Das Institut für Medien- und Kommunikationspolitik (IfM) ist dabei, eine Datenbank derjenigen Konzerne zusammenzutragen, die heute unsere Medien beherrschen. Grossartige Artikel! Alle Achtung, so eine übersichtliche Darstellung habe ich im deutschsprachigen Internet bisher noch nicht gefunden.

Wenn ich mir anschaue, wer das Institut fördert, frage ich mich allerdings, wie es mit der “akademischen Freiheit” steht. Können Forscher dort wirklich frei arbeiten? Wird der kritische Diskurs gefordert oder ist das Institut bloß ein “Think-Tank” der Medienindustrie?

Ein Satz wie

“John Malone hatte schnell verstanden, dass Infrastrukturen immer nur so gut sein können wie die Inhalte, die sie transportieren”.

könnte durchaus so verstanden werden, dass die Geldgeber des IfM glauben, dass es das Internet ohne ihre Geschäftsmodelle (z.B. Free-TV, Pay-TV, öffentlich-rechtliches Fernsehen,…) nicht gäbe. Gegen diese Meinung hätte ich allerdings das eine oder andere Argument vorzubringen.

Es ist zwar richtig, dass die Infrastruktur zum Transport von Daten (z.B. Breitbandkabel, Telefonnetz,…) vom Konsumenten dadurch mitfinanziert wird, dass Medienkonzerne einen Teil ihrer Einnahmen (z.B. durch Aufmerksamkeit für Werbespots, Pay-TV Abonnements, Rundfunkgebühren,…) an die Betreiber der Breitbandnetze weitergeben.

Es wäre aber irreführend zu behaupten, dass diese Infrastruktur direkt von der Qualität der transportierten Inhalte abhinge. Meine Auffassung von der Konvergenz der Medien ist, dass Inhalte, Dienste, Netze und Endgeräte unabhaengig sind. Der Internetnutzer bezahlt den Netzbetreiber direkt, und zwar dafür, dass er auf entfernte Daten schnell und zuverlässig zugreifen kann. Woher diese Daten kommen und welche Inhalte durch die Datenpakete beschrieben werden, geht den Betreiber der Infrastruktur aus Sicht des Internetnutzers nichts an.

Ein weiteres Argument ist aus gewissen Kreisen der Medienindustrie häufig zu hören, wenn diskutiert wird, wer die Infrastruktur zur Verteilung von Inhalten kontrollieren sollte. Die Qualität der transportierten Inhalte könne nur dann gewährleist werden, wenn die Medienindustrie Vorrichtungen zum Schutz vor Urheberrechtsverletzungen (z.B. eine DRM Infrastruktur) einführt. Der ungehinderte Zugang zu digitalen Daten fördere Urheberrechtsverletzungen. Wenn urheberrechtlich geschützte Werke im Internet frei gehandelt werden, würden die Existenzen ihrer Schöpfer zerstört, was schliesslich zu einem kulturellen Verfall führt.

Zwar haben Urheberrechtsverletzungen im Internet der bestehenden Medienindustrie erheblichen wirtschaftlichen Schaden zugefügt. Aber anstatt zu versuchen, das Internet durch “walled garden” Netze zu ersetzen, in dem vorrangig nur noch diejenigen Daten transportiert werden, deren Verwertungsrechte von den “Verwaltern der Inhalte” lizensiert wurden, sollte die Medienindustrie endlich verstehen, dass Internetnutzer selbst entscheiden, mit wem sie kommunizieren.

In seinem brillianten Artikel “Internet: Ende der Kultur?” schreibt Heribert Prantl:

Für die Internet-Kommunisten ist das Web die Allmende der Moderne [...] Ein dergestalt freies Internet ist deswegen eine verführerische Idee, weil grosse Konzerne die Kultur und das, was sie dafür halten, immer stärker feudalisieren und monopolisieren. Aber das ist nicht die Schuld des Urheberrechts.

Richtig! Nicht das Urheberrecht ist der Grund, warum Medienkonzerne (z.B. Filmstudios, Major Labels, Verleger,…) Meinungsmonopole aufbauen konnten, sondern die Kontrolle der Infrastruktur zu Verbreitung der Inhalte. Offene Standards und Open Source Software haben dazu geführt, dass die Medienkonzerne die Kontrolle über ihre Distributionsketten verloren haben. Sollten sie trotzdem versuchen, bestimmte Inhalte und Dienste (z.B. File Sharing über P2P Netze) technisch zu unterbinden, werden Internetnutzer und unabhängige Anbieter von Inhalten (z.B. nichtkommerzielle Inhalte wie Blogs) alternative Wege finden, Daten auszutauschen und gegebenenfalls ein freies Netz aufspannen.

I visited Dok and we celebrated his DirectFB 1.0 release a bit. He reminded me of another famous project I had completely forgotten. As early as in 2000 a bunch of hackers used our Convergence infrastructure to provide 5 days of MP3 streaming. The documentation of Chaos over IP is still available.

On their website they write:

Es ist vorbei – Das Projekt wurde durchgeführt und wir haben was gelernt und hatten Spass.

It is over – the project has been accomplished and we have learned something and had fun.

This is what I call achievements.

People have always designed systems where the enforcement of law is possible (e.g. detainment camps, prisons, safety zones on airports,…) and made other people believe that these systems are necessary.

In the physical space it is hardly possible to enforce law (see e.g. George W Bush’s “war on terrorism“). In the digital space it is easier to enforce law, because a User is represented by a digital identity (e.g. a username and a password) which is Data. If this digital identity is controlled by the User law can not be enforced by a central authority. If the digital identity is stored on a Service Provider’s machine (e.g. a central server storing digital identities) law can be enforced (e.g. by deleting Data representing the digital identity of a User, identifying a person in the physical space,…).

My answer to the question

Can a machine enforce the law?

is: in the digital space machines can enforce the law. It depends on their design whether or not machines can actually be used to enforce law.

People design systems in their minds. In DMP terms a DRM Environment consists of (Users, Devices, Services, Content,…). A Device (machine, computer,…) and a digital media Service (e.g. e-mail, wiki, weblog) are Entities that were designed in the minds (logical space) of their system designers.

Some system designers imagined that one day personal devices will extend our memories (see e.g. V. Bush’s essay “As We May Think“). Others thought that the majority of people want terminal devices to receive Content (e.g. television). The design of machines can influence the way we think.

What we can think (e.g. right/wrong, good/bad,… doublethink) is also determined by our language. JeeLoo Liu pointed out that names in the Confucian language not only play a descriptive role but also prescriptive role. Language regulates society’s relations and it’s members behaviour.

Law is based on language and it is also being designed in the minds of people (logical space). A country can be considered an implementation of law in the physical space. In the digital space law is being expressed in terms of a Rights Expression Language (REL). A DRM system can be considered an implementation of law in the digital space.

Tanja Diezmann pointed out to me that a digital media User (a person with a digital identity) can be considered an interface between the society of people in the physical space and communities of Users in the digital space.

A DRM system can determine what Users can think and do in the digital space. Since Users act as an interface to the physical space the design of a DRM system can indirectly influence society.

In his drama “the Physicists” Friedrich Dürrenmatt points out that it is impossible to take back what has been thought before and that one should be completely aware of the changes and dangers that science may present to the future of mankind. The assumption that machines won’t even try to enforce anything is shortsighted. Because people think that machines can enforce the law pretty soon they will build machines that do enforce the law.

The design of machines can influence what people can think. Users (persons with digital identities) interface between a society in a country and communities in the digital space. Designers of machines can influence society. Therefore it is important who can design, implement and use these systems.

In the physical space it depends on the type of government who can design, implement and use a system. In the digital space anybody (e.g. the media industry, end-users) can design, implement and use a system – if it supports open standards.

The media industry’s marketing power is still the determining factor whether or not a communication environment becomes accepted. If Users could only buy machines designed by the media industry then the media industry were able to enforce “their” rights.

A lawyer once wrote on the public DMP mailing list that “contracts override copyright”. Since End-users can design and implement (e.g. based on the Chillout code) systems which express their rights (e.g. copyright exemptions, TRUs) in the digital space contracts need not necessarily override copyright. Because the DMP’s IDP will be an open standard that can be implemented by all Users in the value-chain the use of digital media will be based on a mutual agreements between rights holders and end-users.

Still it is the role of the country (legislation, execution) to regulate which uses of digital media are legal and which are not. Therefore DMP is expecting that governments will mandate which DMP Tools are legal when the IDP will be deployed by a large number of Users.

In a perfect world we would not need enforcement of laws, because people would be responsible citicens. Perhaps we would not even need lawyers, because people would always find agreements based on logic, natural laws and common moral values. (Un?)fortunately the real world logic and natural laws are sometimes contradictory and the concept of moral is different between persons. Enforcement is not a shortcut but a consequence of accepting reality.

Of course education is the only solution to create a better society. A DMP License can express the Condition that a certain Use of a piece of Content must not be enforced. Assuming that Users can express their rights and control the machines enforcing the law Users will learn that enforcement of their rights is not necessarily bad.

In a footnote of his excellent response to the UK Ofcom consultation on the role of a Public Service Content in the digital age Philipp Merrill quotes an interesting diagram taken from Artur Lugmayr, Samuli Niiranen and Seppo Kalli’s book “Digital Interactive TV and Metadata” (Springer Verlag, 2004)“.

Phil writes:

The multimedia asset space must be well laid out so that the interactivity can call files and so the narrative development process and creativity can be fully and fruitfully engaged in.

This makes sense. My interpretation of the Narrative Cube is that strong interaction between Users (in the”physical space” as well as in the “digital space”) depends on the evolution of narrations (stories) and the synthesis of media (e.g. mix and re-use). Narrations consist of language. The so-called “multimedia assets” are our language in the digital space. As I wrote before, Language can be considered a logical Commons and source code can be considered a means to manifest concepts expressed by language in the digital space.

Ferdinand de Saussure wrote in his Course in General Linguistics:

At any time a language belongs to all its users. It is a facility unrestrictedly available throughout a whole community. [...] A language is something in which everyone participates all the time, and that is why it is constantly open to the influence of all. [...] The communitiy’s natural inertia exercises a conservative influence upon it. If stability is a characteristic of languages, it is not only because languages are anchored in the community. They are also anchored in time [...] Ultimately there is a connection between these two opposing factors: the arbitrary convention which allows free choice, and the passage of time which fixes that choice.

If the architects of the interoperable DRM environment design the layout well and this language will be available to everybody, digital media Users will accept and learn to speak this language. Else the the DRM Media Cube will experience the same development as Rainman: noone will care.

I hope that between Users in the digital space reason will always outbalance intimidation.

Most people will accept that DRM enforcement will take control of their PC simply by clicking [OK] when they upgrade their PC to Vista. Only a few people will click [Cancel] having read that they give away their Rights (e.g. privacy) by accepting the EULA.

Why? Because this is how Users are.

• They want to hear the fanfare of the intro-sound.
• They like to see the psychedelic patterns of the new screensaver.
• They want to play.

We are not reasonable beings. This is how the business works:

  Service Provider                     |    End-user
  -------------------------------------+----------------------------
  Come one...                          |
  ... the first time is for free...    |
  ... your sister takes it as well...  |
  ... don't be afraid...               |
  ... be a man...                      |
                                       |     [OK]
  Yes, that's it...                    |
                                       |     Finally! But it's slow...
  What?                                |
  It's slower than Win95?              |
                                       |     I can't see anything...
  Your video doesn't play?             |
  Then buy a new hardware with TPM     | 
                                       |     ????&/%&%!!!
  Sorry - downgrading is not possible. |
                                       |     I'll upgrade to Linux
  Linux? Hahahaha...                   |
  you don't have time to learn Linux   |
                                       |      

The strategy of the “communication druglords” is simple:

1. Make the Users addicted
2. “Phase in” the inconvenient things like e.g. DRM enforcement.

Negotiation is only irrelevant if the End-user has agreed with total enforcement by signing the EULA. License Negotiation is relevant if the End-user keeps the control of all the Keys of his Device.

In principle it should be possible that a User can create two “rooms” in his PC:

1. End-User controls Keys 1 and 2. He can Use DRM Services that do not require enforcement.

   
       +--------+--------+
       |        |        |
       |    1   |    2   |
       |        |        |
       +--------+--------+
   

2. Service provider requests to control the PC. End-user agrees to Use a DRM Service with DRM enforcement.
   The End-user puts all his private Data in Room 2, checks the integrity of the system and locks Room 2 with Key 2 (e.g. stored on a tamperproof smartcard).
   Then the End-user opens Room 1 by giving away Key 1 to the Service Provider.

   
       +--------+--------+
       |        |        |
     < ->   1   |    2   |
       |        |        |
       +--------+--------+
   

   Service provider enters Room 1, checks the integrity of the system and provides the Service to the User (e.g. playing a video). Now the Service provider controls the PC and the End-user has only a terminal.
   Since the User mistrusts the Service provider he will not be able to access his private data in Room 2 while the Service is running. After quitting the Service provider’s session a process checks the integrity of the system again, throws away old Room 1 and Key 1 and creates a new Room 1/ Key 1.

Of course it is important that both Service Provider and End-user trust the integrity of the system. This means that the hardware, the bootloader and the OS must be certified.

DMP allows that Users decide themselves on the certification agency they trust. If my certification agency is trustworthy I see no problem.

One objection against DRM enforcement is:

It’s the concept of “enforcing” that brings with itself a list consequences by which, in the end, you are dispossessed of your own PC (and your free will).

I think it is possible that you are dispossessed of your own PC (and your free will) only for some time and then take control of it again. The real risk is that Users become addicted, because they hazard the consequences that they are being dispossessed (see above) of their PCs in exchange for some enjoyable Terminal experiences.

If PC Users lose their free will they are doomed.

It is is already happening (e.g. in Windows Vista). And it is destroying the PC as we used to know, an open plaftorm where the hardware specification was public so that every company could develop new hardware and software for it.

This is one of the reasons why we should develop Free software for PCs with TPMs – see Chillout. Regarding to the problem with the Endorsement Key see Direct Anonymous Attestation.

Staatssekretär Kajo Wasserhövel schreibt in seinem Arbeitsblog:

Ich glaube, dass die meisten Bürgerinnen und Bürger wissen, dass uns der demographische Wandel zwingen wird, einiges zu verändern. [...] Wir brauchen deshalb über die Entscheidung zur Rente mit 67 hinaus, eine spürbare Veränderung, wie wir unsere Arbeit miteinander organisieren. Sie muss sich verändern – menschenwürdiger werden in einer alternden Gesellschaft.

Danke! Endlich spricht mal jemand Klartext. Als Norbert Blüm in den Achzigern verkündet hat: denn eins ist sicher: Die Rente wusste ich schon, dass das eine Lüge ist. Als ob wir in der Schule nichts vom demographischen Wandel gehört hätten. Aber interessiert hat mich die Rente kurz nach dem Abi natürlich herzlich wenig.

Zwanzig Jahre später sieht das schon etwas anders aus – unsere Generation hat das Web aufgebaut, die ersten Startups gegründet und auch wieder in den Sand gesetzt, der eine oder die andere hat seinen ersten “Burn-out” auch schon hinter sich, aber für ihre alten Tage haben die meisten von uns noch nichts zurückgelegt.

Da ist es nur begrüssenswert, dass ein Ministerium den Dialog mit den Usern sucht. Wir brauchen tatsächlich keine Kampagnen, die nach “draussen” kommunizieren – die Wahrheit ist hier drinnen nur einen Mausklick entfernt.

Auch ohne grosse Marketingbudgets können wir vom “digital space” aus anfangen, die Welt zu ändern. Ein Arbeitsblog ist genau das richtige Medium, um sich zu organisieren. Wenn die Politik das Netz versteht, bauen wir eine Welt, die uns auch in 20 Jahren noch menschenwürdig erscheint – aber nicht Second Life, sondern The Real Life (jetzt mal kurz eine Runde an den Rhein gehen und tief Luft holen…). Im Netz ist uns das Design einer Systemarchitektur zum menschenwürdigen Arbeit schliesslich auch ganz gut gelungen…

I second the statement that “machine enforced access restrictions” - I call them simply “locks” – can improve the financial situation of authors.

It is possible that locks wipe away the freedom of users but I disagree with Massimo’s statement that locks must necessarily wipe it away.

The “degree of freedom” depends on different factors, e.g.:

• the architecture of the lock (e.g. who can build a lock)
• who owns the keys (e.g. how many keys are needed to open a lock)
• the prize of the lock (e.g. who can afford to own a lock)

If all users – thanks to DMP – can use locks they will create a world with doors and they will negotiate the conditions to lock/ unlock these doors. For these negotiations they need a protocol.

Current DRM systems offer a very simple protocol for license negotiation:

                        Licensor | Licensee
----------------------------------------------------------------------
  "do you accept my License" [Y] | 
                                 | If Y {
                Access Content } |
                                 | Else
                            Done |           

The real world is not so simple, although sometimes it seems to me that the Content industry wants to make it appear so simple. Fortunately many Internet users understand that they are not only “consumers” but they have also something to offer (e.g. attention, contributions,…).

If the Content industry is interested in a more realistic License Negotiation protocol they should go to a bazaar in Istanbul and try to buy something. They will notice that it is more profitable for both parties (seller and buyer) to negotiate the terms of the deal.

DMP will offer a more sophisticated prototol for license negotiation:

                        Licensor | Licensee
----------------------------------------------------------------------
  "do you accept my License" [Y] | 
                                 | If Y {
                Access Content } |
                                 | Else { "Here are my Conditions", 
                                 | "please offer me a new License"}
                             ... |
                            Done |           

In his paper ‘The Cathedral and the Bazaar‘ Eric S. Raymond has discussed the theory of software engineering in terms of two fundamentally different development styles, the “cathedral” model of most of the commercial world versus the “bazaar” model of the Linux world.

The Content industry will be the next industry to understand the “bazaar” model model of copyright.

Property rights in a living animal (e.g. sheep) are different from property rights in a piece of land. Therefore legislation ascertains that the living animal has some rights which the piece of land has not. The same is true for “intellectual property“

In my opinion Richard Stallman’s GNU project serves as a good example for a thing that started from the understanding that ownership in data is different from ownership of physical things.

I call it unimaginative that people try to reduce a right in an entity that can not be taken from nature (information) or a right in an entity that can be copied without any losses (data) to ownership in a piece of land.

Recognizing that he “transmits but does not create” the Chinese philosopher Confucius (551-479 BCE) understood much more about the nature of information and data than the British Empiricist John Locke (1632 – 1704).

Physicists recognize the fact that different entities in nature are governed by different natural laws sometimes based on different logic. We use light or electrons to transmit information. Photons are governed by quantum mechanics. Designing a system with the objective of applying Newton’s mechanics to data would be a blind alley.

The argument that “in the face of physical property, Intellectual Property follows because the notion of property can only be justified according to the arguments made by Locke” is an oversimplification that may have been valuable for information connected with media in the physical space, but certainly is insufficient for data in the digital space.

Note that I do not think that it is impossible for us to find a proper notion for the rights users have in the data they created.

A fundamental concept in the debate about DRM is Intellectual Property. Richard Stallman, the founder of the GNU project, wrote in his text ‘Did You Say “Intellectual Property”? It’s a Seductive Mirage‘):

Some speak of “exclusive rights regimes”, but referring to restrictions as “rights” is doublethink too.’

Other digital media strategists hold an oppositional view:

I do think we need to call Orwell from the netherworld. My right (to a piece of land) is your restriction (not to tread on it). What’s the problem?

The problem is that a Work (information in the logical space, e.g. a piece of music) is not an object (matter in the physical space, e.g. a piece of land).

George Orwell wrote in his novel ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’:

“In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it” [...] “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows”. [1984]

1/8 of a second sample can run a musician the risk of legal action. Digital media users are intimidated by a clique of media-owning families (the Party) to treat music samples (information) as digital objects (matter).

“In Oldspeak it is called, quite frankly, ‘reality control’. In Newspeak it is called doublethink, though doublethink comprises much else as well. Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaenously, and accepting both of them”. [1984]

The expression ‘Intellectual Property (IP)’ is doublethink. When the Party controls reality in the digital space digital media users sooner or later will have to learn that two and two is five. Then the conclusion that restrictions are rights in the digital space is self-evident.

I think that one of DMP’s corollaries referring to this IP doublethink is:

In the digital space the digital media Users are the Party.

The BBC has struck a content deal with Google-YouTube. BBC’s director of Future Media and Technology said that the deal was “not about distributing content like full-length programmes; YouTube is a promotional vehicle for us“. BBC News reports that

The BBC would not be hunting down all BBC-copyrighted clips already uploaded by YouTube members – although it would reserve the right to swap poor quality clips with the real thing, or to have content removed that infringed other people’s copyright, like sport, or that had been edited or altered in a way that would damage the BBC’s brand.

Yesss! I always hated the poor quality of the Top Gear episodes on YouTube. Now BBC will swap them for the real thing, since they understand that users will upload them anyway. The BBC will participate in the revenues from the AdSense banners displayed on Youtube. I hope Jeremy Clarkson and his team will get a good share of the additional income so that they can thrash more cars.

By the way – I can’t understand how BBC Worldwide can “insist that [...] BBC magazines like Top Gear [...] do carry advertising“. I never saw an ad on Top Gear.

I suppose the BBC has invented a secret advertising model which resists any attacks by evil hackers: Car manufacturer one bribes Jeremy Clarkson to test the new model of car manufacturer two.

Recently I ordered some Top Gear DVDs on Amazon as a birthday present for my brother. The DVDs have not arrived yet and the birthday is on Saturday. Amazon wrote that it can take up to three weeks, since the discs have to be “imported from the UK”. I seems almost incredible that it is still so hard and expensive to send some discs from the UK to Germany in 2007. Anyway, when Top Gear is on-line on YouTube it makes even less sense to pay for data stored on physical objects.