ManyMedia

Here’s one from the “it doesn’t really say” department:

George Hotelling wants to know. In a move that could spark a novel legal test of Internet music resale rights, the Web developer in Ann Arbor, Mich., on Tuesday night put a digital song he purchased online at Apple Computer’s iTunes Music Store up for auction on eBay.

Hotelling said he isn’t all that concerned about getting his money back for the Devin Vasquez remake of Frankie Smith’s song ‘Double Dutch Bus,’ which cost him 99 cents. Instead, he said he’s using the attempted sale to probe some thorny consumer issues stemming from commercial online music services, in particular, technology known as digital rights management that’s used to prevent unauthorized copying. In that spirit, he’s promised to donate anything above his purchase price to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), an activist Internet legal group.”

The effort has apparently resonated with online music aficionados, many of whom have expressed anger at copyright controls used by licensed Internet music services, including iTunes. With the auction set to end Sept. 9, the price on the song had gone up to $15,099 as of Wednesday evening.

Now the question is, how long will it take Apple (et al.) before they add a paragraph prohibiting resale?

Content, Policy auction, controls, copyright, DRM, EFF, Internet, iTunes, management, music, purchase, resale, rights

Mark Levine, Lawrence Berkeley Nat’l Lab: five topics: slowness of change of energy, vital underpinning of the economy, energy as a polluter, 50-100 years, developing world is critical to addressing climate change issues. Way to move forward. Energy tech in this context.

slowness: wood to coal in a century, coal to gas 1/2 century, to nukes (not) after 50 years. On consumer side, could be faster evolution but isn’t. Takes policy, utilty programs. Great capital investments.

Current US economy would not be possible w/out thriving energy systems. 1/3 of the world living on $1-2/day, don’t have modern energy, spend time collecting wastes & wood to support subsistence living. Moral imperative to being modern energy to developing world.

Dark side: local pollution (85% sulphur emissions, 40% lead, from energy), but industrialized contries have demonstrated ability to control pollution, potential to do better. No advantage to develop advanced control tech unless regulatory envt supports it. Haven’t seen this in developing countries, collapse of Soviet Union showed wreckage of environment. Smoke inhalation (1/3 of world uses non-commercial biomass) = 1/5M deaths/year (mostly housewives). Drinking water can be purified kill 2.5-3M children/year. (DI says this is an underestimate.)

Less sanguine about climate change: Intergovernmental … on climate change. .6 degrees climate temp increase, measurable impacts: snowcover redux by 10%, 40% in summer arctic sea ice decrease, precipitation. Global climate models: lower end of sensitivity: 1.5 degrees C, upper limit 4.5 degrees C; about a century’s worth of change. Implications is high uncertainty: if you believe in lower level, we cold double energy use over next 50 years then return to today’s level over next 50 years. At higher level, immediately reduce energy use, linearly reduce to zero over next 50 years. Pernicious policy problem: long term, no impact tomorrow, long term phenomenon, potential grave impacts, grave uncertainty as to when/how to act.

Most growth wil be in developing world. Driving forces: lowest increase in demand (50 years) was 80%, highest case over 100% in energy demand thought to span likely futures. Developing countries don’t have wherewithall to address the problems. Solutions: private $25B, could cut emissions in half, but infrastructure doesn’t exist, no trained people or policy or manufacturing to prmote efficiency. Most countries (carbon emissions) grow faster than econ development. china grows by 9%/year.

Energy technology & efficiency: US 35% growth in GDP, 0 in energy. Now partial decoupling, possible but unlikely to keep energy at 0 cost as policy barrier. Wind 30%/year, no storage. Photovoltaics, other technologies limited, will need more dramatic breakthroughs.

Recommends: pay attention to developing countries, and to R&D.

Events, Policy China, controls, economy, energy, investments, natural resources, pollution, R&D, research and development

Impacts of DRMs on flows of information

• David Wagner, Computer Science, UC Berkeley (moderator)
• Hal Abelson, MIT
• Edward Felten, Computer Science, Princeton University
• Joe Liu, Boston College Law School (paper on DMCA and research)
• Larry Lessig, Stanford Law School (paper on Creative Commons)
• John Erickson, Hewlett Packard

Hal: background: statute of Anne (big picture in background). Speaking to policy makers: watch out. You’re sounded by two dangerous delusional communities: making things better by making things more precise. Public good: legal code overwrites & fuzzifies that, IT standards overlays and fuzzifies, implementations (computer guys) on top. This is how the world is, and it’s ok. But now: mattress tag: DO NOT REMOVE UNDER PENALTY OF LAW. Policymakers: key legal principle is NOT fair use, it’s de minimus non curat lex: Do not succumb to illusion that the public good is best served by forcing the strict alignment of practices with policy. Scientific publishing: the basic deal as seen by the universities: scientist authors give to journal publishers, publishers own w/ all rights, allow scientists to retain some limited rights. ACM: I give to ACM, they allow me to post for my personal use on my web site. Elsevier: gives right to present author’s work at a conference. Chemists: can post title, abstract… NEJMed – woah! Why? helps maintain the integrity of pub process. (haha) Rights go to responsible parties that exert monopoly control because they own the infrastructure. What about indexing, extraction, other innovations in info use. Internet’s access, tools stillborn by limited access to quality sources? or stimulate network effects that lead to further concentration and monopolization of the scientific literature? DRM may exacerbate both. Legally sanctioned publishing monopolies that exert control by dominating the publishing infrastructure? and firmly entrenched by DRM tech and the law? (Implementations.)

John Erickson, HP: Policies: not code, not law? Policies are code, but increasingly not built in (good), useful where system must make choice. DRM is policy enforcement (one choice). Trusted systems on “trusted computing bases”, ideal for enforcing DRM. Good parts: may be declaratively expressed, studied, accessed, tailored to context; potential for policy creation. Nasty bits: limits by expressive language, choices by policy makers, implementations and systems subcomponents. Policy as private law: arbitrary controls w/ no constraints, do not factor in fuzzy attributes like locality or user intent, escapes for human intervention must be factored into policy and system design. People in or out of the loop. Constraining info flow: includes discovery, retrieval, use/reuse, dissemination, derivative works; constrained by opacity, policies, monitored access, etc. Encouraged by transparency and metadata, accessibility (policies, constraints, formats). Closed info spaces: built-in policies and control use (don’t work with certain browsers), proprietary formats, etc. How to challenge the code? (write and use policies in humanistic way?)

Joseph Liu: DMCA and regulation of scientific research paper. DMCA enacted 1998, liabilities for circumvention and distribution; controversial. How does this affect academic encryption researchers? should be largely untouched, everyone agrees. Exemption 1201(g) for good faith research was later developed, cases include Ed Felten, but claim was that fears were overblown. Impacts on research: “academic encryption researchers should be able to conduct some resarch w/out fear of liability under DMCA” and “DMCA will have non-trivial impact on conditions under which such research takes place.” Limits who can conduct research, imposes hurdles before research (must seek permission), limits free communication about results, avenues for publishing, requires notice and disclosure of results, affects content of published work (esp actual code, structure of exemption allows for changes via regulation mechanisms). Evaluating the impact: regulating (not infringing activities, devices) non-infringing activities and research. DMCA is not sufficiently careful about its impacts (overbroad).

Ed Felten: DRM has negative impact not only on tech and research, but also on debate. Device must be a black box that users can’t examine. Combination of tech and law makes the box black. Tech & public policy: important pp questions depend on understanding technology (especially true now for DRM), bans on understanding tech cripples debate. TIA program: PP, FBI + CIA want to mine commercial databases (security v privacy tradeoff), advocates claim “don’t worry” but need to understand tech first. Porn blocking and filtering: products claim to block only offending tech, don’t worry about overblocking. Need to see filter list to know. Electronic voting: push toward computerized voting, convenience and speed vs risk of fraud.What we don’t need to do is make process harder.

Larry Lessig: Binary blindness. Have been talking about DRM forever, need to reframe the problem. 3 kinds of people: not controlling their stuff at all, don’t touch my stuff unless you ask me first, the rest: ok to use my stuff for certain uses. Original net development ratified position of “nones” but created complaints from “all”–would shrink “some” and “all” space. Political response (“all”) to force shift in architecture away from default to support all. Now “some” and “none” lose space/power, must adopt burdonsome tech, marginalizes “none” space. Solving for the extremes: recognize the middle. Strategies, 1: courts and congress, restrict DRM to allow fair use, assure tech doesn’t displace rights; not going to work in time. 2: fight DRM, creative commons, distinguish between DRM and DRE: two different issues. Find a way to express one’s preferences, can be enforced by machines.

Larry Lessig: Binary blindness. Have been talking about DRM forever, need to reframe the problem. 3 kinds of people: not controlling their stuff at all, don’t touch my stuff unless you ask me first, the rest: ok to use my stuff for certain uses. Original net development ratified position of “nones” but created complaints from “all”–would shrink “some” and “all” space. Political response (“all”) to force shift in architecture away from default to support all. Now “some” and “none” lose space/power, must adopt burdonsome tech, marginalizes “none” space. Solving for the extremes: recognize the middle. Strategies, 1: courts and congress, restrict DRM to allow fair use, assure tech doesn’t displace rights; not going to work in time. 2: fight DRM, creative commons, distinguish between DRM and DRE: two different issues. Find a way to express one’s preferences, can be enforced by machines. Build a layer of reasonable copyright law, by expressing reasonable middle; flooding to default “some” space. Restore reasonableness thru voluntary action. Why? incentives to certain artists (increase exposure!), people can participate in debate. Identify, “I believe in (somewhat) free.” Urgency, extremes don’t control or we lose. Courts aren’t ready, congress answers to wrong dialog ($). Best interpretations of “ideals and principles” on Larry’s side, other side has “all the money in the world,” when was last time ideals won? Should be when’s the NEXT time. Reasonableness, building balance through use.

Questions: UC Berkeley student: why did Microsoft choose large content industry over consumers? panel: it’s more complicated than that… who’s controlling policies? From floor: chastity belts on tech. From floor: creative commons is in tension w/ defaults in law, publishing, existing power bases. Larry: Hal’s on CC board, so if there’s tension… Jack Valenti’s “terrorists” stealing content–one position. Millions of people define a reasonable view, can increasingly define extremists. Ed F: no conflict: CC isn’t expressing what I can do or not do. Hal: no conflict, Farber’s use of “consumer,” triggers new debate, it’s not about rights of creators. From floor: controlling data in info spaces? (no answer) Pam S: possible to develop circumvention for fair use, creative anti-circumvention laws, w/out opening pandora’s box? Jim: can try and approximate, reach reasonable compromise, how far to carry conversation or compromises. Maybe. Ed: this is one of the most important tech questions, right now: not effectively. Hal: increased access vs (attesting or ??) Joe: legal side, thought experiment: what would fair use look like in legal, regulatory environment? might resemble tax code in complexity. Public interest, people’s interaction varies. Mark Lemley: Shrinkwrap licenses, open software movement in contract sense, must look at both what big and little guys will do. CC: it’s easy to write a set of legal rules, infinite palette(?) and regulation by gov is good or bad thing, CC can facilitate DRM-not-limited-by… ? Larry: Distinction between DRE and DRM, not static, difference is dynamic effect on debate. Overhead of technology before sharing content; DRE (freer content), controlling can be inevitable. Mark L: DRE at odds w/ strong privacy protection? Larry: no, DRE doesn’t have same focus, arguments, characteristics of argument. Ed F: distinction w/ DRE: expression about permission vs enforcement mechanisms (raises privacy issues). Adon Katz?: courts, in reframing, was only way to frame or reframe question? Larry: USSC has average view of issues similar to regular people. Ordinary people don’t get it until you explain it to them. Movement is salient among ordinary people. Explain clearly and repeatedly, lot of work before we can win.

Content, Policy all or none, controls, DRM, fair use, innovation, public good, rights management, trusted systems

In an article that I can’t find on the net, “Union goes against the Bells on phone line access charges,” by Jon Van, January 16, 2003:

A new impediment appeared Wednesday for Baby Bell companies trying to raise the wholesale rates they charge competitors for access to phone lines.

The president of a major union representing Bell workers said he backs the current wholesale rate structure and the local phone competition it creates.

SBC Communications Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and other Bell companies had counted on their unionized workers as allies in lobbying federal and state governments against the wholesale rates, which are referred to as unbundled network elements.

In a letter to Michael Powell, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Edwin Hill, president of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, urged that current UNE wholesale rates remain in place. Promoting competition will expand employment opportunities for workers, Hill said.

SBC and its peers have argued that competition based on low wholesale rates hurts the industry and its employees. Hill disagrees.

“Competition will make the telecommunications pie grow larger and ensure that our workers have multiple employment opportunities,” Hill wrote in his letter to Powell. “The importance of this point is underscored with the recent round of over 20,000 announced layoffs by the Bells.”

The telecom workers know what opportunity looks like, and artificially sustaining a troubled monopoly ain’t it.

Later: Thanks Dan for the link (Chicago Tribune subscription req’d).

Policy controls

This was from a while ago but must be mentioned here. Seems cable (and DSL) providers don’t like file sharing, and are implementing price-and-service models to (how shall I say) discourage the practice.

A host of cable companies, including AT&T Broadband (T), Charter Communications (CHTR), and Cox Communications (COX), are moving away from the old flat-fee pricing scheme that allowed users to download and transmit endless amounts of data (especially music, movies, and software) over high-speed connections. Instead, they’re rolling out new pricing schemes that could put limits on bandwidth usage per month and charge users additional fees if they go above the limit. …

These new pricing models could be serious trouble for the still-growing peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing movement, which is inextricably linked to cheap bandwidth. Indeed, the cable companies just might accomplish what the entertainment industries — with their high-pressure legal tactics, copy-protected CDs and DVDs, and aggressive lobbying campaigns in Washington — have failed to do.

This quote is from a BusinessWeek article, “Will Cable Unplug the File Swappers?” from June 2002.

Content, Network broadband, cable, controls, file swapping, ISPs, P2P