Re: Retracting the term ownership (was: Re: Separate trusted computing designs)

[Pierre THIERRY]

Scribit Marcus Brinkmann dies 01/09/2006 hora 18:05:
> > To the best of my knowledge, you have no direct or credible evidence
> > concerning the ideological goals behind the technology -- or even
> > that such goals exist.
> The ideology is the idea that information can and should be
> proprietarized. This is what all the proposed technical mechanism have
> in common, and it is also what the people I talked to about this
> support when they support the technology, including yourself.  It's in
> fact the whole purpose of the technological constraints.

I ain't sure I agree. Information is not permitted to be owned by
anyone, at least in most countries of the world. Society in its whole
has decided that ideas and their forms are owned by the society itself.
But as an exception, to promote production and publication of ideas and
their forms, it has been been granted to authors some rights to limit
distribution and modification, for some period of time.

Without DRM, you cannot really enforce those rights, which makes DRM
part of an attempt to enforce existing rights. I agree this is something
undesirable, as DRM won't adapt itself to regulations on the rights
granted to authors and their exceptions.

It all boils down to locking down the ability of customers to access
cultural contents without paying those who exploit the content.

But it is only a wild guess that makes DRM part of anything else.

> What paranoia and FUD?  It's just a simple observation.

It's not that obvious. There is a huge part of interpretation in it.

Objectively,
Nowhere man
-- 
address@hidden
OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature