The Digital Media Manifesto

 

Source

L. Chiariglione

Title

Response to "Response to Response to Comments on Final draft of Digital Media Manifesto"

No.

030927chiariglione01

 

Commented text is in italic


New suggestion for section 1:
Replace "rights" in quotes with
rights and customary usage expectations
with no quotes.
It just looks funny having the end user's rights being the only thing in quotes.

I changed the full sentence to

end-user rights and customary usage expectations for analogue media are converted into effective Digital Media technologies, to the satisfaction of all parties

(hoping that I do not re-open a Pandora's box).


3. under "Major actions"
replace: "P1 is part of the design of the interoperable DRM platform, in the sense that the platform must technically support those traditional end-user rights, to the extent that the purpose of DRM is not put in jeopardy."
with: "P1 is essential to the design of the interoperable DRM platform, because a platform must support traditional end-user rights in order to achieve user acceptance."
Rationale: Leonardo writes: "I am not against what you say, but not at a point of a very concise summary. Propose text in the body of P1". However, my version makes a better summary of the full text of P1, which is more balanced then the current version of the summary.

I have further lengthened the sentence to

P1 is part of the design of the interoperable DRM platform, in the sense that the platform must _technically_ support those traditional end-user rights, to the extent that the purpose of DRM is not put in jeopardy, in order to achieve end user acceptance.

under "Right to choose playback device"
Replace "This was a reasonable practice as long as content was unprotected. But with protected content this may no longer be possible in general, because the playback device must satisfy certain minimum and probably restrictive criteria, if it is not going to become a hole through which valuable content flows away. However, this right remains important, even for content to which DRM has been applied, in case of content in a format that no longer have sufficient market share to support the manufacture of mass-market playback devices, while the content retains historical, political, or artistic value."
with: "This right remains essential even for content to which DRM has been applied. Content in a format that no longer has sufficient market share to support the manufacture of mass-market playback devices may retain historical, political, or artistic value."
 

I do not think I should remove the first sentence starting from "This was a reasonable practice as long as...". Then the only difference that I see is in the use of the word "important" instead of "essential". The difference is irrelevant for me because the criterion for retaining a right is expressed by

the platform must technically support those traditional end-user rights, to the extent that the purpose of DRM is not put in jeopardy

Continuing this discussion will lead us nowhere. I totally agree that there is a societal right not to be deprived of content that has been produced in the past, respecting rights holders' rights if they exist, directly if the copyright has expired. A fight for this principle is noble and understandable, a fight on "important" vs. "essential" looks to me a rearguard fight.

I agree with what you say here:

Rationale: it's imappropriate to dismiss a user right or expectation at this stage by saying that a DRM system may not be able to implement it. DRM systems can be re-engineered; user expectations are rooted in cultural and academic tradition and are worthy of respect.

This is the right fight. If there is a solution, the DMP must pursue it. Period. Then "important" vs. "essential" becomes irrelevant.

p4: Leonardo, I am using the http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-patent-policy-20010816/#def-RAND
definition, which does not prohibit setting a minimum license payment. And I am making the mention of collaborative software projects in order to clarify the need for licensing reform in standards organizations -- from the point of view of large corporate participants you could argue that there's no problem.

Fine. I do not know the workings of W3C. I work in ISO where no such definition exists. One of my most sacred principles is that of non-interference. W3C is a sovereign body who has given rules to itself. Who am I to object to those rules? If I want to object I join the club and then I object. If not, I keep silent.