Re: [fsfc-discuss] 'DRM'/'TPM' + another thought

[David C Dawson]

Please take a look at this link:
http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 07:47:13PM -0500, Russell McOrmond wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> fsfc-discuss mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfc-discuss

-- 
David Dawson VE7HP VE7HDC
IRC: (Freenode) VE7HP