Endorsement of petitions by Ubuntu Canada?

[Russell McOrmond]

Peter Whittaker wrote:
> I think Corey's post accomplished that part... ...this discussion
> just continues that good work...!

   It may be that this conversation will entice someone to write an
article for the Ubuntu Canada website. http://www.ubuntu.ca/

   I'd also love to get a "Yes, we endorse" so I can put the Ubuntu
Canada name/URL up on the petition pages.

> Can you elaborate on that point?

   I would love to.  (but you knew that ;-)


   Trying to help people better understand this issue is in fact the 
focus of the second petition, which is about Information Technology 
property rights (including the right to choose our own software), and 
not really "copyright" related at all.

> I read the second petition and the "more info" blog, and I just don't
> come to same conclusion. The concern is with DRM content restrictions
> (what I can do with a CD I buy or a song I download, e.g.), is it
> not?

   Nop ;-)

   The second petition is about what you are allowed to do with your CD 
player, or any hardware (such as your home computer) which you might 
want to put that CD into.  It's the "Petition to protect Information 
Technology property rights".

   The petiton only mentions content because of a technique abused to 
force specific hardware/software choices on people based on their 
purchase of content.   Under the Canadian Competition Act that is called 
tied selling, and lawmakers recognized long ago how harmful this can be 
to allow the purchase/use of one product/service to be tied to the 
purchase of some separate product/service.


> How would content DRM stop me from using/choosing Ubuntu?


   While DRM is marketed as a "content restriction", the locking down of 
content is only a small part of what is involved.

   The policy document from CLUE speaks of two primary concerns: 
http://cluecan.ca/policy/copyright

  * We disagree with the legalization or legal projection of techniques 
used by copyright holders to encode their content such that it can only 
be accessed with "authorized" technology brands.

  * We disagree with the legalization or legal protection of techniques 
used by device manufacturers to lock down devices such that their owners 
are considered attackers, where owners are not able to control the 
technology or make their own software choices.


  The first petition only said, "to recognise the right of citizens to 
personally control their own communication devices."  After explaining 
the petition over a few months I realized that people do not think of 
software as the rules that computer hardware obeys, and that being in 
"control" means having the legally protected right to make your own 
software choices on your own hardware.


   The second petition is more focused on this issue. It is intended to 
be clear about both aspects of this problem, but be focused on digital 
locks on devices.


"prohibit the application of a technical protection measure to a device 
without the informed consent of the owner of the device, and to prohibit 
the conditioning of the supply of content to the purchase or use of a
device which has a technical measure applied to it. We further call upon
Parliament to recognise the right of citizens to personally control
their own communication devices, and to choose software based on their
own personal criteria."



   Later in your email you recognize the first part of the issue, which 
is that when copyright holders lock their content such that it can only 
be sued by "authorized" access technology that Ubuntu won't be authorized.

   Ubuntu and any other FLOSS is intended to be "user serviceable parts 
inside".  It is this important feature and the Peer Production that it 
enables that makes Ubuntu a better choice than Microsoft Windows or 
MacOS-X.  The purpose of DRM is to disallow the user to have control, as 
if they had control they might infringe copyright.

   The second aspect is far more critical, but also far less understood. 
  The intent is to legally protect device manufacturers who lock down 
the hardware such that only signed BIOS's can then only load signed boot 
loaders which can only load signed kernels, and so-on for all software. 
  While configuring hardware to only accept signed binaries is a good 
idea in theory, it should be the owner of the computer and not any third 
party that decides which signatures should be accepted.  The purpose of 
DRM is to disallow the user to have this control, as if they had control 
they might infringe copyright.


See: [LAFKON] A movie about "Trusted Computing"
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/1175

   Yes, the 1996 WIPO treaties were intended to legally protect Trusted 
Computing.  While the common myth is that laws always trail technology, 
in this case they were seeking to legally protect uses of technology 
that hadn't even been named or deployed yet.



   The claims about how this will protect "copyright" is how this stuff 
has been marketed to the content industry and to policy makers.  The 
reality is that this technology can't stop copyright infringement, for 
reasons based in simple cryptographic theory.  An intended audience, and 
the "attacker" you are trying to protect yourself against, can't be the 
same person.   This abuse of technology does have many unintended 
consequences, such as allowing hardware manufacturers to create platform 
monopolies where they can then control the marketplace.

   You can be certain that it will be one of Sony, Apple or Microsoft 
that "wins" the inevitable platform monopoly wars, not any Linux 
company.  Whether at the end of this monopoly war Linux will exist at 
all (except for major geeky techies running old or illegally modded 
hardware) is up in the air.

> Bear in mind that right now, Ubuntu is organized to work within
> existing restrictions. E.g., the default Ubuntu does not include
> support for MP3s, WMVs, or other potentially encumbered formats. If a
> user wants to consume these with Ubuntu, 
> https://help.ubuntu.com/community/RestrictedFormats provides a good
> way to get started.


   The current estrictions primarily deal with a different issue such as 
software patents and cryptographic export control.

   In the case of software patents it is the person who executes the 
software that is infringing, and it is highly unlikely (and impractical) 
that software patent holders will sue individual users. It's likely that 
it would be thrown out of court if they do.

   In the case of digital locks applied to content and hardware, 
everyone in the chain is partly liable including potentially your ISP 
for not
blocking the information/software.  In the USA the courts have said that
even linking to software that can circumvent these digital locks is
itself an infringement, so this archive email on the Ubuntu site with
your link above makes the Ubuntu site liable.

Note: If Canada passes this type of law, even Industry Canada's 
Strategis website will be infringing given I documented circumventing 
the locks on DVD movies as a submission to them. 
http://www.flora.ca/copyright-2001-cmpda-reply.shtml


> DRM may further restrict my ability to use these restricted formats
> on my Ubuntu boxen, but they wouldn't necessarily stop me from using 
> Ubuntu. Especially on my server, where these formats are irrelevant,
> or on my office laptop, where these formats are a "nice to have" (but
> do nothing to pay the bills). I might find these restrictions a pain
> on our home machines...

   I don't get the impression that Ubuntu was primarily designed to be 
hidden away in a server room.   I made my statement in the context of 
Ubuntu on desktops and laptops, and hopefully in the future in home 
theatre hardware/etc.

> ...but then perhaps I could obtain a commercial Ubuntu that supports 
> these formats, similar to ImpiLinux (a Shuttleworth concern in SA).
> 
> Or am I missing something?

   I assume you meant non-FLOSS when you said "commercial" given Ubuntu 
is already commercial software.  (I know -- there isn't good language
for this.  I've proposed "software manufacturing", but not everyone
likes that term).

   This opens up the debate that is part of the GPLv3 upgrade.   Should 
Cannonical be allowed to distribute a signed version of Ubuntu (and all 
the FLOSS software it currently contains) that will work on locked-down 
hardware, where software not signed by Cannonical (recompiled by user, 
not supplied by Cannonical) won't run?

   Is that still Ubuntu Linux?  I don't think so as many of the benefits 
  over Windows or MacOS-X would be gone.   It certainly isn't Free/Libre 
or Open Source Software any more.


> It's been on my ToDo for a while (since our summer discussion) - time
>  for me to decide one way or another, I guess....

   If there is something I can do to help this become a "yes", let me
know.   As policy coordinator I want to be as available as I can to
members.  I also want them to feel they can set priorities.  I may feel
that digital copyright needs to be the priority as this is an area of
policy where a bill is expected to be tabled soon, but others might want
me to spend more time on procurement or software patents.


-- 
  Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
  Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property
  rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition!
  http://www.digital-copyright.ca/petition/ict/

  "The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware
   manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or
   portable media player from my cold dead hands!"