Posted: June 7th, 2011 | No Comments »
Coincidentally, as the report on Internet policy by Frank La Rue is just out, expressing “deep concerns” about “graduated response” and disconnecting users from the Internet (explicitly referring to France HADOPI and UK Digital Economy Act 2010), France is launching another communication campaign with a set of Pathetic clips going live this month and la new Label called “PUR” standing for “Promotion des Usages Responsables” (promotion of responsible uses).
I just don’t get it! Not only has the campaign cost over 3 M € for communicating on a law that is increasingly being recognized as going against a fundamental human right, but much worse : this is a deceptive message playing on negativity instead of the initially planed positive communication as pointed out by Numerama.
Several fun remixed deviated PUR labels have already appeared, check them out on Google Images among the original ones. Some are really creative!
There is urgency in addressing these global issues in a responsible and sustainable way.
Posted: June 6th, 2011 | 1 Comment »
Borrowing from the phrase of Armstrong: That’s one small step for the UN, one giant leap for the Internet!
Frank La Rue, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression released his report (22 pages well worth reading) submitted to the 17th session of the Human Rights Council on the “key trends and challenges to the right of all individuals to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds through the Internet“.
His conclusions and recommendations are clear and call for no further argument. In a nutshell : Internet Access is a fundamental human right. Now maybe we can move on with the real discussions and issues on how to creatively address some of these global problems currently hampered by ridiculous territorially bound legislations that have been hijacked by lobbies and industry led pressure groups.
So long HADOPI, ACTA, Protect IP Act, etc. Long live the Internet ! and let’s get to work, we’ve got a responsible digital society to build… Time for Responsibility 2.0 : towards A new World Order ?
Posted: April 14th, 2011 | No Comments »
Today, Advocate General’s Opinion in the case opposing Scarlet Extended to Société belge des auteurs compositeurs et éditeurs (Sabam) sounded like freedom and (public domain) music to my ears.
“According to Advocate General Cruz Villalón, a measure ordering an internet service provider to install a system for filtering and blocking electronic communications in order to protect intellectual property rights in principle infringes fundamental rights”.
If the verdict is confirmed, this is fantastic news and a step forward in the fight to preserve privacy and freedom of information.
It is also a major signal to the entertainment industry and their lobbies that they cannot carry on trying to force into law their obsolete business models. Maybe an opportunity for them to finally consider re-thinking a few things with respect to their industry and copyright. ISP will no longer be threatened and punished for refusing to spy on their customers. Let’s see how this evolves and the reactions it will trigger.
Posted: January 8th, 2011 | 3 Comments »
As every year CES rolls out its share of news and new products in the consumer electronics business. Among them this year one that may well represent a significant step forward in the digital media distribution and rights management business : DECE’s UltraViolet design completion and deployment roadmap.
Basically, the idea behind UltraViolet is one that’s been floating around for a long long time now but was regularly shelved or discarded due to the inability of the market actors in and across the industry to reach any form of agreement and particularly to acknowledge the essential driver in this marker : The Users and the corresponding User Experience. So, the basic idea behind UltraViolet is the cloud based digital locker for content and rights licenses (check out a promotional video for UltraViolet)
Why might it work ? Well, the answer is fairly simple : DECE (Digital Entertainment Content Ecosystem) which is a cross-industry consortium of over 50 companies (and growing) committed to make UltraViolet the next generation standard for rich media experience where the users will get the flexibility and user experience they’ve been denied for over a decade now. With UltraViolet, users will be able to download, stream, share and even get copies for use on physical media, basically covering a great deal of the average user needs in terms of interoperability and user experience.
So, all this sounds like a dream come true ! BUT this might actually only address half (if not less) of the issues. The two major problems in this industry were : User Experience (technical issue) and Business Models. Solving the former through a global (more or less, Apple and Disney are missing!) technical agreement on a common file format is a good start. But the business model side remains an open issue. And history has shown the poor ability of the entertainment industry to be creative in this space.
Moreover, UltraViolet has a pretty precise idea of what a typical user or household wants, uses, needs and is. UltraViolet accounts will be limited to 12 devices, 6 people households and 3 streams in parallel. This is insane !
Finally, and not of least importance is the whole anonymity issue. This approach, allowing for massive monitoring of usage will definitely benefit every actors of the ecosystem except probably the users. Or in other words, assuming such a service cannot offer anonymity for obvious reasons, how will the commercial actors value this in the business models for the users ? There’s a difference between knowing a given movie was or is being viewed and knowing that a specifically identified person is watching this movie and knowing nothing except a piece of content was bought on a given date. These three situations require different pricing ! How much do we value the information we release knowingly or not ? Not much I must say.
For these reasons, (and don’t get me wrong I’m very excited to see how this works out) I remain cautious on the actual solution. The above mentioned issues are important and will need to be addressed and fine tuned. The digital locker is definitely the right way to go for two reasons : technical interoperability (i.e., user experience) and Green IT issues allowing to reduce the amount of storage, waist of bandwidth and energy used for shifting around the world millions of copies of the same content.
At the end of the day, given the right business model and a decent user experience, users are likely to adopt many solutions and services. iTunes remains among the most notable examples of this. Preserving anonymity, complying with personal information regulations around the world and offering the users the ability to unilaterally claim their right to do something without being bothered by technology are key properties that still drive my own research in this fascinating domain. (Comments and reactions welcome 
Additional material :
Posted: May 4th, 2010 | No Comments »
Today, May 4th, is “The Day Against DRM”. It’s a very sad day ! While I think DRM is fundamentally flawed by design we’re still stuck in this extremism debate going nowhere anytime soon. Apple has sold its 1’000’000th (1 million) iPad last Friday, 28 days since its launch, 12 million apps downloaded and 1.5 million ebooks. Let’s face the facts, compared to the number of signatures collected against the iPad this device is rocking its world despite the DRM issues. Basically, the user experience by far outweighs the problems. I’ve written an Open Letter to DefectiveByDesign.org about this here.
So, here’s my proposition for today. It’s a call for action: let’s unite to propose a “Grassroots DRM Day“, a day to co-creatively Rethink and Redesign DRM. Drop me a note if you feel like participating (I’ll setup a page in case there’s a critical mass of people who want to take action) (See LibrePlanet Wiki)
Posted: April 23rd, 2010 | No Comments »
One step forward, two steps back. That’s the curent situation leading to a global cacophony on the Three-strikes issue.
Under the pressure of (among others) an EU parliament resolution (633 favorable votes, 13 against and 16 abstensions) to open the secret negotiations on the ACTA treaty, the text of a public draft was released April 21, 2010. Unfortunately the document doesn’t reflect individual countries positions (refering to square bracketed options in the texte). Interestingly, the April 16 press release following the Wellington 8th round ACTA negotiations explicitely mentions no governement will mandate a “gaduated response” or “three-strikes”:
” [...] While the participants recognise the importance of responding effectively to the challenge of Internet piracy, they confirmed that no participant is proposing to require governments to mandate a ‘graduated response’ or ‘three strikes’ approach to copyright infringement on the Internet. [...] ”
While this is good news in one sense, I cannot refrain from juxtaposing it to the growing body of countries enacting laws and ruling exactly in the opposit direction. In addition to France (HADOPI) we now have Great Britain who has rushed its Digital Economy Bill receiving royal assent (podcast here). Recently, Ireland has ruled in favor of such approaches dismissing concerns of the Irish Data Protection Commissioner.
My point here is simple: this whole issue is going nowhere! Given the amount of controversy and the conflicting approaches and interests, it should be a clear sign that the legal Three-strikes approach is doomed no matter how it’s put. Internet access is globally recognized as a public good and as such its access is becoming a fundamental right. Whatever laws are or might be enacted in this direction are bound to be technically innapplicable. Last but not least, such laws being essentially territorial will innevitably lead to offshoring services in countries not having similar provisions or simply put in the cloud providing the services through encrypted channels.
So how do we move forward in a sustainable way ? Education to have people (kids and adults alike) understand that digital doesn’t necessarly mean free. If something has value for someone it’s probably because it’s creator is trying to make a living out of it and therefore deserves some form of compensation or credit. New business models making piracy not worth the effort over legit alternatives. And a bit of technology to get rid of the deceptive user experience thus reinstating the user in his role and rights. By all means : Deceptive laws won’t do the job! We need to pull ourselves together and have a real public debat about this, including in the loop espeially the Users AND public policies as a guiding framework for the greater good.
Posted: March 22nd, 2010 | 1 Comment »
Dear Fellows,
As odd as it may seem, I’m both, a member of DefectiveByDesign and a researcher in DRM. Reading the post of the second 5’000 signatures pad sent to Apple recently triggered an irresistible need to write this open letter.
About 45 days for 10’000 signatures in Internet and Social Network times, is, and I’m sorry to say, nothing to be celebrated ! Comparatively, within a couple of weeks, iPad pre orders amount to hundreds of thousands. Some estimates even consider 10’000 pre orders a day ! In my world and according to my math, this suggests the benefits outweigh by far the point your want to make, however valid it may be. The reason lies simply in two things : User Experience and a Business Model that makes sense for the average user ! They did it with the iPod, did it again with the iPhone and the iPad will be nothing shy of its predecessors.
Sure DRM is defective by design and we ought to know better when it comes to respecting hard fought for and acquired rights (fair use, home copy, first sale, etc.) But who do we owe the current situation to ? The Media Industry who has relentlessly taken hostage the technology providers and lobbied for public policies considering the Internet wasn’t something they should consider in the evolution of their business.
So be it, but in the meantime we’re now stuck with totally bogus laws emerging around the world with Three Strikes progressive response approaches which needless to say are technically inapplicable as demonstrated by many researchers in the field.
So, what do we do ? We continue to fight along the extremes with DRM abolitionists (by analogy to Lessigs’ Internet cheerleaders) VS copyright freaks (MPAA / RIAA / ACTA / HADOPI, Digital Economy Bill and others around the world) who want to place a “Digital Decency Probe“ in every home ? Decency as in “Thou Shalt Not Enjoy Thy Media Experience”. Imposing already useless monitoring and deep packet inspection through ISPs ? What’s next, a Global Registrar of false positives banned from the Internet ? We’ll soon all need to file for Internet asylum somewhere, waiting for the Internet to die from suffocation, strangled by too many incompatible territorial laws trying to regulate an inherently global media.
I’m sorry to say but we’re all going south with this ! Is this the information society we want our kids to inherit ? Definitely not, and we need to act before it’s too late. Larry Lessig in a recent talk at the Italian parliament has brilliantly pictured the situation arguing about the evil of the Extremes, challenging each and everyone of us to some humility when it comes to regulations (regulatory humility).
So, dear Fellows, this letter is by no means an attempt at saying you don’t have a point and I’m grateful to see activism does exist here too. But I urge you to bring the debate to a level where everyone can humbly participate in co-creative redesign of DRM outside the corrosive extremes. In doing so, I would suspect we would be able to gather orders of magnitude more signatures to more effectively counterbalance things that don’t make sense.
Hoping you won’t sack me from your database for this, I kindly urge you to join the conversation towards what one might nowadays call socially responsible design !
Jean-Henry Morin
Posted: March 15th, 2010 | 2 Comments »
Simply Brilliant!
Larry Lessig delivered a brilliant talk (Internet is Freedom) at the Italian parliament on March 11, 2010, acknowledging the “either / or mistake” that prevails and leads to “extremism rules”, stressing the “cost of mistrust” towards learning “regulatory humility”. This is fundamental for the sake of our children and the information society we want them to inherit.
Unfortunately, no tangible sign of such humility anywhere around the world (be it © reform, anti counterfeiting agreements, three strike approaches, HADOPI, LOPSI 2, Digital Britain bill, etc.).
In my research domain on DRM technologies, I’ve been struggling with this for several years now with limited success arguing there is a need for “managing exceptions” in DRM environments as a middle ground between the © freaks and the abolitionists (holding yet another Day Against DRM on May 4th, 2010 among other initiatives).
Society has stopped thinking critically and creatively. I suggest March 11th should be marked as the “Day of Regulatory Humility”, engaging people around the world to take a step back and to humbly and critically look at the issues their respective parliaments are working on. March 11th, 2010 : The First Day of Regulatory Humility… 360 days left to organize the 2011 edition. Care to join ?
Don’t take my word for it, and do spare the 37 ‘ listening to the talk :
[kml_flashembed movie="http://blip.tv/play/lG2BzMozAg" width="480" height="390"/]
BRAVO Larry and thanks for all the inspiring work you do.
Source : blip.tv
Follow up article in La Stampa (translated in The Huffington Post) : “20th century media government burdening 21st century media is a pattern followed by too much of the world already“
Posted: February 10th, 2010 | No Comments »
So, we’re a few weeks away from the release of the iPad and here we go with the good old DRM fight again!
Anti DRM Protests against the iPad, Defectivebydesign on the issue, the iBad petition sent to Apple, etc.
Here is my comment on the issue:
Two comments: First, as long as no other “viable” user experience and business model as the one proposed by Apple is available out there they will continue delivering and driving the market with this unique touch of “user centered design”. They’ve done it several times with the iPod, iPhone / iTouch and now the iPad should be no exception.
They’re good at what they do because the USER exists in their world and it’s a fundamental part of the equation.
Now, concerning the DRM side of things, well let’s put it this way: given the right business model and user experience, it’s not that bad after all. It does however need fundamental changes in the way it is approached in terms of user rights (e.g., fair use, home copy, 1st sale rights, space shifting, etc.) But I argue it’s not Apple who should be blamed for that, but all the Lobbies behind the insane approach to DRM they’ve recurrently forced into the industry, refusing to consider how our society has changed with the Internet.
At the end of the day, don’t blame Apple for that blame the lobbies, congress, copyright law, the majors, the publishers. Apple is good at listening and hearing its users. DRM providers only listen and hear MPAA, RIAA and lobbies. By refusing to innovate and consider creative alternatives, the whole market is doomed and people continue looking at DRM as a Restriction technology instead of an Enabler. Re-thinking creatively DRM is possible. Think about it! Most users aren’t criminals. There’s no need for military grade security. DRM doesn’t curb those that it should. User Experience is Key, put the user back where he belongs: in the driving seat, not in the trunk shoving it whatever suits best the big stakeholders. There’s much much room for improvement, fun times ahead, check it out.
DRM can be fixed (it’s technical and we’ve got plenty of extra smart people), I’m not sure about the majors though (it’s not technical and …) Time will tell but will it be before or after they go belly up ?
Posted: January 12th, 2010 | 3 Comments »
In Ticino an 18 y.o. girl was judged and sentenced for illegally sharing her favorite movies (270) and songs (4’200) over the Internet. She did not appeal. The judgment is now into force and is likely to be a major precedent for future cases (jurisprudence). A short TV news brief was aired on January 7, 2010 on Swiss television.
This raises several key concerns :
First, in the case of Switzerland, downloading is not illegal but sharing copyrighted content over the Internet is. This is different from other countries such as our French neighbors for example who will (try to ! ) track illegal downloads of copyrighted content through ISPs implementing a Three Strikes approach with the HADOPI law. Etc. As a result, we live in this paradox of a world where the Internet is the most extraordinary example of something global for the greater good but artificially constrained by totally ineffective and contradictory laws which are in essence territorial, thus useless on a global scale.
Equally worrying is the Bounty Hunter approach ! Some countries, like Switzerland, will prosecute based on private companies reporting cases regardless of privacy concerns. Such a situation is extremely worrying as it leads to questioning the legitimacy and means of action of a system relying on private sector / interest group triggered justice. Companies such as Swiss based Logistep AG have built their business on such situations. In most cases they will use intimidation towards an out of court settlement based on warning letters threatening to bring the case to court. People often comply fearing a trial.
Finally, the disproportion of sanctions compared to the actual situation of ordinary people who aren’t the real criminals after all. We’re looking at penalties in the order of 3 years imprisonment or 100’000 CHF in the case of Switzerland. For crying out loud, at that level one would be more comfortable running a real piracy powerhouse in Asia or any Internet safe heaven. I’ve always been amazed to see how the entertainment industry has been going after the small fish, trying to preserve obsolete business models repeatedly failing to see the true opportunities exhibited by disruptive technologies such as the Internet. Not to mention the feeling that the industrial pirates seem to enjoy business as usual situations in almost total impunity.
We need to work something out. It requires to re-think a few things creatively. There are alternatives out there and we just need to reach out to do something:
New Business Models and their corresponding services need to be launched. The Internet is here to stay. The whole entertainment industry needs a deep change taking into account the people (and what they want) and the technology as an opportunity. We now live in a service driven economy characterized by its global, participative and dematerialized nature.
Inform and train our youngsters very early on. Our children are now Digital Natives. They were born after the Web, they grew up with the mouse in one hand, the Internet as their TV and their cell phones as radios. It’s not by criminalizing them that we’ll get this right. They sample, share, participate, mix and remix with what we’ve given them ! We should not forget this. Our legacy for them is their playground ! What information society do we want them to live in ? Education and training are and will always be key elements of progress for mankind.
Public policies also have a key role to play in setting the guidelines prior to enacting new laws that are often useless or simply obsolete by the time they come into force. In the current situation it is clear that whatever laws countries enact, they are bound to be useless given the global nature of the Internet.
Do we need a Universal Declaration of Digital Rights AND Obligations ? Maybe, but this would require tremendous efforts to work on sometimes conflicting interests and values to be shared for the future of our digital society. Moreover it would have to be ratified by a significant number of countries in order to create the required level of pressure on reluctant countries. Would the UN be a suitable place for such a proposal or are we at a time requiring to consider creative alternatives ?
One we’ve been hearing about for some time now is the creation of a new State without physical land. A Digital State of which anyone would be automatically a citizen of, thus providing Digital Identities, passports, etc. A sort of confederation (idea we love in Switzerland) where member states would join their efforts on all digital matters that are global in essence. It could also have its own institutions, courts and procedures.
Food for thought, please feel free to react, comment, oppose, disagree, contribute or start something !
