{"id":3127,"date":"2003-02-28T15:08:33","date_gmt":"2003-02-28T19:08:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/cmusings\/2003\/02\/28\/the-berkeley-drm-conference-from-afa"},"modified":"2003-02-28T15:08:33","modified_gmt":"2003-02-28T19:08:33","slug":"the-berkeley-drm-conference-from-afar","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/cmusings\/2003\/02\/28\/the-berkeley-drm-conference-from-afar\/","title":{"rendered":"The Berkeley DRM Conference (from afar)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a name='a46'><\/a><\/p>\n<p><P>At the <A href=\"http:\/\/www.law.berkeley.edu\/institutes\/bclt\/drm\/resources.html\">Berkeley DRM conference<\/A>, <A href=\"http:\/\/www.entertainmentlawreporter.com\/Editor.htm\">Lon Sobel<\/A>&nbsp;presented this <A href=\"https:\/\/www.law.berkeley.edu\/institutes\/bclt\/drm\/papers\/sobel-drm-btlj2003.html\">proposed<\/A> alteration of copyright to make the ISP a &#8220;digital retailer.&#8221;&nbsp; Well, it&#8217;s not really an alteration of copyright. It&#8217;s a business model with a very weak statute attached to it.&nbsp; Here&#8217;s the legislative part of it:<\/P><br \/>\n<BLOCKQUOTE><br \/>\n<P>&#8220;Copyright owners would be obligated, by statute, to permit the copying and redistribution of their works&#8230;. [F]or watermarked and fingerprinted works, ISPs would be obligated, by statute, to pay the royalty charged by each work&#8217;s copyright owner. This proposal amounts to a statutory license (because it authorizes copying and redistribution of copyrighted works, without negotiated licenses from copyright owners). But it&#8217;s a two-edged statutory license: it authorizes the use of copyrighted works, but also requires ISPs to pay royalties <STRONG>at whatever rates are set by copyright owne<\/STRONG>rs.&#8221;<\/P><\/BLOCKQUOTE><br \/>\n<P dir=\"ltr\">So, what&#8217;s going to make the copyright holders license their works?&nbsp; Sobel indicates at the end of the proposal that he doesn&#8217;t mind that copyright holders will have no impetus to license their works.<\/P><br \/>\n<P dir=\"ltr\">Nor does he give a lot of firm numbers on how much each download would likely cost; I&#8217;d like to see some sort of projections.<\/P><br \/>\n<P dir=\"ltr\">Dan Gillmor has significantly more scathing remarks <A href=\"http:\/\/weblog.siliconvalley.com\/column\/dangillmor\/archives\/000821.shtml#000821\">here<\/A> (that post&nbsp;has all of his Berkeley DRM conference notes).&nbsp;He points out that having ISPs track what we&nbsp;read\/hear\/watch is more than just a small invasion of privacy.&nbsp; Also, he notes: &#8220;Given that in a broadband world there will be just a couple of ISPs &#8212; namely the cable and phone companies, given the way the government is giving them absolute rights to control content on their pipes &#8212; do you suppose your friendly cable and phone monopoly will not choose to charge you substantial extra money?&#8221;&nbsp; What occurs to me after reading that is, what about wireless?&nbsp; What happens if I&#8217;m sharing someone&#8217;s connection? (Note: as someone <A href=\"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/cmusings\/stories\/storyReader$14\">has mentioned<\/A>, this is also a problem with Professor Fisher&#8217;s plan, although he states that tax revenue could come from places other than ISPs if necessary.)<\/P><br \/>\n<P dir=\"ltr\">I would also like to point out that Sobel makes some incorrect assessments of Fisher&#8217;s plan as far as I understand it.&nbsp; He writes, &#8220;[Fisher&#8217;s] &#8220;Tax and Royalty System&#8221; does not seem to contemplate the creation of new versions; it would simply authorize copying and redistribution. This means the &#8220;Tax and Royalty System&#8221; protects copyrights somewhat more than the [Netanel&#8217;s] &#8220;Noncommercial Use Levy,&#8221; because the &#8220;Tax and Royalty System&#8221; leaves more control in the hands of copyright owners, namely, the right to license the creation of new versions of their works, on terms agreed to in private negotiations.&#8221;<\/P><br \/>\n<P dir=\"ltr\">That is bogus &#8211; Fisher says that we would ditch copyright after the implementation of his plan.&nbsp;You can make all the derivative works you want.<\/P><br \/>\n<P dir=\"ltr\">Other stuff that&#8217;s been interesting:<\/P><br \/>\n<P dir=\"ltr\">Dan Gillmor notes IBM&#8217;s <A href=\"http:\/\/www.opengroup.org\/public\/member\/q103\/blakley.htm\">Bob Blakley<\/A>&nbsp;discussing some of the negatives for producers&#8217; using DRM. Gillmor scribes: &#8220;DRM can raise inventory costs, he says. Example: controls by country. Mass customization isn&#8217;t perfect, either, he says. Raises costs and can actually encourage piracy. It can add life-cycle costs when things fail, because users will call&#8221; (Gillmor&#8217;s notes, not&nbsp;necessarily&nbsp;Blakley&#8217;s words).<\/P><br \/>\n<P>I&#8217;ve always heard about how price discrimination via DRM will be so great for producers and how private ordering isn&#8217;t as great as we might think (at least, that&#8217;s what I think this <A href=\"http:\/\/law.vanderbilt.edu\/lawreview\/vol536\/benkler.pdf\">article<\/A> from Yochai Benkler is saying).&nbsp; I&#8217;ve never heard about using DRM to price discriminate could be bad for producers.<\/P><br \/>\n<P>Also note the interesting conversation by someone from Microsoft, Dave Farber, and Lucky Green about trusted computing. Those three really do represent the spectrum.<\/P><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>At the Berkeley DRM conference, Lon Sobel&nbsp;presented this proposed alteration of copyright to make the ISP a &#8220;digital retailer.&#8221;&nbsp; Well, it&#8217;s not really an alteration of copyright. It&#8217;s a business model with a very weak statute attached to it.&nbsp; Here&#8217;s the legislative part of it: &#8220;Copyright owners would be obligated, by statute, to permit the [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":72,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[85],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3127","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-big-ideas"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/cmusings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3127","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/cmusings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/cmusings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/cmusings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/72"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/cmusings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3127"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/cmusings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3127\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/cmusings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3127"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/cmusings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3127"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/cmusings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3127"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}