Martin Pool's blog

Anti-piracy ads and copynorms

David wrote two good pieces on the MPAA's anti-downloading propaganda.

I bought a copy of Secretary a while ago. The supposedly anti-piracy locks in the player are used to run ten minutes of ads at the start of the disk. I don't mind them putting them on there, but I do object to not being able to skip ads on a DVD I paid for, just as I can rip ad wrappers off a magazine. I think next time I watch it, I'll make a point of ripping it onto a hard disk first, so that I can cut them off and re-record it.

The MPAA's current strategy seems to be to grab away all fair-use rights. I don't think this influences norms; it just makes people laugh. It gives me a reason to copy this disk (for personal use) when previously I had none. (Stupid region coding is another reason; lack of resale rights for downloaded music is another.)

As a society we are in the process of working out new copynorms. Technology has made something possible, and now we need to work out what is the polite way to use it. I can imagine a similar process after the advent of the telephone or the birth-control pill.

How do norms evolve? Several forces interact: reasoning from fundamental ethics (the golden rule, etc), law, extension from previous patterns, reaction to events.

Saying "copying is illegal" only weakly affects norms because it begs the question of whether it should be illegal. Time-shifting TV shows or copying music onto an iPod is illegal in Australia, but you'd have to go a long way to make it socially unacceptable.

Saying "copying is theft" is also unconvincing because it's clearly not exactly the same as theft of rivalrous goods. We need to collectively decide whether that is a useful analogy or not. Other analogies are possible: it's considered OK to use someone's ideas, but polite to acknowledge them.

Linux and open source software is demonstrating that harsh control is not the only possible way to produce complex intellectual goods.

You need not accept the WMP EULA, which permits Microsoft to make arbitrary changes to your PC. On the other hand, by using an alternative like mplayer, you can be technically illegal but still doing things that are absolutely ethically reasonable: watching purchased DVDs in your own home. Iterating through this shifts the copynorms: Secretary is not reasonable; mplayer is reasonable. By extension, people who want to ban Linux DVD players are not reasonable, and their ads are silly.

Kim Weatherall has more good bits on this, and rather better informed than the ramblings of this hack.

posted Tue 21 Sep 2004 in /issues/copyright | link

Annotated Induce Act

Via Lessig, The Obsessively Annotated Introduction to the INDUCE Act.

Also wikipedia:Copynorm:

As used by copyright theorists, the term copynorm (or more frequently copynorms) is used to refer to a normalized social-standard regarding the ethical issue of duplicating copyrighted material.

posted Thu 1 Jul 2004 in /issues/copyright | link

More on Colour of bits

AJ says:

I don’t really think that view’s helpful: colours that you can’t actually see don’t make things easier to reason about; and while sometimes you have to come up with terms to describe things because there’s no more meaningful way to look at things, this isn’t one of those cases.

The word colo[u]r is reasonably well established in science for things that you can't actually see: consider page coloring or quark colors. Part of the charm of Matthew's essay is that it maps copyright into a concept that is both strange but familiar to computer scientists: suppose there are colors you can't see. (We use magic in a similar sense, without implying belief in the supernatural.)

Matthew says, correctly(?) that you can't determine whether a particular bit string is copyrighted just by examining the bits. AJ thinks

It’s not irrecoverable though – there’s no reason why you can’t just provide the software with all the information it actually needs: working out who the current copyright holder is could be made as easy as querying the Library of Congress’s website, or some similar body, governmental or private as appropriate. As long as you have the information your function actually needs, determining the copyright status of some bits is straightforward.

This is a decent practical approximation but not actually true: it's possible that you could have independently recreated the bits without copying them. Checking whether the string was previously registered for copyright doesn't imply the string was actually copied. Conversely, the fact that a string is not registered with the Library of Congress doesn't mean it is not copyrighted.

So this is to say: we can have an external lookup table which, given a string of bits, indicates what colour they are likely to have. But it will give false positives (independently recreated) and negatives (copyrighted but not registered).

Of course, as we see on Mediawatch, for nontrivial strings the chances that a string would be spontaneously reinvented become low. All this says though, is that there are some domains where the heuristic is accurate. Copyright is still not a function of the bits, nor even a function of the bits and the LoC.

The colour of copyright persists on bits across arbitrary transformations: consider human translation into a different language. AJ's oracle could not detect the colour, but the law could. It would similarly fail on the XOR-pad thought experiment Matthew describes.

I think AJ demonstrates Matthew is right: even computer scientists who know a lot about IP will get mixed up as long as they think of copyright as an attribute of bitstrings.

David Starkhoff has more links. The essay provoked an ANSI-standard Intellectual Property flamewar on copyfight,

posted Fri 25 Jun 2004 in /issues/copyright | link

What Colour are your bits?

By way of Seth: Matthew Skala wrote a good essay entitled What Colour are your bits?

Seth also has a beautiful passage from Lincoln:

Both [Union and Confederacy] read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

posted Thu 24 Jun 2004 in /issues/copyright | link

Cory Doctorow on DRM

Cory Doctorow gave a great talk about DRM, which is now available in wiki form. (It's published using MoinMoin, a descendent of my pikipiki code. Truly we all stand on each others shoulders.) Appetizers:

Here's the social reason that DRM fails: keeping an honest user honest is like keeping a tall user tall.

anticirumvention lets rightsholders invent new and exciting copyrights for themselves -- to write private laws without accountability or deliberation -- that expropriate your interest in your physical property to their favor. Region-coded DVDs are an example of this: there's no copyright here or in anywhere I know of that says that an author should be able to control where you enjoy her creative works, once you've paid for them. I can buy a book and throw it in my bag and take it anywhere from Toronto to Timbuktu, and read it wherever I am: I can even buy books in America and bring them to the UK, where the author may have an exclusive distribution deal with a local publisher who sells them for double the US shelf-price. When I'm done with it, I can sell it on or give it away in the UK. Copyright lawyers call this "First Sale," but it may be simpler to think of it as "Capitalism."

posted Wed 23 Jun 2004 in /issues/copyright | link

Kim Weatherall

Kim Weatherall has a blog about Australian IP law, the USFTA and related topics.

posted Mon 24 May 2004 in /issues/copyright | link

USFTA Senate Committee submission on copyright

Rusty testified to the Senate Select Committee on the US-Aus Free Trade Agreemenet Monday, and I think made a very good presentation of the case. I was happy to be able to help a little in preparing for the presentation.

There are two major problems. Briefly put: the treaty requires draconian laws against devices that can be used to circumvent copyright control measures, and secondly it requires Australia to accept software and business-method patents. There is an additional meta-problem that treaties are harder to change than laws, so if we discover that the provisions are too harsh it is hard to correct the mistake. Roger Clarke has an excellent more detailed description of the problems.

Our slides are now available, which may make more sense read in conjunction with the draft transcript of the session. When the draft is confirmed, it may be linked from the committee web page.

Some personal observations on the comittee:

In transcripts of previous hearings some of the witnesses were subject to very robust questioning, focussing more on the person of the witnesses than on the substance of their submissions. We went in fearing questions along the lines of "are you a communist?", but did not encounter any.

I think the diagrams helped in explaining the fairly complex questions about how technical protection measures infringe on the rights of third parties. However, I don't think we presented them very effectively. There is no, as far as I know, a way to project a slideshow, and it might not be appropriate. We had A3 printouts of the diagrams, but since the committeee room was a bit large it may have been hard for some senators to read them. We probably should have also made A4 sets for easier reference.

posted Thu 20 May 2004 in /issues/copyright | link

Rusty before the senate on the USFTA

Rusty is appearing on Monday afternoon before the Senate committee enquiring into the US Trade Agreement. He will testify on the damaging consequences of the DMCA-style provisions for free software, fair use, etc. If you're in Canberra please come to the public hearing at 5pm on Monday and show support.

posted Sun 16 May 2004 in /issues/copyright | link

"Skipping commercials is theft"

“Skipping commercials is theft”, according to a representative of content companies in a ReplayTV suit.

I wonder if the current anti-filesharing propaganda will develop into an attempt to persuade kids to sit attentively watching all commercials? If you use the bathroom during the ads, the terrorists win.

posted Wed 21 Jan 2004 in /issues/copyright | link

Carly on DRM

Carly Fiorina spoke at CES about digital rights/restrictions management:

[..] We all know that the best system in the world won't mean much if the content you're receiving isn't rich, and exciting, and meaningful to you. From creation, to distribution, to consumption – we are working today to ensure that the music and the movies that will be part of your digital entertainment system are as rich and compelling as they can be.

Let's start with music. One of the ways to ensure that the digital entertainment landscape really takes off is to protect the artists and the creators of the content. And so today, we are very proud to appear on this stage and take a tough stand on digital piracy.

You've heard of Moore's Law. Digital piracy has brought us Kazaa's law. Kazaa's law states that our sense of right and wrong doesn't evolve as fast as our technology. Just because we can do something, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Just because we can steal music, doesn't mean we should. Just because we can take someone's intellectual property for free, doesn't mean we should. Just because you can do it and not get caught, doesn't mean it's right. It's illegal, it's wrong, and there are things we can do as a technology company to help. And here is what HP intends to do.

Today, HP is stepping up its commitment to building, acquiring or licensing the best content protection technologies for our devices that will set secure copyrights without sacrificing great consumer experiences. In recent years, we’ve cancelled planned products because we weren't comfortable with the level of protection. We've been active through the Business Software Alliance to educate consumers and businesses that digital piracy is a threat to economic growth. We've worked in cross-industry efforts like the Secure Digital Music Initiative to develop a solution to digital piracy. And in partnership with Microsoft, our Media Center PC responds to a copy control flag embedded in current generation TV signals.

Starting this year, HP will strive to build every one of our consumer devices to respect digital rights. In fact, we are already implementing this commitment in products such as our DVD Movie Writer, which protects digital rights today. If a consumer for example, tries to copy protected VHS tapes, the DVD Movie Writer has HP-developed technology that won't copy it – instead, it displays a message that states, "The source content is copyrighted material. Copying is not permitted." And soon, that same kind of technology will be in every one of our products. HP will also work constructively with technology and content industries to implement Broadcast Flag into some of our products this year.

Later this year, we’ll also introduce a new protection technology that encrypts recorded content. Going forward, we will actively promote the interoperability of content protection technologies to ensure that content protection becomes the enabler it was intended to be – not the obstacle to compelling content that many fear. And we will also step up our efforts to work with anti-piracy industry advocates and consumer advocates.

The Register disagrees.

posted Mon 12 Jan 2004 in /issues/copyright | link

Ethics of replication

I rediscovered a post from Mark Wooding that I particularly like:

From: mdw.at.nsict.org (Mark Wooding)
Newsgroups: comp.text.pdf,sci.crypt,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: FBI - Adobe's lapdogs & government war on citizens
Date: 13 Aug 2001 20:45:40 GMT
Organization: National Society for the Inversion of Cuddly Tigers
Message-ID: <slrn9ngf3k.u7f.mdw@tux.nsict.org>

Robert J. Kolker wrote:

Without getting in pejorative terminology, do you think it is kosher to deny or deprive the owner of intellectual property an opportunity to sell it?

Yes. Not every situation is an appropriate sales opportunity.

I'm not qualified to decide on what's kosher, or halal for that matter.

Perhaps if you meant to ask a different question, you should have done.

For example, say you borrow a book from a library (no problem). You make a two hard copies, one for you and one for your friend. Niether he nor you are likely to buy the book since you already have readable copies at hand.

Result. The publisher of the book has probably lost two sales.

I don't follow. First of all, you state that neither I nor my friend are likely to buy the book, since we have a copy at hand (in the library, presumably), and then complain that the publisher has lost sales. But libraries are OK.

And then there's the issue of a `lost' sale. How can it be lost? He never had it in the first place!

And this is the result of "sharing".

If the alternative is Stallman's `Right to Read' world, and we seem to be getting closer to that, uh, `ideal' every day, then count me down for sharing. Or whatever you want to call it.

Here's a thought experiment. Imagine you have a replicator, like in Star Trek. It costs about as much as a 100W light bulb to run, and is easy to maintain. It makes copies -- perfect working copies -- of inanimate objects[1]. All it takes is some space, to put the new copy in, and time to scan the original and make the new one. Suppose further that you bought yours from some guy in a corner shop for some small amount of money -- it's no hassle for him: he just replicates 'em, after all, and he's not in it for the money.

Which of these things do you think are morally `wrong', or should be `forbidden'? Justify your answers.

I think that last is the only one which is actually `wrong' in any obvious way. I can argue for and against the others, but tend to fall in favour or allowing them.

I'm interested in answers from both sides of the debate.

[1] I don't want to get into the ethics of replicating live people, or even animals. We'll allow replication of dead stuff, so food is fair game.

-- [mdw]

posted Sat 15 Nov 2003 in /issues/copyright | link

Felten on Senate Hearings

Ed Felten writes:

Today I testified at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing. The issue under discussion was whether (or how) the government should require the inclusion of DRM (anti-copying) technology in digital TV equipment. Here is my written testimony. [...]

You would probably be disappointed as well at the quality of the debate. It's not that debate doesn't occur; and it's not that the issues at hand aren't important. But much time is wasted on posturing that is irrelevant to the nominal topic of the hearing and seems designed only to show that one side is purer of heart than the other. An example was the repeated references to porn on P2P networks. This had no connection to the hearing's topic, and nobody even bothered to connect it to the topic. And none of the witnesses had any connection with P2P technology.[...]

Mr. Valenti, characteristically, hit the P2P porn meme the hardest, even, in a surreal moment, inviting the Senators' staffers to go download some porn from Kazaa and see for themselves how vile it is. As a parent, I had to chuckle on hearing the American movie industry complain about the distribution of inappropriate sexual content to kids. But then again the whole room seemed at times to be an irony-free zone.

Ed's testimony is also particularly good.

posted Thu 9 Oct 2003 in /issues/copyright | link

Honour among theives?

jp (not that jp) writes:

Apparently it's okay to be a killer, a mass murderer, a pedophile, a rapist, a bank robber, a drug dealer, a hitman and an arsonist, but it's not OK to share Metallica MP3's over the internet.

posted Thu 7 Aug 2003 in /issues/copyright | link

Snyder: Embrace file-sharing or die

Embrace file-sharing, or die

(more later)

posted Mon 28 Jul 2003 in /issues/copyright | link

Senator Hatch Introduces Bill to Burn People's Eyes Out

From JZip:

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) today introduced legislation authorizing the use of high-powered microwave lasers to burn out the eyes of non-paying viewers of copyrighted material. "If we could develop technology which just burned out the parts of their brains where the illegal memories are stored, that'd be fine with me--but we can burn their eyes out right now!" said Hatch, while introducing the Hatch/Hollywood Eyeball Evisceration Act.

posted Fri 20 Jun 2003 in /issues/copyright | link

Archives 2008: Apr Feb 2007: Jul May Feb Jan 2006: Dec Nov Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun Jan 2005: Sep Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan 2004: Dec Nov Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan 2003: Dec Nov Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun May

Copyright (C) 1999-2007 Martin Pool.