Friday, March 24, 2006
Lord Armstrong's ID card opt out
Lord Armstrong has apparently proposed an amendment to the ID cards bill which would allow people to apply to opt out of having a card when applying for a passport.
Berners Lee would like access to OS data
From the Guardian:
"The inventor of the world wide web has called for more open access to Ordnance Survey (OS) mapping data - and may get his wish later this year. Sir Tim Berners-Lee told an Oxford University audience last week getting "basic, raw data from Ordnance Survey" online would help build the "semantic web", which he defines as a web of data using standard formats so that relevant data can be found and processed by computers."
"The inventor of the world wide web has called for more open access to Ordnance Survey (OS) mapping data - and may get his wish later this year. Sir Tim Berners-Lee told an Oxford University audience last week getting "basic, raw data from Ordnance Survey" online would help build the "semantic web", which he defines as a web of data using standard formats so that relevant data can be found and processed by computers."
Libraries are not just about books
It's a pity that the Independent is now behind a paywall. Terence Blacker has an excellent article in it today about the value of libraries.
He's pleased about a 'Love Libraries' intitiative, backed by the great and the good in government and commerce and tagged with all the usual marketing speak, to redesign and promote three libraries in Newquay, Gravesend and Richmond. On the day it was announced though he was visiting a library in Northern Ireland, where he met a group of children who regularly go there after school.
"Here is the way it works in libraries like the one I visited. Situated near a council housing estate, it is a regular refuge after school for children, aged from seven or eight upwards, whose parents are out or unavailable. It is warm and light; it has computers and books.
With the help of conscientious and heroically patient librarians, the children receive encouragement and interest that they get neither at home nor at school and, largely though their own free will and enthusiasm, often develop and interest in books and the world of possibility and escape that they contain.
In a better world there would be no need for librarians to provide this kind of safety-net, but the fact is that, in many places they do. There is a danger that, as we learn to love libraries, these rather more needy and demanding consumers, who elsewhere tend to get ignored, forgotten and excluded, may be regarded by the marketing mentors as rather too problematic to fit in with their visionary transformations."
Spot on, though I do have one small quibble with his use of the term "consumers" (a word I dislike intensely but, like many others, overuse) to describe children. In doing so he is surrendering ground, allowing the marketing consultants' language to structure the terms of any debate.
He's pleased about a 'Love Libraries' intitiative, backed by the great and the good in government and commerce and tagged with all the usual marketing speak, to redesign and promote three libraries in Newquay, Gravesend and Richmond. On the day it was announced though he was visiting a library in Northern Ireland, where he met a group of children who regularly go there after school.
"Here is the way it works in libraries like the one I visited. Situated near a council housing estate, it is a regular refuge after school for children, aged from seven or eight upwards, whose parents are out or unavailable. It is warm and light; it has computers and books.
With the help of conscientious and heroically patient librarians, the children receive encouragement and interest that they get neither at home nor at school and, largely though their own free will and enthusiasm, often develop and interest in books and the world of possibility and escape that they contain.
In a better world there would be no need for librarians to provide this kind of safety-net, but the fact is that, in many places they do. There is a danger that, as we learn to love libraries, these rather more needy and demanding consumers, who elsewhere tend to get ignored, forgotten and excluded, may be regarded by the marketing mentors as rather too problematic to fit in with their visionary transformations."
Spot on, though I do have one small quibble with his use of the term "consumers" (a word I dislike intensely but, like many others, overuse) to describe children. In doing so he is surrendering ground, allowing the marketing consultants' language to structure the terms of any debate.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
French urge EU to force iTunes interoperability
From the Independent:
"France is pushing the European Union to break the dominance of Apple's iPod by forcing the company to allow songs downloaded from iTunes to be used on rival players.
The diplomatic push comes as the French parliament voted yesterday in favour of new laws that require Apple to reveal details of its anti-copying technology. Lawmakers are worried that the relationship between iTunes and the iPod is anti-competitive"
"France is pushing the European Union to break the dominance of Apple's iPod by forcing the company to allow songs downloaded from iTunes to be used on rival players.
The diplomatic push comes as the French parliament voted yesterday in favour of new laws that require Apple to reveal details of its anti-copying technology. Lawmakers are worried that the relationship between iTunes and the iPod is anti-competitive"
Isenberg: The Internet Experiment is not Finished
David Isenberg has been thinking about Jonathan Zittrain's ideas on the future of the Net. (Click on the article to zoom in).
"Zittrain proposes to preserve the Internet
in all its wildness, danger and opportunity by creating
another, parallel Internet that would be controlled,
secure, tame and predictable. The wild "red" Internet
and the tame "green" Internet would coexist within the
same end-user computer, where a software switch would
toggle between the two. He says that the computer user
could switch back and forth, "to ensure that valuable or
sensitive data was created and stored in the 'green'
mode, leaving 'red' mode for experimentation and play."
Zittrain sees problems with this, but thinks they're
workable. He says that Internet service providers might
charge more for a red connection, presuming that red
will be subject to more volume and abuse. He observes
that we will need a way of certifying green
applications, perhaps an "Underwriters Lab" for
software. And he sees a danger that the green machine,
"might be so restrictively conceived that most users
would find it unpalatable."
I see even more problems. Some of the Internet's value
lies beyond its generativity. There's huge value in the
ability to try out new ideas quickly and cheaply on
target markets, with real customers using real
applications. Suppose an innovator had an idea that
might appeal to typical green customers but could only
try the idea out on red users. Or, suppose the
gatekeepers of green charged too much to test new, red
ideas. The market test baby might go down the drain
unnoticed in the red bathwater...
There's another path between the Scylla of an Internet
where innovation is illegal and the Charybdis of an
Internet where innovation and problems are red-walled
against everyday use. This is the creation of green
applications on an otherwise red Internet. It's
happening today. My email client silently shuffles spam
into a junk mailbox and warns me about incoming viruses.
My iTunes music player has light digital rights
management that puts some controls on copying. My
browser suppresses pop-up ads and lets me manage cookies
if I want to endure that hassle to shield my privacy.
These programs – and others – will get better, smarter
and easier to use securely over time, thanks to the
generativity of the Internet exactly as it exists today."
Recommended. There are problems with both schemes but once the network-halting, computer-destroying digital Pearl Harbor event finally hits the Net, Jonathan's might be the only, at least temporarily, "politically acceptable" response. In either case the route to continuing to facilitate the innovation generativity of the Net and the protection of the Network and its ends from malware has got to be via tapping into the intelligence at the ends of the network. Though in terms of critical decision making on network design we should beware of popularity contests and always remember the base rate fallacy.
"Zittrain proposes to preserve the Internet
in all its wildness, danger and opportunity by creating
another, parallel Internet that would be controlled,
secure, tame and predictable. The wild "red" Internet
and the tame "green" Internet would coexist within the
same end-user computer, where a software switch would
toggle between the two. He says that the computer user
could switch back and forth, "to ensure that valuable or
sensitive data was created and stored in the 'green'
mode, leaving 'red' mode for experimentation and play."
Zittrain sees problems with this, but thinks they're
workable. He says that Internet service providers might
charge more for a red connection, presuming that red
will be subject to more volume and abuse. He observes
that we will need a way of certifying green
applications, perhaps an "Underwriters Lab" for
software. And he sees a danger that the green machine,
"might be so restrictively conceived that most users
would find it unpalatable."
I see even more problems. Some of the Internet's value
lies beyond its generativity. There's huge value in the
ability to try out new ideas quickly and cheaply on
target markets, with real customers using real
applications. Suppose an innovator had an idea that
might appeal to typical green customers but could only
try the idea out on red users. Or, suppose the
gatekeepers of green charged too much to test new, red
ideas. The market test baby might go down the drain
unnoticed in the red bathwater...
There's another path between the Scylla of an Internet
where innovation is illegal and the Charybdis of an
Internet where innovation and problems are red-walled
against everyday use. This is the creation of green
applications on an otherwise red Internet. It's
happening today. My email client silently shuffles spam
into a junk mailbox and warns me about incoming viruses.
My iTunes music player has light digital rights
management that puts some controls on copying. My
browser suppresses pop-up ads and lets me manage cookies
if I want to endure that hassle to shield my privacy.
These programs – and others – will get better, smarter
and easier to use securely over time, thanks to the
generativity of the Internet exactly as it exists today."
Recommended. There are problems with both schemes but once the network-halting, computer-destroying digital Pearl Harbor event finally hits the Net, Jonathan's might be the only, at least temporarily, "politically acceptable" response. In either case the route to continuing to facilitate the innovation generativity of the Net and the protection of the Network and its ends from malware has got to be via tapping into the intelligence at the ends of the network. Though in terms of critical decision making on network design we should beware of popularity contests and always remember the base rate fallacy.
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Libraries and The Gentlemen's Agreement of 1935
Research, Libraries, and Fair Use: The Gentlemen's Agreement of 1935
Abstract:
"The Gentlemen's Agreement of 1935 was a voluntary agreement that set guidelines for the limits of acceptable reproduction of copyrighted materials on behalf of scholars. Developed in response to the challenge posed by the easy and inexpensive photographic reproduction of research materials, the Agreement allowed library, archives, museum, or similar institutions to make single photographic copies of a part of a copyrighted work in lieu of loaning the physical item.
The copies were not supposed to substitute for the purchase of the original work, and they were intended solely to facilitate research. Liability for misuse was to rest with the individual requesting the copy, and not with the institution making the reproduction. The Gentlemen's Agreement has long been recognized as one of the most important landmarks in the history of the fair use privilege.
In addition, the model of consensual voluntary guidelines agreed to by copyright owners and users, first used with the Gentlemen's Agreement, has become an important technique in clarifying the limits of fair use. Yet little attention has been paid to its genesis or intended audience.
Most commentators view the agreement as primarily a product of long and thoughtful negotiation with librarians, and hence a reflection of their interests. A closer examination of the history of the creation of the Gentlemen's Agreement, however, reveals both the limitations of the common assumptions about the Gentlemen's Agreement and also the limitations of mutually-agreed upon guidelines.
The individuals involved with the negotiations from both the scholarly and publishing side were far from representative of their respective areas, and had no authority to negotiate on behalf of their respective spheres. The Agreement itself was largely a product of one afternoon's meeting, with limited discussion and review afterwards.
Furthermore, the Gentlemen's Agreement was intended to serve the needs of research scholars, not librarians. Through an accident of history, however, it was a librarian who conducted the primary negotiations with publishers. As a result, library interests, and not the interests of the research community, came to dominate. Furthermore, the librarian who led the negotiations was different from most of his colleagues in both his professional dependence on the good will of New York publishers and the limited scope of his own library's involvement with library reproduction.
As a result, broader issues, such as the educational use of copyrighted material or the extent of acceptable copying under fair use, were consciously excluded from the discussions. Most of all, the Agreement began the process of subjecting to legal scrutiny private behaviors that up to that point had existed outside of the copyright system. Private actions that had needed no defense in the past came to be viewed as potential infringements of copyright that needed the permission of the copyright owner. Copyright, which up to this time had been a system for controlling publication and widespread commercial distribution of material, began to be seen as a system for controlling private reproduction and use of copyrighted material.
Codifying an agreed-upon set of sanctioned behaviors was not without its dangers. In particular, behaviors that were not part of the initial discussions and hence were not officially sanctioned by the Agreement suddenly seemed suspect rather than simply unresolved. The Gentlemen's Agreement thus began to be seen by some as a defacto cap on the extent of acceptable reproduction by librarians and researchers. In the 1976 Copyright Act, the limited vision of acceptable behavior by librarians acting on behalf of researchers became codified in law in Section 108. In very real ways, researchers, librarians, archivists, and museum specialists still live with the consequences of the process that led to the development of the Gentlemen's Agreement."
Fascinating. The full paper runs to 46 pages (317 kb pdf). Thanks to Mary Minow at the LibraryLaw Blog for the link.
Abstract:
"The Gentlemen's Agreement of 1935 was a voluntary agreement that set guidelines for the limits of acceptable reproduction of copyrighted materials on behalf of scholars. Developed in response to the challenge posed by the easy and inexpensive photographic reproduction of research materials, the Agreement allowed library, archives, museum, or similar institutions to make single photographic copies of a part of a copyrighted work in lieu of loaning the physical item.
The copies were not supposed to substitute for the purchase of the original work, and they were intended solely to facilitate research. Liability for misuse was to rest with the individual requesting the copy, and not with the institution making the reproduction. The Gentlemen's Agreement has long been recognized as one of the most important landmarks in the history of the fair use privilege.
In addition, the model of consensual voluntary guidelines agreed to by copyright owners and users, first used with the Gentlemen's Agreement, has become an important technique in clarifying the limits of fair use. Yet little attention has been paid to its genesis or intended audience.
Most commentators view the agreement as primarily a product of long and thoughtful negotiation with librarians, and hence a reflection of their interests. A closer examination of the history of the creation of the Gentlemen's Agreement, however, reveals both the limitations of the common assumptions about the Gentlemen's Agreement and also the limitations of mutually-agreed upon guidelines.
The individuals involved with the negotiations from both the scholarly and publishing side were far from representative of their respective areas, and had no authority to negotiate on behalf of their respective spheres. The Agreement itself was largely a product of one afternoon's meeting, with limited discussion and review afterwards.
Furthermore, the Gentlemen's Agreement was intended to serve the needs of research scholars, not librarians. Through an accident of history, however, it was a librarian who conducted the primary negotiations with publishers. As a result, library interests, and not the interests of the research community, came to dominate. Furthermore, the librarian who led the negotiations was different from most of his colleagues in both his professional dependence on the good will of New York publishers and the limited scope of his own library's involvement with library reproduction.
As a result, broader issues, such as the educational use of copyrighted material or the extent of acceptable copying under fair use, were consciously excluded from the discussions. Most of all, the Agreement began the process of subjecting to legal scrutiny private behaviors that up to that point had existed outside of the copyright system. Private actions that had needed no defense in the past came to be viewed as potential infringements of copyright that needed the permission of the copyright owner. Copyright, which up to this time had been a system for controlling publication and widespread commercial distribution of material, began to be seen as a system for controlling private reproduction and use of copyrighted material.
Codifying an agreed-upon set of sanctioned behaviors was not without its dangers. In particular, behaviors that were not part of the initial discussions and hence were not officially sanctioned by the Agreement suddenly seemed suspect rather than simply unresolved. The Gentlemen's Agreement thus began to be seen by some as a defacto cap on the extent of acceptable reproduction by librarians and researchers. In the 1976 Copyright Act, the limited vision of acceptable behavior by librarians acting on behalf of researchers became codified in law in Section 108. In very real ways, researchers, librarians, archivists, and museum specialists still live with the consequences of the process that led to the development of the Gentlemen's Agreement."
Fascinating. The full paper runs to 46 pages (317 kb pdf). Thanks to Mary Minow at the LibraryLaw Blog for the link.
UKIP activist gets £10k for cahtroom defamation
A UKIP activist has received an award of £10000 in damages after suing a woman for defamation over comments in an internet chatroom
Absolute power
I wrote to a colleague about the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill this morning and then I saw this in the Guardian, Tuesday March 21:
"The Cabinet at its meeting this afternoon decided on the text of the [...] Bill [...] If this bill is passed, the [...] Government will be endowed with absolute dictatorial powers. The Act will enable the Cabinet to legislate and to make laws even if these "mark a deviation from the Constitution", [...]"
I didn't mention the report was from Tuesday March 21, 1933 and the deliberate gaps were included to hide the fact that I was referring to the then German government. I know. I know. I've succumbed to Godwin's law but the parallels were rather striking, even though I accept the UK government are sincere in their belief that the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill is purely supposed to be a mechanism for cutting through red tape and will not be used for "controversial" matters. Lib Dem MP, David Haworth, was right to remind us recently, though, of James Madison's advice in The Federalist Papers: when handing out political power remember that “enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.”
Update: Marina Hyde would probably accuse me of being overly generous towards the goverment. She seems to think they're not even very good at deceiving us any more. "It is not all very well to have had one's dreams trodden so unsoftly upon by the Blair administration. None the less, it has happened. But if we are to be routinely misled, could it not at least be with some modicum of skill, some pretence to rigour, something that resembles anything other than a two fingers to sentient beings over the age of seven?"
"The Cabinet at its meeting this afternoon decided on the text of the [...] Bill [...] If this bill is passed, the [...] Government will be endowed with absolute dictatorial powers. The Act will enable the Cabinet to legislate and to make laws even if these "mark a deviation from the Constitution", [...]"
I didn't mention the report was from Tuesday March 21, 1933 and the deliberate gaps were included to hide the fact that I was referring to the then German government. I know. I know. I've succumbed to Godwin's law but the parallels were rather striking, even though I accept the UK government are sincere in their belief that the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill is purely supposed to be a mechanism for cutting through red tape and will not be used for "controversial" matters. Lib Dem MP, David Haworth, was right to remind us recently, though, of James Madison's advice in The Federalist Papers: when handing out political power remember that “enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.”
Update: Marina Hyde would probably accuse me of being overly generous towards the goverment. She seems to think they're not even very good at deceiving us any more. "It is not all very well to have had one's dreams trodden so unsoftly upon by the Blair administration. None the less, it has happened. But if we are to be routinely misled, could it not at least be with some modicum of skill, some pretence to rigour, something that resembles anything other than a two fingers to sentient beings over the age of seven?"
Damning Cato report on the DMCA
This damning 28 page report on the DMCA from Timothy B. Lee of the Cato Institute is a surprisingly quick and entertaining read. There's nothing new here but he tells all the important stories from the Rio to Lexmark, stopping off at Sony, Sklyarov, Felten and others along the way. He takes aim at various IP expansionists and Congressional ignorance and has this to say about the now retired Jack Valenti in his conclusion:
"Contrary to Valenti’s predictions, the VCR turned out to be a great boon to the movie industry... If this was Hollywood’s Boston Strangler, every woman home alone should hope for a visit. Well worth a ten minutes of your time."
Well worth a ten minutes of your time.
Update: Cory is pleased the Cato Institute has finally got off the fence on drm.
"Contrary to Valenti’s predictions, the VCR turned out to be a great boon to the movie industry... If this was Hollywood’s Boston Strangler, every woman home alone should hope for a visit. Well worth a ten minutes of your time."
Well worth a ten minutes of your time.
Update: Cory is pleased the Cato Institute has finally got off the fence on drm.
The slow start of cultural environmentalism
Mike Madison doesn't think the metaphor of "cultural environmentalism" works.
"10 years after the inauguration of “cultural environmentalism,” I don’t think that the metaphor works. I read the blogged summaries of the presentations. I read the colloquies with the commentators. I’ve even read earlier versions of some of the papers. And I can’t help but come away with the sense that this project — the reinjection of social and cultural theory and non-utilitarian economic arguments into progressive readings of intellectual property law and policy — is just now starting to get off the ground. After 10 years. Moreover, it’s starting to get off the ground in a way that seems largely to leave the “environmentalism” metaphor behind...
Why doesn’t the environmental metaphor have more traction in information policy debates? I think that the reason goes back to Jamie Boyle’s introductory explanation of the initial importance of the metaphor: The “cultural environment” was a rhetorical device, a way to link seemingly disparate debates and to make invisible issues more salient. What the cultural environment didn’t and wasn’t intended to do, at least not on a broad scale, and at least not now, is connect with our everyday and ordinary experience of culture. “Cultural environmentalism” resonates for us because we recall environmentalism as a political movement. “Cultural environmentalism” is a call to arms. Au barricades! But my own mixed metaphors suggest why this hasn’t happened on a broad scale. “Culture” doesn’t resonate for us as “our environment.” Socially constructed it may be, but “the” environment is place and space. Culture, in a very basic and colloquial sense, is stuff. So, as some of the commentary points out, we need more metaphors and narratives and empirics about stuff. If the environmentalist metaphor is ever going to get stronger and take hold, it needs to be connected to stuff."
He's right about needing more metaphors, narratives and empirics but our information ecology, in a digital society, extends beyond culture to encompass our personal, social, organisational, legal, economic and physical environmental contexts; and the environmental metaphor is absolutely appropriate. It's vague and widely misunderstood which is why we need more stories about it. It does however pitch an idea at a level of abstraction which enables people to see connections between issues that might not otherwise be obvious. As James Boyle says, it is the articulation of a shared interest that beings that interest into being. The duck hunter and the bird watcher might not like each other but they have a shared interest in the protection of the ecology of the wetlands. Likewise a parent might be wary of the ID card protestor but they have a shared interest in transparent access to the process through which decisions will be made to deploy a pay per view digital educational system or an ID card system.
I'd probably agree with him that culture is stuff (much to the disgust of certain colleagues!) but our digital lives are getting played out in a digital place and space that is having a very real impact on our physical place and space. Perhaps it is 'digital environmentalism' that we are looking for? I don't really like the term but we can work on our language without throwing out the environment metaphor, which has too much powerful potential to jetison just because we haven't yet found a decent way to tell the story.
"10 years after the inauguration of “cultural environmentalism,” I don’t think that the metaphor works. I read the blogged summaries of the presentations. I read the colloquies with the commentators. I’ve even read earlier versions of some of the papers. And I can’t help but come away with the sense that this project — the reinjection of social and cultural theory and non-utilitarian economic arguments into progressive readings of intellectual property law and policy — is just now starting to get off the ground. After 10 years. Moreover, it’s starting to get off the ground in a way that seems largely to leave the “environmentalism” metaphor behind...
Why doesn’t the environmental metaphor have more traction in information policy debates? I think that the reason goes back to Jamie Boyle’s introductory explanation of the initial importance of the metaphor: The “cultural environment” was a rhetorical device, a way to link seemingly disparate debates and to make invisible issues more salient. What the cultural environment didn’t and wasn’t intended to do, at least not on a broad scale, and at least not now, is connect with our everyday and ordinary experience of culture. “Cultural environmentalism” resonates for us because we recall environmentalism as a political movement. “Cultural environmentalism” is a call to arms. Au barricades! But my own mixed metaphors suggest why this hasn’t happened on a broad scale. “Culture” doesn’t resonate for us as “our environment.” Socially constructed it may be, but “the” environment is place and space. Culture, in a very basic and colloquial sense, is stuff. So, as some of the commentary points out, we need more metaphors and narratives and empirics about stuff. If the environmentalist metaphor is ever going to get stronger and take hold, it needs to be connected to stuff."
He's right about needing more metaphors, narratives and empirics but our information ecology, in a digital society, extends beyond culture to encompass our personal, social, organisational, legal, economic and physical environmental contexts; and the environmental metaphor is absolutely appropriate. It's vague and widely misunderstood which is why we need more stories about it. It does however pitch an idea at a level of abstraction which enables people to see connections between issues that might not otherwise be obvious. As James Boyle says, it is the articulation of a shared interest that beings that interest into being. The duck hunter and the bird watcher might not like each other but they have a shared interest in the protection of the ecology of the wetlands. Likewise a parent might be wary of the ID card protestor but they have a shared interest in transparent access to the process through which decisions will be made to deploy a pay per view digital educational system or an ID card system.
I'd probably agree with him that culture is stuff (much to the disgust of certain colleagues!) but our digital lives are getting played out in a digital place and space that is having a very real impact on our physical place and space. Perhaps it is 'digital environmentalism' that we are looking for? I don't really like the term but we can work on our language without throwing out the environment metaphor, which has too much powerful potential to jetison just because we haven't yet found a decent way to tell the story.
New French will require Apple to open iTunes
Well the French parliament has given the go ahead to a law which will require Apple's iTunes to be interoperable with competitors' services. It now goes forward for confirmation by the French Senate.
You might recall Apple is facing an antitrust investigation over iTunes in the United States and the company's rather hysterical reaction when RealNetworks figured out a way to sell songs online to iPod owners.
“We are stunned that RealNetworks has adopted the tactics and ethics of a hacker to break into the iPod, and we are investigating the implications of their actions under the DMCA [Digital Millennium Copyright Act] and other laws.”
So they considered suing RealNetworks for circumventing the iPod drm to facilitate interoperability. Instead, in the end they tweaked the iTunes drm so it wouldn't work with the RealNetworks music again and there have been various rounds in this tit for tat ever since.
Now the French parliament are trying to say that all drm should be interoperable. It remains to be seen what impact this will have. I still think drm will die off in the longer term but not before it has done some significant damage and it will never truly become properly extinct. A possible alternative is the evolution of a universal drm standard but what would be the point of that other than as a focus for strangling future innovation? Ooops. Nearly forgot myself. That is the whole point.
Update: Apple are rolling out the hysterical rhetoric again, saying the French decision "will result in state-sponsored piracy."
You might recall Apple is facing an antitrust investigation over iTunes in the United States and the company's rather hysterical reaction when RealNetworks figured out a way to sell songs online to iPod owners.
“We are stunned that RealNetworks has adopted the tactics and ethics of a hacker to break into the iPod, and we are investigating the implications of their actions under the DMCA [Digital Millennium Copyright Act] and other laws.”
So they considered suing RealNetworks for circumventing the iPod drm to facilitate interoperability. Instead, in the end they tweaked the iTunes drm so it wouldn't work with the RealNetworks music again and there have been various rounds in this tit for tat ever since.
Now the French parliament are trying to say that all drm should be interoperable. It remains to be seen what impact this will have. I still think drm will die off in the longer term but not before it has done some significant damage and it will never truly become properly extinct. A possible alternative is the evolution of a universal drm standard but what would be the point of that other than as a focus for strangling future innovation? Ooops. Nearly forgot myself. That is the whole point.
Update: Apple are rolling out the hysterical rhetoric again, saying the French decision "will result in state-sponsored piracy."
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
EUCD Review
Professor Bernt Hugenholtz is to lead the planned review of the EU Copyright and Related Rights Directive of 2001, with a wider remit than originally intended. Hugenholtz is Professor of Intellectual Property Law and Director of the Institute for Information Law of the University of Amsterdam (IViR). He also chairs the Intellectual Property Task Force of the Legal Advisory Board of the European Commission.
According to Michelle Childs,
" Originally it was to be a review only of implementation, but now it will be an evaluation review of the Directive i.e an evaluation of whether or not has it achieved its policy objectives. This is an important change. The most recent evaluation report from DG Internal Market, on the Database Directive, was the first evaluation of an IP right based on evidence rather than rhetoric. It found that granting increased rights to database owners had not achieved its policy aims of increasing EU competitiveness against the US, in fact the reverse...
Initial signs are encouraging, as the terms of the tender for the initial evaluation are broad: the study must include a review of the contribution of copyright to knowledge economy, the role of consumers, the way Member States have transposed exceptions and limitations in the Directive into national legislation ( an increasingly controversial issue as the current disputes in France over their implementation of the Copyright Directive show .) It will also look at technical protecion measures (TPMs) and generally any difficulties that arise for right holders, commercial users, consumers ,scientific and academic users and libraries."
According to Michelle Childs,
" Originally it was to be a review only of implementation, but now it will be an evaluation review of the Directive i.e an evaluation of whether or not has it achieved its policy objectives. This is an important change. The most recent evaluation report from DG Internal Market, on the Database Directive, was the first evaluation of an IP right based on evidence rather than rhetoric. It found that granting increased rights to database owners had not achieved its policy aims of increasing EU competitiveness against the US, in fact the reverse...
Initial signs are encouraging, as the terms of the tender for the initial evaluation are broad: the study must include a review of the contribution of copyright to knowledge economy, the role of consumers, the way Member States have transposed exceptions and limitations in the Directive into national legislation ( an increasingly controversial issue as the current disputes in France over their implementation of the Copyright Directive show .) It will also look at technical protecion measures (TPMs) and generally any difficulties that arise for right holders, commercial users, consumers ,scientific and academic users and libraries."
Wibbi central government were accountable like local government
William Heath, angry at his increased council tax bill wonders wouldn't it be better if
"Whitehall were as thorough and accountable as local councils. I have a stupid idea to create a local government panel to scrutinise government departments, or give local government visiting rights at the NAO just to balance things up a bit. Can government not be simpler and leaner? Less expensive, and less oppressively tedious? Or is that underestimating the complexity of what government inevitably has to do?"
"Whitehall were as thorough and accountable as local councils. I have a stupid idea to create a local government panel to scrutinise government departments, or give local government visiting rights at the NAO just to balance things up a bit. Can government not be simpler and leaner? Less expensive, and less oppressively tedious? Or is that underestimating the complexity of what government inevitably has to do?"
Former MI6 agent says ID cards a present to terrorists
From the Scotsman:
"A NATIONAL identity card scheme will be a "present" to terrorists, criminal gangs and foreign spies, one of Britain's most respected former intelligence agents has told ministers.
The warning from Daphne Park, who served for 30 years as a senior controller for MI6, the Secret Intelligence Service, came as the parliamentary power struggle over the identity cards bill dragged on...
Baroness Park, who was made a peer by Margaret Thatcher, passed a withering verdict on the proposed cards, ridiculing ministers' suggestions that the system will make people safer. In fact, she said, the complete opposite is true.
"The very creation of such an enormous national identity register will be a present to terrorists; it will be a splendid thing for them to disrupt and blow up," she said.
"It will also provide valuable information to organised crime and to the intelligence services of unfriendly countries. It will be accessible to all of these," she said...
Although she has repeatedly refused invitations to publish her memoirs, many of Baroness Park's exploits as a spy are in the public domain - she is something of a living legend in the British intelligence community.
Among her Cold War postings were extensive service in Moscow, running agents inside the Soviet regime. During the Vietnam war, she was a covert operative in Hanoi.
She is also known to have been in Congo during the turbulent 1960s, at one point smuggling a defecting official out of the country in the boot of her car."
"A NATIONAL identity card scheme will be a "present" to terrorists, criminal gangs and foreign spies, one of Britain's most respected former intelligence agents has told ministers.
The warning from Daphne Park, who served for 30 years as a senior controller for MI6, the Secret Intelligence Service, came as the parliamentary power struggle over the identity cards bill dragged on...
Baroness Park, who was made a peer by Margaret Thatcher, passed a withering verdict on the proposed cards, ridiculing ministers' suggestions that the system will make people safer. In fact, she said, the complete opposite is true.
"The very creation of such an enormous national identity register will be a present to terrorists; it will be a splendid thing for them to disrupt and blow up," she said.
"It will also provide valuable information to organised crime and to the intelligence services of unfriendly countries. It will be accessible to all of these," she said...
Although she has repeatedly refused invitations to publish her memoirs, many of Baroness Park's exploits as a spy are in the public domain - she is something of a living legend in the British intelligence community.
Among her Cold War postings were extensive service in Moscow, running agents inside the Soviet regime. During the Vietnam war, she was a covert operative in Hanoi.
She is also known to have been in Congo during the turbulent 1960s, at one point smuggling a defecting official out of the country in the boot of her car."
Paying repeatedly for data
From the Guardian's Free Our Data campaign
"Paying twice for data? Through your council, you might be paying EIGHT times
This morning an interesting email dropped into the Guardian’s inbox. It’s quoted here in full with the permission of the author (see end).
>>
I look after all the maps for the council where I work and yes, even government departments and councils etc have to pay for Ordnance Survey data.
Local government has interesting scenarios where the taxpayer will pay three times or more for Ordnance Survey Data. One of the most interesting scenarios is Planning Applications.
* 1st payment to OS: if a member of the public wants to submit a Planning Application they can buy a site plan map, usually from the council (cost of about £25 for an 4 x A4 sheets) or other OS licenced data reseller.
# 2nd Payment to OS: the Planning Authority (local council) also have to buy their map base from Ordnance Survey every year. Part of what is called the Mapping Services Agreement (MSA) [and a whole other debate hangs around the MSA - CA].
# 3rd Payment to OS: the member of the public also pays for Ordnance Survey data as part of their normal taxes.
There is also a 4th Payment (which is the biggest scandal) that goes to Ordnance Survey and the Post Office, to use our council-created and council-maintained Local Land and Property Gazetteer (LLPG) or local address database. Even though all the councils create and maintain their own address gazetteer, we have to pay the OS and Post Office for the privilege of using that address data.
The OS says that it owns the copyright of the position of the address, and the Post Office says it own the copyright of the address (because it adds the postcode). Councils therefore have to pay a per-click cost to OS and Post Office to use the council-created addresses on our own website address lookup facilities.
The irony about all this is that the local council creates the address in the first place (Street Naming and Numbering sections) and gives (for FREE) this information (including site plan) to the Post Office and Ordnance Survey - so they are in essence charging the local council for its own information. Therefore the public have to pay the Council to create the address (Street Naming and Numbering dept) and then pay again to the OS and the Post Office for the right [for the council] to use it..."
"Paying twice for data? Through your council, you might be paying EIGHT times
This morning an interesting email dropped into the Guardian’s inbox. It’s quoted here in full with the permission of the author (see end).
>>
I look after all the maps for the council where I work and yes, even government departments and councils etc have to pay for Ordnance Survey data.
Local government has interesting scenarios where the taxpayer will pay three times or more for Ordnance Survey Data. One of the most interesting scenarios is Planning Applications.
* 1st payment to OS: if a member of the public wants to submit a Planning Application they can buy a site plan map, usually from the council (cost of about £25 for an 4 x A4 sheets) or other OS licenced data reseller.
# 2nd Payment to OS: the Planning Authority (local council) also have to buy their map base from Ordnance Survey every year. Part of what is called the Mapping Services Agreement (MSA) [and a whole other debate hangs around the MSA - CA].
# 3rd Payment to OS: the member of the public also pays for Ordnance Survey data as part of their normal taxes.
There is also a 4th Payment (which is the biggest scandal) that goes to Ordnance Survey and the Post Office, to use our council-created and council-maintained Local Land and Property Gazetteer (LLPG) or local address database. Even though all the councils create and maintain their own address gazetteer, we have to pay the OS and Post Office for the privilege of using that address data.
The OS says that it owns the copyright of the position of the address, and the Post Office says it own the copyright of the address (because it adds the postcode). Councils therefore have to pay a per-click cost to OS and Post Office to use the council-created addresses on our own website address lookup facilities.
The irony about all this is that the local council creates the address in the first place (Street Naming and Numbering sections) and gives (for FREE) this information (including site plan) to the Post Office and Ordnance Survey - so they are in essence charging the local council for its own information. Therefore the public have to pay the Council to create the address (Street Naming and Numbering dept) and then pay again to the OS and the Post Office for the right [for the council] to use it..."
France will let MSFT play iTunes
Cory has more on the French implementation of the 2001 copyright directive.
"The French Parliament is considering a law that would force music-lockware companies like Apple and Microsoft to license their anti-copying software to other companies, so that customers who bought crippled music could play it on other vendors' players.
This is a good step, but for me, it leaves the big question hanging: will Apple and Microsoft have to license their players to free and open source software authors? The problem is that anti-copying software always comes with a licensing condition that requires implementors to design their players so that users can't modify them. It's like requiring everyone who licenses your internal combustion engine design to weld the hood shut...
Now, given that all anti-copying software requires that users can't modify it -- because you could change the "don't copy this" routine to a "allow this to be copied" routine -- and given that FOSS requires user-modifiability, how will the French Parliament resolve it?
An analogy: Apple iTunes is like a blacksmith who puts a toll-box at the head of a major road. Unless your horse is shod with his shoes, you may not pass. The French Parliament might require Apple to let horses wearing Microsoft shoes to use its road, and that's great -- if you're on horseback.
But if you're in a car, you're screwed. FOSS is an entirely different industrial production system that Apple and Microsoft crippleware can't accommodate -- will the French Parliament outlaw it because of that? Do the blacksmiths get full employment for life, even if it strangles the automobile in its cradle? "
"The French Parliament is considering a law that would force music-lockware companies like Apple and Microsoft to license their anti-copying software to other companies, so that customers who bought crippled music could play it on other vendors' players.
This is a good step, but for me, it leaves the big question hanging: will Apple and Microsoft have to license their players to free and open source software authors? The problem is that anti-copying software always comes with a licensing condition that requires implementors to design their players so that users can't modify them. It's like requiring everyone who licenses your internal combustion engine design to weld the hood shut...
Now, given that all anti-copying software requires that users can't modify it -- because you could change the "don't copy this" routine to a "allow this to be copied" routine -- and given that FOSS requires user-modifiability, how will the French Parliament resolve it?
An analogy: Apple iTunes is like a blacksmith who puts a toll-box at the head of a major road. Unless your horse is shod with his shoes, you may not pass. The French Parliament might require Apple to let horses wearing Microsoft shoes to use its road, and that's great -- if you're on horseback.
But if you're in a car, you're screwed. FOSS is an entirely different industrial production system that Apple and Microsoft crippleware can't accommodate -- will the French Parliament outlaw it because of that? Do the blacksmiths get full employment for life, even if it strangles the automobile in its cradle? "
Bruce Lehman says TRIPS was a mistake
Bruce Lehman who was President Clinton's IP chief and one of the prime movers behind the international agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, TRIPS, now says TRIPS was a mistake, according to Ian Brown.
"Lehman now believes TRIPS has been a failure for the United States, because the WTO agreement in which it is included opened US markets to overseas manufactured goods and destroyed the US manufacturing industry. He feels that the US has kept its part of the TRIPS bargain, but that with 90% piracy in China, higher-end developing nations have not. In retrospect, he feels the US should instead have introduced labour and environmental standards into the WTO agreement so that jobs would not be lost in the US manufacturing sector to countries with few environmental standards and weak unions..."
Er does he mean the US chose the wrong tools to bias international trade in favour of the US?
"Mr Lehman also feels that were there to be a penicillin-resistant anthrax outbreak in the US, a compulsory licence would be issued for Cipro like a shot were Bayer unable to meet demand. Shame that the EU has waived its right to use such compulsory licences even in public health emergencies."
He's probably right that the US government would step in with such a compulsory licence. I suspect EU governments would attempt to do likewise and then express amazement when they found themselves tied up in legal red tape of their own making.
"Lehman now believes TRIPS has been a failure for the United States, because the WTO agreement in which it is included opened US markets to overseas manufactured goods and destroyed the US manufacturing industry. He feels that the US has kept its part of the TRIPS bargain, but that with 90% piracy in China, higher-end developing nations have not. In retrospect, he feels the US should instead have introduced labour and environmental standards into the WTO agreement so that jobs would not be lost in the US manufacturing sector to countries with few environmental standards and weak unions..."
Er does he mean the US chose the wrong tools to bias international trade in favour of the US?
"Mr Lehman also feels that were there to be a penicillin-resistant anthrax outbreak in the US, a compulsory licence would be issued for Cipro like a shot were Bayer unable to meet demand. Shame that the EU has waived its right to use such compulsory licences even in public health emergencies."
He's probably right that the US government would step in with such a compulsory licence. I suspect EU governments would attempt to do likewise and then express amazement when they found themselves tied up in legal red tape of their own making.
Monday, March 20, 2006
DRM and the second law
We have another reason to be concerned about drm and the link between the second law of thermodynamics and digital information. DRM drastically shortens battery life and hence contributes to increasing overall energy consumption.
"Heavy DRM not only slows down an MP3 player but also sucks the very life out of them. Take, for instance, the critically acclaimed Creative Zen Vision:M, with a rated battery life of up to 14 hours for audio and 4 hours for video. CNET tested it at nearly 16 hours, with MP3s--impressive indeed. Upon playing back only WMA subscription tracks, the Vision:M scored at just more than 12 hours. That's a loss of almost 4 hours, and you haven't even turned the backlight on yet."
"Heavy DRM not only slows down an MP3 player but also sucks the very life out of them. Take, for instance, the critically acclaimed Creative Zen Vision:M, with a rated battery life of up to 14 hours for audio and 4 hours for video. CNET tested it at nearly 16 hours, with MP3s--impressive indeed. Upon playing back only WMA subscription tracks, the Vision:M scored at just more than 12 hours. That's a loss of almost 4 hours, and you haven't even turned the backlight on yet."
The weary policeman
PC Copperfield brings an engaging brand of weary resigned humour to the latest Met crime fighting initiative.
"There’s a new initiative from Inspector Clive French in which dog owners will be urged to be vigilant and report “useful information on low level crimes”. Encouraging members of the public to telephone the police is, in my experience, a recipe for disaster: the people that you might want to call (reasonable folks whose minds are not addled by drink or drugs) have long since realised that making such a call would be at best a waste of time and at worst an inadvertent admission of a criminal offence. This leaves the bored and the mentally ill, who never seem to stop calling us.
Mrs C. read the article and asked, “Well why aren’t the police on the streets reporting useful information on low level crimes ?” Which just goes to show that policing should be left to the professionals and not enthusiastic amateurs like Mrs. C. The police? On the streets? Mad woman."
"There’s a new initiative from Inspector Clive French in which dog owners will be urged to be vigilant and report “useful information on low level crimes”. Encouraging members of the public to telephone the police is, in my experience, a recipe for disaster: the people that you might want to call (reasonable folks whose minds are not addled by drink or drugs) have long since realised that making such a call would be at best a waste of time and at worst an inadvertent admission of a criminal offence. This leaves the bored and the mentally ill, who never seem to stop calling us.
Mrs C. read the article and asked, “Well why aren’t the police on the streets reporting useful information on low level crimes ?” Which just goes to show that policing should be left to the professionals and not enthusiastic amateurs like Mrs. C. The police? On the streets? Mad woman."
OpenMed a finalist in Stockholm Challenge 2006 award.
From the Hindustan Times, "OpenMED, an open access Internet archive for research works on medical and allied sciences that is hosted by an Indian government body, has been nominated as a finalist for the prestigious Stockholm Challenge 2006 award.
Backed by the National Informatics Centre, OpenMED allows authors and researchers to self-archive their scientific and technical documents. The Stockholm Challenge is a prominent global networking programme for information and communication technology (ICT) entrepreneurs and its award is given away in the Swedish capital in the summer"
Backed by the National Informatics Centre, OpenMED allows authors and researchers to self-archive their scientific and technical documents. The Stockholm Challenge is a prominent global networking programme for information and communication technology (ICT) entrepreneurs and its award is given away in the Swedish capital in the summer"
Aussie libraries reluctant to join Google book scheme
Australian libraries are reportedly proving reluctant to sign up to the Google Book scheme until the various outstanding legal disputes with publishers and authors are settled.
Crichton on Patents
Michael Crichton is getting concerned about some of the excesses of the US patent system.
"• The Earth revolves around the Sun.
• The speed of light is a constant.
• Apples fall to earth because of gravity.
• Elevated blood sugar is linked to diabetes.
• Elevated uric acid is linked to gout.
• Elevated homocysteine is linked to heart disease.
• Elevated homocysteine is linked to B-12 deficiency, so doctors should test homocysteine levels to see whether the patient needs vitamins.
ACTUALLY, I can't make that last statement. A corporation has patented that fact, and demands a royalty for its use. Anyone who makes the fact public and encourages doctors to test for the condition and treat it can be sued for royalty fees. Any doctor who reads a patient's test results and even thinks of vitamin deficiency infringes the patent. A federal circuit court held that mere thinking violates the patent.
All this may sound absurd, but it is the heart of a case that will be argued before the Supreme Court on Tuesday."
"• The Earth revolves around the Sun.
• The speed of light is a constant.
• Apples fall to earth because of gravity.
• Elevated blood sugar is linked to diabetes.
• Elevated uric acid is linked to gout.
• Elevated homocysteine is linked to heart disease.
• Elevated homocysteine is linked to B-12 deficiency, so doctors should test homocysteine levels to see whether the patient needs vitamins.
ACTUALLY, I can't make that last statement. A corporation has patented that fact, and demands a royalty for its use. Anyone who makes the fact public and encourages doctors to test for the condition and treat it can be sued for royalty fees. Any doctor who reads a patient's test results and even thinks of vitamin deficiency infringes the patent. A federal circuit court held that mere thinking violates the patent.
All this may sound absurd, but it is the heart of a case that will be argued before the Supreme Court on Tuesday."
CRIA study says P2P good for the music business
A Canadian Recording Industry Association study has determined that P2P file swapping is good for the music business, according to Michael Geist.
Sunday, March 19, 2006
The sinister ID card scheme
Henry Porter has been hoping again that more people will realise that the "ID project is even more sinister than we first thought"
Practically every week in these columns, I urge you to pay attention to the government's theft of our liberties. I would feel a bore and an obsessive if I hadn't pored over the ID card bill last week and read Hansard's account of the exchanges in both houses. One of the most chilling passages in the bill is section 13 which deals with the 'invalidity and surrender' of ID cards, which, in effect, describes the withdrawal of a person's identity by the state. For, without this card, it will be almost impossible to function, to exist as a citizen in the UK. Despite the cost to you, this card will not be your property.
People keep asking me what they can do about the lurch into Labour's velvet tyranny and I keep replying that the only way for us is to re-engage with the politics of our country...
Outside parliament, what needs to happen is the formation of the broadest possible front against these changes, a movement which deploys the most principled democratic minds in the country to argue with the lazy and stupid view that if you've got nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear from Labour's attack on liberty. I believe that will happen."
I admire his optimism.
Practically every week in these columns, I urge you to pay attention to the government's theft of our liberties. I would feel a bore and an obsessive if I hadn't pored over the ID card bill last week and read Hansard's account of the exchanges in both houses. One of the most chilling passages in the bill is section 13 which deals with the 'invalidity and surrender' of ID cards, which, in effect, describes the withdrawal of a person's identity by the state. For, without this card, it will be almost impossible to function, to exist as a citizen in the UK. Despite the cost to you, this card will not be your property.
People keep asking me what they can do about the lurch into Labour's velvet tyranny and I keep replying that the only way for us is to re-engage with the politics of our country...
Outside parliament, what needs to happen is the formation of the broadest possible front against these changes, a movement which deploys the most principled democratic minds in the country to argue with the lazy and stupid view that if you've got nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear from Labour's attack on liberty. I believe that will happen."
I admire his optimism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)