Re: [Fsfe-uk] APIG Inquiry into DRM tech.

[Alex Hudson]

On Mon, 2005-12-05 at 23:55 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> Well announced!  I think this is worth getting several responses
> into. If any readers are experienced at submitting consultation
> responses, please help out, offer advice and/or submit one.

Absolutely right. My current plan is to complete a full-length response,
send a director's cut of that to APIG, but make the rest available to
help others. If this gets sent on behalf of AFFS, I probably can't send
a personal response also (they ask that the person/people who prepared
it be identified), but I would strongly encourage others to send
personal responses.

> >       * Heavy on rhetoric, light on examples: needs to be the other way
> >         around, and probably stick closer to their points
> 
> If anything, I'd avoid spending too many words on examples of
> problems and look for positive ideas of what they can do to
> help us.

That's a good idea. 

>  1. establishment of "fair circumvention" when DRM is being used
>     to restrict what should be fair dealing or other vital acts
>     - you can't make DRM systems "fail safe" but you can give some
>     hope of recovering after they "fail closed";

Hm. I'm not sure what I think of this. Most of my arguments are against
having any sort of legal protection of DRM systems: going down this road
would infer to them that having a list of exceptions would fix the
technical issues with DRM.

Also, "fair dealing" seems to be a really limited subject in our
country. I would be a little afraid that we're narrowing our scope by
talking about that (e.g., I talk about the effect of DRM on data backups
- tbh, backing up copyrighted material is essentially illegal here
already and you don't have the right to do it, but I'd rather not point
that out). 

>  2. legislation to ensure that DRM system owners are held responsible
>     for computer misuse (Sony?), privacy invasion and monopoly effects
>     resulting from their DRM systems, which will help limit distortion;

Good idea. I'm not sure how you could word that, though. My initial
thoughts are that you are forced to publish how your DRM system operates
(a similar bargain to the one when you get a patent, so seems fair).
People with DRM systems that will not stand that scrutiny will complain,
though.

> 
>  3. requiring collecting societies to allow members to leave, rather
>     than reports like 
> http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/fc-uk-discuss/2005-November/000512.html
>     about why some artists aren't using liberal licensing yet;

I think this is probably a reasonable idea, but one best left to someone
other that AFFS. CDR know about this review (as, hopefully, do FFII) -
we should try to find out if they are preparing responses themselves.

> >       * Not sure whether I can raise "other issues" effectively; could
> >         make them simply dismiss the entire thing for wandering OT
> 
> I suggest reducing that to headings only, to help you meet the word
> limit and to reduce the risk of being bounced for going OT.

Yeah, you're probably right. I need to jettison all the lard I can
atm...

Cheers,

Alex.