Re: Summary: [Fsfe-uk] TV show about copyright, the Internet and DRM

[Chris Croughton]

On Sat, May 06, 2006 at 10:15:20AM +0100, graham wrote:

> MJ Ray wrote:
> 
> >Jason Clifford <address@hidden>
> >  
> >>On Fri, 5 May 2006, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>
> >>>coverage, even in the tabloid newspapers, technological protection
> >>>measures (TPM, or MTP in French) seems to be used a lot. [...]
> >>>
> >>Why continue to us the word "protection". By doing so you are granting the 
> >>central plank of their case to those who want more restrictive copyright 
> >>powers.
> >
> >I don't see protectionism as a good thing and I doubt many do.
> >Surely no WIPO-fearing government can support protectionist laws?
> >So, I'm quite happy to label these bad things as protection.
> >
> I think this is a mistake. 'Protectionism' is another weasel word used
> by our opponents for actions they don't like. So the Philippines
> government's and others attempts to claim the right to  produce generic
> medicines in order to make medicine affordable for their own population
> is being labelled 'disguised protectionism'; the same has also been said
> about the Brazilian governments move to free software within the public
> sector.

Yes, and 'liberal', 'libertarian' and its variants are played as meaning
'communist' (or 'capitalist' depending on which side the speaker is on)
as a negative.  "Free Software" is spun as being communist, anarchist,
stealing code, and all sorts of other negative things.  "Open Source"
has been abused to cover proprietary software which you can look at but
not touch, the same with "Open Standards".  Heck, look at the Soviet-run
"German Democratic Republic" for a gross abuse of a word.

> I think the word 'protectionism' is as unusable as the phrase
> 'intellectual property', unless accompanied by quite a bit of
> explanation as to what you mean in each case. Personally, when I see the
> word used to criticise something my knee-jerk reaction is one of
> sympathy for the organisation being accused of it.

The thing is that any words can be twisted.  I still think of 'sanction'
as meaning a permission to do something, even though its overwhelming
use now is a negative one of taking away the permission to do it.  In my
passport it says "permit the bearer to pass without let or hindrance",
'let' used in a negative sense whereads now it is positive.

"Digital Restriction Management" could be spun just as easily to mean
"we are managing the necessary restrictions rather than letting
everything be restricted", just as we can spin "Digital Rights
Management" to mean "they are managing (negatively) your rights".

The only way you can lay claim to a term is to introduce it first and
then register it as a trade or service mark, and then sue anyone who
misuses it.  Of course, you have to do this in every country you can,
and have enough funds to support the lawsuits.

>  I also don't think it's right that any government should have to be
> 'WIPO fearing' (as opposed to having to carry out the wishes of its
> electors, or doing what it thinks is best for its electors), but that's
> a slightly separate argument.

Since no government I've heard of actually carries out the wishes of its
electorate (if there is one, please tell me and I'll emigrate thre),
fearing WIPO and other international organisations is often the only
thing keeping them vaguely in line.  Since for some reason using
gunpowder in the basements of government building is frowned on, even on
November 5th...

Chris C