
To thee belongs the rural
reign;
They cities shall with commerce shine;
All thine shall be the
subject main,
And every shore it circles thine.
Rule, Britannia!
Britannia, rule the waves:
Britons never will be slaves.
The Muses,
still with freedom found,
Shall to thy happy coast repair;
Blest Isle!
With matchless beauty crowned,
And manly hearts to juide the
fair.
Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves:
Britons never will
be slaves.
-- Thomas Augustine Arne, 1740 after a poem by James
Thompson
---
/Fredric Fredricson
--------
My computer goes: Wireless network is not connected!
And I go: And....? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: seantellis on Wednesday, June 07 2006 @ 05:25 AM EDT |
In an interesting followup to this, the BBC reports that UK music fans can
copy their own tracks.
Peter Jamieson, chairman of the British
Phonographic Industry, presented this radical viewpoint in a presentation to the
Commons select committee for culture, media and sport.
He is quoted as
saying that he wants to "make it unequivocally clear to the consumer that if
they copy their CDs for their own private use in order to move the music from
format to format, we will not pursue them".
Now, this is not the same as
it actually being legal, but it's a step in the right
direction. ---
Sean Ellis (sellis@geo-removethis-cities.com) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
