Who will be going to the Linux Symposium (Possibly last in Ottawa for long time).

   I received the following from Andrew, host of the Linux Symposium 
http://www.linuxsymposium.org/ . This year it is in Ottawa from July 
23'rd to 26th.

   I have not submitted to host a Digital Copyright/GOSLING BOF as I did 
in previous years.  In recent years I have paid to go to the conference, 
but have largely met with the same people who live in Ottawa and I could 
meet up with at a local LUG event. I expect that if a Copyright bill is 
tabled this spring or there is an election (both seem likely), then I 
will need to focus my limited resources (volunteer time and money).

   Before the deadline I thought I would put this out to the CLUE and 
Digital Copyright Canada community.  Should I change my mind?  Would 
someone else who is planning on attending like to host a BOF?  Should I 
just talk to Andrew and find out if I can come in for free to the BOF, 
but otherwise not attend the symposium?

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Reminder - Proposals and other Changes
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:47:50 -0600 (CST)

I just wanted to remind everyone that this year we're looking to see 
more variety in the kinds of papers and meetings we plan for the Linux
Symposium.  It is also our 10th Symposium and the last one that will 
take place in Ottawa for some time (they are tearing down and 
re-building the Congress Centre)

There is still 4 more days to submit your proposals.  Please, if you 
would like to see the kinds of topics discussed change, submit a 

Re: Who will be going to the Linux Symposium (Possibly last in Ottawa for long time).

I'll be there. I've registered already.

Re: Disturbing new DRM trend...

A new mysterious computer has popped up in my local library here in
southern Ontario.  It's a Microsoft windows based machine, and its
purpose is supposedly to allow you to download 'free' audiobooks.
Well, they aren't really free of course.  The libraries are spending
hundreds of thousands of dollars to 'purchase' these DRM loaded titles
(limited time/copy/play, etc., etc.), which only work on some players,
and used the dreaded Microsoft DRM formats, etc.

These have shown up in Kitchener, Cambridge, Perth County, and
Waterloo public libraries.  You can also find much more info (and
download some of this DRM junk), if you are so inclined, here:

http://www.downloadlibrary.ca

Comments, anyone? 

Re: Re: Disturbing new DRM trend...

Monty wrote:
> Comments, anyone? 

   Mandating libraries and distance educators use this type of locked 
down and vendor dependent media system was part of Bill C-60.  Of 
course, that depended on who you speak to given most lawyers don't 
understand technology.  Bill C-60 is generally seen as far more 
progressive and less anti-technology than what is expected to be tabled 
by the Conservatives -- assuming we don't see an election first.

   Generally the tech community remains asleep about these issues, with 
the standard phone, cable/satellite and software vendors working to shut 
down any citizen choice or control in software or communications services.

Copyright lobby to IT sector: It’s all your fault! In some cases it is.
http://blogs.itworldcanada.com/insights/2008/01/25/copyright-lobby-to-it-sector-its-all-your-fault-in-some-cases-it-is/

BTW: If you like that article or other BLOG articles there, make a vote 
-- articles that receive votes get promoted more, and thus more people 
will become aware of these issues.

--

-- 
  Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
  Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property
  rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition!
  http://www.digital-copyright.ca/petition/ict/

  "The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware
   manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or
   portable media player from my cold dead hands!"

The Business Coalition for Balanced Copyright : Should CLUE join in?

   I would like us (CLUE) to discuss the possibility of signing onto the 
position paper of "The Business Coalition for Balanced Copyright".

http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2008/02/what-is-balanced-approach-to-copyright.html

Paper is at: 
https://services.google.com/blog_resources/google_bcbc_position_paper.pdf

   It would be helpful if CLUE members/supporters would voice their 
views, and then from this the executive can make a decision.

   I have read the policy.  While I have questions around "Making 
available and distribution rights" which I added to the BLOG, I am 
otherwise in agreement with the statements.

  - Statements about fair dealing, TPMs, and ISP liability are 
consistent with our existing policy statement. 
http://cluecan.ca/policy/copyright

  - We didn't discuss "making available and distribution" in the past, 
but with some clarifications I believe we can sign on.

  - The statement on "private copying" is more consistent with what 
other members of CLUE think of than my own personal views (I'm not 
against compulsory licensing in general. See:

http://blogs.itworldcanada.com/insights/2008/01/28/analysing-when-copyright-levies-a-good-idea-and-when-they-are-a-very-bad-idea/ 
)

Re: The Business Coalition for Balanced Copyright : Should CLUE join in?

On Sun, 2008-17-02 at 09:41 -0500, Russell McOrmond wrote:
> 
>    I would like us (CLUE) to discuss the possibility of signing onto
> the position paper of "The Business Coalition for Balanced
> Copyright". 

For what MHO is worth, when the first point on "fair dealing" 
picks up on the Supreme Courts support for large and liberal 
user rights, I believe they've got themselves pointed in the 
right direction - but they haven't got there yet.

It seems to me that many have yet to fully understood the 
implications of the replication capabilities of personal 
computers and the global nature of the net.

What I mean is that the fragility of digital technology, media 
and data necessitate replication. And any replication capability 
implies sharing on some level - at least in theory. I don't 
think the BCBC realize that if you allow backups and duplication 
that that will permit widespread infringement. 

I believe we have to move beyond notions of infringement
because they are tied to the gramophone business model.
What is emerging is a mixed economic model in which purchases
are linked with 'publicity' downloads which serve to promote
concert ticket sales, and the future sale of CDs.  It's 
not just a purchaser's market - it's also a knowledge market.
Publicity drives sales. We know that the biggest downloaders 
are also the biggest purchasers and that the music and movie
industries are thriving.

Re: The Business Coalition for Balanced Copyright : Should CLUE join in?

Bill wrote:
> What I mean is that the fragility of digital technology, media 
> and data necessitate replication. And any replication capability 
> implies sharing on some level - at least in theory. I don't 
> think the BCBC realize that if you allow backups and duplication 
> that that will permit widespread infringement.

   Do you mean "technologically permit" or "legally permit"?

   Copyright has never before been about what technology is capable of 
doing, only what people are legally allowed to do with that technology. 
  Are you suggesting that the law should look at things differently and 
blame the technologists for producing technology that can be abused by 
its owners to infringe copyright?

> What is emerging is a mixed economic model in which purchases
> are linked with 'publicity' downloads which serve to promote
> concert ticket sales, and the future sale of CDs.  It's 
> not just a purchaser's market - it's also a knowledge market.
> Publicity drives sales. We know that the biggest downloaders 
> are also the biggest purchasers and that the music and movie
> industries are thriving.

   I'm not sure how this relates to copyright other than to suggest that 
there are a wide variety of business models that creators may choose, 
and that the law should support a full spectrum.

> So user rights should include both limited replication and 
> distribution rights for purchased content. The distinction 
> between personal and illegal sharing should be one of degree.

Re: The Business Coalition for Balanced Copyright : Should CLUE join in?

On Mon, 2008-18-02 at 10:30 -0500, Russell McOrmond wrote:
> Bill wrote:
> > What I mean is that the fragility of digital technology, media 
> > and data necessitate replication. And any replication capability 
> > implies sharing on some level - at least in theory. I don't 
> > think the BCBC realize that if you allow backups and duplication 
> > that that will permit widespread infringement.
> 
>    Do you mean "technologically permit" or "legally permit"?
> 
>    Copyright has never before been about what technology is capable of 
> doing, only what people are legally allowed to do with that technology. 
>   Are you suggesting that the law should look at things differently and 
> blame the technologists for producing technology that can be abused by 
> its owners to infringe copyright?

Russell,  I suggest that you seem to be painting yourself into 
a corner of a room with walls of precedent. Looking backwards 
won't solve the copyright problem. Looking forward might but we 
have to step outside the box of precedent.

The aggressive DRM agenda in the US is pushing to control and 
regulate the design manufacture, sale and use of hardware, 
software, networks, broadcasts and so on. So 
in their eyes it's one and the same thing. What will be 
technologically possible and required will be up to the 
regulators - if they are so empowered. Weak or strong 
anti-circumvention is only the thin edge of the wedge.

I don't blame technologists for current technology. I thank them.

Re: The Business Coalition for Balanced Copyright : Should CLUE join in?

Russell McOrmond a écrit :
> 
>   I would like us (CLUE) to discuss the possibility of signing onto the
> position paper of "The Business Coalition for Balanced Copyright".
> 
> http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2008/02/what-is-balanced-approach-to-copyright.html
> 
> 
> Paper is at:
> https://services.google.com/blog_resources/google_bcbc_position_paper.pdf
> 
> 
>   It would be helpful if CLUE members/supporters would voice their
> views, and then from this the executive can make a decision.

I have read it, and I am in full agreement with the paper.  I think it
present a clear, easily identifiable set of core principles around which
the copyright reform should be articulated.  CLUE standing behind it get
the thumbs-up from me.

--

-- 
Etienne Goyer                         0x3106BCC2

Stop patent trolls     -     Boycott Trend Micro
http://www.scriptumlibre.org/Boycott_Trend_Micro

_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list

Further discussion

Hi,

Continuing the discussion further, I have severe reservations
about the way in which anti-circumvention will be implemented
under the BCBC proposal. Compare the quote below against the
Betamax decison. It comes up short, because it targets 
manufacturers, effectively giving the entertainment industry
control and regulation over the development of hardware and 
software. As a voice for linux, open and free software, 
we should advocate for guarantees concerning reverse 
engineering and the manufacture and distribution of 'products' 
that have legitimate uses even if those products are used
occasionally for infringement purposes as VCRs have been for
decades. Anything else is a sacrifice. I don't think the 
exerpt below is strong enough.

	b.

>snip<
• Technological Protection Measures (TPMs): Rules against the
circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by
rights owners in connection  with the exercise of their rights must not
prohibit Canadians from engaging in non-infringing activities. Rules
prohibiting circumvention of TPMs for copyright infringing purposes
should, if at all, only target persons who manufacture or traffic in
services or devices whose primary purpose is to permit circumvention on
a commercial scale or to the material prejudice of rights holders.
Sufficient limitations and exceptions to such anti-circumvention rules
must be ensured so as not to impede fair dealing, ongoing innovation and
research in Canada. We otherwise risk harming emerging Canadian