------- Forwarded message follows ------- Date sent: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 18:12:03 -0400 (EDT) From: /dev/null To: **** Subject: BigNoiseMusic Hi, As there was no feedback mechanism on the website, and the tech support bit didn't work for me, I thought I'd try mailing some standard addresses. I'd be grateful if you could pass this mail on to whoever is responsible for the site. I have a few critiscisms of your bignoisemusic.com website which I'd liketo air. These aren't meant to be overly negative, and I should point out that I am a supporter of Oxfam's activities, and I want to contribute in as constructive a way as possible. I was very disappointed that Oxfam have made the choice only to support users of Microsoft products with their new website. Needless to say Microsoft are a corporation with an extremely sketchy ethical history, see for example http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/profiles/microsoft/microsoft1.htm. Proprietary software is one of the greatest threats to the global commons of publicly available digital information (see the Oxfam International campaign proposal on http://danny.oz.au/free-software/advocacy/oicampaign.html ). Microsoft have time after time sought to "embrace and extend" open standards to which everyone has access in order to dominate the flow of information and profit from it, check out, for example http://www.opensource.org/halloween/ . Are Oxfam really only going to support proprietary closed protocols, and does this not go against some of your excellent analysis of the negative effects of IP laws, particularly TRIPS? (e.g. http://www.oxfamamerica.org/advocacy/art5385.html , http://www.oxfam.co.uk/what_we_do/issues/trade/trips_wsf2002.htm ) Users of free software (like gnu/linux) or even non-market-dominant nonfree software (like the mozilla browser or Mac OS) should be able to access digital information in an open way. This is part of the basis of digital citizenship, which is something that I can't imagine Oxfam not wanting to support. Digital Rights Management - something else the website uses, probably at the request of the recording industry, is a further worrying development. Essentially it redefines ownership in favour of large corporate interests, rather than in the interest of the person who has purchased the music (see http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM/fair_use_and_drm.html). Playing a song on more than one machine (especially if it's not a Microsoft machine) now becomes too difficult for the average user, whilst not being a serious obstacle to large scale pirates. The people to suffer are people like me - home users who want to listen to their music on more than one machine. Fair use becomes eroded, this is only a short way from creating books that can only be read once, and all the other IP scare stories one hears about. The only people to gain are M$, the recording industry and large scale pirating operations. I understand that the website is probably a great way to raise money, and fundraising is crucial to the other extremely important work that Oxfam does, however, when a website goes against so many key principles of digital and global citizenship I think it's time to reconsider how it works. In short, a better website would: - Support open standards, thereby supporting free software (gnu/linux, mozilla, etc.) as well as nonfree (M$, MacOS), thus encouraging participation from all digital citizens. - Not depend on secret proprietary software products to work, and not force people to use the software of a single ethically questionable corporation. - Eliminate DRM, by using the mp3, or, even better, ogg music formats. This would allow the people purchasing music control over their tunes, rather than having to cede it to the corporate interest of the music interest. If we're trying to create a fairer world, then I believe people's right to participate in that world - be it in very simple ways like eating or choosing a government, or more complex ones like digital rights - should be at the heart of our strategy. This is a difficult ideal to live up to, and I don't believe that bignoisemusic.com has quite managed to get there yet (certainly not for me as a free software user and someone unwilling to pay for tunes that I can't use as I see fit). I hope it will in the future! Cheers, Charlie Harvey