It makes me wonder just what kind of backroom deal was cut in the "negotiations".
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Nomen Nescio wrote: > The New York Times is reporting at > http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/14/technology/14CND-PIRACY.html that > the Recording Industry Association of America, along with two computer > and technology industry trade groups, has agreed not to seek new > government regulations to mandate technological controls for copyright > protection. This appears to refer primarily to the Hollings bill, > the CBDTPA, which had already been struck a blow when Hollings lost his > committee chairmanship due to the Democrats losing Senate leadership. > Most observers see this latest step as being the last nail in the coffin > for the CBDTPA. > > Some months ago there were those who were predicting that Trusted > Computing technology, as embodied in the TCPA and Palladium proposals, > would be mandated by the Hollings bill. They said that all this talk of > "voluntary" implementations was just a smoke screen while the players > worked behind the scenes to pass laws that would mandate TCPA and > Palladium in their most restrictive forms. It was said that Linux would > be banned, that computers would no longer be able to run software that > we can use today. We would cease to be the real owners of our computers, > others would be "root" on them. A whole host of calamaties were forecast. > > How does this latest development change the picture? If there is no > Hollings bill, does this mean that Trusted Computing will be voluntary, > as its proponents have always claimed? And if we no longer have such > a threat of a mandated Trusted Computing technology, how bad is it for > the system to be offered in a free market? > > Let technology companies decide whether to offer Palladium technology > on their computers or not. Let content producers decide whether to use > Palladium to protect their content or not. Let consumers decide whether > to purchase and enable Palladium on their systems or not. > > Why is it so bad for people to freely make their own decisions about > how best to live their lives? Cypherpunks of all people should be the > last to advocate limiting the choices of others. Thankfully, it looks > like freedom may win this round, despite the efforts of cypherpunks and > "online freedom" advocates to eliminate this new technology option. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > The Cryptography Mailing List > Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
