[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [fsfc-discuss] 'DRM'/'TPM' + another thought
From: |
Russell McOrmond |
Subject: |
Re: [fsfc-discuss] 'DRM'/'TPM' + another thought |
Date: |
Sat, 18 Feb 2012 11:34:06 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111229 Thunderbird/9.0 |
On 12-02-18 01:33 AM, Michael Faille wrote:
Hello all,
I think end users can control TPM since they must own private key.
And hence one of the many problems with the acronym overlap.
You are talking about "trusted platform module", a neutral technology
in our computers.
The discussion so far has been about "technological protection
measures"(1) as defined in Canadian Copyright Bill C-11, a term which is
derived from the "technical measures" in the two 1996 WIPO treaties and
the "technological measures" in the 1998 USA Digital Millennium
Copyright Act.
What you then describe is a legal question applied to a specific
technology:
a) Is it legally true that the "end user" of a computer that contains
a "trusted computing platform" module *must* "own private key".
The "end user" may not be the owner of the computer, and there are
many scenarios (employment, kiosks, rental equipment, etc) where it
would be legally inappropriate for the "end user" to be the keyholder
rather than the owner.
So, lets modify the statement.
b) Is it legally true that the "owner" of a computer that contains a
"trusted computing platform" module *must* "own private key".
Even here while the law *should* agree and legally protect that
statement, current law in many countries does not. In fact, if the
"trusted platform module" is being abused by a device manufacturer as
part of a Copyright Bill C-11 "technological protection measures", then
it would be against the law for the owner to circumvent that
"technological protection measure" by obtaining the keys.
This is where in my mind the proposed law is broken. For me it is
not about copyrighted works, Hollywood, the motion picture industry, or
any of these other folks. It is about device manufacturers confusing
copyright holders, politicians and lawyers and changing the normal way
that the concept of "ownership" works with respect to other property
which has keys (digital or otherwise).
The legal matter should be simple:
c) If I am the owner, then I control the keys. If I am not the
owner, and the owner prohibits me from possessing/using the keys, then
it is unlawful for me to access/use the keys.
The specific technology (UEFI http://c11.ca/5361 , trusted platform
modules, PGP, physical pin tumbler lock, ...) should not matter, the
legal principle and the law protecting the rights of the owner should
always be the same.
(1) Note that Bill C-11 (2011) / C-32 (2010) use "technological
protection measures", Bill C-61 (2008) before that used "technological
measures", and Bill C-60 (2005) used "technological measures" (WIPO
style, not WIPO+DMCA style).
The addition of the word "protection" to further confuse what we are
talking about was a recent addition by the Conservatives. Clarified, we
could be talking about "protecting" copyright holders from computer
owners: meaning specifically NOT protecting computer ownership.
--
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property
rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition!
http://l.c11.ca/ict
"The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware
manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or
portable media player from my cold dead hands!" http://c11.ca/own
- Re: [fsfc-discuss] "FSF Canada", Russell McOrmond, 2012/02/15
- Re: [fsfc-discuss] 'DRM'/'TPM' etc, David C Dawson, 2012/02/16
- Re: [fsfc-discuss] 'DRM'/'TPM' etc, Russell McOrmond, 2012/02/16
- Re: [fsfc-discuss] 'DRM'/'TPM' + another thought, David C Dawson, 2012/02/17
- Re: [fsfc-discuss] 'DRM'/'TPM' + another thought, Russell McOrmond, 2012/02/17
- Re: [fsfc-discuss] 'DRM'/'TPM' + another thought, David C Dawson, 2012/02/18
- Re: [fsfc-discuss] 'DRM'/'TPM' + another thought, Michael Faille, 2012/02/18
- Re: [fsfc-discuss] 'DRM'/'TPM' + another thought, Rudolf O., 2012/02/18
- Re: [fsfc-discuss] 'DRM'/'TPM' + another thought, Russell McOrmond, 2012/02/18
- Re: [fsfc-discuss] 'DRM'/'TPM' + another thought,
Russell McOrmond <=
- [fsfc-discuss] UEFI, Bill C-11, and our provincial governments (Was: 'DRM'/'TPM' + another thought), Russell McOrmond, 2012/02/18
- Re: [fsfc-discuss] 'DRM'/'TPM' + another thought, David C Dawson, 2012/02/18
- Re: [fsfc-discuss] 'DRM'/'TPM' + another thought, Darcy Casselman, 2012/02/18
- Re: [fsfc-discuss] 'DRM'/'TPM' + another thought, Michael Faille, 2012/02/19
- [fsfc-discuss] Eric S. Raymond's open letter - Re: SOPA/PIPA/DRM/TPM, David C Dawson, 2012/02/27
- Re: [fsfc-discuss] SOPA/PIPA/DRM/TPM - another analogy, David C Dawson, 2012/02/27
Re: [fsfc-discuss] "FSF Canada", Richard Stallman, 2012/02/16
Re: [fsfc-discuss] "FSF Canada", Richard Stallman, 2012/02/16