Re: European Commission considers mandatory digital rights management

As long as we have so little consensus on what we want to achieve, I
don't think, as a consensus based organization, we have a role in there.
But this might change, if the game cool's down a bit.

Best,

Rigo

On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 04:58:43PM +0000, David.Parrott@reuters.com wrote:
> 
> The problem I have in discussing DRM is that most people
> assume it is all about "locking up" content with encryption and
> restricting access to it.  It's a fair misconception, given the case
> history to date.  However, the more enlightened are trying to
> move away from that and towards an enabling infrastructure,
> built from a mixture of legal, commercial, and technical tools,
> that will promote business and improve the consumers lot too.
> If that sounds too idealistic, then perhaps we should give up on
> digital commerce altogether.  Personally, I think there is much
> positive work to do.  DRM is in its infancy.  There have been
> false starts.  I hope that everyone's voice is heard by legislators
> and standards makers.  It won't go away, so let's make it work.
> 
> /Dave.
> 
> On 04/03/2002 16:46:44 Susanne Guth wrote:
> > >As the U.S. Congress weighs mandatory digital rights management, the
> > >European Commission is also looking into the topic. A 43-page EC
> > >study of digital rights management gives a nod to fair use and privacy
> > >-- and then says DRM schemes are not only inevitable but a fabulous idea.
> > >
> > >A key excerpt from the study says the EC "should continue to encourage
> > >all players to develop operational, open and interoperable DRM
> > >solutions and to deploy them rapidly." (Apparently the EC has been
> > >funding such schemes for the last decade.)
> > >
> > >EC study here in PDF form:
> > >http://www.politechbot.com/docs/european.commission.drm.030202.pdf
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------- ---
>         Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com
> 
> Any views expressed in this message are those of  the  individual
> sender,  except  where  the sender specifically states them to be
> the views of Reuters Ltd.