[fsf-community-team] Intro: James k. Phillips; Interest: Copyright

[James Phillips]

Hello,

I am currently unemployed, living in Edmonton, Alberta, CA. I have 
general contradictory interests in Electronics and the Environment. I 
first became interested in FOSS about 10-15 years ago after I took the 
time to read Microsft's (and other companies') EULAs.

I have been usig Linux for about 10 years and still struggle with it. I 
have also been working to set-up a FreeBSD fileserver for several years. 
I prefer the user-centric GPL approach, but try to respect the 
developer-centric BSD-style approach. (I know "BSD-style" is a banned 
word, but the previous statement applies to the old versions where 
run-time attribution is required.)

Because I am wary of EULAs, unreasonable Terms Of Service, and password 
proliferation, I do not have much of an online presence. I am curious: 
why does this campaign seem to focus only on the online world? Does the 
FSF want to more tightly control media releases to print or broadcast 
media?

It looks like the second step of the process won't be so simple for me. 
In writing a formal submission about potential copyright reform in my 
country, I feel I was justitfied in using the follwing words/phases:
Consumer
Content
Digital Rights Management (with qualification, abreviated throughout)
Intellectual property (in quotes, specified copyright law)
Linux (used without "GNU")
Protection ("copy protection" ~ syn for DRM, "legal protection" (English 
meaning), "Effective Technical Protection Measures" (refering to a 
specific piece of legislation)), "Digital Transmission Content 
Protection" (Citing specific source document)

Furthermore, I feel the following suggested substitutions were not 
appropriate:
Digital Restrictions Management
digital handcuffs  (The term is vague enough as it is)
copy obstruction (Even people drafting anti-circumvention legislation 
must know it is ineffective)

Exerpt from submission I am talking about:
   I have come to the conclusion that the nebulous concept of
   "Digital Rights Management," approximated by "Effective Technical
   Protection Measures" in proposed legislation, is an incredibly bad
   thing. I mean that in the literal sense: it is impossible to
   explain to the layperson how TPMs (don't) work. They will either
   conclude that there is something they don't understand, or that
   you are exaggerating. The reason is that DRM attempts to walk
   blurry lines between saleable and unusable, viewable and
   unpublished, user controlled and publisher controlled. To help
   bridge the gap, I have decided to go to the most "plain English"
   description of how DRM works I could find: Article 11 of the 1996
   WIPO Copyright Treaty.

   Linkname: Copyright Consultations - Phillips, James
        URL: http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/008.nsf/eng/02589.html

Regards,

James Phillips