Appendix: Declaration on DRM
From the 2006 draft.
Short form:
1.The use of digital technology is changing the production, distribution, and use of content Not only can users access and copy content, they can also manipulate works to create entirely new products. Creators can bypass traditional intermediaries and have direct contact with the public.
2. At the same time, in the digital environment it is easier to control access to content. Encryption methods and other similar techniques are used to block access or to monitor the use that a person makes of such content.
3.We oppose technological and other measures that restrict access to knowledge goods, harm creators, libraries, educational institutions, archives and persons with disabilities, and undermine privacy and freedom. Such measures should not be granted legal protection.
4.We support measures that provide essential information about creative goods and allow the creator to be identified, provided any data produced is not linked to individual consumer purchases/access.
5.We consider that current redress systems for consumers are inadequate and that new approaches are needed which are quick and easy to use, with meaningful sanctions for wrongdoing.
Long form:
1.The use of digital technology is changing the production, distribution, and use of content Not only can users access and copy content, they can also manipulate works to create entirely new products. Creators can bypass traditional intermediaries and have direct contact with the public.
2.At the same time, in the digital environment it is easier to control access to content. Encryption methods and other similar techniques are used to block access or to monitor the use that a person makes of such content In the digital enviroment Rights Management Information (RMI) ( definition: need one e.g but ask Nick! which identifies the artist and can be used to track usage and Technical Protection Measures (TPM) ( e.g which act as locks and can block copying or usage on non authourised equipment are used b intermediaries to unreasonably restrict legitimate use by the public without the consent or involvement of the creators or the public on the contrary, usually over the strong objections of both.
3.There is a clear failure of the marketplace to provide implementations of these technologies that are constructive, interoperable, reasonable, and equitable. For example [ RMI can be used constructively , by helping the development of systems to equitably remunerate creators and rights-holders based upon actual uses of cultural goods in the digital environment,provided such usage data is not used to tracj individual s usage. Despite repeated calls for a rethink of the current uses of these technologies by the consumer movement, creators themselves, and even independent phonogram producers, the abuse of these technologies continues Creators and Consumers agree on the following principles and believe that they should be given the force of law in any part of the world where RMI and TPMs are themselves the subject of legal protection:
4.RMI should only be given legal protection only if:
5.The RMI is used to provide information, not as the basis for a TPM, is accurate, and anonymous (?) only receive the privilege of legal protection if they cannot:
a.Prohibit, or limit, access and/or use which is lawful with respect to the works and/or performances being protected,
b.Prohibit, or limit, access and uses which would be possible and/or permitted when the same materials are acquired in physical form,
c.Be deployed without the active, informed consent of the creators and relevant rights-holders, or without successfully passing through the testing process referenced below;
d.Fail to work (interoperate) on all devices and/or platforms like personal computers, mobile communications devices, and consumer electronics which might reasonably be used by the public. In particular, interoperability must not:
i.prevent the author/artist from making works or performances available under any licence terms he or she wishes;
ii.Restrict the freedom of software developers to disclose and licence under any terms whatever the source code which helps achieve interoperability;]}
iii.Fail to comply with data protection rules or privacy rights generally,e.Prevent access and use, or make access and use difficult, to anything that is in the public domain
6.The extent and nature of any limitations these technologies may impose on the user should be clearly visible on any product or service so that the members of the public may make informed choices;
7.We believe that an essential component of giving legal effect to the above is the following:
8.A regulatory regime that requires advance registration, and testing of new TPMs by an independent agency to ensure that they comply with the rules governing their use as outlined above, both when released and at any further time. No TPM which fails to pass through the testing regime should be used in the marketplace; [(Keep in brackets do not like this idea but others might), successfully passing the tests should allow the vendor of the TPM to display a mark that makes clear that the TPM has been approved and certified, giving the public, and the creative community, confidence that the TPM is both within the law and follows the rules]
9.As a safeguard there should be in addition be a legal right to remove a TPM or circumvent it if it breaches the above principles,
10.The public and the creative individual or community must have access to quick, cheap and transparent redress systems to use against the vendors and/or suppliers of TPMs.,e to remedy any breaches of the above principles. Such systems must also have the power to impose sanctions that are sufficient to form a deterrent to future infringements.
