Hate site troll Edit

Twice an anonymous user in IP (see the history of the main page) has attempted to add a link to a hate site.

Common GroundEdit

We have to find some common ground here. This article has been reverted or had additions deleted far too many times with no reasons given. This article needs to be added-to, and reverting every change isn't helping anything.

  • On problem is that Digital Rights Ireland and Online Rights Canada keep switching sides. I'm not familiar with either organization, and I don't know if they're really sneaky about their true intentions, but I have visited both sites and they seem to clearly be on the consumer rights side of the issue. If this is not the case, please mention it here so the matter can be settled.
  • The titles of the two groups, aside from getting increasingly and exceedingly long, keep changing positions to reflect the last editor's bias. This needs to stop. I suggest putting the creators-rights side first, as these organizations are larger and fewer.
  • The last section, which I tried to change from "DMCA" to "Related Laws and Bills" (subsequently divided by nation) keeps getting reverted. This needs to stop, because the DMCA is not the only applicable piece of legislation.

--Whosawhatsis 21:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added some more to the above links there are stacks more sites out there. Go to a blog site and search for DMCA and youll get pages of people blogging on the implications. --Lucychili 16:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I separated out the links you added. This section is really a discussion of the revert war that caused this article to be locked, not about stuff to add (these links are in the current revision). Most/all of your links would be a good addition, but many of them don't fit the "organizations..." section, and should instead be in a "see also" section or similar. --Whosawhatsis 00:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop linkspam pages and spread propaganda, you idiot. 03:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

We are, and you're the one doing it. We're just doing what you say, Mr Jews Did Wtc. --Splarka (talk) 03:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
LOL, who's we? You are the one censoring URLs like deleting links to without any discussion.
"Stop linkspam pages and spread propaganda", and that is exactly what you said to do, to stop linkspam and propaganda, which jewsdidwtc is, silly goose. --Splarka (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Yet, you didn't remove the linkspam here, fool. 03:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
moved the links into the article Lucychili 14:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I propose the routine deletion of comments (a) not attempting to establish any connection to the topic, or (b) designed to initiate or continue arguments of an off-topic nature.
  • The 'Digital Rights' article needs a structural and conceptual revamp. Starting with "1. Organizations Working to Protect Digital Rights" is already a compromise of NPOV. The title posits intent without reference or discussion. I submit to the reading community that it is likely to serve as flamebait to all sides.
My apologies for that characterisation. There is a fundamental semantic split here. The term 'Digital Rights' is one used by campaign groups in the sense of 'Human Rights' or 'the Rights of Man'. It is necessarily a loaded term, but one used deliberately by groups such as Digital Rights Ireland and Open Rights Group. The publishers lobbyists use 'Rights' in the sense of 'Property Rights' to try to treat non-rivalrous freely replicable digital goods as physical property - 'Digital Rights Management' is a a manifestation of this. I would suggest the following:
  • Create a separate Digital Rights Management page and put the RIAA et al there
  • put a brief neutral disambiguation para at the top of both pages.
  • remove the highly loaded term 'Consumer' from this page
  • ban the trolls who are masking their attempts to insert the anti-semitic conspiracy site into this page by masking it within edit wars. KevinMarks 06:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

DRM and Content DistributersEdit

The problem with the page here is that the division of proconsumer procreator is not an accurate representation of the issue especially with regard to the international treaties and with regard to DRM and DMCA. Many of the groups interested in reform are interested in reform for consumers and creators and to redress the imbalance of publishers who are demanding exclusive rights at the expense of both groups. Happy to provide examples, I have some at

Generally the major publishing firms are using the creators as a meat shield for their own benefits. The changes lock artists out of their own content. DMCA is basically protecting the packaging at the expense of protecting the content. There is extensive legal thuggery attached, to the extent that nations may not trade with the US un til they agree to adopt this law. DMCA is standing between the creator and the consumer. Creators are able to look at different business models in order to distribute their work. The publishing companies are changing the laws to restrict peer to peer communications so that they retain control not only over distribution of media but over how you use it after you buy it. It also enables the publishers to restrict your future purchases and the technologies which are permitted to be developed or run on an existing product. Drahos describes it as Information Feudalism.

The primary impact of this in terms of the way it is being used in US courts is for copyright holders to sue their competitors, for developing technologies which interact or compete with their own, and to sue academic researchers who criticise poor security in products. Technology projects are losing developers because the DMCA threatens to make them liable if someone uses a technology they developed for a bad purpose. The technology can only be seen as a good one if it already has a mass commercial value, prejudicing against new businesses in the sector and against independent inventors. There is also concern that because there is no recognition of community value as distinct from dollar value, open source projects are being specifically excluded from protection.

Because Technological protection measures stand between the user and the content and the license on that work could vary it is difficult for the user to anticipate what kinds of uses will be considered a fair use. ie there is no way to have Fair Use of media with a TPM preempting that you are either a customer or a criminal. It is hard to negotiate with a technological lock, to explain to it that you are a student, or a researcher, or that you paid for this media but have reinstalled your computer so it might not recognise you now.

TPM means that you cant look at the software you install. Two recent cases are Microsoft installing a phone home licence checker with their update and also threatening to turn off older licenced versions of their software if people did not upgrade(later postponed), and Sony who installed a rootkit on people's computers as part of their after sales interest in consumers. Because TPM protect the software from the owner of the computer that means that the ownership and control of your electronic devices has shifted. You are now effectively leasing permission to use the computer from the companies who have copyright on the hardware, software, drivers, media, etc.

Connection between computers running different operating systems is at risk as developing technologies which interface with a DRM TPM product is something you need to have permission to do from the copyright holders - your competitors. This will result in less choice, less effective networking and monopoly.

The media rights are not the only areas affected by this kind of IP hijacking. Patent laws which are blocking things like generic AIDs drug manufacture in India at a price which can be afforded by those who most need them in Africa. --Lucychili 16:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I made a separate sections on this because it was a bit confusing thrown in with the conversation about revert disputes. I'm not sure that the above, as written, is NPOV enough for the main article, but there are certainly valid points in it that deserve mention. We should definitely work on refining it to fit into the article. --Whosawhatsis 22:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I certainly feel that the current article is not NPOV and provides an inaccurate and biased impression. I know that I am strong in my feelings on this issue. Is there someone interested enough in the issue to follow the links and check that I am correct? Who could I ask to comment that would be seen as credible on the issue?

Why dont we use the current article as the POV of the DMCA lobby, which it basically is, and you can use (cut down if you like) mine as the beginning of the reform lobby? This wiki if its going to deal with any issue content will need to be able to represent a range if ideas.

For example there are very different perspectives among the groups who are pro reform.

  • proconsumer & creator A2K uses this model and looks to have a fair sharing of access and creator rights.
  • open source groups aiming for restriction of circumvention to copyright infringing activities, and to have protection for a range of business models.
  • academics who want to be able to research and comment without threat of litigation
  • components manufacturers who want to be able to develop for a range of systems and not be locked into specific partnerships.
  • makers inventors recyclers who will be using hardware to make new things which were not anticipated by the original manufacturer.
  • webcasters who are concerned that traditional broadcasters are aiming to have themselves considered as a special kind of boradcaster and provided rights at the expense of creators and other business models.
  • democracy advocates concerned about software providers who want to blackbox their systems effectively avoiding transparency regarding the accuracy of their products.
  • pirate parties which are representing strictly a consumer perspective as they see that the system is so broken that non compliance and non recognition of the broken system is the only way to change it.

The IP laws being progressed through international treaties are primarily backed by large business groups who have pre-internet business models and wish to restrict the function of the internet to broadcast models, and to ban peer to peer kinds of projects. Wikis are not the only peer to peer creator/consumer model which has a lot to offer. Creative commons and music collaboration have a lot to gain from peer to peer sharing. Open source is largely peer to peer. Patents on medicines are another system of laws which are using this kind of compulsory USFTA and similar treaty process to gain traction around the world despite being counter to the community and business interests of smaller nations. Lucychili 02:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I contributed most of the non-linked text in this article (of which there isn't much) and while I don't think that it came out biased, I agree with you on the matter and it's possible that I overcompensated a bit in my attempt to use NPOV.
It's true that DRM is primarily the work of content distribution dinosaurs desperately trying to prop up a dying system, and I tried to lay the groundwork for discussion of that with "digital rights of the creators and distributers of that content". The problem is, its difficult to approach this without it sounding like a petty and logically fallacious argument that the fact that piracy hurts big, faceless record labels almost exclusively, rather than hurting the artists as they would have you believe, makes piracy OK, which certainly isn't NPOV. That's why I avoided going into more detail until I could come up with the right wording. Besides, if it is listed as an argument against DRM, it will be hard to come up with any pro-DRM arguments, other than "Record labels are greedy." ... It's really difficult to cast those guys in a neutral light, much less a positive one. --Whosawhatsis 04:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Understood but I dont see why reformers have to be described as only pro consumer in order to make the record companies look good. It makes a balanced debate but isnt an accurate representation of the state of play. there are more than two perspectives in this debate and control of soundfiles is not the only impact. Lucychili 06:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree, but it has to be said in a way that's entirely factual and backed-up so that the RIAA propaganda machine can't cry foul. --whosawhatsis? 06:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

OK so if we start with the act and say this is the current law. People are looking for reform for a range of reasons and functions. Here are some of the perspectives and break the reform perspectives into different sections. Some are quite radical, some have a consumer&creator balance, some have niche concerns. If you like you can post my stuff as strictly a POV starter statement and invite people to critique and comment on it. Where is there room in the current structure for people to report on their new business models which enable them to be succesful online authors without DRM or TPM? Thanks for looking at this stuff. Lucychili 06:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Heh, you think piracy organizations don't use consumers as meat shields? The fact is, piracy does not hurt big companies like Microsoft, only small independent companies, unlike what RIAA wants you to believe. A business model without DRM is simple, store everything on a secure main central server, like with MMORPGs, you have to pay monthly fee to access the main central server, and you can't download stuff from the central server onto your own computer. and yes, it means even more restrictions on consumers. yes, DRM is probably dead, but hey, welcome to a much more dangerous world, ha ha ha ha Molester 07:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Its just not the kind of behaviour you expect legal business and government to be into. If a MMORPG online game does not limit your choices regarding what other games you play then it is still a step forward from DRM. How about authors using creative commons and sharing some stories, using advertising on those sites to sell other stories in paperback as per Cory Doctorow. Lucychili 08:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

oh ya, just what the world needs, more ads. 05:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Digital rightsEdit

As a broad topic digital rights divide into

  • rights to access/use, and
  • rights to own/control technologies, ideas or information.

From the ownership perspective protective digital rights have been traditionally a way to give one person or group a headstart on specific information as a result of their previous loyalty, investment or innovation. They usually exist as special cases and work in conjunction with a default system of access rights or rules about what people usually can expect to do with technologies, ideas and information.

Recently there has been a shift in this system which puts much more emphasis on the creator and content distributor side of the balance. Where previously copyright protections were a special consideration or exception to generic access rights, now we are requesting generic access rights as exemptions to copyright. This is a reaction to the internet which enables people to share information freely. The DMCA lobby have successfully lobbied to have their perspective on digital rights implemented around the world as a prerequisite of trade negotiations with the United States.

As a result there is a response from other parties to try and regain consideration, control and access to information. The internet also changes the landscape of information managment from the perspective of those who aim to create and distribute it. Publishers and distributors have far more access to the buyer's personal equipment and conversations which then has extensive implications for basic rights with information. For example there are moves from broadcasting groups to define the broadcasting process as a process which claims rights for the broadcaster at the expense of the artists webcasting or sharing their work online.

Many groups are concerned about the current legal situation and are talking about these issues.

  • Some groups are working on developing alternative models which look at the needs of creators and consumers in an internet enabled world.
  • Some groups are looking to negotiate with the existing digital rights laws to establish exemptions for fair use and fair dealing.
  • Libraries have specific needs and are lobbying for those.
  • Universities have specific needs as researchers who need to be able to report freely and are lobbying for those.
  • Some groups are reacting directly to the existing system by argue that the system is not valid in their eyes.

Artists, musicians, authors and scientists and people who create with information have not traditionally had a strong voice in these negotiations as their rights were often expected to be represented by the distributing organisations. The internet provides an opportunity for these groups to find ways which they can directly manage and license their work.

So basically there are opportunities which have emerged as a result of the internet. Some parties are aiming to establish right of way with those opportunities. People around the world who have not traditionally needed to lobby to have fair use and fair dealing rights to access information are at a disadvantage because the groups which have access to the international treaty process have been investing heavily in progressing their perspective.

Internet enabled communications methods such as blogging have enabled people around the world to see each other and to discuss the concerns openly. The challenge for these groups is to translate that online perspective into effective voices at the treaty table. It has been suggested that this will take a mass recognition of the issue around the world by people, and pressure through electoral and government lobbying processes. Given that many of the people in this internet community are the people who do innovate and create and manage information there may be ways to effect change more directly. The challenge is to gain enough support to be recognised as an important voice at the treaty table.

Eben Moglen has contributed greatly to debates on these issues:

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.