Open Malaysia

What is Free Culture?

My understanding of Free Culture is:

The empowerment of the individual through the collaboration of the many through the free sharing of knowledge.

Wow, what a mouthful!

But then you would have to argue: What is the definition of "free sharing of knowledge"?

When I mean "free", I don't mean in terms of cost.  But in terms of the restrictions applied on the knowledge itself.

Think free speech, not free teh tarik.

Then, how does one define knowledge to be free, and unrestrictive?  What set of guidelines do we have to measure knowledge, whether it is free or not?

Free Cultural Works Definition
Using the Free Software Definition as a base, the team behind the Free Cultural Works Definition have come together and have defined it as such:

• the freedom to use the work and enjoy the benefits of using it
• the freedom to study the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it
• the freedom to make and redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the information or expression
• the freedom to make changes and improvements, and to distribute derivative works

Free Software is only a Subset of Free Culture
For starters, Free Software is a subset of Free Culture.  This is because Free Culture embodies all forms of knowledge.

artworks, scientific and educational materials, software, articles - in short: anything that can be represented in digital form.

Free Culture Has Happened Before

Ditesh brought to me a good point in that Free Culture has happened before, wherein I analyzed a 21st century perspective on how Free Software, Free Content, and Open Standards work together as a catalyst for one another towards the creation of Free Culture.

The Scientific Method of peer review, brought forth unparalleled innovation into the world.  Becoming the basis of scientific research, the scientific method would be considered inseparable from the history of science.

The Reemergence of Free Culture
Free Culture is rising again, though Free Software, Free Content, and brought together through Open Standards.  Various organizations have been established, and discussions are taking place all around the world on how to advance Free Culture.

For all you know, it may just come naturally as kids grow up remixing songs, pictures, movies, software, novels, anything.  But it is our job to ensure that we can give them the ability to do that.

Free Culture is Not About the Destruction of Intellectual Property Rights
One misconception is that Free Culture is about the destruction of Intellectual Property Rights, about the destruction of an established set of incentives to reward the creator.

No.

Free Culture is not that.  It's about finding a balance between the ever tightening grasp on knowledge, and the ability to access, create, modify, publish and distribute those same works.

- aizat

Other Resources

• Wikipedia - Free Culture movement
• Free Culture By Lawrence Lessig (Available for Free as in cost and freedom)

Thanks to the 23rd Chaos Communication Congress they were able to bring Lawrence Lessig to talk about "Free, and the Differences between Culture and Code".  Though its a really long video (at 1 hour 15 minute), but its an alright video for people to understand more comprehensively what the Creative Commons is about.  I say alright as sadly it plays like a lecture, it also gets a bit technical, and it may actually bore some people to death.  If not, just pay attention to the other Creative Commons videos.

Though I'm not a cellphone addict, I do despise the myriad of available chargers and connections, all using a differrent port of some sort.  A sort of proprietary connection, so that cell phone creators can profit from selling the additional accessories to charge or connect your phone.  Honestly though, this is an irritating hassle brought on by cellphone vendors.

In a interesting move, China has mandated Standardized Phone Chargers, and it appears that South Korea has also been doing this.

Take this as an example of how the walls of proprietary standards can be broken down by Governments, allowing for consumers to benefit, and leveling the playing field.  Simliarly this prevents lock in to a particular vendor.  Sounds familiar anyone?

A recent article by The Star on "Tapping the Creative Juice" by giving a more protection to Intellectual Property owners has me in an unease.

Malaysia hopes to tap the creative juices of its people by giving them more protection against pirates of intellectual property.

Towards this end the Domestic Trade and Industry Ministry will propose to the Cabinet a national policy that would provide more stringent protection to, and optimise the commercial value of, intellectual property.

Though Malaysians in general have to learn to respect Intellectual Property, is making the laws more stringent be the suitable solution?

Doing a little bit of research on the side, I decided to visit the site for the Intellectual Property Corporation of Malaysia.   Overall the site isn't too bad, and alot of important details are easy to reach.   The statutes are easily accessible to save and read.  On a side note, it appears that they are using the Free and Open Source Software Mambo CMS to power the website.

My biggest surprise is that Malaysia is now (well since May 2006, another loop I have been out of) a participating member to the WIPO Patent Cooperation Treaty (WPCT/PCT).  Why do I bring this up?  Well this is a danger for software developers.  Malaysia has to recognize Patents from various countries.  Similarly as a participating member of the World Trade Organization Trade Agreement on Trade Related Aspets of Intellectual Property Rights (WTO TRIPS), depending on the interpretation, Software Patents may be deemed legal (To my outdated knowledge, presently they are not in Malaysia).  Is Malaysia's participation in the PCT a contributing cause for changes to present IP laws?

Earlier this year MIMOS announced that it would reward researchers for filing patents.  Reward is good, but I fear that software patents may slip through, and another more recent article rewarding seven researchers indicates areas that it could potential fall under software patents.

Though presently software is protected under Malaysian Copyright Law (link to PDF), being deemed a literary work (See Part I: 3, and Part II: 7), it may possible that software patents have just come a possibility in Malaysia.  Should software be protected both under copyright and patents?

Does anyone have any further details on the proposed policy?  Are there other solutions to this besides making laws more stringent?

There is a growing number of software and devices utilizing Digital Rights/Restrictions Management, most importantly is the recent release of Microsoft Windows Vista, plagued with what I call DRM hell.  I understand that they are trying to keep the interests of certain parties at state, most commonly the Entertainment Industry.

But the issue about DRM is a complicated issue and even the Bill Gates, head of one of the biggest proponents behind DRM even says so.  At the moment, the issue about managing the vested interests of the Entertainment Industry and consumers hasn't been found.  But many consumers are quickly accepting DRM into their life without realizing its existence.

A prime example is the various region coding that DVDs employ.  Basically an original DVD purchased in Asia would not work in a French DVD player.  A more recent example is the Apple iTunes Music Store and Microsoft Zune, which both employ a restrictive feature to the songs such that they could not be distributed.  Though it does seem logical at first to protect the vested interests and assets of the Entertainment Industry.

But what happens if you want to use some of these, for simple things.  Like a popular song for a multimedia homework assignment?  You're simply not allowed to, and thus unable to finish your work, and explore your potential.  Traditionally this was allowed under "fair use", but the Industry does not trust you anymore.

One company, that has become so ingrained into our daily life doesn't even trust you anymore.  Even though you have become dependent on it so much, (legally or illegally) it simply does not trust you.  It is letting a bunch of bad apples spoil the bunch.

An organization I respect, the Electronic Frontier Foundation is fighting these important issues, which are generally shoved to the side and ignored.

For starters you may want to get acquainted with the idea of Trusted Computing.

Though you may raise arguments, and throw fits, and even go down long winded conversations/debates in opposition of DRM and Trusted Computing.  That isn't the only option.

The other option is the adoption of the Creative Commons Licenses, to allow others to build off your work.

Hopefully in the upcoming year there can be a greater collaboration between OpenMalaysia, MOSSA, FOSS individuals in Malaysia and Creative Commons Malaysia, for a more open Malaysia.

Sadly, I don't think this post helped to ease the complicated issue of DRM...

Sitemaps is a method used by many websites to help search engines find what pages are available on a website.  Similarly I deploy Sitemaps on my blogs.  The Sitemaps protocol is released under a Creative Commons 2.5 License By Attribution Share Alike permitting everyone to use, and adapt upon. Sitemaps is a simple example of an Open Standard, completing each of the criteria (publicly available, no royalty, no discrimination, collaborative process, no control or tie-in by any specific group or vendor).

Just recently Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft have agreed to work in collaboration on the Sitemaps protocol.  This opens new doors for webmasters in interoperability amongst search engines.  As the protocol is freely available webmasters can freely choose to adopt it, thus benefiting not only the webmaster but the search provider by providing more content.

Event though at the moment, it may be a simple thing which will pass by everyone's minds, I bet a lot of webmasters are rejoicing now.  I certainly am.

Free/Open Content, Standards, and Software are a catalyst to one another, and one can only get stronger with another.  There exists a large dependency between Free Content, Open Standards, and Free Software that rarely gets touched.

This postings requires understanding what Free Software is about, and somewhat its distinction from Open Source Software.

Let's have a look at Content, because the issue about Free Content doesn't have the same high profile as Open Standards and Free Software.  Free Content may also be referred to as Open Content, in the same sense that Open Source Software downplays "freedom".

Free Content is very similar to Free Software, in fact they have very similar definitions.

The Free Software Definition:

• The freedom to run the program, for any purpose
• The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs.
• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.
• The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits.

The Free Content Defintion (as of v0.66):

• The freedom to study the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it
• The freedom to redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the information or expression
• The freedom to make improvements or other changes, and to release modified copies

What exactly is "Free Content"?  With the advent of the Internet, and the "copy-paste" generation, the definition of "free content" continually gets blurred.  Does it refer to the availability and accessibility? Yes it does, but that does not define it to be "Free Content".  Though the content may be available freely (as in no monetary cost), and being easily accessible, it may be deemed that they intended for you to use it how you ever please.  Generally it does not work that way.  Though these two properties have been satisfied, they do not specify what permissions you have over it.  Can you copy it, burn it to a cd, remix it, sell it?  Again generally it is accepted that you can, because of its accessibility and availability, but sadly, the truth is you can't.  You have no permission what so ever to do as you please with your newly found content.  If you don't get permission, and you did something/anything with it, chances are you would be breaking the law, and would be liable for charges.

In reality, a lot of people want you to build off their work, and want to give you permission to do whatever you want with it.  As to them, they have justified that it is more beneficial to the public, than keeping it to themselves.

This is where Free Content comes in.  The last property, the ability to build from previous works.  They want you, and give you the permission to build off their work.  This is Free Content.

With the success of Free Software, the rigid perception of Intellectual Property began softening.  Modeled after Free Software, efforts towards promoting Free Content include the Creative Commons, which help to provide licenses for you to share your work.  These licenses indicate what properties you want your content to have.  Most importantly, these licenses transcend borders.  The borders of Intellectual Property, and international borders, as they have been acknowledged in many countries, including Malaysia.  The licenses are prepared, in an easily understood "human" form, and one in legalese "lawyers". 

Though these efforts are valiant, they would be wasted if not for Open Standards and Free Software.  There is a "somewhat" strict dependency between them.

Lets have a short review of what Standards are, at least in the context of Content.

Standards help ensure that a message be communicated between the speaker and receiver.

Standards can specify:

• How the message should be interpreted.
• How the communication process works. What happens if the message didn't get communicated? Who should start the communication?
• and many others...

Free Content depends on Open Standards because of the criteria of what defines an Open Standard.

Criteria for Standards to be considered Open Standards (at least in my opinion):

• Publicly Available
• No royalty
• No discrimination
• Collaborative Process
• No control or tie-in by any specific group or vendor

If content was released under a Closed Standard, which fail any of these criterias, most importantly publicly available, would it still be considered an Open Standard?  Yes you can create Free Content released under a Creative Commons License, and say in a possible scenario it was produced on Microsoft Word, using the OpenXML Standard.  But is it truly free?

If the Standard is not publicly available, people would not know how to interpret the content without paying certain premiums (be it monetary costs or limitations).  If people could not interpret the content freely, then isn't this affecting the definitions of what constitutes as Free Content?  The properties of the Content does simply does not equate to the definition Free Content, simply because of the Standard.

Sure, I'm being a bit restrictive here, but I would like to ensure the Free Content is actually free (as in freedom) so that people can benefit from it.

Free Software and Free Content are like lovers, bounded by marriage through the vows of Open Standards.  The issues with Free Content and Open Standards discussed earlier play the same role between Free Software and Open Standards.  If a standard was restrictive, how could a Free Software implement that standard.  Previously Free Software could not implement the GIF image format/standard as it was patented, and the owners demanded compensation for its usage.  Due to this severe constraint, and the need for an image format/standard (preferably open to ensure that such an act does not happen twice), the PNG image format was developed.  As an Open Standard, many Free Software quickly adopted it for usage.  Luckily for us the GIF patent has expired, and Free Software can finally implement the GIF image format/standard without any legal implications.  Examples like these help illustrate well why Free Software should depend on Open Standards, as Closed Standards impedes innovation.

A relation can be made between Free Content and Free software through using Open Standards as a proxy.  But a direct relationship exists between these two.   While proprietary software may adopt Open Standards as well, if all software that adopted Open Standards were proprietary, then the user would be giving up his Software Freedoms.  To prevent this, Free Content has to depend on the development Free Software to protect the user's Software Freedoms while managing the Free Content.

With the relations made, it may appear to put Open Standards on top, dependent on nothing.  This is where it should be, as Open Standards helps to provide a neutral platform from which both Proprietary Software/Content and Free Software/Content can be built on.   As a neutral platform Proprietary Software and Content they don't have to, or forced to adopt it.  Whilst Free Software and Content have to rely on Open Standards to ensure their users freedoms are continually preserved.

Therefore by ensuring that the dependency of an Open Standard is settled, innovation can be fostered in the areas of Free Software and Content.  A chain reaction has been lit, and Free/Open Content, Standards, and Software building off one another.

As a platform by itself, the importance of Open Standards is generally unrecognized. But when viewing the entities depending on it, and the benefits that they bring, then only does it truly shine.

Merdeka is right around the corner, and talks of freedom are in the air.  For those of you that do not know, Merdeka means "Independence" and Malaysia's indepedence from its British colonialists on 31st August 1957.

For those of you who have been keeping track of this blog, then you might have heard of my booth at PCFair promoting Free and Open Source Software.  The event was a complete success and this is an important step towards software freedom.  As I don't want to repeat myself you can just read my blog post.  On an interesting note, from the various people I spoke to during the PCFair, there appears to be a greater adoption of OpenOffice in Malaysia that I have not heard of.  Even one of the visitors to our booth indicated that "It is pretty common now adays" which really startled me off.

Similarly in the upcoming month on Saturday 16th September 2006, is Software Freedom Day (SFD).  Though I don't have anything planned, this was celebrated last year by our advocacy efforts in Low Yat Plaza.

Tomorrow night would also mark my anniversary in taking over the MyOSS Meetups a year ago.

Freedom for me is on full throttle (well maybe not) and after the PCFair, I feel revitalized into making the Free and Open Source Community in Malaysia stronger.

There is some confusion between the differences of Digital Rights Management (DRM), and Technology Protection Measures (TPM).

The truth is both terms work with one another, and fuse together to give the Entertainment Industry control over your digital media.  Yes, that latest album you purchased, it does belong to you, but they want to control what you do with it.

In respect to a song it would be: how you play it, where you play it on, how many times you can play it, your ability to copy it and distribute it, the ability to sample it (perhaps for a home video, or education purpose), and etc...

Digital Rights Management (DRM)

DRM effectively controls your ability to use digital media, be it CDs, DVDs, MP3s, etc.  By controlling where the digital media can be read, or played, they have effective control over the usage of your their intellectual property.

For example, when you legally purchase a Digital Versatile Disc (DVD), it has restrictions that mandate it only to be played on certain DVD players. This is because the entertainment industry has partitioned the world into different regions, where certain DVDs would work in the respective region they were produced for. Also DVDs employ a Content Scrambling System (CSS) which puts 'lock' on a DVD, preventing it to be read from an unknown source. DVD player manufacturers would have to purchase a 'CSS key' from the DVD Copy Control Association (DVDCCA) in order to be able 'unlock' and read these DVDs. Thus by partitioning and selecting permitted users of DVDs, they effectively ensured that legal DVDs were being produced and circulated.

Technology Protection Measures
The problem with DRM is that it was not backed by any laws, so users are able to freely 'crack' the lock and access the media files.  The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a division under the United Nations created to promote Intellectual Property, in 1996 produced what is sometimes known as the Internet treaties: the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT).

WIPO Copyright Treaty:

Article 11: Obligations concerning Technology Measures

Contracting Parties shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by authors in connection with the exercise of their rights under this Treaty or the Berne Convention and that restrict acts, in respect of their works, which are not authorized by the authors concerned or permitted by law.

Article 12: Obligations concerning Rights Management Information

(1) Contracting Parties shall provide adequate and effective legal remedies against any person knowingly performing any of the following acts knowing, or with respect to civil remedies having reasonable grounds to know, that it will induce, enable, facilitate or conceal an infringement of any right covered by this Treaty or the Berne Convention:

(i) to remove or alter any electronic rights management information without authority;

WPPT Articles 18 & 19 are the same as the WCT Articles 11 & 12 respectively.

Participating members of these treaties are required to adopt these laws, and well interestingly enough though Malaysia is not a member these laws are actually in place!

Malaysia Copyright Act 1987 (warning PDF download)

Article 36: Infringements
3. Copyright is infringed by any person who circumvents or causes any other person to circumvent any effective technological measures that are used by authors in connection with the exercise of their rights under this Act and that restrict acts, in respect of their works, which are not authorized by the authors concerned or permitted by law.

The United States is a signatory of both the WCT and WPPT, and thus under pressure from the Entertainment Industries implemented such laws into place into what is now known as the infamous Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

Conclusion

I hope people now better understand the difference between the two, DRM and TPM.  DRM protects the media, while TPM protects the DRM.  DRM would be useless without the legal backing of TPMs.

I have actually been writing a paper about the issue of DRM and TPM and the positions nations around the world have taken, so stay tuned till I post the link.  Though the paper is turning out quite long and it will take a while, perhaps I'll start publishing drafts that people can read.

Before I end this, I would like to say that my position on DRM and TPM is that they are BAD.  Though it may be deemed reasonable to protect Intellectual Property, the US DMCA gives excessive powers to holders allowing for abuse.  The Electronic Frontier Foundation had documented the problems with the DMCA in their paper: "Unintended Consequences: Five Years under the DMCA"

In the meantime can read a paper published in the UK by the All Party  Parliamentary Internet Group (APIG) has released its inquiry into Digital Rights Management detailing recommendations to the UK Parliament on the issue regarding DRMs, or perhaps turn to my favorite encyclopedia, Wikipedia.

With the recent interests of Software Patents in Malaysia, I would like to post some useful links to where you can get updated on the issue.

The first is a nice introductory video on the differences between patents and copyright, and the dangers that software patents have.

• How Patents Actually Work

The second is a paper by fellow OpenMalaysia contributor Ditesh Kumar:

• Software Patents Background, Discussion and Illustration of Harm (ODF)
• Software Patents Background, Discussion and Illustration of Harm (PDF)

So go educate yourself on the issue and fight against software patents!

As a student, Free and Open Source (FOSS) has been beneficial to me.  My understanding of programming, networking, and computing in general has been greatly increased from the usage of FOSS.  Thus I believe FOSS has been a important catalyst to my education.