-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Legal TV, a TV channel broadcasting on Sky 885, will have a show at noon tomorrow (Friday) about copyright and the Internet. DRM will also be addressed.
I've been asked to take part in the show, and will fly the Free Software flag. If there is anything you want me to keep in mind while on the show, just email me.
Regards
Shane
- -- Shane Martin Coughlan e: shane@shaneland.co.uk m: +447773180107 w: www.shaneland.co.uk - --- Projects: http://mobility.opendawn.com http://gem.opendawn.com http://enigmail.mozdev.org http://www.winpt.org - --- Organisations: http://www.fsfeurope.org http://www.fsf.org http://www.labour.org.uk http://www.opensourceacademy.gov.uk - --- OpenPGP: http://www.shaneland.co.uk/personalpages/shane/files/publickey.asc
"Shane M. Coughlan" shane@shaneland.co.uk writes:
I've been asked to take part in the show, and will fly the Free Software flag. If there is anything you want me to keep in mind while on the show, just email me.
DRM can be useful for computer users. I could set up my kernel to only execute signed binaries and then I could sign all my binaries and if/when a virus modifies one of my binaries or installs a new binary, it won't run.
So it can be good, and that sort of DRM is allowed by GPLv3.
Explaining this sort of thing might not be practical, but if the other side calls it a security measure, it's worth pointing out that we have no objection to that use (so long as the user is in control - we do have a problem if it's a user-control measure being masqueraded as "security").
DRM is about taking away computer users' right to make their computer do what they choose. It's about letting third parties control your computer. This has terrible privacy and civil liberty issues for home users, it means that IT staff in companies are giving away control of the company's software infrastructure, and governments should never give away control of the system which they use to process their citizen's data.
Further, DRM trumps law. The law prohibits certain things to be done with copyrighted works without permission. One example is complete copying. One example of something that the law does not prohibit is quoting small sections. DRM can prevent these things and thus gives companies too much power over the citizens. It overrides the laws made by the democratic process and is therefore undemocratic itself.
(You probably knew this, but I thought I'd offer my quick wording in case it stimulates any better ideas.)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
DRM can be useful for computer users. I could set up my kernel to only execute signed binaries and then I could sign all my binaries and if/when a virus modifies one of my binaries or installs a new binary, it won't run.
[snip]
(You probably knew this, but I thought I'd offer my quick wording in case it stimulates any better ideas.)
Hi Ciaran! Thanks for the thoughts :)
You know, I've touched on the "DRM literally means the management of digital rights, and that concept is not inherently a bad thing...it's what some companies want to do with that concept that is the problem. We're talking implementation excesses, and the over-extension of concepts of management and protection into places that should be private." This gets a really mixed reaction. Companies and business people tend to nod their head and say "I see your point," while a lot of GNU/Linux supports tend to say "Grrrrrr"
DRM in the form of 'Trusted Computing' and all other methods of allowing third-party companies to take control of people's computers is highly suspect. It's really weird that people and governments even entertain the notion. DRM in the form of having certain administrator/user defined process - like your signed binaries - is useful.
The problem is the fine line between user control, administrator control, and allowing Microsoft to decide your document policy. Perhaps it's just too easy for companies to extend the legitimisation of copy control into their arena because many users are under-educated regarding computer security. People are willing to hand over substantial control of their information systems as long as a company looks reasonably respectable. There appears to be little in the way of critical analysis on the part of the people who actually tap the keyboards and click the mice.
Shane
- -- Shane Martin Coughlan e: shane@shaneland.co.uk m: +447773180107 w: www.shaneland.co.uk - --- Projects: http://mobility.opendawn.com http://gem.opendawn.com http://enigmail.mozdev.org http://www.winpt.org - --- Organisations: http://www.fsfeurope.org http://www.fsf.org http://www.labour.org.uk http://www.opensourceacademy.gov.uk - --- OpenPGP: http://www.shaneland.co.uk/personalpages/shane/files/publickey.asc
DRM concerns copyright, competition and interoperability. Libraries (my area) have big concerns.
I guess you know
-http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM -the recent debates in the French copyright bill re Apple iTunes -concerns expressed by the British Library, Royal National Institute for the Blind and others at the recent UK parliamentary hearing on DRMs. The submissions don't seem to be online yet. http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/0,39020645,39250168,00.htm%3E
Good luck tomorrow.
Teresa
Shane M. Coughlan wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
DRM can be useful for computer users. I could set up my kernel to only execute signed binaries and then I could sign all my binaries and if/when a virus modifies one of my binaries or installs a new binary, it won't run.
[snip]
(You probably knew this, but I thought I'd offer my quick wording in case it stimulates any better ideas.)
Hi Ciaran! Thanks for the thoughts :)
You know, I've touched on the "DRM literally means the management of digital rights, and that concept is not inherently a bad thing...it's what some companies want to do with that concept that is the problem. We're talking implementation excesses, and the over-extension of concepts of management and protection into places that should be private." This gets a really mixed reaction. Companies and business people tend to nod their head and say "I see your point," while a lot of GNU/Linux supports tend to say "Grrrrrr"
DRM in the form of 'Trusted Computing' and all other methods of allowing third-party companies to take control of people's computers is highly suspect. It's really weird that people and governments even entertain the notion. DRM in the form of having certain administrator/user defined process - like your signed binaries - is useful.
The problem is the fine line between user control, administrator control, and allowing Microsoft to decide your document policy. Perhaps it's just too easy for companies to extend the legitimisation of copy control into their arena because many users are under-educated regarding computer security. People are willing to hand over substantial control of their information systems as long as a company looks reasonably respectable. There appears to be little in the way of critical analysis on the part of the people who actually tap the keyboards and click the mice.
Shane
Shane Martin Coughlan e: shane@shaneland.co.uk m: +447773180107 w: www.shaneland.co.uk
Projects: http://mobility.opendawn.com http://gem.opendawn.com http://enigmail.mozdev.org http://www.winpt.org
Organisations: http://www.fsfeurope.org http://www.fsf.org http://www.labour.org.uk http://www.opensourceacademy.gov.uk
OpenPGP: http://www.shaneland.co.uk/personalpages/shane/files/publickey.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.4-svn4127: (MingW32)
iQCVAwUBRFEetNwG3M95JPpzAQgEtgQAw05NtlIuZlS1cZmpP8LxDVAlHoeV0bl+ DGjS/JP0BJJaD2/aNRoeO98R8Uq2+HdREcwz867Ln5vyjvZgNbmsEjkHubwl1Bqg +h1b0FqbZIi9cx/UrgnN2lPREDSGVdFgx/29nlCoXV10rOuXq+7HIFKpEGgCVShS NdgeRzXcReo= =dGbk -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
fsfe-ie@fsfeurope.org mailing list List information: http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/fsfe-ie Public archive: https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-ie