[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[DMCA-Activists] IriXx: In Whom Do We Trust?
From: |
Seth Johnson |
Subject: |
[DMCA-Activists] IriXx: In Whom Do We Trust? |
Date: |
Fri, 15 Nov 2002 06:04:12 -0500 |
(Forwarded from C-FIT Community list)
-------- Original Message --------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 10:16:32 +0000
From: iriXx <address@hidden>
To: C-FIT_community
<address@hidden>,address@hidden,
dmca_discuss<address@hidden>
ok.... as this was released a week ago... and i copylefted
it :-)...
here's a copy of my latest article, published in Music-ally
(www.music-ally.com) - thanks to toby lewis for the
opportunity to write an article which is something of a
distillation of the some of the ideas in my book....
m~
The Case Against DRM: In Whom Do We Trust?
by Miriam Rainsford
To a record company or distributor, the idea of digital
rights management technology (DRM) is quite seductive,
providing almost unlimited facets of control over the use
of their products. But DRM has a darker side, kept hidden
from the consumer under the smooth rhetoric of the music
industry. DRM technology and its accompanying legislation
in the form of the DMCA in the United States and the EUCD in
Europe, has chilling implications upon freedom of speech
and human rights. Under the microscope, DRM reveals its
hidden agenda, becoming less about the protection of
content than it is about the increase of corporate and/or
governmental control over the consumer.
Firstly, to deconstruct the arguments supporting these
increased measures of control which I refer to not as
copy protection but copy prevention, as this describes
more accurately their real intention. In this debate,
negative language is used by content distributors such as
the RIAA to sway consumers towards the idea that they are
committing the grave sin of piracy - but does online
copyright infringement really compare with violence and
pillaging on the high seas?
Reports of losses due to online piracy should be taken
with a pinch of salt it is not possible to calculate loss
by multiplying the number of files exchanged by users of
peer-to-peer technology (P2P). It has even been argued that
online music has acted as a form of free advertising,
bringing the artists music to a much wider audience both
Janis Ian and Lemonjelly pre-release mp3s of their songs on
their websites, enticing listeners to buy the CD. Perhaps
the reality of the major labels concerns lie in their
fears that P2P distribution could make their business
obsolete. Companies including Emusic.com and MP3.com,
however, have seen commercial potential in selling music in
mp3 format, without the need for any form of
copy-prevention, using micropayments or subscription
services to raise funds which are then distributed as
royalties to the artist. It seems that the major record
labels are missing the boat by focusing their energies on
the development of DRM methods, rather than embracing and
exploiting P2P to their benefit.
In the wake of September 11, 2001, internet security has
fallen under the umbrella of anti-terrorist measures.
While the possibility of cyber-attack is quite realistic in
an age where a great deal of the worlds business relies on
networked communication, much of the attention that should
have been focused on better defending servers in leading
financial institutions has instead been directed towards
P2P users and small-time skript kiddies defacing the
homepages of websites. It is appalling that the lives of
innocent people sacrificed on 9/11 have been hijacked to
support commercial causes earlier this year the RIAA went
as far as to attempt to shoehorn legislation into the USA
Patriot Act which would permit them to crack into and
potentially damage the PCs of suspected P2P file sharers.
Ultimately the RIAA was forced to remove its wording,
however their proposals live on in the form of the
Berman-Coble bill.
Development of future DRM technology has become increasingly
less focused upon encrypting or protecting an individual
track or CD, and more on surruptitious control of the
users computer or hardware devices. Microsofts next
edition of Windows, expected to be released in the next
couple of years, will contain its new Palladium
technology, designed to interact with Intels LaGrande
chip to turn the users PC into a combined hardware and
software copy-prevention black box. The way in which
Microsoft plans to do this is by implementing control over
the bootstrap mechanism the process by which a computers
BIOS starts up the machine - as well as allocating
sections of the hard disk to be remote-controlled by
Microsoft or by content owners. The home user would not be
able to access the control measures, and would have the
rights of use of copyrighted material prescribed to them.
This method is referred to by the ironic title of trusted
computing under the definition of trust employed by
the US Department of Defense, a system is trusted to
ensure that the flow of information or even breaches in
security may leak from Secret to Top Secret levels, but
never in the reverse direction. It is about dictating
control from above.
Cambridge University security expert Ross Anderson has
examined TCPA/Palladium, and believes that the ability of
Palladium to delete files remotely leaves the door wide
open for censorship, or for fraudulent practise, as files
could be created to self-destruct on a given date,
destroying all evidence. Palladium is also blatantly
anti-competetive, as it restricts compatibility with
alternative operating systems.
Plans are afoot, however, to enforce this so-called trusted
computing by legislation such as the CBDTPA, a bill
proposed in the USA by Rep. Hollings which would enforce
the compulsory deployment of DRM in consumer machines.
Under US law it is legal for companies to donate to
individual Senators, and a quick search for his name on the
revelatory website OpenSecrets.org shows that Hollings
list of top twenty contributors features major corporate
players including AOL/Time/Warner and Disney. Microsoft is
not listed, although they are the highest contributor
all-round from the computing industry. So companies can buy
the legislation which suits them extremes of control which
are then embraced by the current administration as
anti-terrorist measures. Fortunately this is not possible
here in the UK but industry still wields a powerful
influence over the European Parliament. DRMs potential for
control of the masses is attractive to government.
The implications for freedom of speech are worrying this
policy seems to contradict the European Convention of Human
Rights and the United States Constitution, under which we
enjoy the right to freedom of speech, and the right of
appeal if this is violated. But few people even within
the industry itself - seem to realise the subtle means by
which our rights are being eroded.
Do we really need to sacrifice freedom of speech for DRM
control? The RIAA insists that DRM is needed before content
can be more widely distributed online. But a far simpler
solution to the problems presented by free copying already
exists in the software industry, in the form of copyleft
licensing. Copyleft is the basis of the GNU Public License,
under which the GNU/Linux operating system is released,
which permits the recipient to copy, modify and/or
redistribute the work without royalty, on the condition
that the original licensing terms apply to subsequent
copies. The beauty of copyleft lies in the fact that it
protects the creators rights from abuse at the same time as
granting the freedom to copy and share the work. It is a
daring step to take many artists are concerned at the
possibility of not receiving royalties. But companies such
as Red Hat and Mandrake have proved that copyleft is
financially successful in the software industry and could
well be a viable solution to the current debate over P2P. We
should question the waste of valuable time and money on
developing DRM resources when a solution is already here.
Copyright ©2002 Miriam Rainsford. Permission is granted to
anyone to make or distribute verbatim copies of this
document, in any medium, provided that the copyright notice
and permission notice are preserved, and that the
distributor grants the recipient permission for further
redistribution as permitted by this notice. Modified
versions may not be made.
Miriam Rainsford is a composer, interactive artist and
writer. Her book Copyleft: Creativity, Technology and
Freedom? is to be released by GNU Press in September 2003.
Further details are available from her website at
http://www.copyleftmedia.org.uk.
References:
http://uk.eurorights.org
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/
http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html
http://www.politechbot.com/p-03795.html
--
iriXx
www.iriXx.org
copyleft: creativity, technology and freedom?
address@hidden
www.copyleftmedia.org.uk
_
( ) ascii ribbon against html email
X
/ \ cat /dev/sda1 > /dev/dsp
*** stopping make sense ***
_______________________________________________
Free-sklyarov-uk mailing list
address@hidden
http://mailman.xenoclast.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov-uk
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- [DMCA-Activists] IriXx: In Whom Do We Trust?,
Seth Johnson <=