Re: Part 2: System Structure

[Marcus Brinkmann]

At Fri, 02 Jun 2006 12:10:16 -0400,
"Jonathan S. Shapiro" <address@hidden> wrote:
> I do not agree with the characterization that DRM is loss of control
> over ownership. No such control has existed for copyrighted information
> artifacts since the mid-16th century. The economy that supports creators
> rests entirely on this legal construct.

You must have profoundly misunderstood me.  When I say loss of control
over ownership, I am not talking about ownership of "information
artifacts", but ownership of tangible resources like memory chips.
Information, by its very nature, despite attempts by the industry to
proprietize it, can not be owned, and "intellectual property" is a
misnomer (actually, a propaganda term).  As you pointed out, use of
information is regulated by licenses, not by ownership.  The industry,
and apparently you, are trying to change that.  Well, that's radical.
It's also impossible, but even the attempt to do so will inflict
severe damage (as it already has).

Thomas Jefferson said it best, in his letter to Isaac McPherson on
13th of August 1813.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html

It is very instructive to read this letter in whole.  It is about
"ideas" and "inventions", but very clearly translates well to
information in general.  I am tempted to quote from it, some quotes
are well known.  However, I am afraid that if I do, people will not go
over and read it all, and they really should.

> > There are a number of obvious questions which follow from that: Do you
> > agree or not agree that "trusted computing" and DRM constitutes a
> > security threat, in the way that I[2] defined?
> 
> I do not.

That's clear enough.  I was temporarily confused by your apparent at
least moral support for political action against DRM.  Seems I
severely overestimated the scope of that support.

I feel that we have come to a conclusion in this discussion.  I
believe strongly that information, to borrow from Jefferson, by its
very nature, can not be a subject to property.  You want to develop
technical means to turn information into property.  This seems to be,
all things said, the root of our disagreement.  These two positions
are not reconcilable, so we will have to live with the difference.

Thanks,
Marcus