Watermarking as a replacement of DRM?

Posted by schiessle on 0

Karsten Gerloff has written about watermarking as a replacement of Digital Restrictions Management (DRM).

I’m against watermarking as i’m against DRM. Replacing an restriction technology (DRM) with an observing or tracking technology (watermarking) is probably even more harmful if people constantly have to life in fear that a file with their signature could sometime appear on a place were it shouldn’t be.

Georg Greve has already described some technical problems in his comment "The fundamental flaw". But even if these technical problems could be solved, the social, legal and ethical problems will stay.

Replacing one technology with another doesn’t solves the problems of today’s copyright. You just walk around the real problems.

What is the meaning of fair use today and what will be the meaning in the future? What is fair use at all? I don’t want to depend on any fair use definition.
I know that at least some years ago in Germany it was OK to borrow a CD from a friend or a video library, make a private copy and than give it back. I’m not sure about today’s situation. I think at least borrowing and copying from a good friend is still OK, but maybe this will change in the future too.
Now imagine a watermarked audio file appears on the net. But who was the person who released it into the net? Myself? A good fried of mine? A good friend of the good friend? Who will be responsible for it? Maybe even it wasn’t someone of the good friends. Maybe someone has taken a copy from my Notebook or USB stick and i haven’t noticed it? Maybe it was a Trojan on my PC or any other security hole? Maybe i just have thrown a CD into the trash bin and someone else has taken it from there?
Personally i would have a bad feeling if i would have a lot of files on my PC and on my data mediums whereby i could be identified as the owner and could be responsible if the wrong person gets a copy of it.

I think the mistake already starts by thinking about copyright as a regulation of users and authors for the sake of the industry. Copyright should regulate the industry for the sake of society and authors.

Technology has changed. Even with all this new technology and despite the bad treatment of their costumers the industry still sells a lot of CDs and i think the industry will have many years left where they can sell records. But even if we will reach a point were the market for records will go down to zero this wouldn’t be an argument to apply DRM, watermarking or any other restriction and observing technology. If the future and technology will make this industry needless than we and above all the industry will have to accept it. It wouldn’t be the end of the first industry in history because of new technology.

For me replacing a restriction technology with an observing technology isn’t a solution. Industry and authors will have to learn to live within this new world. I’m sure they will find a way. In the past already many authors were able to create great works without this kind of industry and without physical mediums. Today’s artists and the artists in the future will have even more options to earn some money compared to the artists of the past. Just think about a "culture flatrate", dues on CD-R’s, radio licence fees, mearchendising, concerts all over the globe, creating something for an special event or an movie and combine this with a industrial regulation which allows only the artist to sell records for a few years.

Let me finish with some words of Eben Moglen: "When everyone can possess every intellectual work of beauty and utility – reaping all the human value of every increase of knowledge – at the same cost that any one person can possess them, it is no longer moral to exclude."

Linus and the whole DRM discussion

Posted by schiessle on 0

I have read Marcus and Shanes article about DRM and the interview of Linus Torvalds.

I don’t know the motivation of Linus, but i have read many interviews since the first draft of GPLv3 and for my understanding he repeats the same mistake again and again. He compares DRM with protecting your personal data. But that’s not why DRM was developed and it’s not developed to protect the connection between your fridge and your laptop like shane tries to describe. For all this tasks we already have really good encryption algorithm and programs which we use every day like GnuPG, ssh, vpn etc. and all this programs have the advantage that you have always the full control over your data.
Therefore nobody needs DRM. DRM is only useful if someone wants to control how you can use some data on your PC. DRM is designed that someone else have control over your data and your PC and not for you to protect your diary or your fridge<->laptop connection.

Linus shark example is interesting too:

"Just to explain the fundamental issue: To me, the GPL really boils down to "I give out code, I want you to do the same." The thing that makes me not want to use the GPLv3 in its current form is that it really tries to move more toward the "software freedom" goals. For example, the GPLv2 in no way limits your use of the software. If you’re a mad scientist, you can use GPLv2’d software for your evil plans to take over the world ("Sharks with lasers on their heads!!"), and the GPLv2 just says that you have to give source code back. And that’s OK by me. I like sharks with lasers. I just want the mad scientists of the world to pay me back in kind. I made source code available to them, they have to make their changes to it available to me. After that, they can fry me with their shark-mounted lasers all they want."

Linus said he doesn’t like the GPLv3 because she will "move more toward the software freedom goals". Have i missed something? The goal of the GPL as the No.1 license of the FSF was always software freedom. If Linus notices this only now, i really wonder at his license choice for Linux.

But let’s go back to the "laser sharks". Let’s assume that a company A takes the GPLv2 code written by Linus and uses the code for their AI-shark. Later they sell their shark to person B and uses DRM so that only the code from company A will run on the shark. Now person B would like to build the "laser shark", after they have prepared the shark with a laser and altered the code they realize that their code won’t run on the shark.
What happens? Linus just want that everyone can do with his code what he wants but obviously person B can’t build Linus beloved  "laser shark". Now the DRM clause of GPLv3 would be exactly what Linus would need to secure that everyone can do with his code whatever he wants.

Is Free/Open Source Software the Answer?

Posted by schiessle on 0

"Is Free/Open Source Software the Answere?" was the topic of a panel discussion at the  World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), Tunis on 18 November 2005. People like Richard Stallman, Bruce Perens and Mark Shuttleworth participated in it.

Now the recording of this panel discussion is available at http://www.iosn.net/regional/wsis-2005

 

Video of the GPLv3 conference at MIT

Posted by schiessle on 0

I think this could be interesting for people not subscribed to the GPLv3 mailing list too.
Through the mailing list i got  a bittorrent  source  (http://gplv3.fsf.org/av/gplv3-draft1-release.ogg.torrent) where you can download a video recording of the MIT conference about GPLv3.

While Richard Stallman talks about threats for the free software community to which the new license will response Eben Moglen walks through the draft of the GPLv3 and explains the new license in detail.

I think the video is a good opportunity to understand the GPLv3 and the ideas behind the changes.

Google Talk enables server-to-server

Posted by schiessle on 0

Great news! Google has finally enabled server-to-server on their Jabber network. That means Google Talk is no longer an instant-messaging-island but has become a part of the “jabber family”.

With many people using Gmail and get to know Google-Talk it’s a great chance that the free instant messaging protocol will get some publicity and hopefully more people will switch to (or at least use) Jabber.

software patents in switzerland

Posted by schiessle on 0

The institute of computer science at the University of Zurich has developed a new software (TeNDaX) which allows more than 300 people to work on one text-document simultaneously. As you can read here (German) the university will file a patent application.
I’m surprised, does software patents already exists in switzerland?

Beside the problem of software patents it’s sad that a university, financed by the society, uses their research results that way. The task of a university should be research for the benefit of the whole society and not for the disadvantage of the society. I think there should be a law that all research results, financed by the society, should be released into the public domain or licensed under something like the modified BSD license.

Germany: 2006 will be the year of computer science

Posted by schiessle on 0

After 2005 was the year of Albert Einstein (“Einsteinjahr”) 2006 will be the year of computer science (“Jahr der Informatik”).
Prof. Joachim Treusch chairman of the initiative “Wissenschaft im Dialog (WiD)” said that their are two major topics: the technical effects and the social effects of information technology.
I think there will be many events, like during the “Einsteinjahr”, and it could be a good opportunity to get some publicity and teach non-technical people about Free Software, Creative Commons and other aspects of freedom in the information society.

Does the FSFE already knows about the “year of computer science” and are there maybe already any plans to participate?

France: Parliament vs. Government

Posted by schiessle on 0

Seems like the parliament and the government of France have a contrary position about intellectual monopoly rights.

While the government want to introduce an implementation of the EUCD which could even ban Free Software. The French Parliament has voted last night to allow free sharing of music and movies on the Internet. Heise has published a good summary in German.
The amandment states “authors cannot forbid the reproduction of works that are made on any format from an online communications service when they are intended to be used privately”

I think this is a decision into the right direction. The freedom to share music and movies (non-commercial), which is a part of our all culture, is the absolute minimum of freedom everyone should have.

But i think the French government will use their power to overturn the amendment already because it was approved with only 30 to 28 votes while there are 577 members of the parliament.

Let’s see what will happen.