[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Retracting the term ownership (was: Re: Separate trusted computing d

From: Marcus Brinkmann
Subject: Re: Retracting the term ownership (was: Re: Separate trusted computing designs)
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 07:35:24 +0200
User-agent: Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka) FLIM/1.14.7 (Sanjō) APEL/10.6 Emacs/21.4 (i486-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI)

At Fri, 01 Sep 2006 17:04:37 -0400,
"Jonathan S. Shapiro" <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-09-01 at 20:34 +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > Well, it would be an interesting trick if you could change the nature
> > of information by mere postulation of a believe about it.
> But this is exactly the question at hand: *is* this the nature of
> information, or is it a reflection of a correctable technological
> limitation?

If you don't fancy my little information theoretical argument against
your theory, let me suggest a very practical test.  I suggest the
following "deal" as a thought experiment:

You get to use any kind of technological restriction measure that you
want.  Smart cards, TPM, anything, have your day.

In return, the information that is divulged using these systems does
not get any other protection by law: No copyright, no classification,
no DMCA, nothing.  Just trademarks and potentially patents.

The idea behind this test is: If you think that information can be
proprietarized like ordinary matter, let's treat it like that.  You do
not get copyright or DMCA protection for a spoon either.

I think that this test easily shows that your theory is wrong.  In
fact, the DMCA is a direct response to the systematic failure of
technological restriction measures, and TC will not be an exception to


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]