[kwlug-disc] Your country needs you (or "Our MP is on the C-32 committee")
rarsa at yahoo.com
Mon Nov 22 07:41:29 EST 2010
My understanding is that even though you own the media, you don't own the content, you are just licensed to view it. e.g. There have been disclaimers on CDs and DVDs for ever telling you that it is for private use not "public displays".
Hence the issue. I thought the argument was that Digital locks enforce the license in a way that is unfair to the consumer imposing artificial barriers to otherwise legal uses.
And that's my original point, different people have different ideas and opinions of what's wrong with this bill. some of those are correct, some incorrect. You just need enough incorrect to discredit the whole opposition.
(Note, I am not saying that my interpretation is right, just that it seems very different than yours)
Software, Hardware and Practices
An eclectic collection of random thoughts
--- On Mon, 11/22/10, Russell McOrmond <russellmcormond at gmail.com> wrote:
From: Russell McOrmond <russellmcormond at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [kwlug-disc] Your country needs you (or "Our MP is on the C-32 committee")
To: "KWLUG discussion" <kwlug-disc at kwlug.org>
Received: Monday, November 22, 2010, 6:55 AM
The simplest message I have found on TPMs is to force the question of who owns what is locked.
Access controls on licensed content: if you have already paid, shouldn't you get the keys? And what does access have to do with copyright anyway?
Locks on devices part of a DRM platform: if you own the hardware, shouldn't you have the keys?
Talking about these as non-owner locks and anti-interoperability locks at least turns their brains on.
Sent from my Google Nexus One
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
kwlug-disc_kwlug.org mailing list
kwlug-disc_kwlug.org at kwlug.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the kwlug-disc_kwlug.org