Re: [fsfc-discuss] 'DRM'/'TPM' etc

[Russell McOrmond]

On 12-02-16 03:14 AM, David C Dawson wrote:
> With respect to 'DRM' 'TPM' and the like: If such strategies
> actually had the capabilities for which they were intended, legal prohibitions
> against 'tampering?????' with them would be pointless.
> (wrong word - I'm too sleepy)

  It took me a long time to realise what non-technical people were 
asking for of these.  They thought there was this "magic sauce" that you 
could pour over the "digital bits" that would make them come alive and 
be able to make decisions.   They could then decide when to be copied, 
when to expire, correctly interpret license agreements without 
consulting a lawyer or judge, leap tall buildings...err...  and other 
such things.

  And of course, there is always certain technology companies willing 
to abuse this lack of basic technology literacy and falsely claim they 
are offering what is being asked for (Pay no attention to the anti-trust 
issue behind the curtain -- we'll change the laws to make this 
all...err.. legal-like).


  This is why in my writing I now always include something like the 
following for the non-technical people.  (Taken from summary of 
http://c11.ca/own )

    Digitally-encoded content can’t make decisions any more than
    a paperback book is capable of reading itself out loud. If there
    are any rules to be enforced, including whether a work can
    be copied, they are encoded in software which runs on some
    device. It is science fiction to believe that a technology
    applied to content alone can "make decisions."

    Understanding the real-world market and human rights impacts
    of these technologies requires understanding all the components,
    and including the motivations of software authors (including
    the anti-competitive interests of DRM vendors) as well as
    the fundamental (but all too often ignored) rights of the
    owners of the devices.

    Unless we are fully aware of all four classes of owners,
    we risk inadvertently supporting and/or enacting laws
    which will circumvent rather than protect our property rights.


  This may sound bloody obvious to anyone with a technical background, 
but from my conversations over the last decade on this issue it appears 
to have been the missing link.   I've watched representatives of creator 
groups turn from pro-DRM to anti-DRM once they realised that not only 
was the lock on something other than the content, but that copyright 
holders didn't hold the keys to the relevant locks!



  Now if we could only find our Candice Hoeppner for information 
technology owners in the Conservative party   http://c11.ca/5350

  The long gun registry is now gone.  Why all the concern over mere 
registration of guns when they are talking about allowing previous 
owners to keep the locks and make it illegal for the current owner to 
change them?  Do they really believe computers are more dangerous than guns?

*grins*

--
 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
 Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property
 rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition!
 http://l.c11.ca/ict

 "The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware
  manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or
  portable media player from my cold dead hands!" http://c11.ca/own