digital rights restrictions management (DRM), noun

A technology that allows pants to be sold with a filching hand pre-installed in the pocket.

"In January 2006 the European Commission published the Study on the Economic and Technical Evolution of the Scientific Publication Markets of Europe. The Study resulted from a detailed analysis of the current scholarly journal publication market, together with extensive consultation with all the major stakeholders within the scholarly communication process (researchers, funders, publishers, librarians, research policymakers, etc.).
The Study noted that 'dissemination and access to research results is a pillar in the development of the European Research Area' and it made a number of balanced and reasonable recommendations to improve the visibility and usefulness of European research outputs."

from Petition for guaranteed public access to publicly-funded research results

It is a very important request, but not going far enough. Essentially, the petition requests all knowledge, result of publicly funded research to be made openly and freely (they are not explicit about it, but this is what I understand from the context) available and accessible.

FSFE started drm.info - a collaborative information platform. Collaborative + information => Drupal. Obviously the designers/developers though so.

While on the topic of DRM - you could check (yes, you Apple fans and iTunes addicts, I'm looking at you, and I'm not blinking) the Deffective by Design campaign. Looks like it has been drupal fueled as well.

If you are inspired, feeling lazy yet subversive, you could tag appropriate, that is products encouraging/using DRM (Digital Restrictions Management) with the defectivebydesign tag on amazon.

Also during the Openness session, a representative from Reporters without Borders questioned the panelist from Cisco Systems, the company who provides the Chinese government with the technology to spy on its citizens and block websites — and that eventually leads to the imprisonment and killing of people who are critical of the policies of the Chinese government. Art Reilly of Cisco said it provides the same technology to all governments and does not feel responsible for the way in which China uses the technology to repress its people. Would that argument absolve a company of ethical responsibility for providing gas to the Nazis, knowing full well that the gas would be used to exterminate people? Here’s a video clip of the exchange.
from the ipjustice blog, more clips linked from there

Protect Freedom #1: Eliminate DRM

Stikr aktion at factoryjoe's flickr garage.

The allofmp3 sitcom continues. Reuters has an article about the latest hurdle to Russia's membership to the WTO and surprise, surprise, that is allofmp3.

The interesting bit is that the company behind the website is apparently acting according to the local law. It does pay money to the organisation representing the authors rights in Russia - which is what the Russian law says. It apparently treats internet music sales similarly to how radio broadcasts and coffee shop music are charged in other places.

Up until now I was avoiding putting my thoughts on 'paper', but here we are. My instincts simply say Restricting knowledge distribution and use is wrong. Some might say this makes me a communist devil, anarchist or whatever other epithet is currently cool in their circles. Let's avoid that for the time being. These scribbles are probably not 100% correct. But the ideas are what matters anyway. And will you find a difference from a bird's eye view?

Obviously this is a strong social issue, as in it reflects a growing concern of the society as a whole. The society as the human beings represented by a state, like UK, USA, France, Bulgaria, or groups of states like EU, UN, ... Some long time ago patents were introduced by the British Crown in order to give a temporary monopoly to inventors, so that they can protect and exploit their knowhow, while making the knowledge (their knowhow) public. This was a significant social issue. This way knowledge was immediately becoming exploitable by the society. People could benefit from the abstract knowledge or the principles behind the patentable invention. These principles were not patentable at the time, only some of their defined applications - the invention, machines, products etc... The monopoly lasted for a relatively short period of time. Longer than it would take at the time to reverse engineer an invetion and set up production of a competitive product, but not by too much. This is important, since timescales, im my opinion, are important when trying to rationalise the costs of patents to a society.

More than a year has passed since the European Parliament’s historic rejection of the Commission’s and Council’s software patent bill. Now this zombie legislation is shambling through parliament again: on October 11 or 12, the EP is set to vote in Brussels on two competing motions for a resolution on future European patent policy.

Software Patents - back like a bad smell (Open Rights Group)

It's never too late to have an opinion, I suppose. It's the same arguments, different door. It seems the agenda of patent law harmonisation will never go away. As I was writing more that a year ago, this, strangely enough, always goes towards harmonise up - that is make the broadest possible treatment, as opposed to the minimum common denominator.

It is true, that there are powerful stakeholders - mainly patent law firms, patent/IP farms, to a lesser extent technology companies.

Nowadyas the majority of the software industry uses the patent laws for as a defense weapon anyway. There are parasitic companies and the odd litigious ones, but they are exceptions and usually end up in PR disastres.

Why feed the IP parasites?

Write your MEP/MP what do you think about it

Brussels, 21 September 2006 -- Commissioner McCreevy proclaims blissful ignorance about the consequences of the European Patent Litigation Agreement (EPLA). In a series of six non-answers to Members of the European parliament, the Commission reveals that until now it is unable to comment on cost, judicial independence, jurisprudence and treaty-related concerns. Meanwhile McCreevy keeps praising the virtues of said draft agreement.

Commission unable to answer MEPs on Patent Litigation Agreement (FFII)

You might want to read what the FFII say/do about it

Join the pirate party. Now. If there is none in your area, immigration to Sweden might help.

The Pirate Party wants to fundamentally reform copyright law, get rid of the patent system, and ensure that citizens' rights to privacy are respected. With this agenda, and only this, we are making a bid for representation in the Swedish parliament in the upcoming national elections in September.

Apparently, the pirate party stands a chance in the next elections.

This is a lame adapted translation of the Russian story I posted a couple of days ago. The author unfortunately is anonymous. If you could polish it, so it sounds better in English, please do. It's in the public domain, as far as I know.

A house somewhere in Britain, some time in the future
- Dad, can I get 99 quid off your card? Need to pay for a book
- What book?
- Shakespeare, Hamlet
- Why, we have it
- Really? Which file?
- What have files have to do with it! It's on the shelf. It's your nana's.
- Nah, that's a deadwood book
- So what? I read it when I was your age.