[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

From: Russell McOrmond
Subject: Re: [fsfc-discuss] 'DRM'/'TPM' etc
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 19:47:13 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111229 Thunderbird/9.0

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?


 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!

 "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

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]