Thoughts on my interview with GPC candidate Dan Grice
Last evening I posted an interview I did with Dan Grice, the Green Party of Canada candidate for the riding of Vancouver Quadra.
The Green Party will be taken more seriously this election because they have as many seats as the Reform party did prior to the 1993 election. Independent MP Blair Wilson has joined the Green Party, the MP for the riding with the longest name: West VancouverâSunshine CoastâSea to Sky Country.
Prior to the 1993 election the only sitting member of the Reform party was Deborah Grey, who won in a 1989 by-election. During this election the Reform party won 52 seats. We won’t get a chance to see if Mike Nagy wins the Guelph by-election if the general election is called this weekend.
The interview I did with Dan Grice was done through e-mail, similar to the interviews I did of other candidates. I actually just sent him a copy of questions nearly identical to what I authored for Vancouver Center NDP candidate Michael. Byers.
If you read the replies from Dan Grice, you will see he has a technology background which includes having been a software developer. A number of the messages had “Sent from my iPhone” included in the tagline for the messages. There are many areas where the two of us, as technical people who have authored software, will agree on.
There are some areas we disagree on. For instance, he said that “we also have to be realistic on the limitations of FLOSS software and its distribution model. Very few peer-to-peer or open source business models have shown to generate enough revenue to support complicated development structures.” He seemed to offer Adobe Photoshop as an example, which is no more complicated than GIMP and less complicated than other software projects. While it is true that more people are putting resources (their money) into Photoshop than GIMP, I think the fact that GIMP compares so favourably with orders of magnitude less resources proves that Peer Production methodologies work better for that example.
He also said, “I don’t take a strong stance on supporting or eliminating DRM”. Given that eliminating DRM is the issue that brought me into the digital copyright debate, I obviously have taken a strong stance. I’m not at all sure we are talking about the same thing given he was talking about locked down songs and saying that “the only real issue with DRM is device lock in and transferring your music assets from one platform to another”.
This thinking is familiar to me, which is the phenomena of thinking of DRM as being the digital locks applied to content. This is why I came up with my “I have 4 things in my hand” explanation of technological measures since most people are in the same boat as Dan as far as believing that DRM is about locked down content. (See: (Digital) Locks are multipurpose tools, and can be used or abused)
But lets get to the point here already! Yes, Dan and I have some areas where we disagree on. These are, however, at a level of detail that is far beyond where most politicians have knowledge enough to have an opinion.
Dan isn’t as convinced as I am that Free/Libre and Open Source Software can replace that tiny bit of software which is both publicly distributed (most software is in-house) and is royalty-bearing. When I am talking to most politicians I get a stunned look or a question “Did you just say you had open sores?”
A politician doesn’t have to care what method of production, distribution and funding of software may or may not dominate in a free market. All they have to do is be aware that there are alternatives, and ensure that government policy enables a full spectrum of choices. The Greens tend to be free-market capitalists, so will want to create a level playing field and let the market decide.
That is all I would ever ask for, and would oppose the government mandating a specific methodology. Governments have had a very bad track record of picking winners and losers in the marketplace.
Dan has opted to purchase a locked-down iPhone. He may even be one of those people who have jailbreaked his iPhone (The “iPhone in Canada” fan site has a category for unlocking), and I’m told many people have. It is unlikely that he realized that a focus of the opposition many of us have to legal protection for DRM is that its intent is to disallow owners of devices like iPhones from being able to remove foreign locks from what they own. Put in that context he may realize this isn’t about music (as much as Steve Jobs wants to suggest it is), and more about what device manufacturers and proprietary software vendors have been asking for.
These are all interesting details to continue to discuss with our members of parliament. I hope that Dan will be one of those I am able to sit down and talk with in that capacity – as a sitting member of parliament.
—
Russell McOrmond – p2pnet contributing editor
[McOrmond is an independent author (software and non-software) who uses modern business models and licensing (Free/Libre and Open Source Software, Creative Commons). He`s also the CLUE policy coordinator and p2pnet contributing editor.]
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
September 5th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Hi Russell,
I have not unlocked my iPhone, mainly because I really don’t have time at this point (with an election coming up) and bought it specifically to use a phone, browser and email on. (although if someone can hack a better email app, I will consider it)
I had an HP iPaq before, which I did hack, over clocked it, and decided that I better leave “hacking” to those who can afford to break their toys.
I do not support any legislation that would make tools for breaking a DRM illegal, or protect the manufactures right to limit what I consider “after market” upgrades. Please don’t get me wrong. I would oppose any legislation that would legislate “lock down”, and am a strong believer in creative commons and the open source community. The government should not use its power to limit creativity or experimentation. I am also a strong advocate for network neutrality.
At the same time, I have no moral issue with software makers putting encryption on their products to ensure that they are fairly compensated for their work. If I design a website for one of my clients, I have the right to charge them for my product.
I fully support what the open source community does. From gimp to firefox to open office, linux to drupal, I an a strong supporter of shared technology. No company has the write to enforce a monopoly and the open source community has done amazing things for technology. The open source community has functioned well despite lock downs, often using barriers as a challenge to making their own products succeed.
I also feel that any company that does open up their software (and note, much of Apple’s Desktop OX is based on open source standards which have enabled it to take advantage of community organize) will result in a better product.
However:
Would Gimp exist to the same standard without Photoshop? The competition fostered between commercial and open source enterprise is a healthy one. I believe that all competition is good. I don’t want the government to step in to limit either open source or closed source development. PS. I’ve used Photoshop since version 1992. (5 years before gimp was created)
Would Linux had taken off if Microsoft’s licensing program was not so expensive? The competition between linux and Microsoft has lead to much greater development than either would have on their own.
—
I hope that DRM-less distribution methods and technology will win. However, if the competition between DRM and Open drives us to new levels of innovation, then consumers are the winners.
September 5th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Let the market decide whether to buy or use products that are difficult to modify.
Let the geeks break their toys if they wish.
However, when it comes to telecommunications.
No filtering, no blocking. >> You cannot use your monopoly status to limit others.
Open standards for communications interoperability.
Adobe can sell photoshop, but they cannot force content producers to put DRM on the files to lock out other editors.
Apple can have DRM capable devices. They cannot ban non-DRM files from being used.
Anyone should be allowed to break a DRM. They just cannot break a DRM and distribute DRM free content without compensating the creator.
September 5th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
“A politician doesnât have to care what method of production, distribution and funding of software may or may not dominate in a free market.”
I would actually disagree with this. As a “politician”, I personally am very concerned about this and it is one of the items I believe strongly in.
For one, I deeply oppose the cuts to the Canadian New Media fund and feel that the government should foster and promote changes to our tax code that spur on innovation, that encourage and promote Canadian production and distribution capabilities.
Technology, new media, and software incubation is a hallmark of our plan, as is increasing funding to small content producers and funding technology programs in academia. Government can play a role in harvesting our economy, they just should not play a role in limiting it.
For instance, SRED programs in Canada have resulted in thousands of new jobs and have spurred on a huge development cycle. Telefilm Canada set aside large loans for companies that would have otherwise face high interest debt. Early seed money to distribution can help a company reach new markets and increase Canada’s tax and knowledge base.
September 6th, 2008 at 12:54 am
Dan,
Thank you for replying. It is great to see a candidate in the upcoming election (starting this Sunday) interested to discuss these areas of policy!
I do have a few thoughts you may wish to comment on.
“I have no moral issue with software makers putting encryption on their products to ensure that they are fairly compensated for their work.”
I agree with the goal you state (fair compensation), but have yet to have anyone with an actual technical background explain to me how the stated means (encryption on the software, or in other cases encryption on non-software content) relates to the goal.
Software is a set of instructions which are intended to run on a customers computer. From a logical point of view, that means that the encrypted software and the decryption keys must also be on the customers computer. That is like suggesting that if you hand a safecracker the keys to a safe that they are not going to be able to open it. If someone wants to infringe copyright, encrypting content sitting on their own computer with the keys also on their computer isn’t ever going to be much of a barrier.
In the end, it is only through enforcing traditional copyright law that the ability of copyright holders to be paid for their work is protected. Well, that and not actively pissing off potential customers. Oh, and how about actually offering people the ability to pay. http://blogs.itworldcanada.com/insights/2008/06/28/buy-me-now/
The only value of encrypting content or software in this way is to reduce interoperability (compatible software has required keys). As is always said by those who evaluate these (anti)security systems, this technology only impacts law abiding citizens — not copyright infringers. A single potential infringer (worldwide) could simply unlock the content (and I mean simply, given it is always simple to do), with most other infringers never even knowing that some ‘original’ was locked.
“They just cannot break a DRM and distribute DRM free content without compensating the creator.”
That’s called copyright law, and really has nothing to do with DRM.
There are types of access control technologies we should legally protect. I would suggest that an eCommerce system which limits access to only those who have paid is an example. That is of course eCommerce which under our constitution is provincial jurisdiction, and has nothing to do with federal copyright law.
BTW: Your history of the Free Software movement is a bit off
Microsoft Windows version 1.0 was released in 1985 http://www.microsoft.com/windows/WinHistoryDesktop.mspx , and the GNU project was founded in 1984. The GNU project and the Free Software Foundation was a response to UNIX being made increasingly proprietary (GNU is Not UNIX — GNU). Most of this software started out as openly distributed software and source code long before the concept of proprietary software existed.
Even the Linux kernel was in response to the Minix. It was only as Linux became mainstream that people noticed that it could replace tasks that were previously being done by Microsoft Windows. Windows and Microsoft were not a significant factor in early development or usage, with people like me going directly from NetBSD to Linux. I’ve never personally owned a computer running Microsoft Windows, even though I previously supported customers running these oddball systems until 7 or so years ago.
I agree that competition is good, but Free Software projects exist to fill the needs of those who are willing to provide resources (programming time, money, etc). There is no need for there to be an existing non-free program to respond to, just a demand for software. Most of the largest software innovations in the last few decades (Web, social networking, etc) originated in the FLOSS sector.
I don’t think you disagree with the statement I made suggesting governments shouldn’t be picking business models, given you re-iterated a similar point (“they just should not play a role in limiting it”) in your response.
September 6th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Ha, didn’t ever expect to find an interview with Dan Grice here. He happens to be my cousin
September 6th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Hey Brad! Hope all is well!
——–
Russell,
I hope none of my comments get construed as me having anything but the greatest respect for open source software creators.
I am just not sure I want government to step into the software development world and begin telling companies they cannot impose some sort of anti-copy protection for their software or content. For the same reasons I do not feel that the government has a right to limit hackers ability to break those same DRM.
I am not pro DRM. I just think that market pressures rather than government intervention is the proper way to win the DRM battle.
September 7th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Thank you for being willing to participate in this as an online debate. Will you be hosting online conversations on your own website during the general election? For people who want to ask you other questions, where is the best place to find you? Do you have an identi.ca or other microblogging account? http://identi.ca/russellmcormond
I realize that if we look at DRM broadly, and treat it as having the function that the brochures claim it does, that it seems like something that should be hands-off: either legally protect (which is what the Liberals, Conservatives and Bloc want to do) or legally prohibit.
Let’s look at some specific aspects of real-world technology, rather than the science fiction of the brochures, and see what your thoughts might be.
Access control applied to an eCommerce site (IE: membership required site): This seems to clearly be provincial jurisdiction and is generic electronic commerce and has nothing unique to copyright.
Access control applied to content (including where the software is treated as content): This ties the ability to access the content to specific brands of hardware/software which have the decryption keys. This type of market dynamic is discussed under Section 77 of our Competition Act (Tied selling, refusal to deal, etc). While it could be said that government may not outright ban this techique, for the same reasons we have a competition act at all that this technique should be strongly regulated for competition reasons. Letting the market decide only works when there is a market and not a monopoly/duopoly/etc situation.
Use control applied to hardware/software. There are two cases:
– where the content distributor owns the hardware and is renting it to the audience (IE: digital tuners for satellite/cable television). In this case the use control is protecting a contractual relationship (rental) between the distributor and the audience. Contracts are provincial jurisdiction, including electronically enforced contracts.
– where the citizen owns the hardware. In this case the use control is violating the basic property rights of the citizen by disallowing them to control what they own for lawful purposes. Many have suggested this is a form of theft, and is equivalent to someone other than the owner putting a foreign lock on a home and then claiming the “right” to decide when the owner can and can not enter, and what they can do in the privacy of their own home.
What we seem to have is situations which should either be highly regulated or outlawed, or are legitimate but not specific to copyright. All of these impacts of technological measures are provincial jurisdiction.
Should these technologies be strongly regulated under competition law?
Should the contracts and business relationships which these digital technologies enforce be under the same level of scrutiny that their analog counterparts require? Should Canadians have the right to circumvent use control measures in order to analyse the digital contracts being enforced and their legality/enforceability under existing laws? Should they have the legally protected right to remove any foreign locks from hardware which they own?
September 7th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
I’m not sure about a forum on my site. I have a blog with comments.
As for DRM, I don’t know which brochures you refer to. I’m familiar with the technical aspects, having tried to design copy protection mysefl. (although we developed with java and provided our users with the ability to use nearly any device).
Anyways, I cannot agree with your broad interpretation of the competition act. I don’t want encryption police running around and shutting down online Apple’s movie store because their rentals time out after 24 hours. I oppose the new copyright legislation but I also did not see anything in the existing status quo re drm that was necessarily wrong. Except for our outdated patent law.
Alas elections been called! Will have to run!
September 8th, 2008 at 8:28 am
“Will have to run!”
Was that a pun?
Good luck.