To: those who don’t want DRM, but might want to protect digital copyright,… use Creative Commons Metatag as an easy an open tool (and get congress to endorse it by law)!

FOR ALL MULTI-MEDIA CONTENT DELIVERED OVER ALL DIGITAL NETWORKS -

An Artist’s choice of Creative Commons ALLOWED WORKS FILTERING and OPEN and FREE USE with no royalty tax, is Key to making everyone happy! If you want to watch free content you can! Choice should always be a free process that exists between the end user (or fan) and the artist…

DRM is a control choice of that does not have the artist (all) in mind and certainly does not have the fan in mind at all (only the middle folks are favored by DRM)!

ARTISTS do need to be protected…. with the ability for those who don’t want absolute copyright protection to have only the protection that they want. This only can be done with Creative Commons! Not DRM, and Not with exclusionary laws that control our computers (aka devices that can record)! Yes, it is possible to mandate levels of play and record depending on allowed (not excluded) creative commons metadata tagged files and thus the files as they stream over any network to devices that could be mandated to follow certain rules of polite behavior when encountering certain levels of artist requested copyright protection.

There is only one way to make everyone happy…

Use Creative Commons, with a meta-data tag, that gives a digital file a digital ID that is search-able, filterable, and then protect that meta-data from changes or removal by creating a law that prevents the change or removal of a file or it’s meta-data. ISP’s could filter the meta-data – like how anti-virus software works, and notify a user (ISP has their email address for billing purposes) that the users account is being used to exceed “fair use” of copyrighted material, beyond a quota, or established “fair-use” limit. Of course Creative Commons or the government needs to establish a Creative Commons style of “commercial only” license with a way to register (on-line) a creators digital meta-data. Shareable meta-data (See Creative Commons Share-alike) would be not filtered or audited, only commercial only meta-data would be filtered. The notification process would first be friendly, then a process of questioning by the ISP could happen if the “commercial only creative commons meta-data” continued to be shared beyond fair use! If all friendly attempts to stop the infringer from exceeding fair use quota did not affect the traffic the ISP could then notify a central world wide infringer data base providing a “hidden” Pseudonym email address to the database where others could email this Pseudonym address and the ISP would then forward the email to the infringer (the creator of the works, owner of copyright, or fans of the work could then ask the infringer to stop (could be digital and automatic once the infringer’s pseudonym email address hit the database listing the files meta-data along with the pseudonym’s email address. Friendly notification, only amplified could continue, before enforcement action via law suit or criminal process could continue. IP v6 could allow an ISP customer a “assigned IP address” and even if the user had a open wireless network that was usable by anyone, they could be advised in a friendly way to investigate the users of the network or be able to “block the sending of certain files on their network” at a central router or firewall. Final penalty for user who infringes on “commercial only creative commons copyright digital meta-data” would be the termination of the Internet account by the ISP (private ISP or public if the municipality were providing free Internet access)! No one would like to loose their Internet access, would be worse than fines (as a repeat infringer could be targeted in a database with the risk of being black listed for X amount of time from using other ISPs). Of course, other Internet anonymous use could continue as only “commercial only” meta-data would be filtered or audited! China does a similar thing now to control Internet access there, only in violation of human rights. Blocking content is possible as well and the creative commons license, once violated, revokes future use of the licensed work (meaning that the ISP could block, or rather only allow by following the applicable license and enforcement of the license chosen by the artist, that one file from being shared, etc). Auditing traffic of certain file types is possible because of the meta-data idea with creative commons! 12 year olds sharing files should not be criminal, yet does need attention of parents who don’t want to lose their Internet access due to illegal sharing. Remember that Creative commons can also have meta-data for sharable works that use the various degrees of creative commons protection and notification of the terms of use with the license.

No DRM at all!

DRM plus DMCA plus Traditional Copyright excludes by design all rights and the right to fair use the art as you want!

Creative Commons Meta-DataTag (allowing artist controlled levels of filtering) plus DMCA, allows play of what the artist allows by the rights of the license that the artist chooses and preserves fair use! CC is much more friendly to all.

The Prior Art to the filtering is the same as traditional networking has allowed via security logins with user rights of execute, read, etc since the start of networking and the need for security. All that devices could be mandated to do, is to prevent or monitor, unfair use and at some point step in, allowing law enforcement the tools to enforce an artist’s right to make a living.

See Creative Commons web site and use your imagination as to see how easy this would be to get going all over the world.

http://www.creativecommons.org

The music, movie, and other artist’s are a bit paranoid. Some industry folks have a second interest in DRM (protected by law), and that is to profit from the sale of many different and changing types of digital formats and thus force the customers to pay a 2nd or more times for the fair use of the same content they already paid for! Many who owned “records” with content and thus fair use, bought CDs and the record companies profited. That is wrong. Once a work is acquired there should be fair use where the copyright user can take a file and use it on various devices (and not be locked-in to one manufacturer’s device by DRM, where once the device changes that all the media is worthless as there is no device that will play the content, meaning that the user then has to go out and re-buy the content again, and again. Forcing users to re-buy content they have already paid for, by changing digital formats or creating new devices with different DRM, is stealing from the consumer). Where is the “copyright consumer’s” protection in the DRM world? A company like SONY would like nothing better then to have consumers re-buy DVD or CD content that they already paid for once! Hey – they think of music as one thinks of a hot dog. They are wrong because hundreds of years of copyright is something that a hot dog does not have (they, by using DRM, DMCA, and changing digital media formats and devices, want to change those rules, and make more money)! This game they are playing is not to protect the artist’s interests! It is a pure business play.

Artists who want to allow for freely sharable files have that option with Creative Commons license that would allow users to freely share their works. With a DRM play device only, then will such a device then allow an artist’s work that is independently produced without the DRM to even play?

Using Creative Commons and easy filtering, artists who want digital control of a file with the idea that they could feed their children and send them to college someday, could also have the right to preserve their way of life… and it could be enforceable in a friendly way as well, again using creative commons (if creative commons and the government worked together to create a “commercial only” license with meta-data with some guidelines for device folks as to how to use is to allow play of all levels of creative commons licensed material, including the ability to play traditional copyrighted material).

From Creative Commons FAQ: http://creativecommons.org/learnmore

“What happens if someone misuses my Creative Commons-licensed work?

A Creative Commons license terminates automatically if someone uses your work contrary to the license terms. This means that, if a person uses your work under a Creative Commons license and they, for example, fail to attribute your work in the manner you specified, then they no longer have the right to continue to use your work. This only applies in relation to the person in breach of the license; it does not apply generally to the other people who use your work under a Creative Commons license and comply with its terms.

You have a number of options as to how you can enforce this; you can consider contacting the person and asking them to rectify the situation and/or you can consider consulting a lawyer to act on your behalf. For information about how you may be able to locate a suitably qualified lawyer, please refer to this question and answer”.

” What is the Commons Deed? What is the legal code? What does the html/meta-data do?

Creative Commons licenses are expressed in three different formats: the Commons Deed (human-readable code), the Legal Code (lawyer-readable code); and the meta-data (machine readable code).

The Commons Deed is a summary of the key terms of the actual license (which is the Legal Code)—basically, what others can and cannot do with the work. Think of it as the user-friendly interface to the Legal Code beneath. This Deed itself has no legal value, and its contents do not appear in the actual license.

The Legal Code is the actual license; a document designed to be enforced in a court of law.

The meta-data describes the key license elements that apply to a piece of content to enable discovery through customized search engines”.
see http://creativecommons.org/faq for more!

http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/

http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/meet-the-licenses

No DRM (no DRM viruses owned by paranoid media industry types), Free Fair use again to what it is meant to be. Use Creative Commons. The Creative Commons Meta-Data is better than DRM.

See more about Meta-Data here: http://creativecommons.org/technology/usingmarkup

It is easy to choose a license to use: http://creativecommons.org/license/

Hmmm – Also (more below) – Off Topic – or not, but everyone should view?

Is digital what it is, or is it a trick? Because of so much “Digital Intellectual Property law” is based on it being real, then is the examination of the “reality of digital” worthy of the world’s attentions? View the below C-SPAN segment first and then decide and expand on the debate, if you so please?

This speaker at the C-SPAN Digital Future Series ( http://www.c-span.org/congress/digitalfuture.asp ) really drives the point home as to what is digital, if anything, really?

Is “DIGITAL” the worlds biggest marketing success of a definition that is really an illusion?

Are we seeing digital for what it is? Or are we making more of it then we really should? Is digital really the magic that it is really made out to be (in our minds), or is it just a new slight of hand upgrade to older technology (such as morse code, think RIM Blackberry patents, etc)? Is Digital just a trick? Brian Cantwell Smith has some insights that the Governments around the globe and their Patent Offices should take seriously? Exactly, what is digital?

Is all this stuff that is digital really not new, as it is just the inside sandwich layer of “advanced Morse Code” that sites between two layers of actual reality based analog layers? All this “one click” patents, “rail road switch control” patents, etc are really just expressions (like literature) of something we have been doing right along anyway.

Clip 4 Monday, January 31 – Brian Cantwell Smith, dean of the Faculty of Information Studies at the University of Toronto Smith, the author of “On the Origin of Objects,” combines degrees in computer science and philosophy and is an expert on the interdisciplinary convergence brought about by digitization. His talk is titled, “And Is All This Stuff Really Digital After All?”

Manual start of video if clicking on red arrow does not work? You can use Real Player maually, so do this File->Open Location->and copy and paste the url for the files into the location area of the Real Player.

Clip 4 Monday, January 31 – Brian Cantwell Smith
rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/digital/digitalfuture013105.rm

Other Digital Future clips:

Clip 1 Monday, November 15 – David Weinberge
rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/digital/digitalfuture111504.rm

Clip 2 Monday, December 13 – Brewster Kahle
rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/digital/digitalfuture121304.rm?start=:27.0

Clip 3 Monday, January 24 – Juan Pablo Paz
rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/digital/digitalfuture012405.rm?start=:01.0

Clip 4 Monday, January 31 – Brian Cantwell Smith
rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/digital/digitalfuture013105.rm

Clip 5 Monday, February 14 – David M. Levy
rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/digital/digitalfuture021405.rm

Clip 6 Thursday, March 3 – Lawrence Lessig (Talks about Creative Commons)
rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/digital/digitalfuture030305.rm?start=1:25.0

Clip 7 Monday, March 14 – Edward L. Ayers
rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/digital/digitalfuture031405.rm?start=:05.0

Clip 8 Monday, March 28 – Neil Gershenfeld
rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/digital/digitalfuture032805.rm?start=:03.6

This work is hereby released into the Public Domain. To view a copy of the public domain dedication, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 543 Howard Street, 5th Floor, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.