Re: [fsfc-discuss] Technological measures in a land of myth and a time of magic

[Russell McOrmond]

On 12-03-27 09:44 AM, krishna e bera wrote:
> i dont understand why we need analogies for TPM.

  We need analogies because people generally don't understand 
technologies, or even those who do get the impacts (and targets) wrong.

> it seems to me plainly morally repugnant that
> any government or corporation or person, foreign or domestic,
> can control what i do in my own home
> with items i have bought and paid for.

  If the thing you have "bought and paid for" is a copyrighted work, 
then your arguments won't go anywhere as the whole purpose of copyright 
is to limit what you can do with something you have "bought and paid 
for".   See the comment thread on http://c11.ca/5445 "Next steps for the 
art resale right?"

  We can argue about whether private activities should be excluded from 
copyright, but that is a copyright argument that is actually entirely 
separate from the TPM debate.  That argument must be made as a copyright 
debate, given if it is made as a TPM argument then you loose as 
copyright is presumed to regulate private activities.  The Conservatives 
have made some important fixes in this area, including the "Reproduction 
for private purposes" exception in C-11.




  If the thing you have "bought and paid for" is your computer, mobile 
device, set-top box, etc -- then you are discussing something which I 
think nearly everyone would agree is morally repugnant, but which most 
people are unaware is impacted by TPMs or this legislation.   This 
includes what appears to be a majority of technologically literate 
people who continue to focus their discussion on copyrighted works and 
copyright holders rather than on hardware/software and anti-competitive 
 device manufacturers.


> any product that tries to stop me invites cracking and deserves boycott.
> any law that infringes such a basic principle is offensive to human dignity.

  I already boycott Apple, Sony and Microsoft -- the worst three 
vendors, although unfortunately not the only three.

  If you think a boycott of copyrighted content is going to be 
effective, then we are still talking "land of myth and time of magic". 
 The entertainment industry doesn't understand this technology, is not 
making decisions based on actual effects, and have no market indicators 
to convince them to change their minds (IE: a content boycott is 
indistinguishable by them from copyright infringement, so your boycott 
will increase rather than decrease their support of this "magic 
incantation" they have purchased from technology companies).


--
 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!"