[d at DCC] Help drafting new TPM petition for parliament

[Russell McOrmond]

   I'm wondering if some people in this forum couldn't help with this 
issue by writing articles about it for various BLOGs.  I think we need 
to have people other than me writing about it, and opening the 
discussion wider.


Robert Smits wrote:
> Actually, I was after something different. I don't care if content can or can 
> not be opened before the copyright expires. I want to demand that the TPM 
> stuff expire so that copyrighted material can't be locked up indefinitely 
> after the copyright's expiry. If this is difficult or impossible to do, it's 
> another argument against using TPMs in the first place.

   I'll try going at this a different direction.

   If there are no TPMs on devices, what you are asking for is 
redundant. I understand what you are asking for, but what you are asking 
for is an issue that only exists if there are TPMs on devices.

   I think that if our governments legally protect TPMs applies by 
non-owners onto devices then we have lost the war.  The technology used 
to access digital content *WILL* become obsolete (expire) long before 
copyright can expire.  Only if we are legally allowed to format-upgrade 
digital content over time can the content be preserved by an archivist 
such that it will exist.   There is software that I authored in the 
1980's which I can't access currently, and that is without there being 
any technical measures.  One of my projects is to try to assemble the 
hardware necessary to read the floppies to take everything I wrote in my 
teens and publish on a website.  I don't expect to be successful with 
everything, as the media that this information is stored on and the 
hardware required to access it has greatly degraded over the last ~20. 
This is only 20 years, not live+50 years where I can guarantee you that 
it will be impossible to access this media.



   Copyright law never said that once a book falls out of copyright that 
the past copyright holder (or someone else) is obligated to distribute 
free copies of the work to anyone who asks.   What falling into the 
public domain means is that there is no longer any restrictions on 
redistribution that a copyright holder can exert.  This means that 
anyone who has a copy is now able to make their own copies and 
redistribute them as they wish.

   If TPMs are not on devices, this means that every authorized 
recipient of content has the encrypted content, decryption algorithm and 
decryption key necessary to extract the unencrypted content.  When the 
work falls into the public domain, any of those authorized recipients 
can now redistribute it.

   If you never had a key (IE: were never an authorized recipient of the 
encrypted message), then this is no different than if you were someone 
who never had a copy of a book that happened to fall into the public 
domain.   There isn't, nor do I believe there should be, an obligation 
on anyone to distribute copies of works once they are in the public 
domain.  The public domain should remain simple:  That there is no 
longer any obligation for people who *have* the content (unencrypted 
digital content, physical books, etc) to ask for anyones permission to 
do what they want with that content.




Note:  This is not to say that I disagree with the clause in the NDP 
motion that we spoke about in the past (and that you should publish 
here).  What it means is that, in my opinion, trying to worry about a 
TPM "expiring" when copyright does amounts to a feel-good educational 
moment (IE: great for people to realize that TPMs can last longer than 
copyright), not something that can actually be achieved in technology.


> I take your point, but it's usually the device owner who installs the software 
> that contains TPMs so that they have access to the content. They're coerced 
> into doing so, of course, and I agree it does all the things you say, but 
> this needs to be patiently explained to people. 

   We could have a long conversation about who is coercing who: device 
manufacturers or content copyright holders.  I believe it is the device 
manufacturers that are at the root of this problem.


   This petition will need explaining, and these educational moments 
will be as critically important as the petition itself.  What we are 
asking for goes outside of what people have been explained so far.

   People are not used to thinking of themselves as the true (and only 
relevant) owner of their iPod, computer or other such ICT.  They get it 
when they buy a home that the builder isn't allowed to put locks on the 
doors which the owners aren't legally allowed to remove, but somehow 
they don't realize the same logic MUST apply to their home computer or 
DVD player.

-- 
  Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
  2415+ Canadians oppose Bill C-60 which protects antiquated Recording,
  Movie and "software manufacturing" industries from modernization.
  Send a letter to your Canadian MP! --> http://digital-copyright.ca/