“I am writing this note to you in a personal capacity, and I
hope you will understand it as such. I was saddened by your 28
September response to the last open letter I posted that sought to
clarify what SDMI is and is not attempting to do.”
“After our several conversations over the last month, I thought
we understood each other as two technologists working to push
forward frontiers of knowledge using pretty much the same tools. I
thought that I had met a colleague who shared the same goals, while
possibly disagreeing on the way to reach them. And I had hoped we
had opened the door to free and open technological discourse.”
“Your letter changes that view and, in my mind, puts you in
unexpected company. Rather than someone who, like me, is looking to
technology to solve thorny issues, you now seem to be aligned with
people who fear technology and seek to restrain its use. As I read
your latest letter, your approach seems to call for a halt to any
problematic technology. I say this because based on your letter,
your answer to issues some have seen as raised by SDMI seems to be:
Does SDMI prevent people from exercising their fair use rights?
Then ban SDMI. Let’s take that argument to its logical extension.
Does MP3 enable people to make illegal use of copyrighted music?
Then ban MP3. Has MPEG-4 started enabling people to do the same
with video? Then ban MPEG-4. Will MPEG-7 offer the possibility for
people to increase the scale of illegal use of copyrighted content?
Then ban MPEG-7. Does file sharing enable people to increase the
scale of illegality in the use content to the masses? Then ban file
sharing protocols or, while we are at that, protocols in
general.”