more on "DRM"

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Seth Johnson <seth.johnson () RealMeasures dyndns org>
Date: June 16, 2005 10:43:15 AM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] more on "DRM"



Hello David,

Simon's phrasing "Constitutionally protected Rights" encapsulates
his deception.  There's nothing in the Constitution that
"protects" the rights granted under the exclusive rights clause
in the sense people usually think of rights protected by a
Constitution.  The part of the clause he leaves out is "The
Congress shall have Power . . . " -- which demonstrates that the
Rights in question are statutory, not the fundamental rights one
might think he's presenting language in support of.

We settled this question with our first major Supreme Court
copyright case, Wheaton v. Peters.  The fact that it's up to
Congress to devise what exclusive rights policy will best promote
the progress of science and the useful arts, is a bubble many
"DRM" proponents would like to burst.

The term "DRM" works the same sort of deception.


Seth Johnson



David Farber wrote:

> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Simon Higgs <simon () higgs com>
> Date: June 15, 2005 4:17:47 PM EDT
> To: dave () farber net
> Cc: mradin () stanford edu
> Subject: Fwd: [IP] "DRM"
>
> Peggy,
>
> Sorry to burst a bubble, but the word "Right" has a specific meaning.
> There would be no Creative Commons without the word "Right" being
> etched in this old piece of parchment:
>
> THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
> Article 1.
> Section. 8.
> Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by
> securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive
> Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
> http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
>
> On the other hand, Technological Protection Measures are what
> exactly? Firewalls? Fuses? Overload shutdown circuits? Electronic
> prophylactics? Helicopters? Guns? TPM has almost zero meaning outside
> the narrow world of WIPO for the average person. But even the average
> person *KNOWS* there are Constitutionally protected Rights and they
> understand the concept of managing those rights even if they spend
> all their time trying to circumvent them.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Simon Higgs
>
>
> > From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
> > Subject: [IP] "DRM"
> > Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 11:00:50 -0400
> >
> >
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > From: Margaret Jane Radin <mradin () stanford edu>
> > Date: June 15, 2005 7:57:09 AM EDT
> > To: dave () farber net
> > Subject: "DRM"
> >
> >
> > I wish people would drop the term "DRM."  It was coined by those who
> > wish to claim as "rights" some things which are not actually their
> > rights, or are at best contested.  In other words, the "R" in the
> > term "DRM" begs an important legal question.  I wish people would
> > instead use the term "TPM" (Technological Protection Measures)
> > because at least it is neutral on whether or not those who deploy
> > them have a "right" to do what they're doing in locking up
> > information.  And TPM happens to be the term used in the WIPO
> > treaties, too.
> >
> > BTW, I don't like to read on the list advertisements for people's
> > forthcoming articles.  To me that is spam.  There are plenty of
> > sources that inform us what is in the literature.
> >
> > Peggy Radin

--

[CC] Counter-copyright: http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc

I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or
distribution of this incidentally recorded communication.
Original authorship should be attributed reasonably, but only so
far as such an expectation might hold for usual practice in
ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of
exclusive rights.




-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/