[d at DCC] TPMs
f00bar at rogers.com
Sun Jul 2 22:47:42 EDT 2006
> THAT TPMs can be used to protect the interests of the owner,
> or abused to protect the interests of a third party from the owner
By "owner" do you mean owner of the content, or owner of the device (i.e.
the consumer)? Neither interpretation makes sense to me... (For example, I
can't see any way that TPMs would ever "protect the interests" of the
consumer. If "owner" isn't the consumer, then who is this shadowy "third
> THEREFORE, your petitioners call upon Parliament to prohibit the
> application of a technical measure to a device without the explicit
> informed consent of the owner of the device
In practice, "explicit informed consent" usually means clicking "OK" to an
incomprehensible EULA. Is this a useful stipulation?
> as well as prohibit the conditioning of the supply of content to the
> purchase or use of a device which has a technical measure applied
> to it.
Wouldn't this make, say, DVD players illegal? Or iTunes? Cable television?
Was this the intent? And if so, do you really think this is a battle that
can be won?
> We further call
> upon Parliament to recognise the right of citizens to personally
> control their own communication devices, to choose software
> based on their own personal convictions, and that these choices be
> independent of any choice of content.
This part I think I can understand, and agree with wholeheartedly.
But in a more recent message, you lose me again:
> We are asking for something pretty strong, which is that the
>property and other rights of technology owners be protected.
Again, who are these "owners"? I'm guessing you mean the consumers who
bought _devices_ embodying the "technology," rather than those who own (the
rights to) the technology itself... but it's confusing.
In a nutshell: are you asking that 1) no content device should allow TPMs to
over-rule the express commands of the owner of that device? (Something I
would certainly agree with.) If so, you're essentially asking for the
abolition of all attempts at technological DRM, right?
Or are you trying to say 2) that devices should not be allowed to compromise
legal uses of content in an attempt to prevent illegal uses? (I'm not sure I
can envision a TPM that would pass this test either, but it is subtly
different from saying that the owner must be allowed to call the shots.)
........... Frank Lenk.
Frank Lenk, consultant, speaker, journalist
14 Albert Franck Place, Toronto, ON M5A 4B4
voice 416-214-6054 email f00bar at rogers.com
More information about the Discuss