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 17th, 2010 | No Comments »
On my way to Enable!
See your there …
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 !
Posted: January 8th, 2010 | 1 Comment »
Haven’t blogged much this year, not that I didn’t have plenty to say and talk about but as most of us may feel : time flies 
It’s been a busy year so I’ll update with a few post on some noteworthy things and events, starting with my Best Wishes for 2010 while this is still timely
Feel free to comment, react, challenge and have a great year !
Cheers,
jh
Posted: January 30th, 2009 | No Comments »
Several government led initiatives on digital content are appearing around the world. Has the time come to rethink creatively a few things or are we looking at some form of semi-coordinated effort trying to prepare us for the enactment of new laws in this area?
The UK government released today its interim report Digital Britain unveiling 22 recommendations and a road map towards a final report due this summer. On Digital Content, the interim report presents 4 actions on the economics (action 10) and on the rights and distribution (actions 11 to 13), arguing for :
- alternative funding models to advertising revenues,
- a Rights Agency in charge of enabling technical copyright-support solutions that work for both consumers and content creators “Digital Rights Management (DRM), properly applied“,
- education and information of consumers on fair and appropriate use of copyrighted material,
- fighting unlawful P2P file-sharing having ISPs monitor users’ Internet traffic, warning them in case of infringement and revealing the information to rights-holders based on a court order.
A TED like summit is planed for April and in the meantime, interested parties are invited to join the discussion by sending their expressions of interest to : digitalbritain@berr.gsi.gov.uk before March 12, 2009.
The US FTC is organizing a DRM conference on March 25, 2009 in Seattle at the University of Washington Law School. Topics to be covered include basic introductory issues, legal, consumer issues and future trends. They are also inviting interested parties to submit comments and suggestions for topics by email to : drmtownhall@ftc.gov by February 9, 2009.
Oddly enough, it feels like states and governments around the world have all of a sudden realized that we have entered in the 21 century, that we live in a global networked economy and society where trade and services are now dematerialized and involve intangible assets. Paradoxically recent initiatives are starting to drop DRM (Apple iTunes Plus, just for music though).
All this may not be contradictory after all. Highly commoditized goods such as music nowadays may go DRM free provided there is some form of higher authority overlooking and requiring that the ISPs monitor user traffic to detect unlawful P2P file-sharing. The story might be slightly different with video premium content in the short term.
At the end of the day, we are likely to still have DRM and gain a global surveillance from our ISPs of our every packets flowing in and out of our homes, forced by law. So wouldn’t we want to get that DRM “thing” right ? Now would be the time to do it before we get into another fight about our civil liberties and privacy rights.
Lets go “green” (Green DRM), before we all go dark !
Posted: November 7th, 2008 | 4 Comments »
I thought we would be out of the woods last April when the European Parliament rejected the idea of any form of “three strikes” laws across Europe. Unfortunately, here goes the French Senate again with the “Three Strikes and you’re Out” approach to address the issue of copyright and illegal P2P file sharing over the Internet. The basic argument underlying this is that Internet based P2P file sharing of copyrighted work will basically kill creativity and put the whole industry at risk or halt.
The planed law proposes a gradual and proportionate answer in three steps. The first step requires the ISP, on behalf of the HADOPI (Haute autorité de diffusion des oeuvres et de protection des droits sur internet), to warn the user by email. In case the user repeats the offense within six months a second warning is sent both by email and by registered mail. Finally, if the user does it again within the year after the second warning, HADOPI can either order the Internet access to be suspended for three months to one year or order the user to take measures preventing further infringements. ISPs in this context will have to comply to such new laws and not only spy on their subscribers but also collaborate with the legal authorities.
Several points need to be stressed about this :
First, this goes against the European Parliament positions on this issue arguing that it would go against civil liberties, human rights and the principles of proportionality, effectiveness, and dissuasiveness. A recent vote on the issue led to the position that it would require a court order to disconnect someone from the Internet. In the 21st century, Internet access has become a vital commodity like water or electricity. One cannot reasonably ban someone from the Internet ! People depend on it to work, bank, trade, find jobs, socialize, shop, telephone, etc.
Second, such a law will be totally ineffective. By the time it comes into force and can be applied there will already be dozens of ways to circumvent it technically using infrastructure outside national jurisdiction and encrypted networks.
Third and most notable is that we are working with the wrong paradigm. The whole industry is working under the assumption that the user is presumed criminal. The rights holders have barely accepted the idea of “managed copying“. The DRM technology providers basically implement what the industry tells them to do. Consequently, what can you expect from the public policies and legal framework : the above mentioned kind of laws.
The fundamental assumption is wrongly postulating that the threat comes from the user and consequently turns him into a presumed criminal. Under such hypothesis it is no wonder that DRM technology providers implemented DRM solutions based on strong cryptography shifting the load of the burden towards the users. The impulse coming from the media industry refusing to see the transformation of their industry as an opportunity rather than a threat, the requirements were naturally mapped on old patterns of copyright coming from the pre-Internet age.
In this context, it is no wonder DRM opponents and activists justifiably argue that DRM is “defective by design“. And I have to fully agree, even though I am a researcher in DRM, as long as the users will be considered criminals a priori.
So the true question is not how to ditch DRM and copy protection, as often argued by Cory Dotorow, but rather how to approach the problem with the right assumptions and consequently the right business models (e.g., Apple iTunes Plus DRM free content). Such an assumption postulates to put the user back where he belongs in the center of the model and to trust him (the criminals are not who the media industry thinks they are). In doing so, DRM can be approached in a totally different way. Enhancing user experience (which to the best of my knowledge is a key success factor in this industry). Work has been done in this area with models for managing exceptions in DRM environments, but the media industry just doesn’t want to see it and is still on a witch hunt trying to preserve an industry which has already changed whether they like it or not.
I want to close this blog post illustrating the negative impact of law on creativity quoting the brilliant TED Talk of Lary Lessig March 2007.
In law, there is a basic principle that often applies called the burden of proof (onus probandi) applicable to the plaintiff to prove his allegations.
In other words and in this context, shouldn’t lawful use be presumed, unless otherwise proven by the right holder ? But this is common sense “a rare idea in the law! ” quoting Lary Lessig.
