This article was inspired by the Intellectual Property section of the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) Treaty.

In my readings recently there has been quite a bit about the fight between "rights holders" and their potential customers, including "the general public." The problem is the "disruptive technologies" used today to store, transmit and reproduce creative works such as text, music, photos, etc.

The market for "copies" has changed very quickly. The business that made its money by the fact that it controlled a copying facility (first a record pressing plant and now a CD duplication center) and distribution facility (wholesale CD distribution and/or retail outlets) now finds that the distribution facility is being bypassed (by the Internet) and the copying facility is included on virtually every PC sold today and is no longer unique.

I suppose it may seem a bit of a stretch to include the concept of software patents in with a discussion of digital rights management and copyright that was originally spawned due to discussion of the Blank Media Levy, but it actually hangs together for a number of reasons:

	Patents are a legislative tool to foster technological change and growth - they do this by encouraging innovators to create new things by making it possible to make money from innovation through licensing of the patent to competitors.
	Copyright is a legislative tool to foster publication of creative works by protecting the originator of the works' rights to be the only one to make copies of it or allow copies of it to be made (by publishers for example.)
	In my (and many of my peers') opinion, software is the result of a creative process, not an innovative one.

Originally written in 2003

In the light of the Canadian Copyright Act (the Act), those who copy music for their own personal use (i.e. private copiers) are not criminals. It doesn't matter what the source of the material copied: Internet, radio, TV, borrowed CDs, moldy-oldy vinyl, 8-track, cassette or whatever. The Blank Audio Media Levy compensates for this copying so there is no criminal.

The Act also specifies that there are "broadcasters" who have to pay royalties and that otherwise, the copyright holder controls who can access their works.

Whether those who have purchased (or "private copied") a copy can offer their copy for copying via the Internet is a question the courts have not yet ruled on as far as I know. Are these P2P (peer to peer) "offers" publishing, broadcasting, or just a case of rapid loaning (since I can loan another individual my copy so they can make their own copy?) How is P2P different from pirating where an individual or company makes many copies of the original and offers them for sale, sometimes complete with liner notes, cover art and imprint on the CD?

What we do all seem to agree is that the pirate is a criminal. The pirate copies wholesale for a profit. The pirate is in it for the money.

Question is, is the P2P sharer in it for the money?

Nope - not that I can see. There are no P2P systems that reward the sharer in money as far as I know.

Are they in it for notches on their virtual belt? Are they rebelling against something? Or are they being altruistic?

The answer is... Yes.

The P2P sharer is doing all of the above; at least some portion of them is doing one or the other of the above. The question is, which is the dominant activity and what can (or should) be done about it?

Some of the problem is social - the guys who want to "notch" their way to stardom by hosting the most MP3s are just the latest round of anti-social phenomenon. They can't possibly listen to everything they have but instead gain some sort of notoriety from their "conquest".

Some of the problem is economic. The general population is now aware of the cost of duplication of a CD. The market that publishing works in is now different from what it was 25 years ago when duplication of music was hard, expensive and imperfect.

Some of the problem is political. It's political in the broad sense of the word, not partisan political. The P2P sharer makes a statement against the "system" by helping to change it. The problem I see is that the changes are not necessarily for the better. The recent passing of the DMCA and more recently the passing in the EU of new copyright legislation (see guardian.co.uk  for an article on this) and the threat of the Free Trade Area for the Americas (FTAA) treaty (see my rant) have pushed the rights of the creator to the point where I expect a real backlash from the purchasing public similar to that suffered by software publishers back in the days of distribution on floppy disk. Back then (not all that long ago, but many have obviously forgotten) the publishers started doing all sorts of things to stop people from being able to copy the floppy that software came on. Laser drilled holes, special software, special disk formats, and all sorts of things meant that Joe Average couldn't make a backup copy of the software he'd purchased and had to beg if the original got destroyed.

Joe Average will rebel even more - just watch. Making him criminal won't work, it will only bring down the publishers faster.

richard

One of the major problems I and others see in the large-scale use of DRM is the potential loss of public access to the copyright materials at the end of the copyright period. You might think that the loss of (for example) all the images of Mickey Mouse, to future generations would be not all that significant, but you would be wrong. You must take the problem to its logical conclusion; that of every aspect of humanity's history for the period starting now, potentially not being available to coming generations for some technical reason. The impact would be literally devastating.

This problem is not limited solely to DRM, it also is a problem with proprietary data formats in general. I have a number of DAT (4mm digital audio tape) tapes we used in the mid 90s for backup of our ISP's computers that we can't read now.

Originally published 2001

No matter what DRM technology is used to protect the digital media you might receive your documents, music or video on, at some point the information contained in "the box" must come out and present itself in a way that you as a human, flesh and blood receiver must have. Until technology can bypass your eyes and ears and put things directly from digital storage into your brain, there must be a translation of the information into something that not only you can see and hear, but so can a microphone and video camera or scanner.

January 18, 2004 - http://www.drmwatch.com/drmtech/article.php/3294391 article that summarizes DRM in 2003.

December 5, 2003 - I've been following (for many reasons) the battle between SCO and what seems like the rest of the software world, at least to me. Watching this battle (and it can be classified only as a battle, not simply a law suit) I came to the realization that I was witnessing a revolution again.