ZeroPaid.com » interview

A Discussion With Russell McOrmond on Hollywoods New Intel Chip

Drew Wilson — Sat, 08 Jan 2011 07:27:19 +0000

Just shortly after new years, news surfaced on multiple websites where Intel was developing a chip that would support high definition copy protected content for streaming purposes. The news intrigued us, so we discussed some of the issues that came up with coordinator of Digital Copyright Canada and Canadian consultant Russell McOrmond.

Intel recently revealed what it calls the second generation Intel core processor. While there was many interesting things about this chip, one thing stuck out to us at Computer World:

Intel is also upgrading its Wi-Di technology, which enables users to wirelessly transmit images and video from a PC to a high-definition TV. Users will now be able to stream 1080p content, an improvement from the previous 720p resolution. Users will also be able to stream protected movies from the Intel Insider feature, Regis said.

Here's what CNet mentioned:

Access to Hollywood content is also baked into the chip--a technology called Intel Insider. "This will unlock premium high-definition content, like movies, to your PC," Kilroy said. "We've gone out and engaged with the studios. So, you'll see Warner Bros. and Fox at launch [of Sandy Bridge] and several other studios to come. They're eagerly embracing this platform as a distribution means for premium high-end content--as Internet content [offered] directly to the end user." Kilroy continued. "What Intel Insider does is deliver HD digital distribution rights to the PC. This could be enabled through multiple content storefronts through OEMs (PC makers), retailers like Best Buy. Essentially, the PC now becomes an on-ramp for HD 1080p movies," he said. And Intel has added security features to protect the content. "And we've built in security capability into this platform that will enable end-to-end hardware protection for the content. So, it will protect the premium content rights of the studios," according to Kilroy.

The idea that Hollywood is influencing hardware development is certainly interesting. With a form of digital locking built right in to the chip being discussed, we thought it would be interesting to speak to someone about this. We asked him about what this means when these chips will be able to play protected content - that maybe it doesn't mean much because really, this kind of streaming might only affect protected content in the first place. "What does "only on protected content" mean?" Asked McOrmond, "All you can do with content is encrypt it such that you need the right decryption keys to access. All of what we call "DRM" is in software (which includes firmware) which runs on hardware. It is dishonest to "sell" someone hardware without giving the owner the keys to what they own. By falsely passing off a vendor-dependent content delivery system as if it were copyright related, we then don't regulate it correctly. These schemes can not and do not protect copyright, but allow the vendors to circumvent the traditional contours of copyright, contract, competition, privacy, property and trade law. It allows those vendors to replace legal code with unaccountable software code." We also asked via e-mail about if this is all part of the Trusted Computing some have been warning us about in the past. McOrdmon said, "having cryptography in the GPU is the same theme but different than what the trusted computing folks were doing with the separate trusted platform module. It is still locked hardware/firmware within a theoretically general purpose computer where the owner is treated as the attacker." He added, "It is hardware that is positive security where owner holds keys, but in my mind morally repugnant when the owner is denied keys." When the news was first circulating, we wondered if the mentioned digital locks could spark anti-trust suits from other chip manufacturing vendors. McOrdmond was skeptical with these theories, "I wish. I have been talking to folks at the Competition Bureau about this for many years now." McOrmond then explained things from a policy standpoint, "As long as people (policy makers, lawyers, copyright holders, etc) are confused into thinking TPMs have anything at all to do with copyright, it will be very hard to regulate appropriately." "As soon as this is understood as a vendor-dependent content delivery platform, all the existing regulation including competition/anti-trust will come into play." "It will also allow copyright holders to make informed decisions about how to distribute and license their content, allowing for revenue streams they are currently giving up due to their confusion. They don't realize this is a beta-vs-vhs battle all over, and they are deliberately choosing not to offer any content legally on VHS." Certain forms of copy protection often seem like they are designed to circumvent certain copyright laws in a given country. Canada is a great example where copyright reform has been pushed several times, but never passed in governments in the past and in the current government - at least, the major pieces of copyright reform like Bill C-60 under the Liberal government, Bill C-61 under the Conservative government previously and, now, Bill C-32 under the current Conservative government. McOrmond addressed how TPMs can affect copyright laws: "If TPMs are protected in copyright, it allows a TPM vendor to replace the traditional contours of copyright (and other laws) in software. This means any aspect of copyright (what it regulates, limitations, exceptions, term, etc) have no meaning at all in the presence of a legally protected TPM. No further changes to Copyright required for a majority of scenarios -- Copyright law only applies in analog/unencrypted scenarios." We also asked McOrmond about how digital locks aren't protected by Canadian copyright laws and he commented, "Digital locks aren't protected in Canada at all at the moment. This is unfortunate as they have legitimate purposes under contract, e-commerce, privacy and other laws. I have been writing my provincial MPP in Ontario (currently also the Primier) suggesting modernization in these areas, but without the industry backing this direction it is unlikely. The legal community generally sits entirely confused about the whole question." "Bill C-32 protects Access Control TPMs (the relevant type) for non-copyright-infringing activities, and explicitly states that the new very limited fair dealings enhancements do not trump digital locks. This means that in the presence of a TPM the contours of copyright don't matter." "Time/device/format shifting with an analog VCR is legal, but with DVD and PVRs it is not." McOrdmond smiled, "Better grab those VCRs from landfill" We then also asked McOrmond to elaborate on whether the development of this chip is a move towards trusted computing or if this is a move in a completely different direction, "This is a language issue." "TPM could mean "Technical protection measure" (Bill C-32) or it could mean Trusted Platform Module." "Issues with the Trusted Platform Module are not technological, but legal." "When the owner of the device holds the keys to the TPM, then this is an instrumental tool to protect against malware and intrusions. This allows the owner to ensure that no unauthorized modifications can be made without them being detected. This is a critically important tool for the future of computing. This is especially critical in mobile." "When someone other than the owner of the device manages the keys, then the TPM circumvents the legal rights of the owner and can itself be considered a form of malware that enforces unauthorized modifications to the system." "In some cases the owners will outsource key management to an IT firm. But this must be the choice of the owner, not something imposed by the collusion of hardware manufacturers and confused politicians/lawyers." "Identical technology has opposite purposes depending on who holds the keys. "The law should protect the right of the owner to control who has keys, and should make it clearly illegal for someone other than the owner to treat the owner as an attacker. This should be protected in property law, and has nothing to do with copyright." "Confusion by parliamentarians about technology and copyright is being abused to flip the law on its head and legally protect abuses that would otherwise be legally prohibited." "The term "Trusted Computing" is like TPM -- it has different, and sometimes opposite, meanings depending on who you talk to. Everything comes down to the question of who owns what is locked, and who controls the keys." One thing that also came to mind with regards to this chip is any potential impact on, say, the Linux community. McOrmond commented, "If the owner of the computer doesn't hold the keys and can't make their own software choices, then they can't chose Linux. "But this isn't about Linux. It is about protecting the rights of computer owners to manage the keys and make their own choices. MS Windows and MacOS are legitimate choices, just not legitimate to impose." "Now lets flip back to content for the moment. Having more and more content encrypted to only work with specific brands of technology is a lesser but still critical problem. It is saying that in order to fully participate in Canadian culture you need to "chose" from a subset of technology brands." "It is like saying that in order to participate in Canadian federal politics you must be a member of the Liberal-Conservative party (the one from Confederation). You are free to make any choices you want, and you are free to not participate in politics, but it is an illegal circumvention of the Trusted Politics Measure (TPM) to participate in politics as a member of the Reform, Bloc, NDP or any other third party." It was at this point that we mentioned the story about the Playstation 3's root key being discovered and said how that, given this is just the latest protected mechanism that has been cracked, would this chip with its own "copy protection" eventually see a similar fate. McOrmond responded, " I wouldn't use the word "copy protection" as that is a vague marketing term and not a specific technology that can be discussed in a way that would have meaning. "The hardest thing for people to realise is that the Access Controls on content aren't all that relevant to copyright. The potentially anti-competitive cryptographic tie between encoded content and specific brands of technology only needs to be unlocked by one person among the 6.5+ billion people on the planet. The now unlocked content can be unlawfully shared the same as if the lock never existed. It will be from these sources that a vast majority of average (less technical) citizens will get their infringing content." "As an alleged form of "copy protection", this is pretty much useless." "The non-owner locks on our hardware/software is a different scenario. While it is true that if you put a safe and the key into the home of a safe cracker that the safe will be opened, especially if he bought the safe and is morally (if not legally) correct in believing it is his/her right to open it." McOrmond seemed to be skeptical of relating the two scenarios, "The issue is that unlike with the content scenario, each lock on hardware/software can have its own key and thus opening one doesn't open it for everyone. If you find the root key and can create a generic unlocking tool usable by average citizens then great, but that isn't always or even often going to be the case." "This means that most peoples hardware/software will still have non-owner locks on them which will limit what the owners can do. These limitations have absolutely nothing to do with copyright, and everything to do with third parties other than the owner having control over the means of production and distribution in the knowledge economy. The harmful repercussions of this are considerable on society, and relate to many other activities we have laws on the books for, but these harmful activities have little if anything to do with copyright." "What I find sad in this fight for basic digital rights is that we have to try to convince so-called Conservatives and other mainstream political parties about the value of protecting private property rights, and trying to explain to them all the social, economic and political problems that can result from this lack of protection." McOrmond, at this point, reminded me of his article on "The Two Locks of DRM" and said, "Getting people past thinking this is about so-called "copy control" and encrypted content is the most important part of the battle." "DRM = Dishonest Relationship Misinformation." "The term Digital Rights Management begs the questions: which and whose rights, and is "management" just a euphemism for circumvent?" "IE: Digital property rights circumvention? Digital contractual rights circumvention? Digital privacy rights circumvention?" As our conversation ended, he said, "My concern with all of this really has nothing to do with copyrighted content, and everything to do with the non-owner locks on our hardware/software" We would like to thank Russell McOrmond for discussing these issues at length with us. For more commentary by Russell McOrmond, you can visit his blog at Digital Copyright Canada. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

ZeroPaid Interviews Russell McOrmond 2 – Canadian Bill C-32 (Part 3 of 3)

Drew Wilson — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 08:01:05 +0000

We have been interviewing Russell McOrmond. The interview is in three parts. Parts 1 and 2 are already available. We now conclude our three part interview.

We have been interviewing Russell McOrmond in a three part interview. In part 1, we discussed the complexity of Bill C-32, copyright terms and anti-circumvention provisions. In part 2, we discussed DRM in physical devices, the closeness of Canadian policy making and American policy making, and the WIPO Internet treaties. We now come to our conclusion of our interview: ZeroPaid (ZP): There's a review of the laws being put forth every five years, but you mention in your FAQ that it's not a review held by an external body such as the copyright board. In the US, the DMCA review seems to be held by the copyright office. Is this one of those few cases where Canada should actually look at the DMCA as a model and hold reviews externally as opposed to within committee? What do you think is the ideal way to review copyright law? Russell McOrmond (RM): While US copyright modified by the DMCA is better than Canadian copyright modified by Bill C-32 in many respects, including this one, there is an easier way to deal with this issue. I believe changes to copyright must be managed in a different way. Canada has tended to create massive, divisive and unreadable omnibus bills once every decade. The process is long, and nobody is ever happy or even able to understand the result. I believe Canadian copyright law has only become worse to a vast majority of stakeholders over time because of this process. We should instead have a larger number of smaller bills. Copyright law is becoming as hard to understand as tax law. We change tax law through much smaller bills, recognizing that it would be unmanageable to make massive changes to tax law all at the same time. Copyright must receive similar respect. For instance, if WIPO treaty ratification is the major goal of C-32, then we should rip out anything that isn't part of the two 1996 WIPO treaties. We can then discuss these treaties, and our implementation of these treaties, without there being so many other things generating noise. If we have some prerequisites that need to be passed before legislation that would implement the WIPO treaties makes sense, then we should table, debate, amend and pass them first. There is no reason for Canada to feel rushed to ratify the 1996 treaties. There are various older WIPO treaties that Canada hasn't ratified, and others that the USA hasn't ratified. If we use how long the USA took to ratify Berne as a comparison, we don't need to ratify the 1996 treaties until 2104 or so... ZP: Does this bill have an impact on the open source and free software movement and GNU/GPL projects in Canada? RM: Bill C-32 style legal protection for technological measures harms nearly all software authors. Before copyright can protect our interests, including our contracts and license agreements like the GPL being enforceable, hardware owners need to be able to make their own software choices. If people can't make their own software choices, then how can they choose our software? Access Control technical measures on content limit access to content to a subset of software that have the keys, and thus is anti-competative. This is harmful to the entire technology sector, excluding those few monopolies which benefit from this anti-competative practise. Access Control technical measures on devices mean that the manufacturer, not the owner, make software choices which is even more harmful to the entire software sector. This shouldn't be seen as an issue that only harms the Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) sector, but that harms all independent and competitive software regardless of what contractual/licensing terms are being used to protect our interests. ZP: From your perspective, has the reception of the bill been as strong as ever? Are there as many or even more people interested in this bill as seen in previous bills or has attention to legislation like this faded? RM: I think the government was surprised by the amount of participation in the 2001 consultations, but hasn't been as surprised since. The proponents and opponents of the bill haven't really changed. There are people who blindly believe that if some copyright is good, more is better, and look favourably overall at C-32. In many cases I don't think they have actually read the bill, or analysed the impact of the bill on their own interests. The same is true for some of the opponents who believe that Copyright is already unbalanced and tilted in favour of incumbent copyright holders, and oppose this bill as a whole. There are only a few of us in the middle that will do clause-by-clause analysis and commentary, and that don't blindly believe that Copyright can be simplified to claiming that "more" or "less" is better. There is a lot of arm-chair politics on all sides, with people that will be upset but not follow through with talking to policy makers. We need to somehow translate this interest and emotion into actions that can impact the policy. How many people contacted their or other members of parliament over the summer? How many meetings did they have? If someone did meet with your MP to discuss copyright, I would love to hear about it so that it can be reported on the Digital-copyright.ca site. I posted about a meeting I had with Justin Trudeau over the summer. Parliament is returning on September 20th. This period when the parties are having caucus meetings prior to returning to parliament is a good time to ensure that Copyright is added to their agenda. If you are shy to meet, then I can help. You may also be willing to help encourage your MP to meet with someone like myself if you feel I could present your case for you. Thanks, and I hope to hear from more people about meeting with MPs soon. --- We would like to thank Russell McOrmond for taking the time out of his busy schedule to talk with us. For more information, you can visit Russell McOrmonds blog at digital-copyright.ca. His blog includes an information page on Bill C-32 and FAQ on bill C-32 as well as information pages on the Conservatives Bill C-61 and the Liberals Bill C-60 for previous bills. A chronology of copyright in Canada can be found here. His blog also contains petitions including one against ACTA as well as other information pages including an information page on contacting your MP. Previous parts: Part 1, Part 2. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

ZeroPaid Interviews Russell McOrmond 2 – Canadian Bill C-32 (Part 2 of 3)

Drew Wilson — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:42:32 +0000

We are currently in the process of interviewing Russell McOrmond, a well known observer of Canadian copyright and policy consultant. You can read part 1 here.

In the previous part of our interview, we discussed the complexity of copyright, the length of copyright and anti-circumvention provisions found within Bill C-32. We continue with our interview: ZeroPaid (ZP): A lot of people focus on the digital locks of music and software, but another aspect of copy protection that gets less attention is the locking down of physical devices as well. Could you give us an example of the locking down of a physical device and how does this legislation affect that? Russell McOrmond (RM): I have been giving a "I am holding 4 things in my hand" presentation for years, including to a lawyer who wanted to understand this issue from a technical perspective. It comes down to translating what technical measures claim to do into technology that is based on science rather than science fiction. Content alone cannot make decisions. It can't decide to be copied or not, decide to be available on only 5 devices, or other such contractual terms that people like to talk about with technical measures. What you can do is use technology such as cryptography so that the content can only be accessed by persons and/or devices with the right unlocking keys. What this means is that the content is locked with an access control technical measure, and is then unlocked by a device that obeys those contracting terms. In order to enforce these terms in devices (rather than under the law), the devices are locked down such that those operating them are not able to be in control of them. This is fine when we are talking about a kiosk when the operator and the owner are different, but is a cause of great concern when these locks are being used to protect third parties against the owners of the devices. None of this is necessary. If technical measures were protected in contract law, then the balance of contract law would then apply to the use of technical measures to protect those contracting terms. Some uses would be protected, some unenforceable, and some illegal just as is the case with traditional contract law. All the legitimate interests of each of the parties to those contracts can be protected. What we have is technology vendors falsely claim to be selling "copy control" software, when they are in fact offering a system involving locking people out of their own technology to protect contracting terms. These contracting terms aren't even disclosed to the owners of that technology, or the people purchasing content. Hidden or otherwise undisclosed clauses would not be protected in contract law, and certainly should never be protected in copyright law. One example is Apple, who lock the various iPhone, iPad, iPod devices such that they, and not the owner, hold the keys. They claim that it should be illegal for the owner to change the locks on their own devices. They abuse peoples confusion about the connections between copyright, contract, property and other laws to justify this offensive business practice. I often wonder how locking the owners out of something that they own is all that different than theft, and consider the business practise of locking owners out of their property to be immoral. It is something I believe should be made illegal, not legally protected. A law closer to the language of the WIPO treaties wouldn't protect this practice. In the short term even the USA DMCA doesn't protect this practise. Bill C-32 would legally protect this practise, given circumventing access control technical measures and even providing tools to change the locks on what we own are being made illegal. ZP: Following the US copyright office saying that exceptions can be made in the anti-circumvention provisions in the US, the Canadian government said that they'll be looking at this development closely and legislate accordingly. Do you think that the exceptions introduced in the US go far enough? Also, what affect does this development have on the Canadian governments image that they respond so quickly to a change in the US legal development especially after the government just got out of having a nation-wide consultation with the Canadian public? RM: The country that introduced the concept of "access control" technical measures, falsely claiming it had something to do with copyright, was the USA. Given it appears the Conservative party simply cut-and-pasted this non-copyright related concept into Canadian law from the USA, it makes sense that they would need to follow the harm that this is causing within the USA. It demonstrates they aren't doing any of their own research or analysis. I believe the consultation was only for show. When the Conservative government tabled C-61 the opposition parties suggested that adequate consultations hadn't been done. They held a consultation and then tabled C-32. Now the opposition can't talk about a lack of consultation, and discussing how the bill disregarded the consultation brings us into discussing complex policy that doesn't fit into a sound bite. The Conservatives can claim they are just listening to advise, and trying to have the best law possible. Unfortunately they are following the advise of representatives of the USA, a country that is a Copyright laggard. While Canada was under the Berne convention (WIPO treaty #1) since its coming into force in 1887, the USA didn't ratify until 1989. Only a few years later the USA is then taking their inadequate understanding of Copyright and trying to push treaties through WIPO, namely the two 1996 treaties where the anti-circumvention legislation comes from. While the more mature countries rejected much of the USA's proposals on technical measures, including the back-door protection of "access", the Conservative government hasn't bothered to study or understand this history. The Conservative government, as well as some other MPs, believe the lies of the lobbiests who claim that it is Canada that is a copyright laggard with weak copyright law compared to the USA, when the opposite is true. ZP: There was a very noticeable push from some organizations to ratify the WIPO treaties. In your FAQ, you mention that the WIPO treaties are a mixed bag. Do you think it's possible to ratify the WIPO treaties in a favorable way in your view and is such a thing likely that you can see? RM: The two 1996 WIPO treaties do not allow reservations, meaning ratification is all or nothing. You can't include in copyright law things which you consider good, and reject the things you feel are bad. That said, it is possible to ratify the 1996 WIPO treaties in a way that is much less harmful than either the Conservatives or the Liberals have proposed so far. One obvious thing is to protect technological measures in the correct laws, such as contract, e-commerce and property law. This would avoid most of the harmful consequences due to technical measures and copyright being separate concepts. The WIPO treaties don't require that all changes be made to the Copyright act, and the USA has made use of similar flexibility when it comes to moral rights when ratifying the Berne convention. WIPO treaties are all modifications to previous treaties, with the copyright treaties being modification of the Berne convention. Canada could also work within WIPO towards new treaties which could fix many of the problems seen in the two 1996 WIPO treaties. This would mean that the harmful aspects of ratifying these two treaties would be short-lived, and fixed by ratifying more modern treaties. These two treaties are outdated, and older than current Canadian copyright law which the lobbiests falsely claim is antiquated. --- ~~We are currently in the process of posting our interview. Please stay tuned for part 3.~~ You can find part 1 here. Part 3 is now available here. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

ZeroPaid Interviews Russell McOrmond 2 – Canadian Bill C-32 (Part 1 of 3)

Drew Wilson — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 08:25:25 +0000

About two years ago, we interviewed a Canadian consultant to discuss various issues surrounding copyright. It was a fascinating interview and here making his return is Russell McOrmond for a second interview.

Russell McOrmond has always had interesting insights in to Canadian copyright as it impacts technology, creators, consumers and businesses. Over three months before Bill C-61 was tabled, we had the privilege to interview him in a three part series (1, 2, 3). A lot has changed since 2008 when we interviewed him. For one, Bill C-61, the then newest copyright reform bill was tabled. Afterwords, an election was called and that killed the bill, an election was called, Canada had a nation-wide consultation on copyright, and Bill C-32, Canada's most recent copyright reform bill, was tabled earlier this year. So there was plenty of things that happened between our last interview and now. How much has changed and what seems to have never changed? That is up for debate, so we have invited Russell McOrmond back for a new interview. As you might remember, McOrmond is the host of Digital-Copyright.ca, a co-coordinator of GOSLINGcommunity.org and a policy coordinator for CLUEcan.ca to name a few projects he is doing. We begin our three part series with him: ZeroPaid (ZP): Bill C-32 is considered by most as an omnibus bill and there's so much to consider in such a complex bill. I know because I've already gone through the bill and there were so many issues being touched on, I got that feeling of being completely overwhelmed with all of the complexities. I thought with my years of knowing the copyright debate in Canada, that I could just go through the bill without too much of a problem, but I was dead wrong and I couldn't even begin to claim that I know everything about the bill even after a thorough review. Generally, though, in your view, is the bill an improvement over the last bill (Bill C-61) and the Liberal party copyright bill (Bill C-60)? Russell McOrmond (RM): These bills are each omnibus bills. Rather than having a focus that can have a reasonable discussion, both the previous Liberal government and the current Conservative government have created bills that mix so many unrelated things that it is impossible to make any overall evaluations. Canadian Copyright is already strong enough to deal with nearly all legitimate interests of copyright holders. Bill C-32 doesn't modernize copyright beyond the level it obtained in 1997, but largely pushes forward controversial ideas that originated prior to 1997. I believe that current Canadian copyright is better than it will be under C-32. While I think that modernizing Copyright is a good idea, I don't believe C-32 moves towards that goal. The issue that brought me actively into the copyright debate is so-called technical protection measures. With a technical background I analyses from a practical "what can exist in the real world". This is different than policy makers and lobbiests who are trying to provide legal protection for what is essentially snake oil being marketed by a few anti-competitive companies in the technology sector. I recently did a presentation titled "Why legal protection for technical measures is controversial" (Video and slides). The types of activities which copyright regulates all assume that you already have access to content. Copyright has never concerned itself with concept of access, which was left to other areas of law. Technical measures can restrict access, but can't in the real world directly restrict the types of activities that copyright regulates. In essence, Copyright and technical measures are disjoint, but technical measures and other areas of law such as contract and e-commerce overlap. This distinction is critical for a few reasons: a) We don't want to radically change the traditional definitions of copyright to include "access" as the concept of "access" would effectively replace the rest of the Copyright Act. b) We don't want to create a back-door protection of "access" by protecting "access control" technical measures, essentially creating two different forms of copyright: one for analog works, and one for digitally encoded works. c) We have to ask why we aren't protecting technical measures in contract, e-commerce and other laws where real-world technology overlap with uses applicable to the laws. Is this a matter of policy makers not understanding technology, or not understanding the law? Is there possibly lobby groups whose goals are to dismantle the concept of Copyright and replace it with something very different that doesn't protect the interests of creators or the general public? When I hear some lobbiests, especially those paid by the recording industry, I don't hear much respect for the traditional definitions or contours of copyright. The Liberal Bill C-60 contained a translation into Canadian law of what the 1996 WIPO treaties said. They tied legal protection for technical measures to activities that were already infringing. The two Conservative bills C-61 and C-32 included both the WIPO language that the Liberals used, plus an explicit protection of "access control" technical measures they imported from the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act. On this specific issue, which happens to be the most controversial, the Liberal Bill C-60 was far more consistent with the traditional definitions of copyright and international copyright law than either of the two Conservative bills. ZP: When we were discussing the bill, you mentioned that the length of copyright is actually changing in some cases even though it is not directly mentioned in the bill. Is the length of the copyright term changing with this bill? RM: It is an over-simplification to suggest that the copyright term is the life of the author plus 50 years. There are a number of other places where the term is different for a variety of reasons. Under current copyright law, where the owner of the "initial negative or plate from which the photograph was derived" is a corporation, the term of copyright is a fixed 50 years from when the photograph was made. This is being repealed by Bill C-32, such that it will be the life of some unknown and most often unknowable person plus 50 years. Under current copyright, the term for a performers performance is 50 years from when it was performed and/or recorded. Under C-32 this is able to be extended by publishing the recording, at worst 49 years from when the recording was made giving an effective 99 year copyright term. These are both cases of recordings, in one case photography and in the other sound recordings of performances. I am a firm believer that the copyright in all recordings should be based on the date when the recording was made. Multiple recordings can be made of a real-world event, and it is impossible to differentiate which is made by which human, whether that human is working for a specific corporation, or even if a human was involved beyond installing equipment and/or pushing a button to start the recording. Knowing who this human is to determine the term of copyright that expires based on the death of this human is impractical, and should not be considered in Copyright. The changes to copyright of recordings seem to presume that all or a majority of recordings are being made by artists. These days with recording devices in the pockets of so many people, and being used casually in many places of business (and by governments for surveillance and other reasons), the number of recordings attributable to professional art is almost insignificant. It is frustrating to see Copyright changed to favour this almost insignificant minority while making life so much harder for the majority. ZP: Many consider the anti-circumvention parts of the legislation as DMCA-style, but supporters of the bill say that there are a host of exceptions and that concerns about anti-circumvention are overblown. Are the anti-circumvention provisions too broad and the exceptions too narrow? Do they protect fair dealings? RM: Bill C-32 anti-circumvention includes both WIPO style protection which was intended to respect the contours of copyright including fair dealings, and "access control" technical measures which have little to do with traditional definitions of copyright. The USA DMCA explicitly protects their flexable Fair Use regime, and makes some ties to the existing contours of their Copyright, by stating that "Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title". Bill C-32 explicitly states in a few places that what limited fair dealings we have are able to be circumvented through the abuse of a technological measure. The types of excessively complex fair dealings language seen in C-32 are not necessary in the USA as it has a flexable fair use regime. Their more modern and robust fair use regime has been interpreted by their courts far more liberally and protected far more innovation and fair activities than the extremely weak fair dealings language in Canada. In other words, not only are the anti-circumvention provisions in C-32 too broad and the exceptions too narrow and unnecessarily complex, but that C-32 is far worse than the USA DMCA. I sometimes wonder if the supporters of the bill have actually read various documents such as C-32, the two 1996 WIPO treaties, existing Canadian copyright act and the USA DMCA. In some cases they are paid lobbiests whose job is to confuse and misinform, and in other cases it is people who have not done adequate research. --- ~~Part 2 of our interview is currently being posted at this time.~~ Part 2 of our interview has now been posted. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

ZeroPaid Interviews Renaud Veeckman – The Man Who Trademarked HADOPI

Drew Wilson — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 06:14:04 +0000

Earlier this month, we noted a development where a French citizen managed to trademark HADOPI faster than the government. Now, we have the great opportunity to interview the man himself who did it.

His name is Renaud Veeckman and his name is quickly becoming more and more recognizable around the world. When the French government was putting together a three strikes law (also known as HADOPI), Renaud Veeckman was busy trademarking the name HADOPI. It's one of the biggest developments that could cause problems for the French government hoping to enforce the new three strikes law because a government organization that would oversee the three strikes law is also named HADOPI. Veeckman trademarked HADOPI as part of his protest to show his disapproval for the new controversial law and now we have the opportunity to sit down with him. Please note: this interview was made possible by Google translate. ZeroPaid (ZP): Tell us about yourself. Renaud Veeckman (RV): My name is Renaud Veeckman. I'm 36 years old and live in the South of France in Avignon, a town of Provence. I am a journalist by training, but I stopped for several years in this business to devote myself to the board in this communication and in particular for local authorities. Let's say I am a concerned citizen in the life of the city. That is a quick description of my person. ZP: When You Went to claim ownership of the trademark HADOPI, Did You Know about the Governments plan HADOPI at about the time? If so, are you surprised to Get That ownership with What Is Happening? RV: At first, I filed the mark by exasperation at the lack of debate and mock democracy that took place at the National Assembly to discuss. I had no idea the impact that could have my gesture. And then the months passing, my life has changed. Today, I work full time on the project Apiadopi. Some people joined me in the adventure. We have created a company and we will soon launch bids for the Internet. In fact beyond the question mark is now anecdotal, we are considering the creation of new models for dissemination of digital content. Whatever happens, the road map is written. ZP: In Some reports, Some Say That the trademark HADOPI Has Been Decided not by a court. Do you think "could challenge has come and are you confident you can defend yourself That? If you win in court, Will You Be Offering a settlement deal with the government of a symbolic Euro? RV: Legally the situation is complex. Neither the state nor I are actually the trademark owner. This will be a judge to decide. The trial date is set for Nov. 19 at 9:00 am at the Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence. Evil is that which could now predict the verdict. If I win, I always said - and this since day one - I would ask a symbolic euro and the reimbursement of my legal fees. I have not done this to make money but as an act of resistance citizen. ZP: People like us in North America can only watch the discussion there HADOPI from the outside. You can see the discussion in your country. What do people think of the law HADOPI? What are your views on HADOPI? Are There Problems With The HADOPI law? RV: The French have not yet grasped the full extent of the web laws. For them, it remains highly theoretical. It will not be back in action within weeks. However, among the Internet community, it is really very poorly perceived for many reasons: economic, ethical, beyond the digital realities ... For my part, I am fundamentally opposed because it represents a world first concern for the Internet. That in a democracy to allow the integration of spyware on the computers of an entire population. The law creating a permanent insecurity for all Internet users, does this on behalf of the defense of intellectual property. I find this Kafkaesque and Orwellian both. One could cite other critics in this device strong legal / technical reason but I think the most important. ZP: Rights Holders in Other Countries say this law in France Should Be Brought in to the Law in Other Countries like England and Canada. From your experience in France, a law IS HADOPI That Should Be Brought in to Other Countries? RV: The Hadopi was passed and it will soon go into action. However, this does not mean it will be a success. Studies suggest that it will not prevent piracy and it should promote cyber crime because of the widespread use of encryption by means of example. To make a historical analogy, the mafia in the U.S. has never been so prosperous and popular as Prohibition. It seems to me that if states were planning to follow the French model, they had better wait. At the risk of being ridiculous in a few years ... It is understandable that this is only a single market issue, a significant imbalance between demand more and more important, and an offer that has not evolved to meet new uses. ZP: You are starting Some websites. It is my understanding "That One Of Them Allows People to sell music to fans They Made At What Price the creator chooser. Can you tell use more about this website? RV: Today, we believe that the future lies in creating a marketplace open to all artists. A place where artists interact with their fans, build relationships and loyalty sustainable So we thought we should set up a website and open source software suite that allows artists to get their hands on the selling price of their works and can change it whenever they want. Take the opposite path from that used by iTunes and the Big Four. We believe in the Direct to Fan, the Creative commons.Apiadopi-music.com (happy hadopi), aims to give artists the prominence they should have in the cultural process and to intermediaries to their own. That is to say in the background. Technologically, we have the expertise to mount. We work with CBE Technologies Inc. is based in Houston, Texas. The fundraiser for this type of project remains very difficult in France ... ZP: Other websites What are you starting? RV: Outside the field of digital broadcasting, we decided to create web services to protect and facilitate the use of the Internet both legally and technically. By mid-September, we will launch hadopi.fr-Sos, a helpline for people who have been affected by Internet Piracy or want to prevent it. For this, we created a national network of lawyers. Other projects are under consideration. But I can not tell you more. ZP: Is the Internet Changing how people find music in France? In France, Is The discussion on Copyright and the Internet in similar or different "any Way to the discussion on Copyright in North America? RV: We live in an era where we have never listened to much music. New technologies have enabled the works to move across the planet, across borders. Since the radio at the time, she gave birth to a new generation of music lovers, aspiring artists. The problem today is not the appreciation of creation, instead of the artist in society, but the means of financing. Nobody can deny that the creation has a cost, it must provide artists with a fair compensation to enable him to live his art. The disappearance of physical media removes many intermediate production of the CD to its transportation and its application in the bin stores. It's a win for consumers because the music is cheaper, and winning for the artist who gets a larger share of the sale price. The problem is that the commercial offer is very low compared to non-commercial offers and prices are too high. How can we accept that it is impossible to listen to streaming title of the Beatles on the Internet in 2010? Also explain how a title that costs $ 0.99 on iTunes USA costs 0.99 € in France? A difference of more than 25% for the same product in a globalized market. It is impossible to justify to the public. In France, progressive proposals have been issued through the Committee Zelnik. Unfortunately they remain dead letters. Only the law enforcement angle is developed. In the Government and among parliamentarians of the majority (the conservative party UMP) dissenting voices are rare. Fortunately, there are the few mavericks, but it is not enough. Regarding the discussions on copyright in the U.S., I admit I did not be aware of their recent developments. ZP: What do you think about the Pirate Party Pirate Gold Partiet? RV: Personally, I think the Pirate Party and its national versions (Germany, France, ...) are interesting but limited. Their interest is to put political uses to which they seem totally disconnected. To simplify our old European politicians could say that the concept of "global village" they are not yet reached the brain. Some are still at the age of fax and Minitel. So his party can provide an awareness. However, their program is limited to a limited field. A political party should in my view to have a global vision of society. ZP: Do you want to add Anything more? RV: My conclusion will be a sort of cry for help. In France, we have a wealth of talented individuals who have great ideas. Unfortunately, due to the lack of political will and the reluctance of investors the means to achieve them are weak. This largely explains why the Internet services are so poorly developed. On projects of transnational interests that we should go forward together. In my opinion, is for citizens to regain control, to defend their rights and imagine that their models are favorable. --- We would like to thank Renaud Veeckman for taking the time out of his busy schedule to break the language barrier and talk to us. You can check out his current website at APIDOPI.fr (and here's a Google translation of the site in English) Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

RIAA Record Label Founder Says Internet Not Music’s Enemy

Drew Wilson — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 22:18:36 +0000

Just shortly after Stevie Nicks said that the Internet has destroyed rock, the founder of Elektra Records, an RIAA record label according to RIAA Radar, says that music has a bright future and the internet is not the enemy.

There's a fascinating article over on CNet which shows that Jac Holzman, founder of Elektra Records and helped bring you artists such as The Doors, has had some positive things to say about the digital age. He helped push the record industry to adopt the CD and was quoted as saying "I think the music industry has a bright future" when discussing the internet. Here's two excerpts from the article:

In music, Holzman saw the rise of the LP, 8-track tape, DAT, compact disc, MP3, and BitTorrent. After all that, new technologies don't spook him. On the contrary, he says many of these technologies helped make a lot of artists and industry people rich. When it comes to the Internet and digital distribution, Holzman is confident music labels can capitalize on them too. He says they really don't have a choice. "I was having lunch with a very dear friend of mine [in the record business] sometime around 2000," Holzman said during an interview this week with CNET. "We met right around the time when Napster came together, and I said 'There are opportunities and there are potholes. How are you preparing for a digital future?' He said to me, 'Jac, I just want it to go away.' Well, you can't continue that conversation."

Holzman suggested that the big labels goofed when they sued Napster out of existence. At that point, the rise of the CD had left the industry without an effective way to sell individual songs. Before the CD, the 45-rpm vinyl disc was the perfect singles vehicle. The costs of manufacturing CDs, however, made that format more suited to selling full albums, according to Holzman. "With Napster, it would have been easy to proliferate singles," Holzman said. "You would have had no manufacturing costs. You would still have the value of the single as a calling card for albums and you could have sold [songs] for something like 79 cents, made it affordable. You would have had ability to count because all of the transactions went through a central server at Napster, unlike peer-to-peer where you bypassed servers. Now, would P2P still have happened? Yes it would. But we would have established a principle of being paid for digital music."

Holzman also sees positive things when it comes to the re-use of copyrighted works through fair use. Additionally, he thinks that suing music fans is a mistake and that ISPs should share some profits from the music that has been flowing through their networks. All this comes after Stevie Nicks, in spite of the evidence that suggests otherwise, blamed the internet for destroying rock as well as John Mellencamp saying that the internet is the most dangerous invention since the A-bomb. So where does this leaves the mainstream American music industry? I think it shows that everyone in the RIAA ranks don't universally have the opinion that the internet is destroying music. Even within the RIAA, there are opposing views with the digital age and how it affects music. It's a lot like the misconceptions of those who support digital rights. Those who support a loosening copyright laws don't necessarily all say that copyright laws should be abolished and that everything should be free. In fact, many who support a more liberal copyright law even say that they are more than happy to pay for copyrighted material. In the ranks of the RIAA, not everyone is of the extreme point of view that the internet should just be dismantled. Do such people exist? Yes. Are they all of the same opinion? No. That doesn't mean that the debate hasn't shown signs of polarity. I think it's the extreme points of view that do have this affect though. If one person says that the internet should be abolished, a large number of people with various points of view will rally against a call like that. Overall, it's very refreshing to see something like this surface. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

Drew Wilson Appears on Australias Radio Show ‘The Fourth Estate’

Drew Wilson — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 22:05:07 +0000

The shut down of 73,000 blogs certainly had a lot of people talking. The story made international headlines and, as a result, we here at ZeroPaid had the opportunity to talk to Australias radio show, "The Fourth Estate"

Download MP3 (FF to 20:00 +-) After it was revealed why 73,000 blogs were shut down, and burst.net confirmed the story that it was terrorist related activity that ultimately shut down the site, we were approached by Mig, host of the Australian radio show, "The Fourth Estate" to discuss what had happened. I made an appearance during the segment 17 minutes in to the MP3 where I discussed why the shut down of 73,000 blogs had such a significant impact worldwide. What I argued was that because this was in the United States, there are already implications when it comes to free speech being hampered because free speech is a highly valued freedom in the United States. Combine that with the fact that this was censorship online and you have yourself a perfect storm of controversy because free speech is a core fundamental freedom that really makes the internet tick. It didn't make it on to the air, but I was also asked if this could set a precedent for the future of free speech online. I argued that it really doesn't given that it was Burst.net that ultimately pulled the plug on Blogetery's operations. I'd say that had the FBI ordered the shut down of the site in the first place, then this case could set a precedent for online free speech, but this was clearly an administrative issue more than anything else. That's not to say that Burst.net was incompetent in any way. If you are a site administrator or a hosting company in the US and the FBI approached you saying that something under your watch is fueling terrorist related activities, what do you do? You are immediately put in a very stressful situation and when you are put in a stressful situation, it makes it much more difficult to think things through from all angles. How is it not a pressure filled situation when you have your own government knocking on your door anyway? Chances are, you know more about the flow of packets over a network than the Patriot Act. This is not to say censorship is not a threat online given the more recent news of Italy's government clamping down on written journalists and online bloggers. That has a possibility of setting a very bad precedent. I do think, though, that in this case, other hosting services and open discussion forums on US soil should look at this case and ask, "If the FBI came knocking on the doors of my network or site, how should I react to 'x' demands?" Ultimately, I think other companies who haven't put forth a set of internal procedures by now, they should do so in light of this incident. Yes, it's all well and good to be an advocate of free speech, but one should also know that US companies have to operate with the laws that have been set in place as a result of US lawmaking. I would like to thank Mig Caldwell, the producer of the Fourth Estate for this opportunity to make an appearance on her radio show. More info: The Fourth Estate blog Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

ZeroPaid Interviews the Free Software Foundation

Drew Wilson — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 06:51:48 +0000

Open source has been in the media for quite some time whether directly or indirectly. With ACTA leak and the ASCAP letter two big news items that affects open source, we decided to sit down with the Free Software Foundation and talk about these and other things related to the open source movement.

Update: Please see note at bottom of article with regards to the use of the term "open source" There are many things happening with open source. There are big news items that effect open source such as clauses in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and, what some have called, an indirect attack coming from ASCAP through the ASCAP letter. There are also issues that go under the radar such as open source adoption. With so much happening with Open Source, we decided to sit down with Peter Brown, the Controller and Executive Director of the Free Software Foundation to get his take on various issues. What is the Free Software Foundation and how is it important to open source? The FSF is a not-for-profit foundation created in 1985 to sponsor the GNU project and promote the worldwide cause of software freedom. Free software is about having control over the technology we use in our homes, schools and businesses. Where computers work for our individual and communal benefit, not for proprietary software companies or governments who might seek to restrict and monitor us. The GNU system that we developed with the help of a worldwide community of volunteers, is in widespread use today in the form of GNU/Linux: a combination of the GNU system and a kernel written by Linus Torvalds. Open Source is a different idea. The term was created by people in the free software movement that were concerned about appealing to the CEO's of powerful corporations, who didn't care to hear about our social movement's purpose of gaining computer user freedom. Today, more people know this history and appreciate the values of software freedom. Indeed, many representatives of Open Source organizations point to the Free Software Foundation's work and recognize that our mission is the core of their purpose. You can help the cause of software freedom by not participating in the corporate process of hiding the meaning behind this movement. Please call this work free software and not open source. Remember that the system is GNU using the Linux kernel, not just Linux. These are great and simple ways to make a difference and educate others. When people think of "free", some might think, "well, that means no one is getting paid and every contribution is voluntary to an open source project." A lot of advocates of open source I spoke to personally say that this is a big misconception about open source and people, indeed, do get paid while contributing to open source in various ways. Do you agree that free doesn't equate to no one getting paid from an open source perspective? Free software is about freedom not price. The FSF itself sells disks of free software. We are perfectly happy for people to make money using free software. So think about your freedom, not about making or spending money. Free software values mean no spying on your activities. Free software values mean no DRM (digital restrictions). Free software values mean no locked down devices. Free software values means sharing with your friends, making copies and learning about free software from studying the source code of the software you use--if you want to. A while ago, ASCAP issued a letter attacking various user rights organizations and, curiously, Creative Commons. They said that "copyleft" is undermining their "copyright". While Creative Commons responded saying that these claims are false and copyleft isn't undermining copyright because Creative Commons, in fact, is a copyright license. Some people took ASCAPs comments as being an indirect attack on open source, maybe because open source is viewed as part of the copyleft movement. First of all, do you feel that you are part of the copyleft movement? Secondly, do you think ASCAPs attack on Creative Commons was also an indirect attack on open source as well? Finally, what's your take on the ASCAP letter? The concept of copyleft was created by our founder and president Richard Stallman. The world's most popular copyleft software license is the GNU GPL--a software license published by the Free Software Foundation. So in fact we represent the founders of the copyleft movement. But we should be clear about what copyleft is. Copyleft is a technique that Stallman created to prevent free software from becoming proprietary software. It depends on copyright law, and it is composed of a set of permissions that the copyright holder grants to the user. It is not anti-copyright, though the FSF and many other organizations take the position that copyright laws have become to strict and overly broad and need major reform. ASCAP doesn't like these views because they conflict with their purpose: making as much money as possible off the back of our shared cultural heritage. The topic of software patents, as much as I can tell, has always been a very controversial topic for those in the open source movement. How can software patents, in your view, undermine the open source movement and, more broadly, undermine software development and society as well? Many corporations who represent Open Source love software patents because they own so many of them themselves. The free software movement rejects the very idea of software patents. Please watch the recent documentary film we sponsored Patent Absurdity. Advocates of software patents might argue, "Hey look, patents allows us to secure jobs and money for various companies and to be against software patents is an extreme position to be in that would hurt jobs." How would you respond to criticisms such as this? That the economic evidence doesn't support that finding. In fact, the evidence makes clear that software patents are a drag on the US economy as a whole and are a deep threat to all other nations if software patents get adopted internationally. The FSF sponsors a campaign against software patents and we present all the evidence about the harm that software patents inflict, including economic at EndSoftPatents.org. ACTA recently made its way in the media with news of its more recent leak. Do you think ACTA could potentially harm the open source movement? If so, in what ways is ACTA in its current form harmful for open source and software development? Again, many corporations that support Open Source have been silent on ACTA. The Free Software Foundation has spoken out against ACTA and is promoting a petition. ACTA encourages spying on computer users. It encourages internationalization of DRM schemes and harmful laws like the DMCA. It makes citizens wary of sharing, when sharing is what we want to encourage with free software. ACTA is simply another gift from paid-for law makers to an industry that hates technology that empowers citizens. Open source has popped up in the news here and there in fairly impressive ways. Different corporate and government organizations have made announcements over the years that they are switching to open source solutions. How positive are these types of announcements for the open source movement? Could you name a few particularly memorable announcements of organizations switching to open source? Many organizations are wary of announcing their use of free software, because proprietary software corporations like Microsoft show up to threaten and abuse them. They did this in Massachusetts when the State tried to adopt a policy of using Open Document Format. They did this to the One Laptop Per Child program when they were promoting their use of GNU/Linux. But Microsoft's power is waning, so more news is reaching the public. CERN's large Hadron Collider depends on GNU/Linux. The US armed forces have stated their dependence on free software for weapons systems. The NYSE trading platform is GNU/Linux based, and many other trading systems use free software. The White House uses Drupal for its website. And Wikipedia is served up using only free software. The list of high profile users is getting to be a long list. I personally have spoken to someone from within government who says that the big dissuading factor of an organization switching to open source is liability. The example I was given was if, say, Microsoft screws something up, a company can be blamed. If an open source product messes up, where does the blame go? How can open source overcome perceptions like that to help get more people to use open source solutions? Are there other perceptions from, say, businesses that you would like to lay to rest? If Microsoft screws something up it's just another day in the life of a proprietary software user. Microsoft isn't about to cut you a check to make it all better again. Having Microsoft to blame doesn't help you. Most organizations that use free software use a vendor who offers support and services. Free software makes it possible for anyone to get into the business of offering these services because the software gives you that freedom. It's great for local economies. Some people only know proprietary software. An example is someone saying, "hey, I know Microsoft enough to use it, why should I make this big leap to open source when all I want to do is get from point A to B." Open source, though, isn't solely tied to operating systems though. What would you say to that person if you wanted them to use more open source technology and where should that person go to find out about open source? Go to FSF.org to get an introduction and a pathway to using more free software. Using free software is great. But understanding and appreciating the values of free software is more important. That's why you should reject the term Open Source. What the FSF wants to talk about and what we want to pass on to your readers is an understanding of why it matters that you have software freedom. Why it's important for our society to build its future on a technology that we can control and that serves our interests. Think about the alternative future where free software doesn't succeed. Where a hand-full of proprietary software companies thus control all access to the internet. Where spying on your computing activities is assured. Where copying digital media files is prevented by pervasive DRM schemes. Where you're forced to do your computing on a corporation's servers: often referred to as cloud computing, or as we know it, complete spying. Where your rights that are lawful cannot be expressed because the software you use prevents you from undertaking those legal activities. And where competition is allowed to be stifled because these same corporations have collected thousands of software patents that prevent anyone else from changing the rules of the game. These examples may seem extreme, but companies like Microsoft and Apple are busy pursuing these outcomes and lobbying your government to help them. Is there anything you would like to add? Keep up to date by subscribing to receive the Free Software Supporter newsletter and alerts. Volunteer for us. There are many jobs to be done and you don't have to be a coder. The FSF receives the bulk of its funding from its Associate Members. You can become a member for $10 a month ($5 students) or donate at FSF.org.jf Happy Hacking! --- We would like to thank Peter Brown of the Free Software Foundation for taking the time to sit down and answer our questions. UPDATE - Important Note: This interview was conducted via e-mail where the questions were sent all at once and I received the answers all at once. Up until the interview, I didn't know the term "open source" was, in and of itself, a poor term for some. So for those concerned that I insisted on using the term "open source", this wasn't really meant to come off this way and I apologize for that. This interview was meant to be educational to the general public and it was even educational to me since I'm not as involved with free software as I am with general file-sharing, technology and even free speech. Rest assured, I got the message. For all intents and purposes, this interview is already doing its job of informing. Thank you for your concerns. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

ZeroPaid Interviews the Pirate Party of Canada

Drew Wilson — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 22:05:57 +0000

If you asked a file-sharer in, say, 2005, if there would be a political party with a focus on, among other things, copyright and internet rights issues, you were more than likely to just get an odd look or a response wondering what kind of substances you were on. That was just four years ago. Today, the Pirate Party has become an international movement dedicated to, among other things, ensuring privacy, reforming copyright laws and focusing on internet user rights. We interviewed the Pirate Party of Canada to discuss issues such as politics and a new music distribution network for artists.

We interviewed Jake Daynes, a spokesperson for the Pirate Party of Canada recently and we had some interesting responses to our questions.

ZeroPaid: What is the Pirate Party and how has it grown since the launch?

Jake Daynes: The Pirate Party of Canada is the Canadian counterpart of the international Pirate Party movement, which has gained seats in Sweden and Germany. We are fighting for fair copyright, patent reform, net neutrality, and government transparency. Our goals can be found here.

ZeroPaid: We’ve heard about a Pirate Party distribution platform that is being launched. What is the distribution platform exactly? Has it been officially launched? Are there any partners involved in this project?

Jake Daynes: Right now I don’t want to say much, but I can say that it utilizes a very “pirate-y” distribution method. Right now it has been started up, though we have not made it live, and we have several partners in this, such as Musicians United Against Censorship, Electronica Artist/DJ: Frozen Ice Cube [Author's note: The latest music is currently here due to recent technical issues] , and Fading Ways Music.

ZeroPaid:What sort of artists are you looking for? Is it genre specific or location specific or can anyone around the world with any musical style join in? Is it moderated and if so, how long does it take for something to be posted?

Jake Daynes: No, we are not genre specific, we are looking for anybody and everybody! We do have a slight moderation system, which is mainly me going through every track, just to make sure it isn’t a copyright violation, but it shouldn’t take more than 24 hours to get something posted, once the project is live.

ZeroPaid: For artists, what kind of reach does this platform provide (like, how many people are accessing it)? Do you expect this number of people to grow?

Jake Daynes: This platform is access to a global stage, with Pirate Party support in the UK, Ireland, Australia, Sweden, Germany, and the US, we have access to millions of people that are all looking for new music to listen to!

ZeroPaid: I’ve noticed on your home page that you have a sufficient number of members, but you seem to have a second bar for people sending in forms. Are you able to officially register as a political party yet or do you have to have that number of forms handed in before that happens?

Jake Daynes: Right now we are asking everybody to send in their forms, as we need to have a minimum of 250 to register with Elections Canada, though those that sign up are still counted as full members, as membership is free!

ZeroPaid: It’s been talked about plenty of times that the Pirate Bay had a major influence on the success of the Swedish Pirate Party. The only big things like that happening around in Canada seem to have been copyright reform legislation which is already on the back burner because of the copyright consultations. Would you say that the Pirate Party’s growth is attributed to a reaction to major copyright related events or is it more of an ongoing growth for the Canadian Pirate Party?

Jake Daynes: Actually, few people know it, but Canada has it’s own Pirate Bay right here in Richmond, B.C.: isoHUNT, which is run by Gary Fung just south of Vancouver. Copyright is a global issue that is affecting everybody, and even though the copyright consultations are putting reform on the back burner as you put it, the PPoC is continuing to grow, with members and chapters all across the country.

ZeroPaid: There have been a number of countries that have Pirate Parties officially registered, but all these countries seem to be in Europe. Is it the goal of the Pirate Party of Canada to be the first non-European country to be an official political party?

Jake Daynes: Yes, currently the PPoC is looking to become the first non-European party to be officially registered.

ZeroPaid: There are rumours that there could, on a remote chance, be an election in the Fall. If that happens, is there a chance that the Pirate Party could be in that election?

Jake Daynes: Sadly no, because of current election legislation, the PPoC would have to have been a registered party 60 days before the writ of an election, though we will continue to push our issues, and hope that the voice of fair copyright is heard by current parties.

ZeroPaid: There are a number of people out there who might suggest that the party doesn’t stand much of a chance with the First Past the Post system along with the established parties. Having said that though, is it the goal for the party to win seats or is it more about sending a message to government that said Canadians are concerned with certain issues in the copyright, privacy and technology related fields of policy making?

Jake Daynes: Yes, it is in fact very difficult for a new party to break into the First Past the Post system, take, for example, the Green Party, garnering 13% of the popular vote last election and still not gaining a seat. Our goal is indeed to gain seats, though one important point is that our message is heard, because lets face it, we as a party prove that Canadians are concerned, and some even passionate about these issues.

ZeroPaid: Do you have anything further to add?

Jake Daynes: I, Jake Daynes, would just like to add that if anybody is interested in the Party, my personal email is JakeDaynes@PirateParty.ca, and I would be happy to discuss them with you. If you would like to debate the Party’s views, our forums are very lively.

ZeroPaid: Thank you very much for your time.

Jake Daynes: Thank you Drew

We would like to thank Jake Daynes for taking the time out of his busy schedule to talk to us.

The Pirate Party of Canada was started somewhere between the end of June and July 2nd. It’s been seeking membership since the launch and has grown to roughly 500 members in the span of two months. Pirate Party of Canada’s official website home page.

Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

ZeroPaid Interviews an Operator of WinMXWorld

Jorge Gonzalez — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 07:29:18 +0000

Things have been interesting for the last year or two for WinMX users. It’s been tricky following what has been happening with WinMX these days, so ZeroPaid caught up with Tigger of WinMX to, among other things, see what is happening in the world of WinMX.

Last week, ZeroPaid reported on an interesting development occurring in France where a study was done to see how successful various ISP-level filtering were at filtering out P2P traffic. The results were described as many things including, “not perfect”

The study focused on a wide variety of P2P protocols in use today. One of these protocols includes WinMX. For the most part, it appeared as though WinMX was quite successful at dodging the two most well known filters. So discuss this and many other things happening in WinMX today, we turned to Tigger of WinMXWorld for an interesting interview.

ZeroPaid: First of all, who are you and what do you do?

Tigger: I’m a mum and part time student. I have been active in the WinMX p2p community for many years, helping users to enjoy WinMX. I currently operate the winmxworld help site with a group of like-minded users.

ZP: WinMX has had a colorful history, but it seems to me that there was a study released that touched on how well ISP P2P filters do. The statistics may surprise some. They suggest that the two filters that were tested show 7% and 0% detection efficiency. There was a regulation test that showed at 25% regulation, WinMX was only filtered out at 19% and 0%, then at 75% regulation, there was nothing but a pair of bagels on the board. Positively speaking, this seems to show that even the “old WinMX client” seems to dodge the filters unlike something like BitTorrent. Negatively speaking, it may show that the protocol is unpopular enough for filtering companies to not really focus on the network. Either way, it sounds like it’s good news for users who use the network in terms of filtering avoidance. How do you interpret the results?

T: I’m inclined to agree with your analysis on the Evolution Internet report. Whilst I’m sure some ISP companies don’t view WinMX as a major bandwidth consumer, many have been taking active steps to disrupt file transfers. In general the trend seems to be that some ISP’s are more active than others where WinMX is concerned. The report was good news for many users facing what amounts to an unfair penalty on using a service they have contracted into.

I would at this point like to explain the network architectural model, as many have no idea of what WinMX looks like mapped out on paper.

Most p2p users are familiar with the client/server model. This is utilised for the low bandwidth “secondary ” clients akin to Napster. Where WinMX differs from that basic model is the inclusion of a decentralised “primary” backbone. The “primary” backbone communicates chat room listings and search queries over a completely separate network utilising a different protocol. This is likely part of the reason WinMX is not a simple cut and dried case when it comes to ISP traffic interference.

A diagram of what the WinMX network generally looks like as provided by Tigger

ZP: There were some unfortunate scenarios facing WinMX users in the past. There was, of course, the shut down of the main WinMX server a couple of years ago. Then there was the appearance of a rivalry for control over the network between Vladd44 and WinMXWorld. Sometime after the rivalry began, I believe there was even a lawsuit over the WinMX patch to get users connected. The last thing I heard was that anti-p2p companies were trying to flood the network, but otherwise, things appeared to have been quiet. First of all, has there been any sort of resolution for the rivalry that took place a while back? What about the anti-p2p companies flooding the networks? Are there measures put in place to avoid the fakes?

T: September 2005 was the start of a sometimes acrimonious struggle. I’m sure in hindsight we can all see the community was pulled too many ways at once with different groups competing to do what they believed was best. At the time it was not possible to reach agreement on many important issues and so for over two years the community was cleaved into two camps, vladd44′s mxpie and winmxworld/wimxgroup. Obviously this could not go on forever and over time dialogue between the major groups has been steadily climbing. Whilst, to be fair, mxpie where good at publicising their preferred host file solution, the technically superior winsock.dll hijack method was seen as a way to move the client forward without resorting to any modification of the WinMX file itself. Improvements included a fake file filtering system and a block-list to deny MediaDefender / Macrovision the ability to disrupt the network. One prototype even featured uPnP support, in short this has proved to be the Holy Grail as far as WinMX is concerned. No other p2p network can boast of such a flawless system.

In a more recent situation (July 2007) KingMacro the dll file creator made a decision similar to WinMX Technologies Kevin Hearn and closed the winmxgroup peer caches (the network connection method). This was unexpected and a quarter of users with the dll solution that relied on the winmxgroup peer caches where not seen to return. The patch was soon modified to point to three separate domains on different continents to reduce the risk of disruption and the vital peer caches are now safely spread amongst many trusted users.

ZP: Past aside, what about the present? How has the network faired in recent times? Networks like BitTorrent have grabbed a large amount of headlines these days between ThePirateBay, statistics on which BitTorrent client is popular, innovations made by MiniNova, etc. Is it a fair assumption that maybe that now WinMX has a slightly lower profile, that maybe it is now flying under the anti-p2p radar a bit more? Since all these issues, what sort of innovations have been put into the development of WInMX in the past year or two?

T: The network has been fairly quiet and stable for the most part in 2008. This is due mainly to increased co-operation amongst long-term users looking to the future and how we can best position ourselves to counter potential problems. We have of course generated a few offshoot projects that are slowly looking to reach fruition including work towards a new client.

We have three programmers working in our community research pool. Sometimes guiding them to work in the same direction is not always simple as you may expect, but we can at least look forward to a future of diversity and growth. The secondary client is proposed to be open source, there are unfortunately technical hurdles involved in open sourcing a primary client that will need to be resolved and some serious thought placed into retaining complete compatibility. After all, many improvements are possible but not all are welcome.

ZP: ZeroPaid get’s a number of interesting questions about untested networks. One of the main concerns is P2P privacy. Is there any way to either encrypt traffic or connect through a proxy? What does WinMX offer in terms of privacy? Is there protocol obfuscation like you see on eMule? If not, will there be in the future?

T: Whilst I don’t think anyone can with a straight face call WinMX “untested” given its long pedigree. I am surprised its not a well know fact that WinMX actually features a proprietary encryption of traffic between all client levels using a code table and seed method and this is from 2001. It is possible to utilise WinMX with a proxy and in fact the client supports sock 4 and 5 proxy methods. The community has many hobby coders who actively research and document its technical features. There is however one remaining problem that only a new client can correct. File transfers. These are, for some strange reason, not encrypted at all. This may have been an active design choice to ensure opennap compatibility was retained but it’s a godsend for an ISP wishing to throttle WinMX traffic. We are currently researching methods to remove this chink in the armour without losing complete compatibility and some great ideas have been placed on the table.

ZP: A number of skeptics might say, ‘well, I have BitTorrent/UseNet/eMule/etc., what does WinMX offer that other networks might not offer?’ Even if the other networks offer something WinMX offer, what would you say that might convince some to give WinMX a try anyway?

T: WinMX offers a collection of attributes that no other network is able. Aside from the obvious ability to obtain files of any type from two separate networks (WPN and OpenNap), it has a second role as a social community with over 1300 chat rooms catering from the weird to the wonderful. Combining these two features with the fake blocking technology has, in this case, created a solid user base that, instead of turning tail from the recording industries disruption efforts, have worked hard to defend the network. Its no joke to say many speak positively of a “WinMX spirit” when discussing a hopeless looking situation.

ZP: Looking into the crystal ball, what sort of things are on the horizon for WinMX and the community? What kind of things are in the works for WinMX at this point?

T: Whilst I’m sure you can appreciate we believe the user base “churn” rate is a little lower than most other networks, our major effort is to deliver primarily help and support for the network. Our second priority is of course to stimulate and support efforts to create a replacement client. I believe this is a natural progression given the demise of winmx.com and whilst we have been so far “lucky” in meeting each new challenge I also believe its never a good time to rest on ones laurels.

ZeroPaid would like to thank Tigger of WinMXWorld for taking the time to sit down to do this interview.

WinMXWorld official website

digg_url = ‘http://digg.com/tech_news/ZeroPaid_Interviews_an_Operator_of_WinMXWorld’;