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 > [email protected] > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfc-discuss
-- David Dawson VE7HP VE7HDC IRC: (Freenode) VE7HP _______________________________________________ fsfc-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfc-discuss
