Thanks to Markus from netzpolitik.org i have found this interesting interview with the DefectiveByDesign campaign.

The campaign has received quite a lot of attention in the media. For example the “Bono petition” saw press coverage in more than 115 news papers and news sitest in the USA.

Here a answer from DefectiveByDesign to a probably common question on this topic: “Are those two goals (content protection and consumer protection) compatible with one another?”

DefectiveByDesign: A better word than consumer, to describe me and you, is citizen. So is content protection and the rights of citizens compatible? When we live in a age where all digital works of art and all human knowledge can be transferred at (next to) zero cost, and where the cost of making one more copy is zero. Is it right to be building digital fences and digital handcuffs around this art and knowledge? If, as citizens of a society, we can see the advantages of allowing art and knowledge to flow without impediment, we as citizens will also have reason to find new ways to recompense the artists and knowledge purveyors. In fact, there are more artists working today than ever before, and more of their art is being enjoyed because of technology free from DRM and free of the Big Media gate keepers. The term “Content Protection” is a loaded term, framing the debate with their slant. I would say that this term really describes their attempt to hold back advancing society.

After about seven month of discussion and more than 1000 comments through gplv3.fsf.org/comments/ the FSF has published the second draft of the GNU General Public License (GPL) Version 3 and the first draft of the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) Version 3 which is now designed as a set of permissive exceptions to GPLv3 in accord with section 7. The main changes in the second draft of GPLv3 are clarifications of the DRM section, a reworked license compatibility section and provisions that specifically allow to distribute programs on certain file sharing networks such as BitTorrent. For more details look at http://gplv3.fsf.org/gpl3-dd2-guide.html

DefectiveByDesign, a FSF campaign to eliminate DRM, has written an open letter to Bono the lead singer of the Irish rock band U2 to take a stand against Digital Restrictions Management (DRM). The group has focused on Bono because of his social activism and leadership in the music industry. The aim is to collect 10.000 signatures, at which point they will seek an audience with Bono, discuss with him the threats posed by DRM and request that he be the final signer.

Some time ago i have already blogged about a initiative of Canadian musicians against DRM (http://www.musiccreators.ca/). The open letter to Bono could be the first step to achieve something similar in Europe or even worldwide.

You can sign the letter at: http://defectivebydesign.org/petition/bonopetition

As a GNU/Linux user i’m used to have PDF export in almost every program. With Office 2007 Microsoft finally wants to offer this common feature to their users too. But it seems like Adobe doesn’t like this idea. As cnet reported Adobe asked Microsoft to remove the PDF export feature or pay a fee for it.
Brian Jones from Microsoft has published some information, too.

Adobe promotes PDF as an open standard. But if Adobe now starts to sue competitors they can no longer claim that PDF is an open standard.

What does this mean for all the Free Software applications with PDF export and for the exchange of documents in general? If Adobe starts to sue Microsoft, who will be the next victim? It would be a big loss for everyone if we can no loger rely on PDF as an open standard.

April 26th was the “World Intellectual Property Day” (German). Brigitte Zypries, minister of justice of Germany, said “We need a better sense of right and wrong for ‘intellectual property’” and announced that the protection of ‘intellectual property’ will be the main focus when Germany will held the Presidency of the Council of the European Union in 2007.

At the same time Canadian musicians like Avril Lavigne, Sarah McLachlan or Sloan say “Not in Our Names”. The “Canadian Music Creators Coalition” (CMCC) will ensure that lobbyists for major record labels and music publishers are not the only voices heard in debates about Canada’s copyright laws and other key cultural policy issues (press release).

The CMCC is united under three key principles:

• Suing Our Fans is Destructive and Hypocritical
• Digital Locks are Risky and Counterproductive
• Cultural Policy Should Support Actual Canadian Artists

I think this is a great campaign and i hope musicians from other countries will recognize it and follow the Canadian musicians with similar campaigns.