Lessig Still Getting a WTF Reception
Lawrence Lessig offers this qualification on his blog for his recent positive statement on DRM.
Sun has made recent announcements about their openDRM project. In my view, they've made some commitments that are important for any DRM project. E.g., as I've seen it described, it would be implemented to allow individuals to assert "fair use," and unlock DRM'd content, with a tag to trace misuse. And they've described a platform upon which authors keep the freedom to turn the DRM off, and more the content from the secured platform.
These are good things. But some confuse praise for better DRM with praise for DRM. So let me be as clear as possible here (though saying the same thing I've always said): We should be building a DRM-free world. We should have laws that encouraged a DRM-free world. We should demonstrate practices that make compelling a DRM-free world. All of that should, I thought, be clear. But just as one can hate the Sonny Bono Act, but think, if there's a Sonny Bono Act, there should also be a Public Domain Enhancement Act, so too can one hate DRM, but think that if there’s DRM, it should be at least as Sun is saying it should be.
From a purely legal/logical position (which Lessig may have been occupying for that OMC statement) this might seem reasonable. However, this ignores the capitalist spin that will inevitably be applied to any implementation of DRM: if someone finds a path leading to something desirable, they will, inevitably, use the artificial advantage of a locked gate to make money through restricting access to it.
In Sun's DRM initiative there is an implicit intention to provide locks for everyone and everything. And once everything is safely locked up none of us will be able to move an inch without paying someone for the privilege of doing so. No one will be encouraged to produce free and open content because it will be so easy to apply the locks and make money for doing nothing other than sitting around swinging the keys on a finger. Inevitably, the ownership of all these locks will default to the current breed of pigopolist, those that would have perished without such measures, and we will find ourselves stuck with the RIAA+MPAA parasites forever. Opportunities to engage with our own culture, to contribute to it, will dry up as our tools lose the functions that permit us to build on the work of others. In the end, the entire creative output of our civilisation will recede behind manifold layers of digital defences so that all we can ever do is watch it go by from a distance (or perhaps just hear about it having gone by if we can't afford the ticket price).
Don't be fooled by the opportunity to "assert 'fair use,' and unlock DRM'd content, with a tag to trace misuse." There is little difference between a locked gate and guy with a baseball bat taking names.
Lessig's statements may have possessed some merit in a reasonable world - it's just a pity that world is a myth.
A quick scan of the responses to his last post suggests we are all having this same difficulty reconciling his round-hole activities with this square-peg opinion.
Sun has made recent announcements about their openDRM project. In my view, they've made some commitments that are important for any DRM project. E.g., as I've seen it described, it would be implemented to allow individuals to assert "fair use," and unlock DRM'd content, with a tag to trace misuse. And they've described a platform upon which authors keep the freedom to turn the DRM off, and more the content from the secured platform.
These are good things. But some confuse praise for better DRM with praise for DRM. So let me be as clear as possible here (though saying the same thing I've always said): We should be building a DRM-free world. We should have laws that encouraged a DRM-free world. We should demonstrate practices that make compelling a DRM-free world. All of that should, I thought, be clear. But just as one can hate the Sonny Bono Act, but think, if there's a Sonny Bono Act, there should also be a Public Domain Enhancement Act, so too can one hate DRM, but think that if there’s DRM, it should be at least as Sun is saying it should be.
From a purely legal/logical position (which Lessig may have been occupying for that OMC statement) this might seem reasonable. However, this ignores the capitalist spin that will inevitably be applied to any implementation of DRM: if someone finds a path leading to something desirable, they will, inevitably, use the artificial advantage of a locked gate to make money through restricting access to it.
In Sun's DRM initiative there is an implicit intention to provide locks for everyone and everything. And once everything is safely locked up none of us will be able to move an inch without paying someone for the privilege of doing so. No one will be encouraged to produce free and open content because it will be so easy to apply the locks and make money for doing nothing other than sitting around swinging the keys on a finger. Inevitably, the ownership of all these locks will default to the current breed of pigopolist, those that would have perished without such measures, and we will find ourselves stuck with the RIAA+MPAA parasites forever. Opportunities to engage with our own culture, to contribute to it, will dry up as our tools lose the functions that permit us to build on the work of others. In the end, the entire creative output of our civilisation will recede behind manifold layers of digital defences so that all we can ever do is watch it go by from a distance (or perhaps just hear about it having gone by if we can't afford the ticket price).
Don't be fooled by the opportunity to "assert 'fair use,' and unlock DRM'd content, with a tag to trace misuse." There is little difference between a locked gate and guy with a baseball bat taking names.
Lessig's statements may have possessed some merit in a reasonable world - it's just a pity that world is a myth.
A quick scan of the responses to his last post suggests we are all having this same difficulty reconciling his round-hole activities with this square-peg opinion.