DefectiveByDesign.org is mounting a day of action against Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and digital restrictions management (“DRM” framed from the point of the user) when Disney releases their new movie:

On Monday, Gonzales called on Congress to enact a sweeping new bill entitled the “Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2007” (IPPA) that would amongst other things:

• Increase penalties for circumventing a DRM scheme
• Criminalize “attempting” to infringe copyright
• Permit more wiretaps for investigating copyright violations
• Add penalties for “intended” copyright crimes

This proposed legislation is a result of Hollywood’s lobbying, serving their special interests at the expense of the public good. As we have seen, thanks to the recent events like the Digg revolt, the public have turned against DRM. The illegal hex code that can be used to remove the DRM from HD-DVD can now be found on over a million web pages.

This is Hollywood’s attempt to scare us all into accepting DRM. Now is the time to take action!

On Friday May 25th, around the world, Disney will release “Pirates of the Caribbean – At World’s End”, a movie about a diverse community coming together to fight the far reaching and oppressive East India Trading Company to preserve their freedom loving lifestyle (sound kind of familiar?)

If you’d like to get a yellow hazard suit to protest at your local theater, Defective by Design can help.

Seventy MPs have now signed an Early Day Motion calling for retrospective extension to the term of copyright. Despite much evidence to the contrary and a study which concludes that “The European Commission should retain the length of protection on sound recordings and performers’ rights at 50 years.” and the ruckus raised the last time the term of copyright was at issue (remember the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act in the US and the related US Supreme Court case Eldred v Ashcroft?), it looks like copyright term extension is going again.

Longer terms of copyright around the world are used as excuses for American copyright extensions—harmonization is the word used for this scam. It’s a scam in two respects: it’s never “harmonized” to exactly the same length and copyright term is always “harmonized” upwardly. So Americans have even more reason to help keep their friends and family from a worse copyright regime.

The Open Rights Group has more details including the 70 MPs that signed on to support copyright term extension and a pointer to a great talk and panel discussion on the topic (local copies of the Jonathan Zittrain talk and the debate that followed). I particularly enjoyed the analysis in the discussion period. I’ll see about converting the video to Ogg Vorbis+Theora.

I’m not convinced that any of the large publishers want to stop unauthorized copying, really. I think digital restrictions management (a far more honest expansion for DRM as it focuses on the effect for the largest group of people–the users) is merely the latest means to an end: getting more power and money from those who believe large publishers want to stop unauthorized copying.

Consider this from the venture capitalist’s perspective: if any of them are foolish enough to believe that DRM could work (if only it were implemented in the correct way), foolish enough to believe that a computer can discern intent (and thus distinguish between a copy made for an approved purpose versus a copy made for any other purpose), there’s a business willing to take that money and build a shoddy DRM system.

Congress has been quite willing to give copyright holders more power on the logic that they must do something to stop unauthorized copying; even at the expense of free speech, interoperation, and competition (see the Digital Millennium Copyright Act).

The large publishers are doing the majority of the talking when it comes to lobbying Congress for increased monopoly power.  Even if you’re a copyright holder sympathetic to the concerns about unauthorized copying, should you let them speak for you?

FreePress.net claims that “[o]nline music is in danger”:

Online music is in danger. A recent ruling by an obscure regulatory board threatens to put independent and public radio on the Internet out of business.

The “Copyright Royalty Board” is dramatically increasing the royalties “webcasters” must pay every time they stream a song online. Public Internet radio like NPR is especially at risk.

The rules could shut down nonprofit and smaller commercial Internet radio outlets and force larger webcasters to play the same cookie-cutter music as Clear Channel. So much for new online alternatives.

No, online music is not in danger. FreePress.net is talking about music from members of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), a lobbyist organization for corporate record labels. It might become more difficult to webcast tracks published by RIAA members due to a new fee schedule. But there are plenty of artists licensing their music to share. It’s time to work with those artists and send a clear message to the major label artists that they need us more than we need them.

More importantly there’s the question of (even indirectly) doing business with the RIAA””why lobby to play those tracks when the RIAA treats the public so badly? Answering this question can easily bring one to conclude that it’s not ethically justifiable to do business with the RIAA.

Continue reading →

Some notes on what I saw during the recent SEIU health care forum held at UNLV which was rebroadcast on C-SPAN:

• The host claimed that Sen. John Edwards‘ health care plan is the only one that features details on how it will be paid for. This is not true. HR 676 has been around for a few years and has plans to raise taxes and cut the military budget to pay for universal health care. She also repeatedly complimented Edwards on how he said he would raise taxes to help pay for his health care plan.
• Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton‘s health care plan details are non-existent (Obama promises something in the next couple months). They also don’t define universal health care in terms of the government providing health care for all Americans; both Senators keep the HMOs intact by offering something that merely adds another choice alongside extant private coverage plans (Obama made reference to extant insurers not getting all the upfront money the government would likely put into a national health care plan, Clinton wants to force insurance companies to insure everyone with no exclusions for pre-existing conditions). Clinton wants employer-based health care as well—she wants employers to provide insurance to the workers or pay into a pool which will help pay for insurance. Either Senator could end up simply requiring Americans to acquire health care for themselves like how Illinois drivers must get car insurance in order to legally drive their car. This is not at all what Americans think of when they think of universal health care. It was good to see a tough question for Obama coming from an audience member; her question highlighted how little Obama had to offer a health care forum. I see I’m not the first to understand that their appearances benefited the event more than it benefited the public. The corporate media has already narrowed the race to these two candidates and their appearances gave this event a better chance of being covered in mainstream media.
• Sen. Chris Dodd spent his time talking about things other than the particulars his health care plan. Accordingly, there’s not much to say about his plan because judging by what he brought to this forum, it doesn’t seem to exist. He wants Americans to have a health care program as good as the one he has, but disturbingly he didn’t say he’d extend the extant Congressional plan to all Americans. When asked by an audience member, Gov. Bill Richardson said he’d extend the Congressional plan he enjoys.
• Rep. Dennis Kucinich‘s plan will make it illegal to compete with the national plan. H.R. 676 is a single-payer system you can find online. A related story from the Corporate Crime Reporter addresses why a mix of public/private health care won’t work. I said it years ago when the bill was first introduced and it’s still true today: H.R. 676 continues to be the plan to beat.
• Sen. Mike Gravel said “employer-based plans are a non-starter” and criticized all the Democrats except Kucinich for not challenging the status quo. He endorsed a single-payer voucher plan. Vouchers are annually issued to Americans and the user pays a co-pay and a deductible. If you want more than what your voucher covers, you pay for it. You’ll have a choice of doctors, hospitals, and 5 or 6 insurance plans in the voucher system. You “might see a public plan if we don’t see the medical and pharmaceutical plans shaping up”. The size of the voucher will be the cost of your medical bill in the previous year. There are no pre-existing condition exclusions. Preventative care will come from the bully pulpit of the President somehow. He wants to phase out Medicare/Medicaid over time. Funding for his plan was unstated; he started to mention it but then didn’t.
• Public and private health care plans covering the same thing means the rich healthy people will buy the health insurance they like and the poor will get the government plan which will suffer a “death spiral” according to Kucinich.
• Health care tied to employers means you lose your health care when you lose your job. Some jobs won’t come with health care at all and the government will not be incentivized to help those with multiple part-time jobs.

Overall, given how many of the Democrats simply brought nothing to discuss, it was a very cynical event. Obama, Clinton, and Dodd treated the audience badly by not having a detailed plan to go over. Edwards’ and Gravel’s plans keep private insurance intact and for that reason alone neither plan will serve the public well. Kucinich brought something specific to look at and direct your representatives to endorse. On the merits of the issue, he took the event.